AIR QUALITY, ENERGY, AND GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS IMPACT ANALYSIS
VAN BUREN 7‐ELEVEN PROJECT
CITY OF RIVERSIDE
Lead Agency:
City of Riverside
3900 Main Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Prepared by:
Vista Environmental
1021 Didrickson Way
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
949 510 5355
Greg Tonkovich, AICP
Project No. 24040
July 19, 2024
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Purpose of Analysis and Study Objectives ................................................................................. 1
1.2 Site Locations and Study Area .................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Proposed Project Description .................................................................................................... 1
1.4 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 2
1.5 Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project ......................................................................... 3
2.0 Air Pollutants ........................................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Criteria Pollutants and Ozone Precursors .................................................................................. 6
2.2 Other Pollutants of Concern ...................................................................................................... 8
3.0 Greenhouse Gases ................................................................................................................. 10
3.1 Greenhouse Gases ................................................................................................................... 10
3.2 Global Warming Potential ........................................................................................................ 12
3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory ...................................................................................... 13
4.0 Air Quality Management ....................................................................................................... 14
4.1 Federal – United States Environmental Protection Agency..................................................... 14
4.2 State – California Air Resources Board .................................................................................... 17
4.3 Regional – Southern California ................................................................................................ 18
4.4 Local – City of Riverside ........................................................................................................... 21
5.0 Energy Conservation Management ........................................................................................ 23
5.1 State ......................................................................................................................................... 23
5.2 Local – City of Riverside ........................................................................................................... 25
6.0 Global Climate Change Management ..................................................................................... 28
6.1 International ............................................................................................................................ 28
6.2 Federal – United States Environmental Protection Agency..................................................... 28
6.3 State ......................................................................................................................................... 29
6.4 Regional – Southern California ................................................................................................ 34
6.5 Local – City of Riverside ........................................................................................................... 35
7.0 Atmospheric Setting .............................................................................................................. 36
7.1 South Coast Air Basin ............................................................................................................... 36
7.2 Local Climate ............................................................................................................................ 36
7.3 Monitored Local Air Quality ..................................................................................................... 37
7.4 Toxic Air Contaminant Levels ................................................................................................... 39
8.0 Modeling Parameters and Assumptions ................................................................................. 41
8.1 CalEEMod Model Input Parameters ........................................................................................ 41
8.2 Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing VOC Modeling ................................................................... 44
8.3 Energy Use Calculations ........................................................................................................... 44
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
Page ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
9.0 Thresholds of Significance ...................................................................................................... 48
9.1 Regional Air Quality ................................................................................................................. 48
9.2 Local Air Quality ....................................................................................................................... 48
9.3 Toxic Air Contaminants ............................................................................................................ 49
9.4 Odor Impacts ............................................................................................................................ 49
9.5 Energy Conservation ................................................................................................................ 49
9.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................................................................................................... 50
10.0 Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 52
10.1 CEQA Thresholds of Significance ........................................................................................... 52
10.2 Air Quality Compliance .......................................................................................................... 52
10.3 Cumulative Net Increase in Non‐Attainment Pollution ......................................................... 54
10.4 Sensitive Receptors ................................................................................................................ 59
10.5 Odor Emissions ...................................................................................................................... 62
10.6 Energy Consumption .............................................................................................................. 63
10.7 Energy Plan Consistency ........................................................................................................ 67
10.8 Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................. 69
10.9 Greenhouse Gas Plan Consistency ......................................................................................... 69
11.0 References ............................................................................................................................. 73
APPENDICES
Appendix A – CalEEMod Model Printouts
Appendix B – EMFAC2021 Model Printouts
Appendix C – Gas Station Cancer RiskTool (V1.103) Printouts
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
Page iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Project Local Study Area .............................................................................................................. 4 Figure 2 – Proposed Site Plan ....................................................................................................................... 5
LIST OF TABLES
Table A – Global Warming Potentials, Atmospheric Lifetimes and Abundances of GHGs ......................... 12 Table B – State and Federal Criteria Pollutant Standards ........................................................................... 14 Table C – National Air Quality Standards Attainment Status – South Coast Air Basin ............................... 16 Table D – California Ambient Air Quality Standards Attainment Status – South Coast Air Basin .............. 17 Table E – Monthly Climate Data ................................................................................................................. 37 Table F – Local Area Air Quality Monitoring Summary ............................................................................... 38 Table G – CalEEMod Land Use Parameters ................................................................................................. 41 Table H – Off‐Road Equipment and Fuel Consumption from Construction of the Proposed Project ........ 45 Table I – On‐Road Vehicle Trips and Fuel Consumption from Construction of Proposed Project ............. 46 Table J – SCAQMD Regional Criteria Pollutant Emission Thresholds of Significance ................................. 48 Table K – SCAQMD Local Air Quality Thresholds of Significance ................................................................ 49 Table L – Construction‐Related Criteria Pollutant Emissions ...................................................................... 55 Table M – Operational Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions .................................................................... 55 Table N – Operations‐Related Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions .............................................................. 58 Table O – Proposed Project Compliance with the General Plan Energy Policies ........................................ 67 Table P – Project Related Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions ................................................................... 69 Table Q – Climate Action Plan Local GHG Reduction Measures and Project Consistency ......................... 70
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
Page iv
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AB Assembly Bill
Air Basin South Coast Air Basin
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
BACT Best Available Control Technology
BSFC Brake Specific Fuel Consumption
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFCs chlorofluorocarbons
Cf4 tetrafluoromethane
C2F6 hexafluoroethane
CH4 Methane
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent
City City of Riverside
DPM Diesel particulate matter
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ºF Fahrenheit
FTIP Federal Transportation Improvement Program
GHG Greenhouse gas
GWP Global warming potential
HAP Hazardous Air Pollutants
HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons
IPCC International Panel on Climate Change
kWhr kilowatt‐hour
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
Page v
LST Localized Significant Thresholds
MATES Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study
MMTCO2e Million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MWh Megawatt‐hour
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NOx Nitrogen oxides
NO2 Nitrogen dioxide
OPR Office of Planning and Research
Pfc Perfluorocarbons
PM Particle matter
PM10 Particles that are less than 10 micrometers in diameter PM2.5 Particles that are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter PPM Parts per million
PPB Parts per billion
PPT Parts per trillion
RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Plan
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy SB Senate Bill
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SF6 Sulfur Hexafluoride
SIP State Implementation Plan
SOx Sulfur oxides
TAC Toxic air contaminants
UNFCCC United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change VOC Volatile organic compounds
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of Analysis and Study Objectives
This Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Impact Analysis has been completed to determine the air quality, energy, and GHG emissions impacts associated with the proposed Van Buren 7‐ Eleven project (proposed project). The following is provided in this report:
A description of the proposed project;
A description of the atmospheric setting;
A description of the criteria pollutants and GHGs;
A description of the air quality regulatory framework; A description of the energy conservation regulatory framework; A description of the GHG emissions regulatory framework; A description of the air quality, energy, and GHG emissions thresholds including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) significance thresholds; An analysis of the conformity of the proposed project with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP); An analysis of the short‐term construction related and long‐term operational air quality, toxic air contaminants (TAC), energy, and GHG emissions impacts; and An analysis of the conformity of the proposed project with all applicable energy and GHG emissions reduction plans and policies.
1.2 Site Locations and Study Area
The project site is located in the western portion of the City of Riverside (City) at 3570 & 3596 Van Buren Boulevard. The approximately 0.86‐acre project site is currently developed with two commercial structures and associated parking lots. The project site is bounded by Van Buren Boulevard and commercial uses to the northeast, commercial uses to the southeast, single‐family homes to the southwest, and Primrose Drive and commercial uses to the northwest. The project local study area is shown in Figure 1.
Sensitive Receptors in Project Vicinity
The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are single‐family homes located as near as 20 feet southwest of the project site. The nearest school is Liberty Elementary School that is located as near as
0.4 mile northwest of the project site.
1.3 Proposed Project Description
The proposed project would consist of demolition of the two commercial buildings and associated parking lots and construction of a 3,048 square foot 7‐Eleven convenience store with a 12 vehicle fuel position gas station. The proposed project would also include ancillary improvements that would include landscaping, a surface parking lot with 24 parking spaces, a trash enclosure, and an air/water dispensing unit. The proposed site plan is shown in Figure 2.
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
1.4 Executive Summary
Standard Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Regulatory Conditions The proposed project will be required to comply with the following regulatory conditions from the SCAQMD and State of California (State).
South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules
The following lists the SCAQMD rules that are applicable, but not limited to the proposed project. Rule 201 Permit to Construct – Required for all facilities that need an Air Quality Permit to operate (i.e., gas stations);
Rule 203 Permit to Operate ‐ Required for all facilities that need an Air Quality Permit to operate (i.e., gas stations);
Rule 402 Nuisance – Controls the emissions of odors and other air contaminants; Rule 403 Fugitive Dust – Controls the emissions of fugitive dust; Rule 461 Gasoline Dispensing Facilities – Controls gas station emissions; Rules 1108 and 1108.1 Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt – Controls the volatile organic compound (VOC) content in asphalt;
Rule 1113 Architectural Coatings – Controls the VOC content in paints and solvents; Rule 1143 Paint Thinners – Controls the VOC content in paint thinners; Rule 1401 New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) ‐ Controls TAC emissions from gas station operations; and
Rule 1403 Asbestos Removal – Regulates asbestos emissions from demolition activities.
State of California Rules
The following lists the State of California Code of Regulations (CCR) air quality emission rules that are applicable, but not limited to the proposed project.
CCR Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Section 2449 – In use Off‐Road Diesel Vehicles; CCR Title 13, Section 2025 – On‐Road Diesel Truck Fleets; CCR Title 24 Part 6 – California Building Energy Standards; and CCR Title 24 Part 11 – California Green Building Standards.
Summary of Analysis Results
The following is a summary of the proposed project’s impacts with regard to the State CEQA Guidelines air quality, energy, and GHG emissions checklist questions.
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than significant impact.
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non‐attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard? Less than significant impact.
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than significant impact.
Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than significant impact.
Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation; Less than significant impact.
Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy; Less than significant impact.
Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than significant impact.
Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs?
Less than significant impact.
1.5 Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project
This analysis found that implementation of the State and SCAQMD air quality and GHG emissions reductions regulations were adequate to limit criteria pollutants, TACs, odors, and GHG emissions from the proposed project to less than significant levels. No mitigation measures are required for the proposed project with respect to air quality and GHG emissions.
Figure 1
Project Local Study Area
SOURCE: Google Maps
N
Project Site
Figure 2
Site Plan
SOURCE: Marx Okubo Associates, Inc.
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
2.0 AIR POLLUTANTS
Air pollutants are generally classified as either criteria pollutants or non‐criteria pollutants. Federal ambient air quality standards have been established for criteria pollutants, whereas no ambient standards have been established for non‐criteria pollutants. For some criteria pollutants, separate standards have been set for different periods. Most standards have been set to protect public health. For some pollutants, standards have been based on other values (such as protection of crops, protection of materials, or avoidance of nuisance conditions). A summary of federal and state ambient air quality standards is provided in the Regulatory Framework section.
2.1 Criteria Pollutants and Ozone Precursors
The criteria pollutants consist of: ozone, nitrogen oxides (NOx), CO, sulfur oxides (SOx), lead, and particulate matter (PM). The ozone precursors consist of NOx and VOC. These pollutants can harm your health and the environment, and cause property damage. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) calls these pollutants “criteria” air pollutants because it regulates them by developing human health‐ based and/or environmentally‐based criteria for setting permissible levels. The following provides descriptions of each of the criteria pollutants and ozone precursors.
Nitrogen Oxides
NOx is the generic term for a group of highly reactive gases which contain nitrogen and oxygen. While most NOx are colorless and odorless, concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) can often be seen as a reddish‐brown layer over many urban areas. NOx form when fuel is burned at high temperatures, as in a combustion process. The primary manmade sources of NOx are motor vehicles, electric utilities, and other industrial, commercial, and residential sources that burn fuel. NOx reacts with other pollutants to form, ground‐level ozone, nitrate particles, acid aerosols, as well as NO2, which cause respiratory problems. NOx and the pollutants formed from NOx can be transported over long distances, following the patterns of prevailing winds. Therefore, controlling NOx is often most effective if done from a regional perspective, rather than focusing on the nearest sources.
Ozone
Ozone is not usually emitted directly into the air, instead it is created by a chemical reaction between NOx and VOCs in the presence of sunlight. Motor vehicle exhaust, industrial emissions, gasoline vapors, chemical solvents as well as natural sources emit NOx and VOC that help form ozone. Ground‐level ozone is the primary constituent of smog. Sunlight and hot weather cause ground‐level ozone to form with the greatest concentrations usually occurring downwind from urban areas. Ozone is subsequently considered a regional pollutant. Ground‐level ozone is a respiratory irritant and an oxidant that increases susceptibility to respiratory infections and can cause substantial damage to vegetation and other materials. Because NOx and VOC are ozone precursors, the health effects associated with ozone are also indirect health effects associated with significant levels of NOx and VOC emissions.
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas that is formed when carbon in fuel is not burned completely. It is a component of motor vehicle exhaust, which contributes approximately 56 percent of all CO emissions nationwide. In cities, 85 to 95 percent of all CO emissions may come from motor vehicle exhaust. Other sources of CO emissions include industrial processes (such as metals processing and chemical manufacturing), residential wood burning, and natural sources such as forest fires. Woodstoves,
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
gas stoves, cigarette smoke, and unvented gas and kerosene space heaters are indoor sources of CO. The highest levels of CO in the outside air typically occur during the colder months of the year when inversion conditions are more frequent. The air pollution becomes trapped near the ground beneath a layer of warm air. CO is described as having only a local influence because it dissipates quickly. Since CO concentrations are strongly associated with motor vehicle emissions, high CO concentrations generally occur in the immediate vicinity of roadways with high traffic volumes and traffic congestion, active parking lots, and in automobile tunnels. Areas adjacent to heavily traveled and congested intersections are particularly susceptible to high CO concentrations.
CO is a public health concern because it combines readily with hemoglobin and thus reduces the amount of oxygen transported in the bloodstream. The health threat from lower levels of CO is most serious for those who suffer from heart disease such as angina, clogged arteries, or congestive heart failure. For a person with heart disease, a single exposure to CO at low levels may cause chest pain and reduce that person’s ability to exercise; repeated exposures may contribute to other cardiovascular effects. High levels of CO can affect even healthy people. People who breathe high levels of CO can develop vision problems, reduced ability to work or learn, reduced manual dexterity, and difficulty performing complex tasks. At extremely high levels, CO is poisonous and can cause death.
Sulfur Oxides
SOx gases are formed when fuel containing sulfur, such as coal and oil is burned, as well as from the refining of gasoline. SOx dissolves easily in water vapor to form acid and interacts with other gases and particles in the air to form sulfates and other products that can be harmful to people and the environment.
Exposure to SOx gases can cause respiratory symptoms (bronchoconstriction, possible wheezing or shortness of breath) during exercise or physical activity in persons with asthma and cause possible allergic sensitization, airway inflammation, and asthma development.
Lead
Lead is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as manufactured products. The major sources of lead emissions have historically been motor vehicles and industrial sources. Due to the phase out of leaded gasoline, metal processing is now the primary source of lead emissions to the air. High levels of lead in the air are typically only found near lead smelters, waste incinerators, utilities, and lead‐acid battery manufacturers. Exposure of fetuses, infants and children to low levels of lead can adversely affect the development and function of the central nervous system, leading to learning disorders, distractibility, inability to follow simple commands, and lower intelligence quotient. In adults, increased lead levels are associated with increased blood pressure.
Particulate Matter
PM is the term for a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air. PM is made up of a number of components including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles. The size of particles is directly linked to their potential for causing health problems.
Particles that are less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10) that are also known as Respirable Particulate Matter are the particles that generally pass through the throat and nose and enter the lungs.
Once inhaled, these particles can affect the heart and lungs and cause serious health effects. Particles that are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5) that are also known as Fine Particulate Matter have been designated as a subset of PM10 due to their increased negative health impacts and its ability to remain suspended in the air longer and travel further.
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
Volatile Organic Compounds
Hydrocarbons are organic gases that are formed from hydrogen and carbon and sometimes other elements. Hydrocarbons that contribute to formation of ozone are referred to and regulated as VOCs (also referred to as reactive organic gases). Combustion engine exhaust, oil refineries, and fossil‐fueled power plants are the sources of hydrocarbons. Other sources of hydrocarbons include evaporation from petroleum fuels, solvents, dry cleaning solutions, and paint.
VOC is not classified as a criteria pollutant, since VOCs by themselves are not a known source of adverse health effects. The primary health effects of VOCs result from the formation of ozone and its related health effects. High levels of VOCs in the atmosphere can interfere with oxygen intake by reducing the amount of available oxygen through displacement. Carcinogenic forms of hydrocarbons, such as benzene, are considered TACs. There are no separate health standards for VOCs as a group.
2.2 Other Pollutants of Concern
Toxic Air Contaminants
In addition to the above‐listed criteria pollutants, TACs are another group of pollutants of concern. TACs is a term that is defined under the California Clean Air Act and consists of the same substances that are defined as Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) in the Federal Clean Air Act. There are over 700 hundred different types of TACs with varying degrees of toxicity. Sources of TACs include industrial processes such as petroleum refining and chrome plating operations, commercial operations such as gasoline stations and dry cleaners, and motor vehicle exhaust. Cars and trucks release at least 40 different toxic air contaminants. The most important of these TACs, in terms of health risk, are diesel particulates, benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3‐butadiene, and acetaldehyde. Public exposure to TACs can result from emissions from normal operations as well as from accidental releases. Health effects of TACs include cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, and death.
TACs are less pervasive in the urban atmosphere than criteria air pollutants, however they are linked to short‐term (acute) or long‐term (chronic or carcinogenic) adverse human health effects. There are hundreds of different types of TACs with varying degrees of toxicity. Sources of TACs include industrial processes, commercial operations (e.g., gasoline stations and dry cleaners), and motor vehicle exhaust.
According to The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality 2013 Edition, the majority of the estimated health risk from TACs can be attributed to relatively few compounds, the most important of which is diesel particulate matter (DPM). DPM is a subset of PM2.5 because the size of diesel particles are typically 2.5 microns and smaller. The identification of DPM as a TAC in 1998 led the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to adopt the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel‐fueled Engines and Vehicles in October 2000. The plan’s goals are a 75‐percent reduction in DPM by 2010 and an 85‐percent reduction by 2020 from the 2000 baseline. Diesel engines emit a complex mixture of air pollutants, composed of gaseous and solid material. The visible emissions in diesel exhaust are known as particulate matter or PM, which includes carbon particles or “soot.” Diesel exhaust also contains a variety of harmful gases and over 40 other cancer‐causing substances. California’s identification of DPM as a TAC was based on its potential to cause cancer, premature deaths, and other health problems. Exposure to DPM is a health hazard, particularly to children whose lungs are still developing and the elderly who may have other serious health problems. Overall, diesel engine emissions are responsible for the majority of California’s potential airborne cancer risk from combustion sources.
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
Asbestos
Asbestos is listed as a TAC by CARB and as a HAP by the EPA. Asbestos occurs naturally in mineral formations and crushing or breaking these rocks, through construction or other means, can release asbestiform fibers into the air. Asbestos emissions can result from the sale or use of asbestos‐containing materials, road surfacing with such materials, grading activities, and surface mining. The risk of disease is dependent upon the intensity and duration of exposure. When inhaled, asbestos fibers may remain in the lungs and with time may be linked to such diseases as asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma. The nearest likely locations of naturally occurring asbestos, as identified in the General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California, prepared by the California Division of Mines and Geology, is located in Santa Barbara County. The nearest historic asbestos mine to the project site, as identified in the Reported Historic Asbestos Mines, Historic Asbestos Prospects, and Other Natural Occurrences of Asbestos in California, prepared by U.S. Geological Survey, is located at Asbestos Mountain, which is approximately 60 miles east of the project site in the San Jacinto Mountains. Due to the distance to the nearest natural occurrences of asbestos, the project site is not likely to contain asbestos.
In addition to naturally occurring asbestos, asbestos was used extensively in building construction from the early 1940s through the 1970s as highly‐effective and inexpensive fire‐retardant material and thermal and acoustic insulator. Asbestos is most commonly found as thermal insulation on pipes, but also may be found in certain types of floor and ceiling tiles. There are two types of asbestos: “friable” and "non‐ friable.” Friable asbestos generally contains more than 1 percent asbestos by weight or area, and can be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by the pressure of an ordinary human hand, which releases fibers. Non friable asbestos generally contains more than 1 percent asbestos but cannot be pulverized under hand pressure and generally does not release asbestos fibers. The analysis of asbestos from demolition of the existing structure is provided below in Section 10.4.
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
3.0 GREENHOUSE GASES
3.1 Greenhouse Gases
Constituent gases of the Earth’s atmosphere, called atmospheric GHGs, play a critical role in the Earth’s radiation amount by trapping infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface, which otherwise would have escaped to space. Prominent GHGs contributing to this process include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, ozone, water vapor, nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). This phenomenon, known as the Greenhouse Effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate. Anthropogenic (caused or produced by humans) emissions of these GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for the enhancement of the Greenhouse Effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the Earth’s natural climate, known as global warming or climate change. Emissions of gases that induce global warming are attributable to human activities associated with industrial/manufacturing, agriculture, utilities, transportation, and residential land uses. Emissions of CO2 and N2O are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, results from off‐gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Sinks of CO2, where CO2 is stored outside of the atmosphere, include uptake by vegetation and dissolution into the ocean. The following provides a description of each of the GHGs and their global warming potential.
Water Vapor
Water vapor is the most abundant, important, and variable GHG in the atmosphere. Water vapor is not considered a pollutant; in the atmosphere it maintains a climate necessary for life. Changes in its concentration are primarily considered a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization. The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change. As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the relative humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to “hold” more water when it is warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere. As a GHG, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal indirect energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a “positive feedback loop.” The extent to which this positive feedback loop will continue is unknown as there is also dynamics that put the positive feedback loop in check. As an example, when water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth’s surface and heat it up).
Carbon Dioxide
The natural production and absorption of CO2 is achieved through the terrestrial biosphere and the ocean.
However, humankind has altered the natural carbon cycle by burning coal, oil, natural gas, and wood.
Since the industrial revolution began in the mid 1700s, each of these activities has increased in scale and distribution. CO2 was the first GHG demonstrated to be increasing in atmospheric concentration with the first conclusive measurements being made in the last half of the 20th century. Prior to the industrial revolution, concentrations were fairly stable at 280 parts per million (ppm). The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicates that concentrations were 379 ppm in 2005, an increase of more than 30 percent. Left unchecked, the IPCC projects that concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is projected to increase to a minimum of 540 ppm by 2100 as a direct result of anthropogenic sources. This could result in an average global temperature rise of at least two degrees Celsius or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
Methane
Methane is an extremely effective absorber of radiation, although its atmospheric concentration is less than that of CO2. Its lifetime in the atmosphere is brief (10 to 12 years), compared to some other GHGs (such as CO2, N2O, and CFCs). CH4 has both natural and anthropogenic sources. It is released as part of the biological processes in low oxygen environments, such as in swamplands or in rice production (at the roots of the plants). Over the last 50 years, human activities such as growing rice, raising cattle, using natural gas, and mining coal have added to the atmospheric concentration of methane. Other anthropocentric sources include fossil‐fuel combustion and biomass burning.
Nitrous Oxide
Concentrations of N2O also began to rise at the beginning of the industrial revolution. In 1998, the global concentration of this GHG was documented at 314 parts per billion (ppb). N2O is produced by microbial processes in soil and water, including those reactions which occur in fertilizer containing nitrogen. In addition to agricultural sources, some industrial processes (fossil fuel‐fired power plants, nylon production, nitric acid production, and vehicle emissions) also contribute to its atmospheric load. N2O is also commonly used as an aerosol spray propellant (i.e., in whipped cream bottles, in potato chip bags to keep chips fresh, and in rocket engines and race cars).
Chlorofluorocarbons
CFCs are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in methane or ethane with chlorine and/or fluorine atoms. CFCs are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at the Earth’s surface). CFCs have no natural source, but were first synthesized in 1928. They were used for refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and cleaning solvents. Due to the discovery that they are able to destroy stratospheric ozone, a global effort to halt their production was undertaken and in 1989 the European Community agreed to ban CFCs by 2000 and subsequent treaties banned CFCs worldwide by 2010. This effort was extremely successful, and the levels of the major CFCs are now remaining level or declining. However, their long atmospheric lifetimes mean that some of the CFCs will remain in the atmosphere for over 100 years.
Hydrofluorocarbons
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are synthetic man‐made chemicals that are used as a substitute for CFCs. Out of all the GHGs, they are one of three groups with the highest global warming potential. The HFCs with the largest measured atmospheric abundances are (in order), HFC‐23 (CHF3), HFC‐134a (CF3CH2F), and HFC‐152a (CH3CHF2). Prior to 1990, the only significant emissions were HFC‐23. HFC‐134a use is increasing due to its use as a refrigerant. Concentrations of HFC‐23 and HFC‐134a in the atmosphere are now about 10 parts per trillion (ppt) each. Concentrations of HFC‐152a are about 1 ppt. HFCs are manmade for applications such as automobile air conditioners and refrigerants.
Perfluorocarbons
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) have stable molecular structures and do not break down through the chemical processes in the lower atmosphere. High‐energy ultraviolet rays about 60 kilometers above Earth’s surface are able to destroy the compounds. Because of this, PFCs have very long lifetimes, between 10,000 and 50,000 years. Two common PFCs are tetrafluoromethane (CF4) and hexafluoroethane (C2F6).
Concentrations of CF4 in the atmosphere are over 70 ppt. The two main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing.
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
Sulfur Hexafluoride
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. SF6 has the highest global warming potential of any gas evaluated; 23,900 times that of CO2. Concentrations in the 1990s were about 4 ppt. Sulfur hexafluoride is used for insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas for leak detection.
Aerosols
Aerosols are particles emitted into the air through burning biomass (plant material) and fossil fuels.
Aerosols can warm the atmosphere by absorbing and emitting heat and can cool the atmosphere by reflecting light. Cloud formation can also be affected by aerosols. Sulfate aerosols are emitted when fuel containing sulfur is burned. Black carbon (or soot) is emitted during biomass burning due to the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. Particulate matter regulation has been lowering aerosol concentrations in the United States; however, global concentrations are likely increasing.
3.2 Global Warming Potential
GHGs have varying global warming potential (GWP). The GWP is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere; it is the cumulative radiative forcing effects of a gas over a specified time horizon resulting from the emission of a unit mass of gas relative to CO2. The GHGs listed by the IPCC and the CEQA Guidelines are discussed in this section in order of abundance in the atmosphere. Water vapor, the most abundant GHG, is not included in this list because its natural concentrations and fluctuations far outweigh its anthropogenic (human‐made) sources. To simplify reporting and analysis, GHGs are commonly defined in terms of their GWP. The IPCC defines the GWP of various GHG emissions on a normalized scale that recasts all GHG emissions in terms of CO2 equivalent (CO2e). As such, the GWP of CO2 is equal to 1. The GWP values used in this analysis are based on the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which are used in CARB’s 2014 Scoping Plan Update and the CalEEMod Model Version 2022.1 and are detailed in Table A. The IPCC has updated the GWP of some gases in their Fifth Assessment Report, however the new values have not yet been incorporated into the CalEEMod model that has been utilized in this analysis.
Table A – Global Warming Potentials, Atmospheric Lifetimes and Abundances of GHGs Gas
Atmospheric Lifetime
(years)1
Global Warming Potential
(100 Year Horizon)2
Atmospheric
Abundance
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 50‐200 1 379 ppm
Methane (CH4) 9‐15 25 1,774 ppb
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 114 298 319 ppb
HFC‐23 270 14,800 18 ppt
HFC‐134a 14 1,430 35 ppt
HFC‐152a 1.4 124 3.9 ppt
PFC: Tetrafluoromethane (CF4) 50,000 7,390 74 ppt
PFC: Hexafluoroethane (C2F6) 10,000 12,200 2.9 ppt
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 3,200 22,800 5.6 ppt
1 Defined as the half‐life of the gas.
2 Compared to the same quantity of CO2 emissions and is based on the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 standard, which is utilized in CalEEMod (Version 2022.1),that is used in this report (CalEEMod user guide: Appendix A).
Definitions: ppm = parts per million; ppb = parts per billion; ppt = parts per trillion Source: IPCC 2007, EPA 2015
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory
According to the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center1, 9,855 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) emissions were created globally in the year 2014. According to the EPA, the breakdown of global GHG emissions by sector consists of: 25 percent from electricity and heat production; 21 percent from industry; 24 percent from agriculture, forestry and other land use activities; 14 percent from transportation; 6 percent from building energy use; and 10 percent from all other sources of energy use2.
According to Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990‐2021, prepared by EPA, April 2023, total U.S. GHG emissions in the year 2021 were 6,340.2 MMTCO2e. Total U.S. emissions have decreased by 2.3 percent between 1990 and 2021, which is down from a high of 15.8 percent above 1990 levels in 2007. Emissions increased from 2020 to 2021 by 5.2 percent. There was a decline in 2020 emission due to the impacts of the COVID‐19 pandemic on travel and other economic activity. Between 2020 and 2021, the increase in GHG emissions were driven largely by an increase in fossil fuel combustion due to economic activity rebounding after the height of the COVID‐19 pandemic.
According to California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2021 Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators, prepared by the CARB, December 14, 2023, the State of California created 381.3 MMTCO2e in 2021. The 2021 emissions were 12.6 MMTCO2e higher than 2020 but 23.1 MMTCO2e lower than 2019 levels. Both the 2019 to 2020 decrease and the 2020 to 2021 increase in emissions are likely due in part to the impacts of the COVID‐19 pandemic that were felt globally. The transportation sector showed the largest increase in emissions of 10 MMTCO2e (7.4 percent) compared to 2020, which is most likely from passenger vehicles whose activity and emissions rebounded after COVID‐19 shelter in place orders were lifted.
1 Obtained from: https://cdiac.ess‐dive.lbl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob_2014.html 2 Obtained from: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global‐greenhouse‐gas‐emissions‐data
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
4.0 AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT
The air quality at the project site is addressed through the efforts of various federal, state, regional, and local government agencies. These agencies work jointly, as well as individually, to improve air quality through legislation, regulations, planning, policy‐making, education, and a variety of programs. The agencies responsible for improving the air quality are discussed below.
4.1 Federal – United States Environmental Protection Agency The Clean Air Act, first passed in 1963 with major amendments in 1970, 1977 and 1990, is the overarching legislation covering regulation of air pollution in the United States. The Clean Air Act has established the mandate for requiring regulation of both mobile and stationary sources of air pollution at the state and federal level. The EPA was created in 1970 in order to consolidate research, monitoring, standard‐setting and enforcement authority into a single agency.
The EPA is responsible for setting and enforcing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for atmospheric pollutants. It regulates emission sources that are under the exclusive authority of the federal government, such as aircraft, ships, and certain locomotives. NAAQS pollutants were identified using medical evidence and are shown below in Table B.
Table B – State and Federal Criteria Pollutant Standards Air
Pollutant
Concentration / Averaging Time
Most Relevant Effects
California
Standards
Federal Primary
Standards
Ozone (O3)
0.09 ppm / 1‐hour
0.07 ppm / 8‐hour
0.070 ppm, / 8‐hour
a) Pulmonary function decrements and localized lung injury in humans and animals; (b) asthma exacerbation; (c) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation; (d) respiratory infection; (e) increased school absences, and hospital admissions and emergency department (ED) visits for combined respiratory diseases; (e) increased mortality; (f) possible metabolic effects.
Vegetation damage; property damage
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
20.0 ppm / 1‐hour
9.0 ppm / 8‐hour
35.0 ppm / 1‐hour
9.0 ppm / 8‐hour
Visibility reduction (a) Aggravation of angina pectoris and other aspects of coronary heart disease; (b) decreased exercise tolerance in persons with peripheral vascular disease and lung disease; (c) possible impairment of central nervous system functions; (d) possible increased risk to fetuses; (f) possible increased risk of pulmonary disease; (g) possible emergency department visits for respiratory diseases overall and visits for asthma.
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2)
0.18 ppm / 1‐hour
0.030 ppm / annual
100 ppb / 1‐hour
0.053 ppm / annual
Short‐term (a) asthma exacerbations (“asthma attacks”)
Long‐term (a) asthma development; (b) higher risk of all‐ cause, cardiovascular, and respiratory mortality.
Both short and long term NO2 exposure is also associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) risk.
Potential impacts on cardiovascular health, mortality and cancer, aggravate chronic respiratory disease.
Contribution to atmospheric discoloration
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
Air
Pollutant
Concentration / Averaging Time
Most Relevant Effects
California
Standards
Federal Primary
Standards
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)
0.25 ppm / 1‐hour
0.04 ppm / 24‐hour
75 ppb / 1‐hour
Respiratory symptoms (bronchoconstriction, possible
wheezing or shortness of breath) during exercise or physical activity in persons with asthma.
Possible allergic sensitization, airway inflammation, asthma development.
Respirable
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
50 µg/m3 / 24‐hour
20 µg/m3 / annual
150 µg/m3 / 24‐
hour
Short ‐term (a) increase in mortality rates; (b) increase in respiratory infections; (c) increase in number and severity of asthma attacks; (d) COPD exacerbation; (e) increase in combined respiratory‐diseases and number of hospital admissions; (f) increased mortality due to cardiovascular or respiratory diseases; (g) increase in hospital admissions for acute respiratory conditions; (h) increase in school absences; (i) increase in lost work days; (j) decrease in respiratory function in children; (k) increase medication use in children and adults with asthma.
Long‐term (a) reduced lung function growth in children; (b) changes in lung development; (c) development of asthma
in children; (d) increased risk of cardiovascular diseases; (e) increased total mortality from lung cancer; (f) increased risk of premature death.
Possible link to metabolic, nervous system, and
reproductive and developmental effects for short‐term and long‐term exposure to PM2.5.
Suspended
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
12 µg/m3 / annual 35 µg/m3 / 24‐hour
12 µg/m3 / annual
Sulfates 25 µg/m3 / 24‐hour No Federal
Standards
(a) Decrease in lung function; (b) aggravation of asthmatic symptoms; (c) vegetation damage; (d) Degradation of visibility; (e) property damage
Lead 1.5 µg/m3 / 30‐day 0.15 µg/m3 /3‐
month rolling
(a) Learning disabilities; (b) impairment of blood formation and nerve function; (c) cardiovascular effects, including coronary heart disease and hypertension
Possible male reproductive system effects
Hydrogen
Sulfide 0.03 ppm / 1‐hour No Federal
Standards
Exposure to lower ambient concentrations above the standard may result in objectionable odor and may be accompanied by symptoms such as headaches, nausea, dizziness, nasal irritation, cough, and shortness of breath
Source: 2022 AQMP, SCAQMD, 2022.
As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the EPA requires each state with federal nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that demonstrates the means to attain the national standards. The SIP must integrate federal, state, and local components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution, using a combination of performance standards and market‐ based programs within the timeframe identified in the SIP. The CARB defines attainment as the category given to an area with no violations in the past three years. As indicated below in Table C, the Air Basin has been designated by EPA for the national standards as a non‐attainment area for ozone and PM2.5 and partial non‐attainment for lead. Currently, the Air Basin is in attainment with the national ambient air quality standards for CO, PM10, SO2, and NO2.
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
Table C – National Air Quality Standards Attainment Status – South Coast Air Basin Criteria Pollutant Averaging Time Designationa Attainment Dateb Ozone
1979 1‐Hour (0.12 ppm) Nonattainment (Extreme) 2/6/2023 (revised deadline)
2015 8‐Hour (0.07 ppm)d Nonattainment (Extreme) 8/3/2038 2008 8‐Hour (0.075 ppm)d Nonattainment (Extreme) 7/20/2032 1997 8‐Hour (0.08 ppm)d Nonattainment (Extreme) 6/15/2024 PM2.5e
2006 24‐Hour (35 μg/m3) Nonattainment (Serious) 12/31/2019 2012 Annual (12 μg/m3) Nonattainment (Serious) 12/31/2021 1997 Annual (15 μg/m3) Attainment (final determination pending)
4/5/2015
(attained 2013)
PM10f 1987 24‐Hour (150 μg/m3) Attainment (Maintenance) 7/26/2013 (attained)
Leadg 2008 3‐Months Rolling
(0.15 μg/m3)
Nonattainment (Partial)
(Attainment determination
requested)
12/31/2015
CO 1971 1‐Hour (35 ppm) Attainment (Maintenance) 6/11/2007 1971 8‐Hour (9 ppm) Attainment (Maintenance) 6/11/2007 NO2h 2010 1‐Hour (100 ppb) Unclassifiable/Attainment N/A (attained) 1971 Annual (0.053 ppm) Attainment (Maintenance) 9/22/1998 (attained) SO2i 2010 1‐Hour (75 ppb) Unclassifiable/Attainment 1/9/2018 1971 24‐Hour (0.14 ppm) Unclassifiable/Attainment 3/19/1979 Source: SCAQMD, 2022
Notes:
a) U.S. EPA often only declares Nonattainment areas; everywhere else is listed as Unclassifiable/Attainment or Unclassifiable. b) A design value below the NAAQS for data through the full year or smog season prior to the attainment date is typically required for attainment demonstration.
c) The 1979 1‐hour ozone NAAQS (0.12 ppm) was revoked, effective June 15, 2005; however, the Basin has not attained this standard and therefore has some continuing obligations with respect to the revoked standard; original attainment date was 11/15/2010; the revised attainment date is 2/6/2023.
d) The 2008 8‐hour ozone NAAQS (0.075 ppm) was revised to 0.070 ppm, effective 12/28/20115 with classifications and implementation goals to be finalized by 10/1/2017; the 1997 8‐hour ozone NAAQS (0.08 ppm) was revoked in the 2008 ozone implementation rule, effective 4/6/2015; there are continuing obligations under the revoked 1997 and revised 2008 ozone NAAQS until they are attained. e) The attainment deadline for the 2006 24‐Hour PM2.5 NAAQS was 12/31/15 for the former “moderate” classification; the EPA approved reclassification to “serious”, effective 2/12/16 with an attainment deadline of 12/31/2019; the 2012 (proposal year) annual PM2.5 NAAQS was revised on 1/15/2013, effective 3/18/2013, from 15 to 12 μ g/m3; new annual designations were final 1/15/2015, effective 4/15/2015; on 7/25/2016 the EPA finalized a determination that the Basin attained the 1997 annual (15.0 μ g/m3) and 24‐hour PM2.5 (65 μ g/m3) NAAQS, effective 8/24/2016.
f) The annual PM10 standard was revoked, effective 12/18/2006; the 24‐hour PM10 NAAQS deadline was 12/31/2006; the Basin’s Attainment Re‐designation Request and PM10 Maintenance Plan was approved by the EPA on 6/26/2103, effective 7/26/2013. g) Partial Nonattainment designation – Los Angeles County portion of the Basin only for near‐source monitors; expect to remain in attainment based on current monitoring data; attainment re‐designation request pending. h) New 1‐hour NO2 NAAQS became effective 8/2/2010, with attainment designations 1/20/2012; annual NO2 NAAQS retained. i) The 1971 annual and 24‐hour SO2 NAAQS were revoked, effective 8/23/2010.
Despite substantial improvements in air quality over the past few decades, some air monitoring stations in the Air Basin still exceed the NAAQS and frequently record the highest ozone levels in the United States.
In 2020, monitoring stations in the Air Basin exceeded the most current federal standards on a total of 181 days (49 percent of the year), including: 8‐hour ozone (157 days over the 2015 ozone NAAQS), 24‐ hour PM2.5 (39 days), PM10 (3 days), and NO2 (1 day). Nine of the top 10 stations in the nation most frequently exceeding the 2015 8‐hour ozone NAAQS in 2020 were located within the Air Basin, including stations in San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties (SCAQMD, 2022).
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
PM2.5 levels in the Air Basin have improved significantly in recent years. Since 2015, none of the monitoring stations in the Air Basin have recorded violations of the former 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS (15.0 μg/m3). On July 25, 2016 the U.S. EPA finalized a determination that the Air Basin attained the 1997 annual (15.0 μg/m3) and 24‐hour PM2.5 (65 μg/m3) NAAQS, effective August 24, 2016. However, the Air Basin does not meet the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS (12.0 μg/m3), with six monitoring stations having design values above the standard for the 2018‐2020 period (SCAQMD, 2022).
4.2 State – California Air Resources Board
The CARB, which is a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and state air pollution control programs within California. In this capacity, the CARB conducts research, sets the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), compiles emission inventories, develops suggested control measures, provides oversight of local programs, and prepares the SIP. The CAAQS for criteria pollutants in the Air Basin are shown in Table D.
In addition, the CARB establishes emission standards for motor vehicles sold in California, consumer products (e.g. hairspray, aerosol paints, and barbeque lighter fluid), and various types of commercial equipment. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions.
Table D – California Ambient Air Quality Standards Attainment Status – South Coast Air Basin Criteria Pollutant Averaging Time Levela Designationb Ozone 1‐Hour 0.09 ppm Nonattainment
8‐Hour 0.070 ppm Nonattainment
PM2.5 Annual 12 μg/m3 Nonattainment
PM10 24‐Hour 50 μg/m3 Nonattainment
Annual 20 μg/m3 Nonattainment
Lead 30‐Day Average 1.5 μg/m3 Attainment
CO 1‐Hour 20 ppm Attainment
8‐Hour 9.0 ppm Attainment
NO2 1‐Hour 0.18 ppm Attainment
Annual 0.030 Attainmentc
SO2 1‐Hour 0.25 ppm Attainment
24‐Hour 0.04 ppm Attainment
Sulfates 24‐Hour 25 μg/m3 Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfidec 1‐Hour 0.03 ppm Unclassified
Source: SCAQMD, 2022
Notes:
a) CA State standards, or CAAQS, for ozone, SO2, NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 are values not to be exceeded; lead, sulfates and H2S standards are values not to be equaled or exceeded; CAAQS are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. b) CA State designations shown were updated by CARB in 2019, based on the 2016‐2018 3‐year period; stated designations are based on a 3‐year data period after consideration of outliers and exceptional events. c) The CA‐60 near road portion of San Bernardino, Riverside and Los Angeles Counties has recently been redesignated as an attainment area based on data collected between 2018 and 2020.
As shown in Table D, the Air Basin has been designated by the CARB as a non‐attainment area for ozone, PM10 and PM2.5. Currently, the Air Basin is in attainment with the ambient air quality standards for lead, CO, NO2, SO2 and sulfates, and is unclassified for Hydrogen Sulfide.
The following lists the State of California Code of Regulations (CCR) air quality emission rules that are applicable, but not limited to all residential projects in the State.
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
Assembly Bill 2588
The Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act (Assembly Bill [AB] 2588, 1987, Connelly) was enacted in 1987 as a means to establish a formal air toxics emission inventory risk quantification program.
AB 2588, as amended, establishes a process that requires stationary sources to report the type and quantities of certain substances their facilities routinely release in California. The data is ranked by high, intermediate, and low categories, which are determined by: the potency, toxicity, quantity, volume, and proximity of the facility to nearby receptors.
CARB Regulation for In‐Use Off‐Road Diesel Vehicles
On July 26, 2007, the CARB adopted CCR Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Section 2449 to reduce DPM and NOx emissions from in‐use off‐road heavy‐duty diesel vehicles in California. Such vehicles are used in construction, mining, and industrial operations. The regulation limits idling to no more than five consecutive minutes, requires reporting and labeling, and requires disclosure of the regulation upon vehicle sale. Performance requirements of the rule are based on a fleet’s average NOx emissions, which can be met by replacing older vehicles with newer, cleaner vehicles or by applying exhaust retrofits. The regulation was amended in 2010 to delay the original timeline of the performance requirement making the first compliance deadline January 1, 2014 for large fleets (over 5,000 horsepower), 2017 for medium fleets (2,501‐5,000 horsepower), and 2019 for small fleets (2,500 horsepower or less). Currently, no commercial operation in California may add any equipment to their fleet that has a Tier 0, Tier 1, or Tier 2 engine. It should be noted that commercial fleets may continue to use their existing Tier 0, 1 and 2 equipment, if they can demonstrate that the average emissions from their entire fleet emissions meet the NOx emissions targets.
CARB Resolution 08‐43 for On‐Road Diesel Truck Fleets
On December 12, 2008 the CARB adopted Resolution 08‐43, which limits NOx, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from on‐road diesel truck fleets that operate in California. On October 12, 2009 Executive Order R‐09‐010 was adopted that codified Resolution 08‐43 into CCR Title 13, Section 2025. This regulation requires that by the year 2023 all commercial diesel trucks that operate in California shall meet model year 2010 (Tier 4 Final) or latter emission standards. This regulation also provides a few exemptions including a onetime per year 3‐day pass for trucks registered outside of California. All on‐road diesel trucks utilized during construction of the proposed project will be required to comply with Resolution 08‐43.
4.3 Regional – Southern California
The SCAQMD is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the South Coast Air Basin. To that end, as a regional agency, the SCAQMD works directly with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), county transportation commissions, and local governments and cooperates actively with all federal and state agencies.
South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCAQMD develops rules and regulations, establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources, inspects emission sources, and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines, when necessary. SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary, mobile, and indirect sources. It has responded to this requirement by preparing a sequence of AQMPs. The Final 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (2022 AQMP) was adopted by CARB on January 26, 2023 and has been submitted to the U.S. EPA for final approval, which is anticipated to occur sometime this year. After the 2022 AQMP has been adopted by the U.S. EPA, the 2022 AQMP will be incorporated into the SIP. The
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
2022 AQMP establishes actions and strategies to reduce ozone levels to the U.S. EPA 2015 ozone standard of 70 ppb by 2037. The 2022 AQMP promotes extensive use of zero‐emission technologies across all stationary and mobile sources coupled with rules and regulations, investment strategies, and incentives.
Although SCAQMD is responsible for regional air quality planning efforts, it does not have the authority to directly regulate air quality issues associated with plans and new development projects throughout the Air Basin. Instead, this is controlled through local jurisdictions in accordance with CEQA. In order to assist local jurisdictions with air quality compliance issues the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook), prepared by SCAQMD, 1993, with the most current updates found at http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/hdbk.html, was developed in accordance with the projections and programs detailed in the AQMPs. The purpose of the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook is to assist Lead Agencies, as well as consultants, project proponents, and other interested parties in evaluating a proposed project’s potential air quality impacts. Specifically, the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook explains the procedures that SCAQMD recommends be followed for the environmental review process required by CEQA. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook provides direction on how to evaluate potential air quality impacts, how to determine whether these impacts are significant, and how to mitigate these impacts. The SCAQMD intends that by providing this guidance, the air quality impacts of plans and development proposals will be analyzed accurately and consistently throughout the Air Basin, and adverse impacts will be minimized.
The following lists the SCAQMD rules that are applicable but not limited to gas station development projects in the Air Basin.
Rule 201 – Permit to Construct
Rule 201 requires that a permit to construct be obtained prior to start of construction activities for all facilities that need to obtain an Air Quality Permit from the SCAQMD to operate, which includes gas stations.
Rule 203 – Permit to Operate
Rule 201 requires that a permit to operate be obtained prior to start of operational activities for all facilities that need to obtain an Air Quality Permit from the SCAQMD to operate, which includes gas stations.
Rule 402 ‐ Nuisance
Rule 402 prohibits a person from discharging from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which causes injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. Compliance with Rule 402 will reduce local air quality and odor impacts to nearby sensitive receptors.
Rule 403‐ Fugitive Dust
Rule 403 governs emissions of fugitive dust during construction activities and requires that no person shall cause or allow the emissions of fugitive dust such that dust remains visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line or the dust emission exceeds 20 percent opacity, if the dust is from the operation of a motorized vehicle. Compliance with this rule is achieved through application of standard Best Available
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
Control Measures, which include but are not limited to the measures below. Compliance with these rules would reduce local air quality impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. Utilize either a pad of washed gravel 50 feet long, 100 feet of paved surface, a wheel shaker, or a wheel washing device to remove material from vehicle tires and undercarriages before leaving project site.
Do not allow any track out of material to extend more than 25 feet onto a public roadway and remove all track out at the end of each workday.
Water all exposed areas on active sites at least three times per day and pre‐water all areas prior to clearing and soil moving activities.
Apply nontoxic chemical stabilizers according to manufacturer specifications to all construction areas that will remain inactive for 10 days or longer.
Pre‐water all material to be exported prior to loading, and either cover all loads or maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code Section 23114.
Replant all disturbed area as soon as practical.
Suspend all grading activities when wind speeds (including wind gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour. Restrict traffic speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour or less.
Rule 461 – Gasoline Dispensing Facilities
Rule 461 governs the operation of gasoline stations and requires that all underground storage tanks are equipped with a “CARB certified” enhanced vapor recovery system, all fill tubes are equipped with vapor tight caps, all dry breaks are equipped with vapor tight seals, a spill box shall be installed to capture any gasoline spillage, and all equipment is required to be properly maintained per CARB regulations. All gasoline dispensing units are required to be equipped with a “CARB certified” vapor recovery system, the dispensing system components all maintain vapor and liquid tight connections at all times and the breakaway coupling shall be equipped with a poppet valve that shall close when coupling is separated.
Rule 461 also provides several additional requirements including detailed maintenance, testing, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements for all gas stations.
Rules 1108 and 1108.1 – Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt
Rules 1108 and 1108.1 govern the sale, use, and manufacturing of asphalt and limits the VOC content in asphalt. This rule regulates the VOC contents of asphalt used during construction as well as any on‐going maintenance during operations. Therefore, all asphalt used during construction and operation of the proposed project must comply with SCAQMD Rules 1108 and 1108.1.
Rule 1113 – Architectural Coatings
Rule 1113 governs the sale, use, and manufacturing of architectural coatings and limits the VOC content in sealers, coatings, paints and solvents. This rule regulates the VOC contents of paints available during construction. Therefore, all paints and solvents used during construction and operation of the proposed project must comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113.
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
Rule 1143 – Paint Thinners
Rule 1143 governs the sale, use, and manufacturing of paint thinners and multi‐purpose solvents that are used in thinning of coating materials, cleaning of coating application equipment, and other solvent cleaning operations. This rule regulates the VOC content of solvents used during construction. Solvents used during construction and operation of the proposed project must comply with SCAQMD Rule 1143.
Rule 1401 – New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants Rule 1401 specifies cancer risk limits and noncancer acute and chronic limits that may be created from new permitted sources of toxic air contaminant emissions, which includes gasoline dispensing facilities.
This rule requires the quantification of the cancer risk created by the proposed gasoline dispensing facility, which is provided in Section 7.5 of this Report
Rule 1403 – Asbestos Removal
Rule 1403 governs asbestos emissions from demolition and renovation activities. The existing structures on the project site shall be surveyed for asbestos prior to demolition activities. If asbestos is found within the existing structures, the asbestos shall be removed through utilization of the removal procedures detailed in Rule 1403.
Southern California Association of Governments
The SCAG is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial Counties and addresses regional issues relating to transportation, the economy, community development and the environment. SCAG is the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the majority of the southern California region and is the largest MPO in the nation. With respect to air quality planning, SCAG has prepared the 2024‐2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal 2024), adopted by SCAG on April 4, 2024 which is based on the regional development and growth forecasts provided in the 2023 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (2023 FTIP), adopted October 2022. However, per SB 375, SCAG and CARB are required to work together until CARB staff conclude that the calculations and quantifications provided would yield accurate estimates of GHG emission reductions. Since CARB staff continue to have significant outstanding concerns about the technical methodology utilized in the Connect SoCal 2024, the current approved RTP/SCS is the 2020‐2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal 2020), adopted September 3, 2020, which is based on the 2019 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (2019 FTIP), adopted September 2018.
Although the Connect SoCal 2020 and 2019 FTIP are primarily planning documents for future transportation projects, a key component of these plans are to integrate land use planning with transportation planning that promotes higher density infill development in close proximity to existing transit service. These plans form the basis for the land use and transportation components of the 2022 AQMP, which are utilized in the preparation of air quality forecasts and in the consistency analysis included in the 2022 AQMP. The Connect SoCal 2020, 2019 FTIP, and 2022 AQMP are based on projections originating within the City and County General Plans.
4.4 Local – City of Riverside
Local jurisdictions, such as the City of Riverside, have the authority and responsibility to reduce air pollution through its police power and decision‐making authority. Specifically, the City is responsible for the assessment and mitigation of air emissions resulting from its land use decisions. The City is also
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
responsible for the implementation of transportation control measures as outlined in the AQMPs.
Examples of such measures include bus turnouts, energy‐efficient streetlights, and synchronized traffic signals. In accordance with CEQA requirements and the CEQA review process, the City assesses the air quality impacts of new development projects, requires mitigation of potentially significant air quality impacts by conditioning discretionary permits, and monitors and enforces implementation of such mitigation.
In accordance with the CEQA requirements, the City does not, however, have the expertise to develop plans, programs, procedures, and methodologies to ensure that air quality within the City and region will meet federal and state standards. Instead, the City relies on the expertise of the SCAQMD and utilizes the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook as the guidance document for the environmental review of plans and development proposals within its jurisdiction.
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
5.0 ENERGY CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT
The regulatory setting related to energy conservation is primarily addressed through State and City regulations, which are discussed below.
5.1 State
Energy conservation management in the State was initiated by the 1974 Warren‐Alquist State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Act that created the California Energy Resource Conservation and Development Commission (currently named California Energy Commission [CEC]), which was originally tasked with certifying new electric generating plants based on the need for the plant and the suitability of the site of the plant. In 1976 the Warren‐Alquist Act was expanded to include new restrictions on nuclear generating plants, that effectively resulted in a moratorium of any new nuclear generating plants in the State. The following details specific regulations adopted by the State in order to reduce the consumption of energy.
California Code of Regulations Title 20
On November 3, 1976 the CEC adopted the Regulations for Appliance Efficiency Standards Relating to Refrigerators, Refrigerator‐Freezers and Freezers and Air Conditioners, which were the first energy‐ efficiency standards for appliances. The appliance efficiency regulations have been updated several times by the CEC and the most current version is the 2016 Appliance Efficiency Regulations, adopted January 2017 which includes almost all types of appliances and lamps that use electricity, natural gas as well as plumbing fixtures. The authority for the CEC to control the energy‐efficiency of appliances is detailed in CCR Title 20, Division 2, Chapter 4, Article 4, Sections 1601‐1609.
California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6
The CEC is also responsible for implementing the CCR Title 24, Part 6: California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24 Part 6) that were first established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. In 2008 the State set an energy‐use reduction goal of zero‐net‐energy use of all new homes by 2020 and the CEC was mandated to meet this goal through revisions to the Title 24, Part 6 regulations.
The Title 24 standards are updated on a three‐year schedule and since 2008 the standards have been incrementally moving to the 2020 goal of the zero‐net‐energy use. The 2022 Title 24 standards are the current standards that went into effect on January 1, 2023.
According to the Title 24 Part 6 Fact Sheet, the CEC estimates that over 30 years the 2022 Title 24 standards will reduce 10 MMTCO2e of GHG emissions, which is equivalent to taking nearly 2.2 million cars off the road for a year. For single‐family homes, the CEC estimates that the 2022 Title 24 changes from using natural gas furnaces to electric heat pumps to heat new homes and would reduce net CO2 emissions by 16,230 MTCO2e per year, when compared to the 2019 Title 24 standards, which is equivalent of taking 3,641 gas cars off the road each year. The 2022 Title 24 standards will: (1) Increase onsite renewable energy generation; (2) Increases electric load flexibility to support grid reliability; (3) Reduces emissions from newly constructed buildings; (4) Reduces air pollution for improved public health; and (5) Encourages adoption of environmentally beneficial efficient electric technologies.
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 11
CCR Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards (CalGreen Code) was developed in response to continued efforts to reduce GHG emissions associated with energy consumption. The CalGreen Code is also updated every three years and the current version is the 2022 CalGreen Code that went into effect on January 1, 2023.
The CalGreen Code contains requirements for construction site selection; storm water control during construction; construction waste reduction; indoor water use reduction; material selection; natural resource conservation; site irrigation conservation; and more. The code provides for design options allowing the designer to determine how best to achieve compliance for a given site or building condition.
The code also requires building commissioning, which is a process for verifying that all building systems (e.g., heating and cooling equipment and lighting systems) are functioning at their maximum efficiency.
The CalGreen Code provides standards for bicycle parking, carpool/vanpool/electric vehicle spaces, light and glare reduction, grading and paving, energy efficient appliances, renewable energy, graywater systems, water efficient plumbing fixtures, recycling and recycled materials, pollutant controls (including moisture control and indoor air quality), acoustical controls, storm water management, building design, insulation, flooring, and framing, among others. Implementation of the CalGreen Code measures reduces energy consumption and vehicle trips and encourages the use of alternative‐fuel vehicles, which reduces pollutant emissions.
Some of the notable changes in the 2022 CalGreen Code over the prior 2019 CalGreen Code for nonresidential development mandatory requirements include the repeal of designated parking spaces for clean air vehicles and an increase in the number of electric vehicle (EV) ready parking spaces. The 2022 CalGreen Code also added new requirements for installed Level 2 or direct‐current fast charger EV charging stations for autos, EV charging readiness for loading docks, enhanced thermal insulation, and acoustical ceilings.
Senate Bill 1020
Senate Bill 1020 (SB 1020) was adopted September 16, 2022 and would speed up the timeline retail electricity is supplied by renewable energy sources over the prior adoption timelines provided in SB 100, SB 350, SB 1078, SB 107, and SB X1‐2. SB 1020 requires that retail sales of electricity are from renewable energy resources and zero‐carbon resources supply 90 percent by December 31, 2035, 95 percent by December 31, 2040, and 100 percent by December 31, 2045.
Executive Order N‐79‐20
The California Governor issued Executive Order N‐79‐20 on September 23, 2020 that requires all new passenger cars and trucks and commercial drayage trucks sold in California to be zero‐emissions by the year 2035 and all medium‐ heavy‐duty vehicles (commercial trucks) sold in the state to be zero‐emission by 2045 for all operations where feasible. Executive Order N‐79‐20 also requires all off‐road vehicles and equipment to transition to 100 percent zero‐emission equipment, where feasible by 2035.
Executive Order B‐48‐18 and Assembly Bill 2127
The California Governor issued Executive Order B‐48‐18 on January 26, 2018 that orders all state entities to work with the private sector to put at least five million zero‐emission vehicles on California roads by 2030 and to install 200 hydrogen fueling stations and 250,000 electric vehicle chargers by 2025. Currently there are approximately 350,000 electric vehicles operating in California, which represents approximately
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
1.5 percent of the 24 million vehicles total currently operating in California. Implementation of Executive Order B‐48‐18 would result in approximately 20 percent of all vehicles in California to be zero emission electric vehicles. Assembly Bill 2127 (AB 2127) was codified into statute on September 13, 2018 and requires that the CEC working with CARB prepare biannual assessments of the statewide electric vehicle charging infrastructure needed to support the levels of zero emission vehicle adoption required for the State to meet its goals of putting at least 5 million zero‐emission vehicles on California roads by 2030.
Assembly Bill 1109
California Assembly Bill 1109 (AB 1109) was adopted October 2007, also known as the Lighting Efficiency and Toxics Reduction Act, prohibits the manufacturing of lights after January 1, 2010 that contain levels of hazardous substances prohibited by the European Union pursuant to the Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive. AB 1109 also requires reductions in energy usage for lighting and is structured to reduce lighting electrical consumption by: (1) At least 50 percent reduction from 2007 levels for indoor residential lighting; and (2) At least 25 percent reduction from 2007 levels for indoor commercial and all outdoor lighting by 2018. AB 1109 would reduce GHG emissions through reducing the amount of electricity required to be generated by fossil fuels in California.
Assembly Bill 1493
California Assembly Bill 1493 (also known as the Pavley Bill, in reference to its author Fran Pavley) was enacted on July 22, 2002 and required CARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. In 2004, CARB approved the “Pavley I” regulations limiting the amount of GHGs that may be released from new passenger automobiles that are being phased in between model years 2009 through 2016. These regulations will reduce GHG emissions by 30 percent from 2002 levels by 2016. In June 2009, the EPA granted California the authority to implement GHG emission reduction standards for light duty vehicles, in September 2009, amendments to the Pavley I regulations were adopted by CARB and implementation of the “Pavley I” regulations started in 2009.
The second set of regulations “Pavley II” was developed in 2010, and is being phased in between model years 2017 through 2025 with the goal of reducing GHG emissions by 45 percent by the year 2020 as compared to the 2002 fleet. The Pavley II standards were developed by linking the GHG emissions and formerly separate toxic tailpipe emissions standards previously known as the “LEV III” (third stage of the Low Emission Vehicle standards) into a single regulatory framework. The new rules reduce emissions from gasoline‐powered cars as well as promote zero‐emissions auto technologies such as electricity and hydrogen, and through increasing the infrastructure for fueling hydrogen vehicles. In 2009, the U.S. EPA granted California the authority to implement the GHG standards for passenger cars, pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles and these GHG emissions standards are currently being implemented nationwide.
The EPA has performed a midterm evaluation of the longer‐term standards for model years 2022‐2025, and based on the findings of this midterm evaluation, the EPA proposed The Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Proposed Rule for Model Years 2021‐2026 that amends the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) and GHG emissions standards for light vehicles for model years 2021 through 2026. The SAFE Vehicles Rule was published on April 30, 2020 and made effective on June 29, 2020.
5.2 Local – City of Riverside
The City of Riverside General Plan 2025, adopted November 2007, provides the following energy related objectives and policies from the Air Quality Element and the Open Space and Conservation Element.
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
Objective AQ‐5 Increase energy efficiency and conservation in an effort to reduce air pollution.
Policies
AQ‐5.1 Utilize source reduction, recycling and other appropriate measures to reduce the amount of solid waste disposed in landfills.
AQ‐5.2 Develop incentives and/or regulations regarding energy conservation requirements for private and public developments.
AQ‐5.3 Continue and expand use of renewable energy resources such as wind, solar, water, landfill gas, geothermal sources.
AQ‐5.4 Continue and expand the creation of locally‐based solar photovoltaic power stations in Riverside.
AQ‐5.5 Continue and expand Riverside Public Utilities programs to promote energy efficiency.
AQ‐5.6 Support the use of automated equipment for conditioned facilities to control heating and air conditioning.
AQ‐5.7 Require residential building construction to meet or exceed energy use guidelines in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code.
Objective AQ‐8 Make sustainability and global warming education a priority for the City’s effort to protect public health and achieve state and federal clean air standards.
Policies
AQ‐8.5 Adopt and implement a policy to increase the use of renewable energy to meet 33% of the City’s electric load by 2020.
AQ‐8.6: Promote Riverside as a Solar City through the implementation of programs for residential and commercial customers that will increase solar generation in the City to 1 MW by 2015 (enough for 1,000 homes) and 3 MW by 2020.
AQ‐8.7 Generate at least 10 MW (enough for 10,000 homes) of electric load from regional zero emissions sources by 2025.
AQ‐8.8 Reduce the City’s per capita base load energy consumption by 10% through energy efficiency and conservation programs by 2016.
AQ‐8.9 Implement programs to encourage load shifting to off peak hours and explore demand response solutions by end of 2008.
Objective OS‐8 Encourage the efficient use of energy resources by residential and commercial users.
Policies
OS‐8.1 Support the development and use of non‐polluting, renewable energy sources.
OS‐8.2: Require incorporation of energy conservation features in the design of all new construction and substantial rehabilitation projects pursuant to Title 24, and encourage the installation of conservation devices in existing developments.
OS‐8.3 Encourage private energy conservation programs that minimize high energy demand and that use alternative energy sources.
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
OS‐8.4 Incorporate solar considerations into development regulation that allow existing and proposed buildings to use solar facilities.
OS‐8.5 Develop landscaping guidelines that support the use of vegetation for shading and wind reduction and otherwise help reduce energy consumption in new development for compatibility with renewable energy sources (i.e., solar pools).
OS‐8.6 Require all new developments to incorporate energy‐efficient lighting, heating and cooling systems pursuant to the Uniform Building Code and Title 24.
OS‐8.7 Encourage mixed use development as a means of reducing the need for auto travel.
OS‐8.8 Encourage the use of clean burning fuels and solar energy for space and water heating purposes and explore ways to participate in California New Solar Homes Partnerships.
OS‐8.9 Encourage construction and subdivision design that allows the use of solar energy systems.
OS‐8.10 Support the use of public transportation, bicycling and other alternative transportation modes in order to reduce the consumption of non‐renewable energy supplies.
OS‐8.11 Support public education programs for City residents and businesses to provide information on energy conservation and on alternative transportation modes in order to reduce the consumption of non‐renewable energy supplies.
OS‐8.12 Require bicycle parking in new non‐residential development.
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
6.0 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE MANAGEMENT
The regulatory setting related to global climate change is addressed through the efforts of various international, federal, state, regional, and local government agencies. These agencies work jointly, as well as individually, to reduce GHG emissions through legislation, regulations, planning, policy‐making, education, and a variety of programs. The agencies responsible for global climate change regulations are discussed below.
6.1 International
In 1988, the United Nations established the IPCC to evaluate the impacts of global climate change and to develop strategies that nations could implement to curtail global climate change. In 1992, the United States joined other countries around the world in signing the United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) agreement with the goal of controlling GHG emissions. The parties of the UNFCCC adopted the Kyoto Protocol, which set binding GHG reduction targets for 37 industrialized countries, the objective of reducing their collective GHG emissions by five percent below 1990 levels by 2012. The Kyoto Protocol has been ratified by 182 countries, but has not been ratified by the United States. It should be noted that Japan and Canada opted out of the Kyoto Protocol and the remaining developed countries that ratified the Kyoto Protocol have not met their Kyoto targets. The Kyoto Protocol expired in 2012 and the amendment for the second commitment period from 2013 to 2020 has not yet entered into legal force. The Parties to the Kyoto Protocol negotiated the Paris Agreement in December 2015, agreeing to set a goal of limiting global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius compared with pre‐ industrial levels. The Paris Agreement has been adopted by 195 nations with 147 ratifying it, including the United States by President Obama, who ratified it by Executive Order on September 3, 2016. On June 1, 2017, President Trump announced that the United States is withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and on January 21, 2021 President Biden signed an executive order rejoining the Paris Agreement.
Additionally, the Montreal Protocol was originally signed in 1987 and substantially amended in 1990 and 1992. The Montreal Protocol stipulates that the production and consumption of compounds that deplete ozone in the stratosphere—CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform—were to be phased out, with the first three by the year 2000 and methyl chloroform by 2005.
6.2 Federal – United States Environmental Protection Agency The EPA is responsible for implementing federal policy to address global climate change. The Federal government administers a wide array of public‐private partnerships to reduce U.S. GHG intensity. These programs focus on energy efficiency, renewable energy, methane, and other non‐CO2 gases, agricultural practices and implementation of technologies to achieve GHG reductions. EPA implements several voluntary programs that substantially contribute to the reduction of GHG emissions.
In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (Docket No. 05–1120), argued November 29, 2006 and decided April 2, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court held that not only did the EPA have authority to regulate GHGs, but the EPA's reasons for not regulating this area did not fit the statutory requirements.
As such, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA should be required to regulate CO2 and other GHGs as pollutants under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA).
In response to the Consolidations Appropriations Act, 2008 (H.R. 2764; Public Law 110‐161), EPA proposed a rule on March 10, 2009 that requires mandatory reporting of GHG emissions from large sources in the
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
United States. On September 22, 2009, the Final Mandatory Reporting of GHG Rule was signed and published in the Federal Register on October 30, 2009. The rule became effective on December 29, 2009.
This rule requires suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial GHGs, manufacturers of vehicles and engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year of GHG emissions to submit annual reports to the EPA.
On December 7, 2009, the EPA Administrator signed two distinct findings under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. One is an endangerment finding that finds concentrations of the six GHGs in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. The other is a cause or contribute finding, that finds emissions from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the GHG pollution which threatens public health and welfare. These actions did not impose any requirements on industry or other entities, however, since 2009 the EPA has been providing GHG emission standards for vehicles and other stationary sources of GHG emissions that are regulated by the EPA. On September 13, 2013 the EPA Administrator signed 40 CFR Part 60, that limits emissions from new sources to 1,100 pounds of CO2 per mega‐watt hour (MWh) for fossil fuel‐fired utility boilers and 1,000 pounds of CO2 per MWh for large natural gas‐fired combustion units.
On August 3, 2015, the EPA announced the Clean Power Plan, emissions guidelines for U.S. states to follow in developing plans to reduce GHG emissions from existing fossil fuel‐fired power plants (Federal Register Vol. 80, No. 205, October 23 2015). On October 11, 2017, the EPA issued a formal proposal to repeal the Clean Power Plan and on June 19, 2019 the EPA replaced the Clean Power Plan with the Affordable Clean Energy rule that is anticipated to lower power sector GHG emissions by 11 million tons by the year 2030.
On April 30, 2020, the EPA and the National Highway Safety Administration published the Final Rule for the Safer Affordable Fuel‐Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021‐2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks (SAFE Vehicles Rule). Part One of the Rule revokes California’s authority to set its own GHG emissions standards and zero‐emission vehicle mandates in California, which results in one emission standard to be used nationally for all passenger cars and light trucks that is set by the EPA.
6.3 State
The CARB has the primary responsible for implementing state policy to address global climate change, however there are State regulations related to global climate change that affect a variety of State agencies. CARB, which is a part of the CalEPA, is responsible for the coordination and administration of both the federal and state air pollution control programs within California. In this capacity, the CARB conducts research, sets CAAQS, compiles emission inventories, develops suggested control measures, provides oversight of local programs, and prepares the SIP. In addition, the CARB establishes emission standards for motor vehicles sold in California, consumer products (e.g. hairspray, aerosol paints, and barbeque lighter fluid), and various types of commercial equipment. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions.
In 2008, CARB approved a Climate Change Scoping Plan that proposes a “comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall carbon GHG emissions in California, improve our environment, reduce our dependence on oil, diversify our energy sources, save energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health” (CARB 2008). The Climate Change Scoping Plan has a range of GHG reduction actions which include direct regulations; alternative compliance mechanisms; monetary and non‐monetary incentives; voluntary actions; market‐based mechanisms such as a cap‐and‐trade system. In 2014, CARB approved the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan (CARB, 2014) that identifies additional strategies moving
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
beyond the 2020 targets to the year 2050. On December 14, 2017 CARB adopted the California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, November 2017 (CARB, 2017) that provides specific statewide policies and measures to achieve the 2030 GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and the aspirational 2050 GHG reduction target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. In addition, the State has passed the following laws directing CARB to develop actions to reduce GHG emissions, which are listed below in chronological order, with the most current first.
Executive Order B‐55‐18 and Assembly Bill 1279
The California Governor issued Executive Order B‐55‐18 in September 2018 that establishes a new statewide goal to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, but no later than 2045. This executive order directs the CARB to work with relevant State agencies to develop a framework for implementation and accounting that tracks progress toward this goal as well as ensuring future scoping plans identify and recommend measures to achieve this carbon neutrality goal. Assembly Bill 1279 was passed by the legislature in September 2022 that codifies the carbon neutrality targets provided in Executive Order B‐ 55‐18. The 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, adopted by CARB on December 16, 2022, was prepared in order to meet the carbon neutrality goal targets developed in Executive Order B‐55‐18 and codified in Assembly Bill 1279.
Executive Order N‐79‐20
Executive Order N‐79‐20 establish targets for when all new vehicles and equipment are zero‐emission and is described in more detail above in Section 5.1 under Energy Conservation Management.
California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6
The Title 24 Part 6 standards have been developed by the CEC primarily for energy conservation and is described in more detail above in Section 5.1 under Energy Conservation Management. It should be noted that implementation of the Title 24 Part 6 building standards would also reduce GHG emissions, since energy use for residential and commercial buildings creates 9.7 percent of the GHG emissions in the State.
California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11
The CalGreen Building standards have been developed by the CEC primarily for energy conservation and is described in more detail above in Section 5.1 under Energy Conservation Management. It should be noted that implementation of the CalGreen Building standards would also reduce GHG emissions, since as detailed above under Title 23, Part 6, energy usage from buildings creates 9.7 percent of GHG emissions in the State.
Senate Bill 1020
SB 1020 requires that by December 1, 2045 that 100 percent of retail sales of electricity to be generated from renewable or zero‐carbon emission sources of electricity and is described in more detail above in Section 5.1 under Energy Conservation Management.
Executive Order B‐55‐18 and Assembly Bill 1279
The California Governor issued Executive Order B‐55‐18 in September 2018 that establishes a new statewide goal to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, but no later than 2045. This executive order directs CARB to work with relevant State agencies to develop a framework for implementation and accounting that tracks progress toward this goal as well as ensuring future scoping plans identify and recommend measures to achieve this carbon neutrality goal. Assembly Bill 1279 was passed by the
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
legislature in September 2022 that codifies the carbon neutrality targets provided in Executive Order B‐ 55‐18. The 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, adopted by CARB on December 16, 2022, was prepared in order to meet the carbon neutrality goal targets developed in Executive Order B‐55‐18 and codified in Assembly Bill 1279.
Executive Order N‐79‐20
EO N‐79‐20 establish targets for when all new vehicles and equipment are zero‐emission and is described in more detail above in Section 5.1 under Energy Conservation Management.
Executive Order B‐48‐18 and Assembly Bill 2127
Executive Order B‐48‐18 and AB 2127 provides measures to put at least five million zero‐emission vehicles on California roads by 2030 and to install 200 hydrogen fueling stations and 250,000 electric vehicle chargers by 2025 and is described in more detail above in Section 5.1 under Energy Conservation Management.
Executive Order B‐30‐15, Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197 The California Governor issued Executive Order B‐30‐15 on April 29, 2015 that aims to reduce California’s GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. This executive order aligns California’s GHG reduction targets with those of other international governments, such as the European Union that set the same target for 2030 in October, 2014. This target will make it possible to reach the ultimate goal of reducing GHG emissions 80 percent under 1990 levels by 2050 that is based on scientifically established levels needed in the U.S.A to limit global warming below 2 degrees Celsius – the warming threshold at which scientists say there will likely be major climate disruptions such as super droughts and rising sea levels. Assembly Bill 197 (AB 197) (September 8, 2016) and Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) (September 8, 2016) codified into statute the GHG emissions reduction targets of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 as detailed in Executive Order B‐30‐15. AB 197 also requires additional GHG emissions reporting that is broken down to sub‐county levels and requires CARB to consider the social costs of emissions impacting disadvantaged communities.
Executive Order B‐29‐15
The California Governor issued Executive Order B‐29‐15 on April 1, 2015 and directed the State Water Resources Control Board to impose restrictions to achieve a statewide 25 percent reduction in urban water usage and directed the Department of Water Resources to replace 50 million square feet of lawn with drought tolerant landscaping through an update to the State’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The Ordinance also requires installation of more efficient irrigation systems, promotion of greywater usage and onsite stormwater capture, and limits the turf planted in new residential landscapes to 25 percent of the total area and restricts turf from being planted in median strips or in parkways unless the parkway is next to a parking strip and a flat surface is required to enter and exit vehicles. Executive Order B‐29‐15 would reduce GHG emissions associated with the energy used to transport and filter water.
Assembly Bill 341 and Senate Bills 939 and 1374
Senate Bill 939 (SB 939) requires that each jurisdiction in California to divert at least 50 percent of its waste away from landfills, whether through waste reduction, recycling or other means. Senate Bill 1374 (SB 1374) requires the California Integrated Waste Management Board to adopt a model ordinance by March 1, 2004 suitable for adoption by any local agency to require 50 to 75 percent diversion of construction and demolition of waste materials from landfills. Assembly Bill 341 (AB 341) was adopted in
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
2011 and builds upon the waste reduction measures of SB 939 and 1374, and sets a new target of a 75 percent reduction in solid waste generated by the year 2020.
Senate Bill 375
Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) was adopted September 2008 in order to support the State’s climate action goals to reduce GHG emissions through coordinated regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG emission reduction targets, and land use and housing allocation. SB 375 requires CARB to set regional targets for GHG emissions reductions from passenger vehicle use. In 2010, CARB established targets for 2020 and 2035 for each MPO within the State. It was up to each MPO to adopt a sustainable communities strategy (SCS) that will prescribe land use allocation in that MPOs Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) to meet CARB’s 2020 and 2035 GHG emission reduction targets. These reduction targets are required to be updated every eight years and the most current targets are detailed at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our‐ work/programs/sustainable‐communities‐program/regional‐plan‐targets, which provides GHG emissions reduction targets for SCAG of 8 percent by 2020 and 19 percent by 2035.
The Connect SoCal 2020 (SCAG, 2020) provides a 2035 GHG emission reduction target of 19 percent reduction over the 2005 per capita emissions levels. The Connect SoCal 2020 include new initiatives of land use, transportation and technology to meet the 2035 new 19 percent GHG emission reduction target for 2035. CARB is also charged with reviewing SCAG’s RTP/SCS for consistency with its assigned targets.
City and County land use policies, including General Plans, are not required to be consistent with the RTP and associated SCS. However, new provisions of CEQA incentivize, through streamlining and other provisions, qualified projects that are consistent with an approved SCS and categorized as “transit priority projects.”
Assembly Bill 1109
AB 1109 requires reductions in energy usage for lighting and is described in more detail above in Section
5.1 under Energy Conservation Management.
Executive Order S‐1‐07
Executive Order S‐1‐07 was issued in 2007 and proclaims that the transportation sector is the main source of GHG emissions in the State, since it generates more than 40 percent of the State’s GHG emissions. It establishes a goal to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels sold in the State by at least ten percent by 2020. This Executive Order also directs CARB to determine whether this Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) could be adopted as a discrete early‐action measure as part of the effort to meet the mandates in AB 32.
In 2009 CARB approved the proposed regulation to implement the LCFS. The standard was challenged in the courts, but has been in effect since 2011 and was re‐approved by the CARB in 2015. The LCFS is anticipated to reduce GHG emissions by about 16 MMT per year by 2020. The LCFS is designed to provide a framework that uses market mechanisms to spur the steady introduction of lower carbon fuels. The framework establishes performance standards that fuel producers and importers must meet annually.
Reformulated gasoline mixed with corn‐derived ethanol and low‐sulfur diesel fuel represent the baseline fuels. Lower carbon fuels may be ethanol, biodiesel, renewable diesel, or blends of these fuels with gasoline or diesel. Compressed natural gas and liquefied natural gas also may be low‐carbon fuels.
Hydrogen and electricity, when used in fuel cells or electric vehicles, are also considered as low‐carbon fuels.
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
Senate Bill 97
Senate Bill 97 (SB 97) was adopted August 2007 and acknowledges that climate change is a prominent environmental issue that requires analysis under CEQA. SB 97 directed the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), which is part of the State Natural Resources Agency, to prepare, develop, and transmit to CARB guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions, as required by CEQA, by July 1, 2009. The Natural Resources Agency was required to certify and adopt those guidelines by January 1, 2010.
Pursuant to the requirements of SB 97 as stated above, on December 30, 2009 the Natural Resources Agency adopted amendments to the State CEQA guidelines that addresses GHG emissions. The CEQA Guidelines Amendments changed 14 sections of the CEQA Guidelines and incorporated GHG language throughout the Guidelines. However, no GHG emissions thresholds of significance were provided and no specific mitigation measures were identified. The GHG emission reduction amendments went into effect on March 18, 2010 and are summarized below:
Climate Action Plans and other greenhouse gas reduction plans can be used to determine whether a project has significant impacts, based upon its compliance with the plan. Local governments are encouraged to quantify the GHG emissions of proposed projects, noting that they have the freedom to select the models and methodologies that best meet their needs and circumstances. The section also recommends consideration of several qualitative factors that may be used in the determination of significance, such as the extent to which the given project complies with state, regional, or local GHG reduction plans and policies. OPR does not set or dictate specific thresholds of significance. Consistent with existing CEQA Guidelines, OPR encourages local governments to develop and publish their own thresholds of significance for GHG impacts assessment.
When creating their own thresholds of significance, local governments may consider the thresholds of significance adopted or recommended by other public agencies, or recommended by experts.
New amendments include guidelines for determining methods to mitigate the effects of GHG emissions in Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines.
OPR is clear to state that “to qualify as mitigation, specific measures from an existing plan must be identified and incorporated into the project; general compliance with a plan, by itself, is not mitigation.”
OPR’s emphasizes the advantages of analyzing GHG impacts on an institutional, programmatic level. OPR therefore approves tiering of environmental analyses and highlights some benefits of such an approach.
Environmental impact reports must specifically consider a project's energy use and energy efficiency potential.
Assembly Bill 32
In 2006, the California State Legislature adopted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires CARB, to adopt rules and regulations that would achieve GHG emissions equivalent to statewide levels in 1990 by 2020 through an enforceable statewide emission cap which will be phased in starting in 2012. Emission reductions shall include carbon sequestration projects that would remove
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
carbon from the atmosphere and utilize best management practices that are technologically feasible and cost effective.
In 2007 CARB released the calculated Year 1990 GHG emissions of 431 MMTCO2e. The 2020 target of 431 MMTCO2e requires the reduction of 78 MMTCO2e, or approximately 16 percent from the State’s projected 2020 business as usual emissions of 509 MMTCO2e (CARB, 2014). Under AB 32, CARB was required to adopt regulations by January 1, 2011 to achieve reductions in GHGs to meet the 1990 cap by 2020. Early measures CARB took to lower GHG emissions included requiring operators of the largest industrial facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons of CO2 in a calendar year to submit verification of GHG emissions by December 1, 2010. The CARB Board also approved nine discrete early action measures that include regulations affecting landfills, motor vehicle fuels, refrigerants in cars, port operations and other sources, all of which became enforceable on or before January 1, 2010.
CARB’s Scoping Plan that was adopted in 2009, proposes a variety of measures including: strengthening energy efficiency and building standards; targeted fees on water and energy use; a market‐based cap‐ and‐trade system; achieving a 33 percent renewable energy mix; and a fee regulation to fund the program.
The 2014 update to the Scoping Plan identifies strategies moving beyond the 2020 targets to the year 2050.
The Cap and Trade Program established under the Scoping Plan sets a statewide limit on sources responsible for 85 percent of California’s GHG emissions, and has established a market for long‐term investment in energy efficiency and cleaner fuels since 2012.
Assembly Bill 1493
AB 1493 or the Pavley Bill sets tailpipe GHG emissions limits for passenger vehicles in California as well as fuel economy standards and is described in more detail above in Section 5.1 under Energy Conservation Management.
6.4 Regional – Southern California
The SCAQMD is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the Air Basin.
To that end, as a regional agency, the SCAQMD works directly with SCAG, county transportation commissions, and local governments and cooperates actively with all federal and state agencies.
South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCAQMD develops rules and regulations, establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources, inspects emission sources, and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines, when necessary. SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary, mobile, and indirect sources. The SCAQMD is also responsible for GHG emissions for projects where it is the lead agency.
However, for other projects in the Air Basin where it is not the lead agency, it is limited to providing resources to other lead agencies in order to assist them in determining GHG emission thresholds and GHG reduction measures. In order to assist local agencies with direction on GHG emissions, the SCAQMD organized a working group, which is described below.
SCAQMD Working Group
Since neither CARB nor the OPR has developed GHG emissions threshold, the SCAQMD formed a Working Group to develop significance thresholds related to GHG emissions. At the September 28, 2010 Working
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
Group meeting, the SCAQMD released its most current version of the draft GHG emissions thresholds, which recommends a tiered approach that either provides a quantitative annual thresholds of 3,500 MTCO2e for residential uses, 1,400 MTCO2e for commercial uses, and 3,000 MTCO2e for mixed uses. An alternative annual threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e for all land use types is also proposed.
Southern California Association of Governments
As detailed above in Section 4.3, the current applicable RTP/SCS for the project area region is the Connect SoCal 2020 and 2019 FTIP, which have been prepared to meet the GHG emissions reduction targets set by SB 375 for the SCAG region of 19 percent reduction over the 2005 per capita emissions levels. The Connect SoCal 2020 includes new land use, transportation, and technology strategies to meet the new 19 percent GHG emission reduction target for 2035.
Although the Connect SoCal 2020 and 2019 FTIP are primarily planning documents for future transportation projects, a key component of these plans are to integrate land use planning with transportation planning that promotes higher density infill development in close proximity to existing transit service. These plans form the basis for the land use and transportation components of the 2022 AQMP, which are utilized in the preparation of air quality forecasts and in the consistency analysis included in the 2022 AQMP. The Connect SoCal 2020, 2019 FTIP, and 2022 AQMP are based on projections originating within the City and County General Plans.
6.5 Local – City of Riverside
Local jurisdictions, such as the City of Riverside, have the authority and responsibility to reduce GHG emissions through their police power and decision‐making authority. Specifically, the City is responsible for the assessment and mitigation of GHG emissions resulting from its land use decisions. In accordance with CEQA requirements and the CEQA review process, the City assesses the global climate change potential of new development projects, requires mitigation of potentially significant global climate change impacts by conditioning discretionary permits, and monitors and enforces implementation of such mitigation.
The City of Riverside has adopted the Riverside Restorative Growthprint Climate Action Plan (Climate Action Plan), October 2014. The Climate Action Plan sets out actions to increase energy efficiency and reduce GHG emissions. Since the Climate Action Plan does not provide any quantitative GHG emissions thresholds for new development projects within the City, the SCAQMD GHG emissions reduction thresholds have been utilized in this analysis.
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
7.0 ATMOSPHERIC SETTING
7.1 South Coast Air Basin
The project site is located in the western portion of Riverside County, which is part of the South Coast Air Basin (Air Basin) that includes the non‐desert portions of Riverside, San Bernardino, and Los Angeles Counties and all of Orange County. The Air Basin is located on a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills to the east. Regionally, the Air Basin is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the southwest and high mountains to the east forming the inland perimeter.
7.2 Local Climate
The climate of western Riverside County, technically called an interior valley subclimate of the Southern California’s Mediterranean‐type climate, is characterized by hot dry summers, mild moist winters with infrequent rainfall, moderate afternoon breezes, and generally fair weather. Occasional periods of strong Santa Ana winds and winter storms interrupt the otherwise mild weather pattern. The clouds and fog that form along the area’s coastline rarely extend as far inland as western Riverside County. When morning clouds and fog form, they typically burn off quickly after sunrise. The most important weather pattern from an air quality perspective is associated with the warm season airflow across the densely populated areas located west of the project site. This airflow brings polluted air into western Riverside County late in the afternoon. This transport pattern creates unhealthful air quality that may extend to the project site particularly during the summer months.
Winds are an important parameter in characterizing the air quality environment of a project site because they both determine the regional pattern of air pollution transport and control the rate of dispersion near a source. Daytime winds in western Riverside County are usually light breezes from off the coast as air moves regionally onshore from the cool Pacific Ocean to the warm Mojave Desert interior of Southern California. These winds allow for good local mixing, but as discussed above, these coastal winds carry significant amounts of industrial and automobile air pollutants from the densely urbanized western portion of the Air Basin into the interior valleys which become trapped by the mountains that border the eastern and northern edges of the Air Basin.
In the summer, strong temperature inversions may occur that limit the vertical depth through which air pollution can be dispersed. Air pollutants concentrate because they cannot rise through the inversion layer and disperse. These inversions are more common and persistent during the summer months. Over time, sunlight produces photochemical reactions within this inversion layer that creates ozone, a particularly harmful air pollutant. Occasionally, strong thermal convections occur which allows the air pollutants to rise high enough to pass over the mountains and ultimately dilute the smog cloud.
In the winter, light nocturnal winds result mainly from the drainage of cool air off of the mountains toward the valley floor while the air aloft over the valley remains warm. This forms a type of inversion known as a radiation inversion. Such winds are characterized by stagnation and poor local mixing and trap pollutants such as automobile exhaust near their source. While these inversions may lead to air pollution “hot spots” in heavily developed coastal areas of the Air Basin, there is not enough traffic in inland valleys to cause any winter air pollution problems. Despite light wind conditions, especially at night and in the early morning, winter is generally a period of good air quality in the project vicinity.
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
The temperature and precipitation levels for Riverside Citrus EXP Monitoring Station, which is the nearest weather station to the project site with historical data are shown below in Table E. Table E shows that August is typically the warmest month and January is typically the coolest month. Rainfall in the project area varies considerably in both time and space. Almost all the annual rainfall comes from the fringes of mid‐latitude storms from late November to early April, with summers being almost completely dry.
Table E – Monthly Climate Data
Month
Average Maximum
Temperature (°F)
Average Minimum
Temperature (°F)
Average Total Precipitation
(inches)
January 66.6 41.7 2.12
February 67.9 43.3 2.16
March 70.3 45.0 1.64
April 75.1 47.9 0.78
May 79.6 52.7 0.23
June 86.5 56.3 0.06
July 94.0 60.8 0.04
August 94.4 61.3 0.11
September 90.7 58.5 0.24
October 82.5 52.5 0.32
November 73.5 45.5 0.92
December 67.5 41.3 1.22
Annual 79.0 50.5 9.86
Source: https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi‐bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca7473
7.3 Monitored Local Air Quality
The air quality at any site is dependent on the regional air quality and local pollutant sources. Regional air quality is determined by the release of pollutants throughout the Air Basin. Improvements in cleaner technology and strict regulations have reduced ozone levels since its peak in the mid‐twentieth century.
However, ozone levels have remained unacceptably high over the past decade despite significant reductions. This trend is due to the changes in climate and other weather conditions such as the increase in hot, stagnant days that can lead to the formation of ozone that we have experienced in recent years. (SCAQMD, 2022).
SCAQMD has divided the Air Basin into 38 air‐monitoring areas. The project site is located in Air Monitoring Area 23, Metropolitan Riverside County. The nearest air monitoring station to the project site is the Mira Loma Van Buren Monitoring Station (Mira Loma Station), which is located approximately six miles north of the project site at 5130 Poinsettia Place, Jurupa Valley. However, it should be noted that due to the air monitoring station’s distance from the project site, recorded air pollution levels at the Mira Loma Station reflect with varying degrees of accuracy, local air quality conditions at the project site. Table F shows that ozone and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) are the air pollutants of primary concern in the project area, which are detailed below:
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
Table F – Local Area Air Quality Monitoring Summary
Pollutant (Standard)
Year1
2020 2021 2022
Ozone:
Maximum 1‐Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.140 0.116 0.120 Days > CAAQS (0.09 ppm) 51 20 19
Maximum 8‐Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.117 0.094 0.094 Days > NAAQS (0.070 ppm) 89 53 57
Days > CAAQs (0.070 ppm) 96 59 58
Nitrogen Dioxide:
Maximum 1‐Hour Concentration (ppb) 58.1 53.3 47.4
Days > NAAQS (100 ppb) 0 0 0
Days > CAAQS (180 ppb) 0 0 0
Inhalable Particulates (PM10) :
Maximum 24‐Hour National Measurement (ug/m3) 162.5 98.7 81.6 Days > NAAQS (150 ug/m3) 1 0 0
Days > CAAQS (50 ug/m3) 16 15 11
Annual Arithmetic Mean (AAM) (ug/m3) 52.2 40.8 37.3
Annual > NAAQS (50 ug/m3) Yes No No
Annual > CAAQS (20 ug/m3) Yes Yes Yes
Ultra‐Fine Particulates (PM2.5) :
Maximum 24‐Hour National Measurement (ug/m3) 60.9 85.1 32.1 Days > NAAQS (35 ug/m3) 13 14 0
Annual Arithmetic Mean (AAM) (ug/m3) 15.7 15.8 12.4
Annual > NAAQS and CAAQS (12 ug/m3) Yes Yes Yes
Notes: Exceedances are listed in bold. CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standard; NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standard; ppm = parts per million; ppb = parts per billion; ND = no data available. 1 Data obtained from the Mira Loma Station.
Source: http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/
Ozone
The State 1‐hour concentration standard for ozone has been exceeded between 19 and 51 days each year over the past three years at the Mira Loma Station. The State 8‐hour ozone standard has been exceeded between 58 and 96 days each year over the past three years at the Mira Loma Station. The Federal 8‐ hour ozone standard has been exceeded between 53 and 89 days each year over the past three years at the Mira Loma Station.
Ozone is a secondary pollutant as it is not directly emitted. Ozone is the result of chemical reactions between other pollutants, most importantly hydrocarbons and NO2, which occur only in the presence of bright sunlight. Pollutants emitted from upwind cities react during transport downwind to produce the oxidant concentrations experienced in the area. Many areas of Southern California contribute to the
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
ozone levels experienced at this monitoring station, with the more significant areas being those directly upwind.
Nitrogen Dioxide
The Mira Loma Station did not record an exceedance of either the Federal or State 1‐hour NO2 standards for the last three years.
Particulate Matter
The State 24‐hour concentration standard for PM10 has been exceeded between 11 and 16 days each year over the past three years at the Mira Loma Station. Over the past three years the Federal 24‐hour standard for PM10 has only been exceeded for one day in 2020 at the Mira Loma Station. The annual PM10 concentration at the Mira Loma Station has exceeded the State standard for the past three years and has exceeded the Federal standard for one of the past three years.
The Federal 24‐hour concentration standard for PM2.5 has been exceeded between 0 and 13 days each year over the past three years at the Mira Loma Station. The annual PM2.5 concentration exceeded both the State and Federal standard for two of the past three years at the Loma Linda Station. Particulate levels in the area are due to natural sources, grading operations, and motor vehicles.
According to the EPA, some people are much more sensitive than others to breathing fine particles (PM10 and PM2.5). People with influenza, chronic respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and the elderly may suffer worsening illness and premature death due to breathing these fine particles. People with bronchitis can expect aggravated symptoms from breathing in fine particles. Children may experience decline in lung function due to breathing in PM10 and PM2.5. Other groups considered sensitive are smokers and people who cannot breathe well through their noses. Exercising athletes are also considered sensitive, because many breathe through their mouths during exercise.
7.4 Toxic Air Contaminant Levels
In order to determine the Air Basin‐wide risks associated with major airborne carcinogens, the SCAQMD conducted the Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES) studies. According to the MATES V study (SCAQMD, 2021), the project site has an estimated cancer risk of 407 per million persons chance of cancer.
In comparison, the average cancer risk for the Air Basin is 455 per million persons. The MATES V study monitored air toxins between May 1, 2018 to April 30, 2019, found that cancer risk from air toxics has declined significantly in the Air Basin with a 40 percent decrease in cancer risk since the monitoring for the MATES IV study that occurred between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013 and an 84 percent decrease in cancer risk since the monitoring for the MATES II study that occurred between April 1, 1998 and March 31, 1999.
The MATES V study also analyzed impacts specific to the communities experiencing environmental injustices (EJ communities) that were evaluated using the Senate Bill 535 definition of disadvantaged communities, which found that between MATES IV and MATES V, the cancer risk from air toxics decreased by 57 percent in EJ communities overall, compared to a 53 percent reduction in non‐EJ communities.
In order to provide a perspective of risk, it is often estimated that the incidence in cancer over a lifetime for the U.S. population ranges between 1 in 3 to 4 and 1 in 3, or a risk of about 300,000 per million persons.
The MATES‐III study referenced a Harvard Report on Cancer Prevention, which estimated that of cancers associated with known risk factors, about 30 percent were related to tobacco, about 30 percent were
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
related to diet and obesity, and about 2 percent were associated with environmental pollution related exposures that includes hazardous air pollutants.
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
8.0 MODELING PARAMETERS AND ASSUMPTIONS
8.1 CalEEMod Model Input Parameters
The criteria air pollution and GHG emissions impacts created by the proposed project have been analyzed through use of the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2022.1.1.26 CalEEMod is a computer model published by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) for estimating air pollutant and GHG emissions. The CalEEMod program uses the EMFAC2021 computer program to calculate the emission rates specific for the South Coast Air Basin portion of Riverside County for employee, vendor and haul truck vehicle trips and the OFFROAD2011 computer program to calculate emission rates for heavy equipment operations. EMFAC2021 and OFFROAD2011 are computer programs generated by CARB that calculates composite emission rates for vehicles. Emission rates are reported by the program in grams per trip and grams per mile or grams per running hour.
The project characteristics in the CalEEMod model were set to a project location of the South Coast Air Basin portion of Riverside County, utility companies of Riverside Public Utilities and Southern California Gas (with 2026 forecast factors) and a project opening year of 2026.
Land Use Parameters
The proposed project would consist of development of a 3,048 square foot 7‐Eleven convenience store with a 12 vehicle fuel position gas station a 0.86 acre project site. The proposed project’s land use parameters that were entered into the CalEEMod model are shown in Table G.
Table G – CalEEMod Land Use Parameters
Proposed Land Use
Land Use Subtype in
CalEEMod
Land Use
Size1
Lot
Acreage2
Building3
(sq ft)
Landscaped
Area4 (sq ft)
7‐Eleven Convenience Market with
Gas Pumps
6 Pump
(12 VFP) 0.26 3,048 1,124
Parking Lots and Driveways Parking Lot 24 PS 0.60 ‐‐ 2,622 Notes:
1 VFP = Vehicle Fuel Position; PS = Parking Space.
2 Lot acreage calculated based on the total project site of 0.86 acres. 3 Building square feet represent area where architectural coatings will be applied 4 Landscaped area based on 10 percent of lot acreage for each land use.
Construction Parameters
Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to start in Summer 2025 and taking six months to complete, which is based on the CalEEMod model default timing. The construction‐related GHG emissions were based on a 30‐year amortization rate as recommended in the SCAQMD GHG Working Group meeting on November 19, 2009. The phases of construction activities that have been analyzed are detailed below and include: 1) Demolition, 2) Site Preparation, 3) Grading, 4) Building construction, 5) Paving, and 6) Application of architectural coatings.
CalEEMod provides the selection of reduction measures to account for project conditions that would result in less emissions than a project without these conditions. This includes the required to adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403, which requires that the Best Available Control Measures be utilized to reduce fugitive dust emissions and was modeled in CalEEMod by selection of water all exposed areas three times
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
per day, water unpaved roads twice daily, reduce vehicle speeds on dirt roads and sweep paved roads once per month.
Demolition
The demolition phase would consist of demolition of the existing two commercial buildings that have been estimated to contain 3,000 square feet of building space and associated parking lots on the project site that have been estimated to cover 27,000 square feet. The pavement was assumed to be an average of 4‐inches thick and weigh 145 pounds per square foot, which results in 653 tons of pavement that would be removed from the project site. For the existing two structures to be demolished, CalEEMod utilizes a factor of 0.046 tons of debris of building material per building square foot. This results in 138 tons of debris that would be generated from demolition of the existing two structures. Therefore, the combined demolition of the two structures and pavement area would require the removal of 791 tons of debris that would be exported from the site and would generate an average 19.8 haul truck trips per day over duration of demolition phase.
The demolition phase has been modeled as starting in July 2025 and would occur over two weeks. The demolition activities would require an average of 10 worker trips per day. In order to account for water truck emissions, three onsite truck trips per day with a quarter‐mile length was added to the demolition phase. The onsite equipment would consist of one concrete/industrial saw, one rubber‐tired dozer, and two of either tractors, loaders, or backhoes, which is based on the CalEEMod default equipment mix.
Site Preparation
The site preparation phase would consist of removing any vegetation, tree stumps, and stones onsite prior to grading. The site preparation phase is anticipated to start after completion of the demolition phase and was modeled as occurring over one day. The site preparation activities would generate 5 worker trips per day. In order to account for water truck emissions, three onsite truck trips per day with a quarter‐ mile length was added to the site preparation phase. The onsite equipment would consist of one grader and one of either a tractor, loader, or backhoe, which is based on the CalEEMod default equipment.
Grading
The grading phase was modeled as starting after completion of the site preparation phase and was modeled as occurring over two workdays. The grading activities are anticipated to be balanced, which would not require any dirt to be imported or exported from the project site. The onsite equipment would consist of one grader, one rubber‐tired dozer, and two of either tractors, loaders, or backhoes, which is based on the CalEEMod default equipment. The grading activities would generate an average of 7.5 automobile trips per day for the workers. In order to account for water truck emissions, three onsite truck trips per day with a quarter‐mile length was added to the grading phase.
Building Construction
The building construction would occur after the completion of the grading phase and was modeled as occurring over 100 workdays. The building construction phase would generate an average of 0.98 worker trips and 0.5 vendor trips per day. The onsite equipment would consist of the simultaneous operation of one crane, two forklifts, and two of either tractors, loaders, or backhoes, which is based on the CalEEMod default equipment mix.
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
Paving
The paving phase would consist of paving the onsite roads and driveways. The paving phase was modeled as occurring after completion of the building construction phase and occurring over five workdays. The paving phase would generate an average of 17.5 worker trips per day. The onsite equipment would consist of the simultaneous operation of four cement and mortar mixers, one paver, one roller, one of either a tractor, loader, or backhoe, which is based on the CalEEMod default equipment.
Architectural Coating
The application of architectural coatings was modeled as occurring after completion of the paving phase and occurring over five workdays. The architectural coating phase was modeled based on covering 4,572 square feet of non‐residential interior area, 1,524 square feet of non‐residential exterior area, and 1,568 square feet of parking area. The architectural coating phase would generate an average of 0.2 worker trips per day. The onsite equipment would consist of one air compressor, which is based on the CalEEMod default equipment mix.
Operational Emissions Modeling
The operations‐related criteria air pollutant emissions and GHG emissions created by the proposed project have been analyzed through use of the CalEEMod model. The proposed project was analyzed in the CalEEMod model based on the land use parameters provided above and the parameters entered for each operational source is described below.
Mobile Sources
Mobile sources include emissions the additional vehicle miles generated from the proposed project. The weekday daily trips was adjusted in CalEEMod to match the daily rate provided in the Van Buren 7‐Eleven Traffic Analysis (Traffic Analysis), prepared by Urban Crossroads, July 16, 2024, of 265.12 daily trips per vehicle fueling position (530.33 daily trips per pump). In addition, the Traffic Analysis found that the 76 percent of the AM trips and 75 percent of the PM trips would be pass‐by trips, since CalEEMod only allows for the entering of daily pass‐by trips, the two pass‐by trip rates were averaged to 75.5 percent that was entered into the CalEEMod model. No other changes were made to the default mobile source parameters in the CalEEMod model.
Area Sources
Area sources include emissions from consumer products, landscape equipment and architectural coatings. The area source emissions were based on the on‐going use of the proposed project in the CalEEMod model. No changes were made to the default area source parameters in the CalEEMod model.
Energy Usage
Energy usage includes emissions from electricity and natural gas used onsite. The energy usage was based on the ongoing use of the proposed project in the CalEEMod Model. No changes were made to the default energy usage parameters in the CalEEMod model.
Solid Waste
Waste includes the GHG emissions associated with the processing of waste from the proposed project as well as the GHG emissions from the waste once it is interred into a landfill. The analysis was based on the default CalEEMod waste generation rate of 2.54 tons of solid waste per year from the proposed project.
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
No changes were made to the default solid waste parameters or mitigation measures in the CalEEMod model.
Water and Wastewater
Water includes the water used for the interior of the buildings as well as for landscaping and is based on the GHG emissions associated with the energy used to transport and filter the water. The analysis was based on the default CalEEMod water usage rate of 62,743 gallons per year of indoor water use and 59,396 gallons per year of outdoor water use. No changes were made to the default water and wastewater parameters in the CalEEMod model.
8.2 Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing VOC Modeling
The proposed project would include a gas station that is anticipated to have a maximum throughput of
3.0 million gallons of gasoline per year. Since the CalEEMod model does not analyze the VOC emissions created from the transfer and dispensing of gasoline at the proposed gas station, the VOC emissions have been calculated through use of the methodology provided in Gasoline Service Station Industrywide Risk Assessment Guidelines (CAPCOA Gas Station Guidelines), prepared by CAPCOA, November 1997 and from SCAQMD Rule 461 – Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing.
SCAQMD Rule 461 requires that the proposed underground storage tanks are equipped with a “CARB certified” enhanced vapor recovery system with “CARB‐ certified” pressure‐vacuum valves that have a minimum volumetric efficiency of 98 percent that equates to a maximum emission factor of 0.15 pounds of VOC per 1,000 gallons of gasoline from the loading of gasoline into the storage tanks (Phase I system).
In addition, Rule 461 requires that the dispensing unit for the transfer of gasoline into vehicle fuel tanks (Phase II system) is equipped with a “CARB certified” vapor recovery system that is capable of recovering 95 percent of gasoline vapors that equates to a maximum emission factor of 0.38 pounds per 1,000 gallons. The combined VOC emissions allowed from both the Phase I and Phase II systems under SCAQMD Rule 461 is 0.53 pounds of VOC per 1,000 gallons of gasoline (0.15 + 0.38 = 0.53 pounds of VOC). Based on the maximum VOC emission rate of 0.53 pounds of VOC per 1,000 gallons for a gas station with 3.0 million gallons of gasoline per year, this would create 1,590 pounds of VOC per year or 4.36 pounds of VOC per day.
However, the CAPCOA Gas Station Guidelines, details that a system that would meet SCAQMD Rule 461 requirements with both Phase I and Phase II systems with vent valves would create 1.27 pounds of VOC per 1,000 gallons of gasoline (see Scenario 6B). The emission rate calculated for Scenario 6B represents a worst‐case analysis that accounts for equipment failures or defects in the vapor recovery systems. Based on the maximum VOC emission rate of 1.27 pounds of VOC per 1,000 gallons for a gas station with 3.0 million gallons of gasoline per year, this would create 3,810 pounds of VOC per year or 10.44 pounds of VOC per day. This analysis has utilized the worst‐case VOC emissions calculations from the CAPCOA Gas Station Guidelines.
8.3 Energy Use Calculations
The proposed project is anticipated to consume energy during both construction and operation of the proposed project and the parameters utilized to calculate energy use from construction and operation of the proposed project are detailed separately below.
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
Construction‐Related Energy Use
Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to use energy in the forms of petroleum fuel for both off‐road equipment as well as from the transport of workers and materials to and from the project site and the calculations for each source are described below.
Off‐Road Construction Equipment
The off‐road construction equipment fuel usage was calculated through use of the CalEEMod model’s default off‐road equipment assumptions detailed above in Section 8.1. For each piece of off‐road equipment, the fuel usage was calculated through use of the 2017 Off‐road Diesel Emission Factors spreadsheet, prepared by CARB (https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/ordiesel.htm). The Spreadsheet provides the following formula to calculate fuel usage from off‐road equipment:
Fuel Used = Load Factor x Horsepower x Total Operational Hours x BSFC / Unit Conversion Where:
Load Factor ‐ Obtained from CalEEMod default values
Horsepower – Obtained from CalEEMod default values
Total Operational Hours – Calculated by multiplying CalEEMod default daily hours by CalEEMod default number of working days for each phase of construction BSFC – Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (pounds per horsepower‐hour) – If less than 100 Horsepower = 0.408, if greater than 100 Horsepower = 0.367 Unit Conversion – Converts pounds to gallons = 7.109
Table H shows the off‐road construction equipment fuel calculations based on the above formula. Table H shows that the off‐road equipment utilized during construction of the proposed project would consume 7,027 gallons of diesel fuel.
Table H – Off‐Road Equipment and Fuel Consumption from Construction of the Proposed Project Equipment Type
Equipment
Quantity
Horse‐
power
Load
Factor
Operating Hours
per Day
Total Operational
Hours1
Fuel Used
(gallons)
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saw 1 33 0.73 8 80 111
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 367 0.4 1 10 76
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 84 0.37 6 120 214
Site Preparation
Grader 1 148 0.41 8 8 25
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 84 0.37 8 8 14
Grading
Grader 1 148 0.41 6 12 38
Rubber Tired Dozer 1 367 0.4 6 12 91
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 84 0.37 7 28 50
Building Construction
Crane 1 367 0.29 4 400 2,198
Forklifts 2 82 0.2 6 1,200 1,129
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 84 0.37 8 1,600 2,854 Paving
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
Equipment Type
Equipment
Quantity
Horse‐
power
Load
Factor
Operating Hours
per Day
Total Operational
Hours1
Fuel Used
(gallons)
Cement and Mortar Mixers 4 10 0.56 6 120 39
Paver 1 81 0.42 7 35 68
Roller 1 36 0.38 7 35 27
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 84 0.37 7 35 62
Architectural Coating
Air Compressor 1 37 0.48 6 30 31
Total Off‐Road Equipment Diesel Fuel Used during Construction (gallons) 7,027 Notes:
1 Based on: 10 days for Demolition, 1 day for Site Preparation, 2 days for Grading; 100 days for Building Construction; 5 days for Paving; and 5 days for Architectural Coating.
Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1 (see Appendix A); CARB, 2017.
On‐Road Construction‐Related Vehicle Trips
The on‐road construction‐related vehicle trips fuel usage was calculated through use of the construction vehicle trip assumptions from the CalEEMod model run as detailed above in Section 8.1. The calculated total construction miles was then divided by the fleet average for the South Coast Air Basin portion of Riverside County miles per gallon rates for the year 2025 calculated through use of the EMFAC2021 model and the EMFAC2021 model printouts are shown in Appendix B. The worker trips were based on the combined fleet average miles per gallon rates for gasoline powered automobiles, SUVs and pickup trucks and the vendor and haul truck trips were based on the combined T6 and T7 diesel trucks fleet average miles per gallon rate. Table I shows the on‐road construction vehicle trips modeled in CalEEMod and the fuel usage calculations.
Table I – On‐Road Vehicle Trips and Fuel Consumption from Construction of Proposed Project Vehicle Trip Types /
Fuel Type Daily Trips
Trip Length
(miles)
Total Miles
per Day
Total Miles
per Phase1
Fleet Average
Miles per Gallon2
Fuel Used
(gallons)
Demolition
Worker (Gasoline) 10 18.5 185 1,850 26.4 70
Haul (Diesel) 19.8 20 396 3,960 7.7 511
Water Trucks (Diesel) 3 0.25 0.75 8 7.7 1.0
Site Preparation
Worker (Gasoline) 5 18.5 93 93 26.4 4
Water Trucks (Diesel) 3 0.25 0.75 1 7.7 0.1
Grading
Worker (Gasoline) 7.5 18.5 139 278 26.4 11
Water Trucks (Diesel) 3 0.25 0.75 2 7.7 0.2
Building Construction
Worker (Gasoline) 0.98 18.5 18 1,813 26.4 69
Vendor (Diesel) 0.5 10.2 5 510 7.7 66
Paving
Worker (Gasoline) 17.5 18.5 324 1,619 26.4 61
Architectural Coating
Worker (Gasoline) 0.2 18.5 4 19 26.4 1
Total Gasoline Fuel Used from On‐Road Construction Vehicles (gallons) 215
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
Vehicle Trip Types /
Fuel Type Daily Trips
Trip Length
(miles)
Total Miles
per Day
Total Miles
per Phase1
Fleet Average
Miles per Gallon2
Fuel Used
(gallons)
Total Diesel Fuel Used from On‐Road Construction Vehicles (gallons) 579 Notes:
1 Based on: 10 days for Demolition; 1 days for Site Preparation, 2 days for Grading; 100 days for Building Construction; 5 days for Paving; and 5 days for Architectural Coating.
2 From EMFAC 2021 model (see Appendix B).
Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1; CARB, 2018.
Table I shows that the on‐road construction‐related vehicle trips would consume 215 gallons of gasoline and 579 gallons of diesel fuel. As detailed above, Table H shows that the off‐road construction equipment would consume 7,027 gallons of diesel fuel. This would result in the total consumption of 215 gallons of gasoline and 7,605 gallons of diesel fuel from construction of the proposed project.
Operations‐Related Energy Use
The operation of the proposed project is anticipated to use energy in the forms of petroleum fuel, electricity, and natural gas, and the calculations for each source are described below.
Operational Petroleum Fuel
The on‐road operations‐related vehicle trips fuel usage was calculated through use of the total annual vehicle miles traveled assumptions from the CalEEMod model run as detailed above in Section 8.1, which found that operation of the proposed project would generate 3,496,525 vehicle miles traveled per year.
The calculated total operational miles were then divided by 26.4 miles per gallon, which was calculated through use of the EMFAC2021 model and based on the South Coast Air Basin portion of Riverside County miles per gallon rates for the year 2025. The EMFAC2021 model printouts are shown in Appendix B. Based on the above calculation methodology, operational vehicle trips generated from the proposed project would consume 132,640 gallons of gasoline per year.
Operational Electricity Use
The operations‐related electricity usage was calculated in the CalEEMod model run that is detailed above in Section 8.1 that found operation of the proposed project would use 97,779 kilowatt hours (kWh) per year. The proposed project is required to be designed to meet the Title 24 part 6 requirements that require the implementation of building energy efficiency standards that include the use of LED lighting and energy star appliances.
Operational Natural Gas Use
The operations‐related natural gas usage was calculated in the CalEEMod model run that is detailed above in Section 8.1 that found the operation of the proposed project would consume 51,160 kilo British Thermal Units (kBTU) per year, which is equivalent to 512 Therms per year of natural gas.
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
9.0 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
9.1 Regional Air Quality
Many air quality impacts that derive from dispersed mobile sources, which are the dominant pollution generators in the Air Basin, often occurs hours later and miles away after photochemical processes have converted primary exhaust pollutants into secondary contaminants such as ozone. The incremental regional air quality impact of an individual project is generally very small and difficult to measure.
Therefore, SCAQMD has developed significance thresholds based on the volume of pollution emitted rather than on actual ambient air quality because the direct air quality impact of a project is not quantifiable on a regional scale. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that any project in the Air Basin with daily emissions that exceed any of the identified significance thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact. For the purposes to this air quality impact analysis, a regional air quality impact would be considered significant if emissions exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds identified in Table J.
Table J – SCAQMD Regional Criteria Pollutant Emission Thresholds of Significance Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Lead
Construction 75 100 550 150 150 55 3
Operation 55 55 550 150 150 55 3
Source: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd‐air‐quality‐significance‐thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2
9.2 Local Air Quality
Project‐related construction air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin. In order to assess local air quality impacts the SCAQMD has developed Localized Significant Thresholds (LSTs) to assess the project‐related air emissions in the project vicinity. SCAQMD has also provided Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology), July 2008, which details the methodology to analyze local air emission impacts. The LST Methodology found that the primary emissions of concern are NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.
The LST Methodology provides Look‐Up Tables with different thresholds based on the location and size of the project site and distance to the nearest sensitive receptors. As detailed above in Section 6.3, the project site is located in Air Monitoring Area 23, which covers Metropolitan Riverside County. The Look‐ Up Tables provided in the LST Methodology include project site acreage sizes of 1‐acre, 2‐acres and 5‐ acres. The 1‐acre project site values in the Look‐Up Tables have been utilized in this analysis, since that is the nearest size available for the 0.86‐acre project site.
The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are single‐family homes located as near as 20 feet (6 meters) southwest of the project site. According to LST Methodology, any receptor located closer than 25 meters (82 feet) shall be based on the 25‐meter thresholds. Table K below shows the LSTs for NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 for both construction and operational activities.
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
Table K – SCAQMD Local Air Quality Thresholds of Significance Activity
Allowable Emissions (pounds/day)1
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Construction 118 602 4 3
Operation 118 602 1 1
Notes:
1 The nearest sensitive receptor to the project site are single‐family homes located as near as 20 feet (6 meters) southwest of the project site.
According to SCAQMD methodology, all receptors closer than 25 meters are based on the 25‐meter threshold.
Source: Calculated from SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look‐up Tables for 1 acre in in Air Monitoring Area 23, Metropolitan Riverside County.
9.3 Toxic Air Contaminants
According to the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, any project that has the potential to expose the public to toxic air contaminants in excess of the following thresholds would be considered to have a significant air quality impact:
If the Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk is 10 in one million or greater; or Toxic air contaminants from the proposed project would result in a Hazard Index increase of 1 or greater.
In order to determine if the proposed project may have a significant impact related to TACs, the Health Risk Assessment Guidance for analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis, (Diesel Analysis) prepared by SCAQMD, August 2003, recommends that if the proposed project is anticipated to create TACs through stationary sources or regular operations of diesel trucks on the project site, then the proximity of the nearest receptors to the source of the TAC and the toxicity of the HAP should be analyzed through a comprehensive facility‐wide health risk assessment (HRA).
9.4 Odor Impacts
The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that an odor impact would occur if the proposed project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402, which states:
“A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.
The provisions of this rule shall not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.” If the proposed project results in a violation of Rule 402 with regards to odor impacts, then the proposed project would create a significant odor impact.
9.5 Energy Conservation
The 2022 CEQA California Environmental Quality Act Statutes & Guidelines (2022 CEQA Guidelines) include an Energy Section that analyzes the proposed project’s energy consumption in order to avoid or reduce
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
inefficient, wasteful or unnecessary consumption of energy. Appendix F of the 2022 CEQA Statute and Guidelines, states the following:
The goal of conserving energy implies the wise and efficient use of energy. The means of achieving this goal include:
(1) Decreasing overall per capita energy consumption,
(2) Decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil, and (3) Increasing reliance on renewable energy sources.
Since the Energy Section was recently added, no state or local agencies have adopted specific criteria or thresholds to be utilized in an energy impact analysis. However, Appendix F, Subsection II.C of the 2022 CEQA Guidelines provides the following criteria for determining significance.
1. The project’s energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type for each stage of the project life cycle including construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal. If appropriate, the energy intensiveness of materials may be discussed.
2. The effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirement for additional capacity.
3. The effects of the project on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy.
4. The degree to which the project complies with existing energy standards.
5. The effects of the project on energy resources.
6. The project’s projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient transportation alternatives.
If the proposed project creates inefficient, wasteful or unnecessary consumption of energy during construction or operation activities or conflicts with a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, then the proposed project would create a significant energy impact.
9.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The City of Riverside has adopted the Riverside Restorative Growthprint Climate Action Plan (Climate Action Plan), October 2014. The Climate Action Plan sets out actions to increase energy efficiency and reduce GHG emissions. Since the Climate Action Plan does not provide any quantitative GHG emissions thresholds for new development projects within the City, the SCAQMD GHG emissions reduction thresholds have been utilized in this analysis.
In order to identify significance criteria under CEQA for development projects, SCAQMD initiated a Working Group, which provided detailed methodology for evaluating significance under CEQA. At the September 28, 2010 Working Group meeting, the SCAQMD released its most current version of the draft GHG emissions thresholds, which recommends a tiered approach that provides a quantitative annual threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e for all land use projects. Although the SCAQMD provided substantial evidence supporting the use of the above threshold, as of November 2017, the SCAQMD Board has not yet considered or approved the Working Group’s thresholds.
It should be noted that SCAQMD’s Working Group’s thresholds were prepared prior to the issuance of Executive Order B‐30‐15 on April 29, 2015 that provided a reduction goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. This target was codified into statute through passage of AB 197 and SB 32 in September 2016.
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
However, to date no air district or local agency within California has provided guidance on how to address AB 197 and SB 32 with relation to land use projects. In addition, the California Supreme Court’s ruling on Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Association of Governments (Cleveland v. SANDAG), Filed July 13, 2017 stated:
SANDAG did not abuse its discretion in declining to adopt the 2050 goal as a measure of significance in light of the fact that the Executive Order does not specify any plan or implementation measures to achieve its goal. In its response to comments, the EIR said: “It is uncertain what role regional land use and transportation strategies can or should play in achieving the EO’s 2050 emissions reduction target. A recent California Energy Commission report concludes, however, that the primary strategies to achieve this target should be major ‘decarbonization’ of electricity supplies and fuels, and major improvements in energy efficiency [citation].
Although, the above court case was referencing California’s GHG emission targets for the year 2050, at this time it is also unclear what role land use strategies can or should play in achieving the AB 197 and SB 32 reduction goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. As such this analysis has relied on the SCAQMD Working Group’s recommended thresholds. Therefore, the proposed project would be considered to create a significant cumulative GHG impact if the proposed project would exceed the annual threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
10.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS
10.1 CEQA Thresholds of Significance
Consistent with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to air quality, energy, and GHG emissions would occur if the proposed project is determined to:
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non‐attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard; Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people;
Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation; Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy; Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or
Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
10.2 Air Quality Compliance
The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The following section discusses the proposed project’s consistency with the SCAQMD AQMP.
SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a discussion of any inconsistencies between a proposed project and applicable General Plans and regional plans (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125). The regional plan that applies to the proposed project includes the SCAQMD AQMP. Therefore, this section discusses any potential inconsistencies of the proposed project with the AQMP.
The purpose of this discussion is to set forth the issues regarding consistency with the assumptions and objectives of the AQMP and discuss whether the proposed project would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with Federal and State air quality standards. If the decision‐makers determine that the proposed project is inconsistent, the lead agency may consider project modifications or inclusion of mitigation to eliminate the inconsistency.
The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that "New or amended GP Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP." Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually not required. A proposed project should be considered to be consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency:
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
(1) Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP. (2) Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase.
Both of these criteria are evaluated in the following sections.
Criterion 1 ‐ Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations? Based on the air quality modeling analysis contained in this report, short‐term regional construction air emissions would not result in significant impacts based on SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance discussed above in Section 9.1 or local thresholds of significance discussed above in Section 9.2. The ongoing operation of the proposed project would generate air pollutant emissions that are inconsequential on a regional basis and would not result in significant impacts based on SCAQMD thresholds of significance discussed above in Section 9.1. The analysis for long‐term local air quality impacts showed that local pollutant concentrations would not be projected to exceed the air quality standards. Therefore, a less than significant long‐term impact would occur and no mitigation would be required.
Therefore, based on the information provided above, the proposed project would be consistent with the first criterion.
Criterion 2 ‐ Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP?
Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined by performing an analysis of the proposed project with the assumptions in the AQMP. The emphasis of this criterion is to insure that the analyses conducted for the proposed project are based on the same forecasts as the AQMP. The AQMP is developed through use of the planning forecasts provided in the RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal) and FTIP (2019 FTIP). The RTP/SCS is a major planning document for the regional transportation and land use network within Southern California. The RTP/SCS is a long‐range plan that is required by federal and state requirements placed on SCAG and is updated every four years. The FTIP provides long‐range planning for future transportation improvement projects that are constructed with state and/or federal funds within Southern California.
Local governments are required to use these plans as the basis of their plans for the purpose of consistency with applicable regional plans under CEQA. For this project, the City of Riverside General Plan’s Land Use Plan Land Use Plan defines the assumptions that are represented in AQMP.
The project site is currently designated as Mixed Use‐Village (MU‐V) in the General Plan. The proposed project is an allowed use within the current land use designation. As such, the proposed project is not anticipated to exceed the AQMP assumptions for the project site and is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the second criterion.
Based on the above, the proposed project will not result in an inconsistency with the SCAQMD AQMP.
Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur in relation to implementation of the AQMP.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
10.3 Cumulative Net Increase in Non‐Attainment Pollution The proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non‐attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard. The SCAQMD has published a report on how to address cumulative impacts from air pollution:
White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution (http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐source/Agendas/Environmental‐Justice/cumulative‐impacts‐ working‐group/cumulative‐impacts‐white‐paper.pdf). In this report the AQMD clearly states (Page D‐3):
“… the AQMD uses the same significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts for all environmental topics analyzed in an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The only case where the significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts differ is the Hazard Index (HI) significance threshold for TAC emissions. The project specific (project increment) significance threshold is HI > 1.0 while the cumulative (facility‐ wide) is HI > 3.0. It should be noted that the HI is only one of three TAC emission significance thresholds considered (when applicable) in a CEQA analysis. The other two are the maximum individual cancer risk (MICR) and the cancer burden, both of which use the same significance thresholds (MICR of 10 in 1 million and cancer burden of 0.5) for project specific and cumulative impacts. Projects that exceed the project‐specific significance thresholds are considered by the SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable. This is the reason project‐specific and cumulative significance thresholds are the same. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the project‐specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant.”
Therefore, this analysis assumes that individual projects that do not generate operational or construction emissions that exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended daily thresholds for project‐specific impacts would also not cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment, and, therefore, would not be considered to have a significant, adverse air quality impact. Alternatively, individual project‐related construction and operational emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds for project‐specific impacts would be considered cumulatively considerable. The following section calculates the potential air emissions associated with the construction and operations of the proposed project and compares the emissions to the SCAQMD standards.
Construction Emissions
The construction activities for the proposed project are anticipated to include demolition of the two commercial buildings and associated parking lots, site preparation and grading of the project site, building construction of a 3,048 square foot 7‐Eleven convenience store with a 12 vehicle fuel position gas station, paving of the onsite parking areas and driveways, and application of architectural coatings. The CalEEMod model has been utilized to calculate the construction‐related emissions from the proposed project and the input parameters utilized in this analysis have been detailed in Section 8.1. The maximum daily construction‐related criteria pollutant emissions from the proposed project are shown below in Table M.
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
Table L – Construction‐Related Criteria Pollutant Emissions Maximum Daily Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
Season and Year of Construction VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Daily Summer Maximum
2025 1.12 10.1 10.7 0.02 2.22 1.15
Daily Winter Maximum
2025 0.90 5.16 7.00 0.01 0.42 0.23
2026 7.23 0.86 1.14 <0.01 0.03 0.02
Maximum Daily Construction Emissions 7.23 10.1 10.7 0.02 2.22 1.15 SCQAMD Regional Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
SCAQMD Local Thresholds1 ‐‐ 118 602 ‐‐ 4 3
Exceeds Thresholds? No No No No No No
Notes:
1 The nearest offsite sensitive receptors to the project site are single‐family homes located as near as 20 feet (6 meters) southwest of the project site. According to SCAQMD methodology, all receptors closer than 25 meters are based on the 25‐meter threshold. Calculated from SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look‐up Tables for 1 acre in in Air Monitoring Area 23, Metropolitan Riverside County.
Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.
Table M shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed either the regional or local emissions thresholds during construction of the proposed project. Therefore, a less than significant regional or local air quality impact would occur from construction of the proposed project.
Operational Emissions
The on‐going operation of the proposed project would result in a long‐term increase in air quality emissions. This increase would be due to emissions from the project‐generated vehicle trips, emissions from energy usage, onsite area source emissions, and from gasoline storage and dispensing activities created from the on‐going use of the proposed project. The following section provides an analysis of potential long‐term air quality impacts due to regional air quality and local air quality impacts with the on‐ going operations of the proposed project.
Operations‐Related Regional Criteria Pollutant Analysis The operations‐related regional criteria air quality impacts created by the proposed project have been analyzed through use of the CalEEMod model and the input parameters utilized in this analysis have been detailed in Section 8.1. The worst‐case summer or winter VOC, NOx, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 daily emissions created from the proposed project’s long‐term operations have been calculated and are summarized below in Table M and the CalEEMod daily emissions printouts are shown in Appendix A.
Table M – Operational Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Mobile Sources1 11.0 5.62 43.7 0.08 6.85 1.79
Area Sources2 0.10 <0.01 0.13 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Energy Usage3 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Gasoline Storage and Dispensing4 10.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Emissions 21.54 5.63 43.8 0.08 6.85 1.79
SCQAMD Regional Operational Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes:
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
1 Mobile sources consist of emissions from vehicles and road dust. 2 Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. 3 Energy usage consists of emissions from onsite natural gas usage. 4 Gasoline storage and dispensing VOC emissions rate based on 1.27 pounds of VOC per 1,000 gallons of gasoline throughput, based on a maximum throughput of 3.0 million gallons of gasoline per year Source: Calculated from CalEEMod Version 2022.1.
The data provided in Table M shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the regional emissions thresholds. Therefore, a less than significant regional air quality impact would occur from operation of the proposed project.
In Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502 (also referred to as “Friant Ranch”), the California Supreme Court held that when an EIR concluded that when a project would have significant impacts to air quality impacts, an EIR should “make a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.” In order to determine compliance with this Case, the Court developed a multi‐part test that includes the following:
1) The air quality discussion shall describe the specific health risks created from each criteria pollutant, including diesel particulate matter.
This Analysis details the specific health risks created from each criteria pollutant above in Section 4.1 and specifically in Table B. In addition, the specific health risks created from diesel particulate matter is detailed above in Section 2.2 of this analysis. As such, this analysis meets the part 1 requirements of the Friant Ranch Case.
2) The analysis shall identify the magnitude of the health risks created from the Project. The Ruling details how to identify the magnitude of the health risks. Specifically, on page 24 of the ruling it states “The Court of Appeal identified several ways in which the EIR could have framed the analysis so as to adequately inform the public and decision makers of possible adverse health effects. The County could have, for example, identified the Project’s impact on the days of nonattainment per year.”
The Friant Ranch Case found that an EIR's air quality analysis must meaningfully connect the identified air quality impacts to the human health consequences of those impacts, or meaningfully explain why that analysis cannot be provided. As noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by the SCAQMD in the Friant Ranch case (https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/9‐s219783‐ac‐south‐coast‐air‐quality‐mgt‐dist‐041315.pdf) (Brief), SCAQMD has among the most sophisticated air quality modeling and health impact evaluation capability of any of the air districts in the State, and thus it is uniquely situated to express an opinion on how lead agencies should correlate air quality impacts with specific health outcomes. The SCAQMD discusses that it may be infeasible to quantify health risks caused by projects similar to the proposed Project, due to many factors. It is necessary to have data regarding the sources and types of air toxic contaminants, location of emission points, velocity of emissions, the meteorology and topography of the area, and the location of receptors (worker and residence). The Brief states that it may not be feasible to perform a health risk assessment for airborne toxics that will be emitted by a generic industrial building that was built on "speculation" (i.e., without knowing the future tenant(s)). Even where a health risk assessment can be prepared, however, the resulting maximum health risk value is only a calculation of risk, it does not necessarily mean anyone will contract cancer as a result of the Project. The Brief also cites the author of the CARB methodology, which reported that a PM2.5 methodology is not suited for small projects and may yield unreliable results. Similarly, SCAQMD staff does not currently know of a way to
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
accurately quantify ozone‐related health impacts caused by NOX or VOC emissions from relatively small projects, due to photochemistry and regional model limitations. The Brief concludes, with respect to the Friant Ranch EIR, that although it may have been technically possible to plug the data into a methodology, the results would not have been reliable or meaningful.
On the other hand, for extremely large regional projects (unlike the proposed project), the SCAQMD states that it has been able to correlate potential health outcomes for very large emissions sources – as part of their rulemaking activity, specifically 6,620 pounds per day of NOx and 89,180 pounds per day of VOC were expected to result in approximately 20 premature deaths per year and 89,947 school absences due to ozone. As shown above in Table L, project‐related construction activities would generate a maximum of 7.23 pounds per day of VOC and 10.1 pounds per day of NOx and as shown above in Table M, operation of the proposed project would generate 21.54 pounds per day of VOC and 5.63 pounds per day NOx. The proposed project would not generate anywhere near these levels of 6,620 pounds per day of NOx or 89,190 pounds per day of VOC emissions. Therefore, the proposed project’s emissions are not sufficiently high enough to use a regional modeling program to correlate health effects on a basin‐wide level.
Notwithstanding, this analysis does evaluate the proposed project’s localized impact to air quality for emissions of CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 by comparing the proposed project’s onsite emissions to the SCAQMD’s applicable LST thresholds. As evaluated in this analysis, the proposed project would not result in emissions that exceeded the SCAQMD’s LSTs. Therefore, the proposed project would not be expected to exceed the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards for emissions of CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5.
Operations‐Related Local Air Quality Impacts
Project‐related air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin. The proposed project has been analyzed for the potential local CO emission impacts from the project‐generated vehicular trips and from the potential local air quality impacts from on‐site operations. The following analyzes the vehicular CO emissions and local impacts from on‐site operations.
Local CO Hotspot Impacts from Project‐Generated Vehicular Trips CO is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of CO is motor vehicles. For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network and are used as an indicator of potential local air quality impacts. Local air quality impacts can be assessed by comparing future without and with project CO levels to the State and Federal CO standards of 20 ppm over one hour or 9 ppm over eight hours.
At the time of the 1993 Handbook, the Air Basin was designated nonattainment under the CAAQS and NAAQS for CO. With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the Air Basin and in the state have steadily declined. In 2007, the Air Basin was designated in attainment for CO under both the CAAQS and NAAQS.
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
SCAQMD conducted a CO hot spot analysis3 for attainment at the busiest intersections in Los Angeles during the peak morning and afternoon periods and did not predict a violation of CO standards. Since the nearby intersections to the proposed project are much smaller with less traffic than what was analyzed by the SCAQMD, no local CO Hotspot are anticipated to be created from the proposed project and no CO Hotspot modeling was performed. Therefore, a less than significant long‐term air quality impact is anticipated to local air quality with the on‐going use of the proposed project.
Local Criteria Pollutant Impacts from Onsite Operations Project‐related air emissions from onsite sources such as architectural coatings, landscaping equipment, and onsite usage of natural gas appliances may have the potential to create emissions areas that exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin.
The local air quality emissions from onsite operations were analyzed using the SCAQMD’s Mass Rate LST Look‐up Tables and the methodology described in LST Methodology. The Look‐up Tables were developed by the SCAQMD in order to readily determine if the daily emissions of CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 from the proposed project could result in a significant impact to the local air quality. Table N shows the onsite emissions from the CalEEMod model that includes area sources, energy usage, and vehicles operating in the immediate vicinity of the project site and the calculated emissions thresholds. It should be noted that gasoline storage and dispensing activities only create VOC emissions, which is not an analyzed criteria pollutant in the Look‐Up Tables. As such, the gasoline storage and dispensing emissions are not included in Table N.
Table N – Operations‐Related Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
Onsite Emission Source NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Mobile Sources 0.70 5.46 0.86 0.22
Area Sources <0.01 0.13 <0.01 <0.01
Energy Usage 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Total Emissions 0.71 5.60 0.86 0.22
SCAQMD Local Operational Thresholds1 118 602 1 1
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Notes:
1 Mobile sources consist of emissions from vehicles and road dust and were calculated based on 1/8 of the mobile source emissions, which is the estimated portion of vehicle emissions occurring within a quarter mile of the project site. 2 Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, hearths and landscaping equipment. 3 Energy usage consist of emissions from onsite natural gas usage. 4 The nearest offsite sensitive receptors to the project site are single‐family homes located as near as 20 feet (6 meters) southwest of the project site. According to SCAQMD methodology, all receptors closer than 25 meters are based on the 25‐meter threshold.
Source: Calculated from SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look‐up Tables for 1 acre in in Air Monitoring Area 23, Metropolitan Riverside County.
The data provided in Table N shows that the on‐going operations of the proposed project would not exceed the local NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds of significance discussed above in Section 9.2.
3 The four intersections analyzed by the SCAQMD were: Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway; Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue; Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue; and La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard. The busiest intersection evaluated (Wilshire and Veteran) had a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day with LOS E in the morning and LOS F in the evening peak hour.
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
Therefore, the on‐going operations of the proposed project would create a less than significant operations‐related impact to local air quality due to onsite emissions and no mitigation would be required.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
10.4 Sensitive Receptors
The proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The local concentrations of criteria pollutant emissions produced in the nearby vicinity of the proposed project, which may expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations have been calculated above in Section 10.3 for both construction and operations, which are discussed separately below. The discussion below also includes an analysis of the potential impacts from toxic air contaminant emissions.
The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are single‐family homes located as near as 20 feet southwest of the project site.
Construction‐Related Sensitive Receptor Impacts
Construction activities may expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of localized criteria pollutant concentrations and from toxic air contaminant emissions created from onsite construction equipment, which are described below.
Local Criteria Pollutant Impacts from Construction
The local air quality impacts from construction of the proposed project have been analyzed above in Section 10.3 and found that the construction of the proposed project would not exceed the local NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds of significance discussed above in Section 9.2. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would create a less than significant construction‐related impact to local air quality and no mitigation would be required.
Toxic Air Contaminants Impacts from Construction
Construction activities are anticipated to generate TAC emissions from diesel particulate matter (DPM) associated with the operation of trucks and off‐road equipment and from possible asbestos in the structures to be demolished.
Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions
The greatest potential for toxic air contaminant emissions would be related to diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions associated with heavy equipment operations during construction of the proposed project. According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of “individual cancer risk”. “Individual Cancer Risk” is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of toxic air contaminants over a 70‐year lifetime will contract cancer, based on the use of standard risk‐assessment methodology. It should be noted that the most current cancer risk assessment methodology recommends analyzing a 30 year exposure period for the nearby sensitive receptors (OEHHA, 2015).
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
Given the relatively limited number of heavy‐duty construction equipment, the varying distances that construction equipment would operate to the nearby sensitive receptors, and the short‐term construction schedule, the proposed project would not result in a long‐term (i.e., 30 or 70 years) substantial source of toxic air contaminant emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk. In addition, California Code of Regulations Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Section 2449 regulates emissions from off‐road diesel equipment in California. This regulation limits idling of equipment to no more than five minutes, requires equipment operators to label each piece of equipment and provide annual reports to CARB of their fleet’s usage and emissions. This regulation also requires systematic upgrading of the emission Tier level of each fleet, and currently no commercial operator is allowed to purchase Tier 0, Tier 1 or Tier 2 equipment. In addition to the purchase restrictions, equipment operators need to meet fleet average emissions targets that become more stringent each year between years 2014 and 2023. By January, 2026, 75 percent or more of all contractors’ equipment fleets must be Tier 2 or higher and by January, 2029 100 percent of all equipment fleets must be Tier 2 or higher. Therefore, no significant short‐term DPM impacts would occur during construction of the proposed project.
Asbestos Emissions
It is possible that the two existing onsite structures to be demolished contains asbestos. According to SCAQMD Rule 1403 requirements, prior to the start of demolition activities, the existing structures located onsite shall be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of asbestos by a person that is certified by Cal/OSHA for asbestos surveys. Rule 1403 requires that the SCAQMD be notified a minimum of 10 days before any demolition activities begin with specific details of all asbestos to be removed, start and completion dates of demolition, work practices and engineering controls to be used to contain the asbestos emissions, estimates on the amount of asbestos to be removed, the name of the waste disposal site where the asbestos will be taken, and names and addresses of all contractors and transporters that will be involved in the asbestos removal process. Therefore, through adherence to the asbestos removal requirements, detailed in SCAQMD Rule 1403, a less than significant asbestos impact would occur during construction of the proposed project
Therefore, construction of the proposed project would result in a less than significant exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Operations‐Related Sensitive Receptor Impacts
The on‐going operations of the proposed project may expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of local CO emission impacts from the project‐generated vehicular trips, from the potential local air quality impacts from onsite operations and from TAC emissions created from the gas station. The following analyzes the vehicular CO emissions, local criteria pollutant impacts from onsite operations, and TAC impacts from gas station activities.
Local CO Hotspot Impacts from Project‐Generated Vehicle Trips CO is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of CO is motor vehicles. For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network and are used as an indicator of potential impacts to sensitive receptors. The analysis provided above in Section 10.3 shows that no local CO Hotspots are anticipated to be created at any nearby intersections from the vehicle traffic generated by the proposed project. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant exposure of offsite sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
Local Criteria Pollutant Impacts from Onsite Operations The local air quality impacts from the operation of the proposed project would occur from onsite sources such as architectural coatings and landscaping equipment. The analysis provided above in Section 10.3 found that the operation of the proposed project would not exceed the local NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds of significance discussed above in Section 9.2. Therefore, the on‐going operations of the proposed project would create a less than significant operations‐related impact to local air quality due to on‐site emissions and no mitigation would be required.
Operations‐Related Toxic Air Contaminant Impacts
Operation of the proposed project would create TAC emissions from diesel‐powered delivery trucks and from gasoline dispensing activities, which have been analyzed separately below.
Diesel Truck Emissions
The ongoing operation of the 7‐Eleven with gas station would generate DPM emissions from diesel truck deliveries to the project site. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) from operation of diesel‐powered trucks is the predominant TAC in most areas and according to The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality 2013 Edition, prepared by CARB, about 80 percent of the outdoor TAC cancer risk is from DPM. Some chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde have been listed as carcinogens by State Proposition 65 and the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants program.
According to the 2022 CEQA California Environmental Quality Act Statute & Guidelines (State CEQA Guidelines), Appendix M provides the performance standards for infill projects eligible for streamlined review and states the following:
“Significant sources of air pollution” include airports, marine ports, rail yards and distribution centers that receive more than 100 heavy‐duty truck visits per day, as well as stationary sources that are designated major by the Clean Air Act.
In addition, the Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Project, prepared by CAPCOA, July 2009, details that a potentially significant impact may occur if sensitive receptors are placed within 1,000 feet of distribution centers that generate more than 100 trucks deliveries per day.
According to the project applicant, operation of the proposed project would generate an average of two truck deliveries per day, which is well below both the State CEQA Guidelines and CAPCOA guidelines provided above for when a potentially significant health risk impact would occur from diesel truck emissions. Based on the above, it can be reasonably concluded that the DPM emissions created from the on‐going operation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant TAC impact to the nearby sensitive receptors and no mitigation would be required.
Gasoline Storage and Dispensing Emissions
The proposed project would include a 12 fueling position gas station that is anticipated to have a maximum throughput of 3.0 million gallons of gasoline per year. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are single‐family homes located as near as 20 feet southwest of the project site and the nearest residential property line is as near as 120 feet (36 meters) from the center of the gas canopy, which is the measurement that is utilized by SCAQMD. There are also offsite workers located at the office building that is adjacent to the southeast side of the project site, that is as near as 57 feet (17 meters) from the center of the gas canopy.
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
The SCAQMD provides the RiskTool (V1.103) that calculates the cancer risk from gasoline stations that can be found at http://www.aqmd.gov/home/permits/risk‐assessment. The RiskTool has been utilized to calculate the cancer risk at the nearest resident and the RiskTool printout is provided in Appendix C.
The RiskTool found that the proposed project would create a cancer risk of 9.172 per million persons at the nearest homes to the southwest and would create a cancer risk of 1.023 per million persons at the office building to the southeast of the project site. The project‐related cancer risks as high as 9.172 per million persons would be within the SCAQMD’s threshold of 10 per million detailed above in Section 9.3.
As such, the TAC emissions and associated cancer risks from the proposed gas station would result in a less than significant impact to the nearby sensitive receptors.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
10.5 Odor Emissions
The proposed project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Individual responses to odors are highly variable and can result in a variety of effects. Generally, the impact of an odor results from a variety of factors such as frequency, duration, offensiveness, location, and sensory perception. The frequency is a measure of how often an individual is exposed to an odor in the ambient environment. The intensity refers to an individual’s or group’s perception of the odor strength or concentration. The duration of an odor refers to the elapsed time over which an odor is experienced. The offensiveness of the odor is the subjective rating of the pleasantness or unpleasantness of an odor. The location accounts for the type of area in which a potentially affected person lives, works, or visits; the type of activity in which he or she is engaged; and the sensitivity of the impacted receptor.
Sensory perception has four major components: detectability, intensity, character, and hedonic tone. The detection (or threshold) of an odor is based on a panel of responses to the odor. There are two types of thresholds: the odor detection threshold and the recognition threshold. The detection threshold is the lowest concentration of an odor that will elicit a response in a percentage of the people that live and work in the immediate vicinity of the project site and is typically presented as the mean (or 50 percent of the population). The recognition threshold is the minimum concentration that is recognized as having a characteristic odor quality, this is typically represented by recognition by 50 percent of the population.
The intensity refers to the perceived strength of the odor. The odor character is what the substance smells like. The hedonic tone is a judgment of the pleasantness or unpleasantness of the odor. The hedonic tone varies in subjective experience, frequency, odor character, odor intensity, and duration. Potential odor impacts have been analyzed separately for construction and operations below.
Construction‐Related Odor Impacts
Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include the application of coatings such as asphalt pavement, paints and solvents and from emissions from diesel equipment. Standard construction requirements that limit the time of day when construction may occur as well as SCAQMD Rule 1108 that limits VOC content in asphalt and Rule 1113 that limits the VOC content in paints and solvents would minimize odor impacts from construction. As such, the objectionable odors that may be produced during the construction process would be temporary and would not likely be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the project site’s boundaries. Through compliance with the applicable regulations that reduce odors and due to the transitory nature of construction odors, a less than significant odor impact would occur and no mitigation would be required.
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
Operations‐Related Odor Impacts
The proposed project would consist of the development of a gas station with a convenience market and two restaurants. Potential sources that may emit odors during the on‐going operations of the proposed project would primarily occur from odor emissions from gas dispensing activities and from the trash storage areas. Pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 461 the proposed gas station will be required to utilize gas dispensing equipment that minimizes vapor and liquid leaks and requires that the equipment be maintained at proper working order, which will minimize odor impacts occurring from the gasoline and diesel dispensing facilities. Pursuant to City regulations, permanent trash enclosures that protect trash bins from rain as well as limit air circulation would be required for the trash storage areas. Through compliance with SCAQMD’s Rule 461 and City trash storage regulations, no significant impact related to odors would occur during the on‐going operations of the proposed project. Therefore, a less than significant odor impact would occur and no mitigation would be required.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
10.6 Energy Consumption
The proposed project would impact energy resources during construction and operation. Energy resources that would be potentially impacted include electricity and natural gas, and petroleum based fuel supplies and distribution systems. This analysis includes a discussion of the potential energy impacts of the proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. A general definition of each of these energy resources are provided below.
Electricity, a consumptive utility, is a man‐made resource. The production of electricity requires the consumption or conversion of energy resources, including water, wind, oil, gas, coal, solar, geothermal, and nuclear resources, into energy. The delivery of electricity involves a number of system components, including substations and transformers that lower transmission line power (voltage) to a level appropriate for on‐site distribution and use. The electricity generated is distributed through a network of transmission and distribution lines commonly called a power grid. Conveyance of electricity through transmission lines is typically responsive to market demands. In 2022, Riverside County consumed 17,781 Gigawatt‐hours per year of electricity4.
Natural gas is a combustible mixture of simple hydrocarbon compounds (primarily methane) that is used as a fuel source. Natural gas consumed in California is obtained from naturally occurring reservoirs, mainly located outside the State, and delivered through high‐pressure transmission pipelines. The natural gas transportation system is a nationwide network and, therefore, resource availability is typically not an issue. Natural gas satisfies almost one‐third of the State’s total energy requirements and is used in electricity generation, space heating, cooking, water heating, industrial processes, and as a transportation fuel. Natural gas is measured in terms of cubic feet. In 2022, Riverside County consumed 431 million Therms of natural gas5.
Petroleum‐based fuels currently account for a majority of the California’s transportation energy sources and primarily consist of diesel and gasoline types of fuels. However, the state has been working on
4 Obtained from: http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx 5 Obtained from: http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
developing strategies to reduce petroleum use. Over the last decade California has implemented several policies, rules, and regulations to improve vehicle efficiency, increase the development and use of alternative fuels, reduce air pollutants and GHG emissions from the transportation sector, and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Accordingly, petroleum‐based fuel consumption in California has declined.
In 2022, 981 million gallons of gasoline and 173 million gallons of diesel was sold in Riverside County6.
The following section calculates the potential energy consumption associated with the construction and operations of the proposed project and provides a determination if any energy utilized by the proposed project is wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.
Construction Energy
The proposed project would consume energy resources during construction in three (3) general forms:
1. Petroleum‐based fuels used to power off‐road construction vehicles and equipment on the Project Site, construction worker travel to and from the Project Site, as well as delivery and haul truck trips (e.g. hauling of demolition material to off‐site reuse and disposal facilities);
2. Electricity associated with the conveyance of water that would be used during Project construction for dust control (supply and conveyance) and electricity to power any necessary lighting during construction, electronic equipment, or other construction activities necessitating electrical power; and,
3. Energy used in the production of construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass.
Construction‐Related Electricity
During construction the proposed project would consume electricity to construct the proposed 7‐Eleven.
Electricity would be supplied to the project site by Riverside Public Utilities and would be obtained from the existing electrical lines in the vicinity of the project site. The use of electricity from existing power lines rather than temporary diesel or gasoline powered generators would minimize impacts on fuel consumption. Electricity consumed during project construction would vary throughout the construction period based on the construction activities being performed. Various construction activities include electricity associated with the conveyance of water that would be used during project construction for dust control (supply and conveyance) and electricity to power any necessary lighting during construction, electronic equipment, or other construction activities necessitating electrical power. Such electricity demand would be temporary, nominal, and would cease upon the completion of construction. Overall, construction activities associated with the proposed project would require limited electricity consumption that would not be expected to have an adverse impact on available electricity supplies and infrastructure.
Therefore, the use of electricity during project construction would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.
Since there are currently power lines in the vicinity of the project site, it is anticipated that only nominal improvements would be required to Riverside Public Utilities distribution lines and equipment with development of the proposed project. Compliance with City’s guidelines and requirements would ensure that the proposed project fulfills its responsibilities relative to infrastructure installation, coordinates any electrical infrastructure removals or relocations, and limits any impacts associated with construction of
6 Obtained from: https://www.energy.ca.gov/media/3874
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
the project. Construction of the project’s electrical infrastructure is not anticipated to adversely affect the electrical infrastructure serving the surrounding uses or utility system capacity.
Construction‐Related Petroleum Fuel Use
Petroleum‐based fuel usage represents the highest amount of transportation energy potentially consumed during construction, which would be utilized by both off‐road equipment operating on the project site and on‐road automobiles transporting workers to and from the project site and on‐road trucks transporting equipment and supplies to the project site.
The off‐road construction equipment fuel usage was calculated through use of the off‐road equipment assumptions and fuel use assumptions shown above in Section 8.3, which found that construction of the proposed project would consume 215 gallons of gasoline and 7,605 gallons of diesel fuel. This equates to
0.00002 percent of the gasoline and 0.004 percent of the diesel used annually in Riverside County. As such, the construction‐related petroleum use would be nominal, when compared to current county‐wide petroleum usage rates.
Construction activities associated with the proposed project would be required to adhere to all State and SCAQMD regulations for off‐road equipment and on‐road trucks, which provide minimum fuel efficiency standards. As such, construction activities for the proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Impacts regarding transportation energy would be less than significant. Development of the project would not result in the need to manufacture construction materials or create new building material facilities specifically to supply the proposed project. It is difficult to measure the energy used in the production of construction materials such as asphalt, steel, and concrete, it is reasonable to assume that the production of building materials such as concrete, steel, etc., would employ all reasonable energy conservation practices in the interest of minimizing the cost of doing business.
Operational Energy
The on‐going operation of the proposed project would require the use of energy resources for multiple purposes including, but not limited to, heating/ventilating/air conditioning (HVAC), refrigeration, lighting, appliances, and electronics. Energy would also be consumed during operations related to water usage, solid waste disposal, landscape equipment and vehicle trips.
Operations‐Related Electricity
Operation of the proposed project would result in consumption of electricity at the project site. As detailed above in Section 8.3 the proposed project would consume 120,674 kilowatt‐hours per year of electricity. This equates to 0.0007 percent of the electricity consumed annually in the County of Riverside.
As such, the operations‐related electricity use would be nominal, when compared to current electricity usage rates in the County.
It should be noted that, the proposed project would comply with all Federal, State, and City requirements related to the consumption of electricity, that includes CCR Title 24, Part 6 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CCR Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards. The CCR Title 24, Part 6 and Part 11 standards require numerous energy efficiency measures to be incorporated into the proposed structure, including enhanced insulation, use of energy efficient lighting and appliances, water and space heating systems, as well as requiring a variety of other energy‐efficiency measures to be incorporated into the proposed project. Therefore, it is anticipated the proposed project will be designed and built to
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
minimize electricity use and that existing and planned electricity capacity and electricity supplies would be sufficient to support the proposed project’s electricity demand. Thus, the project would not result in the wasteful or inefficient use of electricity and no mitigation measures would be required.
Operations‐Related Natural Gas
Operation of the proposed project would result in increased consumption of natural gas at the project site. As detailed above in Section 8.3 the proposed project would consume 512 Therms per year of natural gas. This equates to 0.0001 percent of the natural gas consumed annually in Riverside County. As such, the operations‐related natural gas use would be nominal, when compared to current natural gas usage rates in the County.
It should be noted that, the proposed project would comply with all Federal, State, and City requirements related to the consumption of natural gas, that includes CCR Title 24, Part 6 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CCR Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards. The CCR Title 24, Part 6 and Part 11 standards require numerous energy efficiency measures to be incorporated into the proposed project, including enhanced insulation as well as use of efficient natural gas appliances and HVAC units. Therefore, it is anticipated the proposed project will be designed and built to minimize natural gas use and that existing and planned natural gas capacity and natural gas supplies would be sufficient to support the proposed project’s natural gas demand. Thus, impacts with regard to natural gas supply and infrastructure capacity would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required.
Operations‐Related Vehicular Petroleum Fuel Usage
Operation of the proposed project would result in increased consumption of petroleum‐based fuels related to vehicular travel to and from the project site. As detailed above in Section 8.2 the proposed project would consume 132,640 gallons of gasoline per year from vehicle travel. This equates to 0.01 percent of the gasoline consumed annually in Riverside County. As such, the operations‐related petroleum use would be nominal, when compared to current petroleum usage rates It should be noted that, the proposed project would comply with all Federal, State, and City requirements related to the consumption of transportation energy that includes California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 10 California Green Building Standards that require conduit to be installed to the proposed parking areas for future EV charging stations. Therefore, it is anticipated the proposed project will be designed and built to minimize transportation energy through the promotion of the use of electric‐powered vehicles and it is anticipated that existing and planned capacity and supplies of transportation fuels would be sufficient to support the proposed project’s demand. Thus, impacts with regard transportation energy supply and infrastructure capacity would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required.
In conclusion, the proposed project would comply with regulatory compliance measures outlined by the State and City related to air quality (see section 4.0 above), energy (see section 5.0 above), and GHGs (see section 6.0 above). Additionally, the proposed project would be constructed in accordance with all applicable City Building and Fire Codes. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation.
Impacts would be less than significant.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
10.7 Energy Plan Consistency
The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The applicable energy plan for the proposed project is the City of Riverside General Plan 2025, adopted November 2007. The proposed project’s consistency with the energy policies from the General Plan are shown in Table O.
Table O – Proposed Project Compliance with the General Plan Energy Policies General Plan Policy Proposed Project Implementation Actions Objective AQ‐5 Increase energy efficiency and conservation in an effort to reduce air pollution.
Policy AQ‐5.1 Utilize source reduction, recycling and other appropriate measures to reduce the amount of solid waste disposed in landfills.
Consistent. The proposed project will utilize
designated trash bins for recycling.
Policy AQ‐5.2 Develop incentives and/or regulations
regarding energy conservation requirements for private
and public developments
Not Applicable. The policy is only applicable to the
City to implement.
Policy AQ‐5.3 Continue and expand use of renewable
energy resources such as wind, solar, water, landfill gas, geothermal sources.
Not Applicable. The policy is only applicable for
energy providers and regulators to implement.
Policy AQ‐5.4 Continue and expand the creation of locally‐ based solar photovoltaic power stations in Riverside.
Not Applicable. The policy is only applicable for
energy providers and regulators to implement.
Policy AQ‐5.5 Continue and expand Riverside Public
Utilities programs to promote energy efficiency.
Not Applicable. The policy is only applicable to
Riverside Public Utilities to implement.
Policy AQ‐5.6 Support the use of automated equipment
for conditioned facilities to control heating and air
conditioning.
Consistent. The proposed project will be designed to
meet the Title 24 building standards that require the
installation of smart thermostats.
Policy AQ‐5.7 Require residential building construction to meet or exceed energy use guidelines in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code.
Not Applicable. This policy for residential
development, however the proposed project will be
required to meet the Title 24 nonresidential
requirements.
Objective AQ‐8 Make sustainability and global warming education a priority for the City’s effort to protect public health and achieve state and federal clean air standards.
Policy AQ‐8.5 Adopt and implement a policy to increase
the use of renewable energy to meet 33% of the City’s
electric load by 2020.
Not Applicable. The policy is only applicable to the
City to implement.
Policy AQ‐8.6 Promote Riverside as a Solar City through the implementation of programs for residential and
commercial customers that will increase solar generation in the City to 1 MW by 2015 (enough for 1,000 homes) and 3 MW by 2020.
Not Applicable. The policy is only applicable to the
City to implement.
Policy AQ‐8.7 Generate at least 10 MW (enough for
10,000 homes) of electric load from regional zero
emissions sources by 2025.
Not Applicable. The policy is only applicable to the
City to implement.
Policy AQ‐8.8 Reduce the City’s per capita base load
energy consumption by 10% through energy efficiency and conservation programs by 2016
Not Applicable. The policy is only applicable to
Riverside Public Utilities to implement.
Policy AQ‐8.9 Implement programs to encourage load
shifting to off peak hours and explore demand response
solutions by end of 2008.
Not Applicable. The policy is only applicable to the
City to implement.
Objective OS‐8 Encourage the efficient use of energy resources by residential and commercial users.
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
General Plan Policy Proposed Project Implementation Actions Policy OS‐8.1 Support the development and use of non‐
polluting, renewable energy sources.
Not Applicable. The policy is only applicable to the
City to implement.
Policy OS‐8.2 Require incorporation of energy
conservation features in the design of all new construction and substantial rehabilitation projects pursuant to Title 24, and encourage the installation of conservation devices in existing developments.
Consistent. The proposed project will be designed to
meet the Title 24 building standards that require the
incorporation of energy conservation features into the
proposed structure.
Policy OS‐8.3 Encourage private energy conservation
programs that minimize high energy demand and that use
alternative energy sources.
Not Applicable. The policy is only applicable to the
City to implement.
Policy OS‐8.4 Incorporate solar considerations into
development regulation that allow existing and proposed buildings to use solar facilities.
Not Applicable. The policy is only applicable to the
City to implement.
Policy OS‐8.5 Develop landscaping guidelines that support the use of vegetation for shading and wind reduction and otherwise help reduce energy consumption in new
development for compatibility with renewable energy
sources (i.e., solar pools).
Not Applicable. The policy is only applicable to the
City to implement. However, the landscaping for the
proposed project has been designed to meet the
City’s landscaping guidelines.
Policy OS‐8.6 Require all new developments to
incorporate energy‐efficient lighting, heating and cooling systems pursuant to the Uniform Building Code and Title
24. Consistent. The proposed project will be designed to meet the Title 24 building standards that require the
incorporation of energy‐efficient lighting, heating and cooling systems into the proposed structure.
Policy OS‐8.7 Encourage mixed use development as a
means of reducing the need for auto travel.
Not Applicable. The proposed project does not
consist of a mixed‐use development, however the
proposed retail use will be built in close proximity to existing residential and office uses that will reduce
need for auto travel.
Policy OS‐8.8 Encourage the use of clean burning fuels and solar energy for space and water heating purposes and
explore ways to participate in California New Solar Homes Partnerships
Not Applicable. The policy is only applicable to the
City to implement.
Policy OS‐8.9 Encourage construction and subdivision
design that allows the use of solar energy systems.
Not Applicable. The policy is only applicable to the
City to implement.
Policy OS‐8.10 Support the use of public transportation, bicycling and other alternative transportation modes in order to reduce the consumption of non‐renewable
energy supplies.
Not Applicable. The policy is only applicable to the
City to implement.
Policy OS‐8.11 Support public education programs for City residents and businesses to provide information on energy conservation and on alternative transportation modes in order to reduce the consumption of non‐renewable
energy supplies
Not Applicable. The policy is only applicable to the
City to implement.
Policy OS‐8.12 Require bicycle parking in new non‐
residential development.
Consistent. The proposed project will provide bicycle
parking for patrons of the proposed 7‐Eleven.
Source: City of Riverside, 2007.
As shown in Table O, the proposed project would be consistent with all applicable energy conservation policies from the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Impacts would be less than significant.
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
10.8 Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. The proposed project would consist of development and operation of a 7‐Eleven with gas station. The proposed project is anticipated to generate GHG emissions from area sources, energy usage, mobile sources, waste disposal, water usage, and construction equipment. The project’s GHG emissions have been calculated with the CalEEMod model based on the construction and operational parameters detailed above in Section 8.1. A summary of the results is shown below in Table P and the CalEEMod model run is provided in Appendix A.
Table P – Project Related Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons per Year)
Category CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Mobile Sources1 1,323 0.11 0.09 1,354
Area Sources2 0.06 <0.01 <0.01 0.06
Energy Usage3 27.3 <0.01 <0.01 27.4
Water and Wastewater4 0.17 <0.01 <0.01 0.24
Solid Waste5 0.23 0.02 0.00 0.79
Refrigeration6 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 105
Construction7 2.53 <0.01 <0.01 2.55
Total GHG Emissions 1,353 0.13 0.10 1,490
SCAQMD Draft Threshold of Significance 3,000
Exceed Thresholds? No
Notes:
1 Mobile sources consist of GHG emissions from vehicles. 2 Area sources consist of GHG emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. 3 Energy usage consists of GHG emissions from electricity and natural gas usage. 4 Water includes GHG emissions from electricity used for transport of water and processing of wastewater. 5 Waste includes the CO2 and CH4 emissions created from the solid waste placed in landfills. 6 Refrigeration includes GHG emissions from refrigerants in air conditioning units. 7 Construction emissions amortized over 30 years as recommended in the SCAQMD GHG Working Group on November 19, 2009.
Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1 (see Appendix A)
The data provided in Table P shows that the proposed project would create 1,490 MTCO2e per year.
According to the SCAQMD’s threshold of significance, a cumulative global climate change impact would occur if the GHG emissions created from the on‐going operations would exceed 3,000 MTCO2e per year.
Therefore, a less than significant generation of greenhouse gas emissions would occur from development of the proposed project. Impacts would be less than significant.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
10.9 Greenhouse Gas Plan Consistency
The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The City of Riverside has adopted the Riverside Restorative Growthprint Climate Action Plan (Climate Action Plan), October 2014. The Climate Action Plan
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
sets out actions to increase energy efficiency and reduce GHG emissions. Table Q provides a list of the local City of Riverside measures for new projects in the City of Riverside from the Climate Action Plan.
Table Q also provide a project consistency analysis of each measure.
Table Q – Climate Action Plan Local GHG Reduction Measures and Project Consistency Local Measure Measure Description Project Consistency E‐1: Traffic and
Street Lights
Replace traffic and street lights with
high‐efficiency bulbs.
Not Applicable. The proposed project does not
include replacement of traffic and street lights.
E‐2: Shade Trees Strategically plant trees at new
residential developments to reduce the
urban heat island effect.
Not Applicable. This measure is only applicable to
new residential projects.
E‐3: Local Utility
Programs –
Electricity
Financing and incentives for business
and home owners to make energy
efficient, renewable energy, and water
conservation improvements.
Consistent. The proposed project will be required
to be designed to meet Title 24 Part 6 Building
Energy Efficiency standards, all water fixtures will
be required to be low‐flow per Title 24 Part 11
requirements, and all landscaping will be designed
to be water efficient per the City’s Landscaping
Ordinance.
E‐4: Renewable
Energy Production
on Public Property
Large scale renewable energy installation
on publicly owned property and in public
rights of way.
Not Applicable. This measure is only applicable to
the City Public Works Department and Riverside
Public Utilities (RPU).
E‐5: UC Riverside
Carbon Neutral
Program
Collaborate with UCR to achieve a
carbon neutral campus.
Not Applicable. This measure is only applicable to
the UC Riverside and RPU.
T‐1: Bicycle
Infrastructure
Improvements
Expand on‐street and off‐street bicycle
infrastructure, including bicycle lanes
and bicycle trails.
Not applicable. This measure is applicable to the
City Community & Economic Development
Department and Public Works Department.
T‐2: Bicycle Parking Provide additional options for bicycle parking.
Consistent. The proposed project will provide the
required bicycle parking spaces per CCR Title 24
Part 11 requirements.
T‐3: End of Trip
Facilities
Encourage use of non‐motorized
transportation modes by providing
appropriate facilities and amenities for
commuters.
Consistent. The proposed project will provide the
required bicycle parking spaces per CCR Title 24
Part 11 requirements.
T‐4: Promotional
Transportation
Demand
Management
Encourage Transportation Demand
Management strategies.
Not Applicable. This measure is applicable to the
City Community & Economic Development and
Public Works Department.
T‐5: Traffic Signal
Coordination
Incorporate technology to synchronize
and coordinate traffic signals along local
arterials.
Not Applicable. This measure is applicable to the
City Public Works Department.
T‐6: Density Improve jobs‐housing balance and
reduce vehicle miles traveled by
increasing household and employment
densities.
Consistent. The proposed project would provide
employment opportunities to nearby residents in
an area of Southern California that has more
housing than jobs.
T‐7: Mixed‐Use
Development
Provide for a variety of development
types and uses.
Consistent. The proposed retail use will be built in
close proximity to existing residential and office
uses.
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
Local Measure Measure Description Project Consistency T‐8: Pedestrian Only
Areas
Encourage walking by providing
pedestrian‐only community areas.
Consistent. The proposed project is located in
close proximity to both residential and offices
uses, which will encourage walking to the
proposed project.
T‐9: Limited Parking
Requirements for
New Development
Reduce requirements for vehicle parking
in new development projects.
Not Applicable. The project applicant did not
request limited parking requirements for the
proposed project.
T‐10: High
Frequency Transit
Services
Implement bus rapid transit service in
the subregion to provide alternative
transportation options.
Not Applicable. This measure is applicable to the
Riverside Transportation Agency, however the RTA
already has a bus stop adjacent to the project site
on Van Buren Boulevard.
T‐11: Voluntary
Transportation
Demand
Management
Encourage employers to create TDM
programs for their employees.
Not Applicable. The proposed project would not
generate enough worker trips to justify the
implementation of a TDM program.
T‐12: Accelerated
Bike Plan
Implementation
Accelerate the implementation of all or
specified components of a jurisdiction’s
adopted bike plan.
Not Applicable. This measure is applicable to the
City Community & Economic Development and
Public Works Departments.
T‐13: Fixed
Guideway Transit
By 2020, complete feasibility study and
by 2025 introduce a fixed route transit
service in the jurisdiction.
Not Applicable. This measure is applicable to the
City Community & Economic Development and
RTA.
T‐14: Neighborhood
Electric Vehicle
Programs
Implement development requirements
to accommodate Neighborhood Electric
Vehicles and supporting infrastructure.
Not Applicable. This measure is applicable to the
City Community & Economic Development and
Public Works Department. (NEV vehicles are
classified as low speed electric vehicles [i.e., golf
carts, which are not allowed on major roads such
as Van Buren Boulevard])
T‐15: Subsidized
Transit
Increase access to transit by providing
free or reduced passes.
Not Applicable. The proposed project would not
employ enough worker trips to justify the
implementation of a subsidized transit pass
program.
T‐16: Bike Share
Program
Create nodes offering bike sharing at key
locations throughout the City.
Not Applicable. This measure is applicable to the
City Community & Economic Development
Department Planning Division.
T‐17: Car Share
Program
Offer Riverside residents the opportunity
to use car sharing to satisfy short‐term
mobility needs.
Not Applicable. This measure applies to City
residents.
T‐18: SB 743 as
Alternative to LOS
Use SB 743 to incentivize development in
the downtown and other areas served by
transit.
Consistent. There is an existing bus stop adjacent
to the project site on Van Buren Boulevard.
W‐1: Water
Conservation and
Efficiency
Reduce per capita water use by 20% by
2020.
Consistent. The proposed project would utilize
low‐flow fixtures and high‐efficiency irrigation
systems and would utilize drought tolerant plants
per the City’s Landscape Ordinance.
SW‐1: Yard Waste
Collection
Provide green waste collection bins
community‐wide.
Not Applicable. This measure is not applicable to
the City Public Works Department and city refuse
contracts.
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
Local Measure Measure Description Project Consistency SW‐2: Food Scrap
and Paper Diversion
Divert food and paper waste from
landfills by implementing commercial
and residential collection program.
Consistent. The applicant for the proposed project
will contract with a refuse company that will
process recycled materials.
Source: Riverside Restorative Growthprint Climate Action Plan, 2014
As shown above in Table Q, the proposed project is consistent with the applicable local measures provided in the Climate Action Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would comply with the Climate Action Plan reduction targets and would not conflict with the applicable plan for reducing GHG emissions. Impacts would be less than significant.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
11.0 REFERENCES
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) User Guide Version 2022.1, April 2022.
California Air Resources Board, 2017 Off‐Road Diesel Emission Factor Update for NOx and PM, 2017.
California Air Resources Board, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, November 16, 2022.
California Air Resources Board, Appendix VII Risk Characterization Scenarios, October 2000.
California Air Resources Board, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, November 2017.
California Air Resources Board, California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2021 Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators, December 14, 2023.
California Air Resources Board, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, November 2017.
California Air Resources Board, First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan, May 2014.
California Air Resources Board, Resolution 08‐43, December 12, 2008.
California Air Resources Board, Final Staff Report Proposed Update to the SB 375 Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets, October 2017.
California Air Resources Board, The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality 2013 Edition.
California Department of Conservation, A General Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California – Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos, August, 2000.
California Energy Commission, 2022 Reference Appendices for the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, August 2022
California Natural Resources Agency, 2022 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines, Association of Environmental Professionals, 2022.
City of Riverside, City of Riverside General Plan 2025, November, 2007.
City of Riverside, Riverside Restorative Growthprint Climate Action Plan, October 2014.
Environmental Protection Agency, Nonattainment Major New Source Review Implementation Under 8‐ Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard: Reconsideration, June 30, 2005.
Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990‐2021, April, 2023
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, February 2015.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2022 Air Quality Management Plan, December 2, 2022.
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan, December, 2012.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan, March, 2017.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, Revised July 2008.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 402 Nuisance, Adopted May 7, 1976.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 403 Fugitive Dust, Amended June 3, 2005.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 1108 Cutback Asphalt, Amended February 1, 1985.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 1108.1 Emulsified Asphalt, Amended November 4, 1983.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 1113 Architectural Coatings, Amended September 6, 2013.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 1143 Consumer Paint Thinners & Multi‐Purpose Solvents, Amended December 3, 2010.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, March 2015.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Draft Report Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin, MATES III, January 2008.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, MATES V Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast AQMD Final Report, August 2021.
Southern California Association of Governments, 2020‐2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal 2020), September 3, 2020.
Southern California Association of Governments, 2020‐2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal 2024), April4, 2024.
Southern California Association of Governments, Final 2023 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) Guidelines, October 2022.
Southern California Association of Governments, 2019 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) Guidelines, September 2018.
University of California, Davis, Transportation Project‐Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol, December 1997.
Urban Crossroads, Van Buren 7‐Eleven Traffic Analysis, July 16, 2024.
U.S. Geological Survey, Reported Historic Asbestos Mines, Historic Asbestos Prospects, and Other Natural Occurrences of Asbestos in California, 2011.
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
Appendix A
APPENDIX A
CalEEMod Model Printouts
Van Buren 7-Eleven Detailed Report, 7/18/2024
1 / 42
Van Buren 7-Eleven Detailed Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated
3.3. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
3.9. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
Van Buren 7-Eleven Detailed Report, 7/18/2024
2 / 42
3.11. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
Van Buren 7-Eleven Detailed Report, 7/18/2024
3 / 42
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Van Buren 7-Eleven Detailed Report, 7/18/2024
4 / 42
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Van Buren 7-Eleven Detailed Report, 7/18/2024
5 / 42
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
Van Buren 7-Eleven Detailed Report, 7/18/2024
6 / 42
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data
Van Buren 7-Eleven Detailed Report, 7/18/2024
7 / 42
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Van Buren 7-Eleven
Construction Start Date 7/16/2025
Operational Y ear 2026
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.20
Precipitation (days) 18.0
Location 33.91682864968753, -117.44412823496691
County Riverside-South Coast
City Riverside
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5421
EDFZ 11
Electric Utility City of Riverside
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.26
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Van Buren 7-Eleven Detailed Report, 7/18/2024
8 / 42
———1,1243,0480.26Pump6.00Convenience
Market with Gas
Pumps
Parking Lot 24.0 Space 0.60 0.00 2,622 — — —
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.12 10.1 10.7 0.02 2.22 1.15 2,365 0.08 0.23 3.43 2,438 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 7.23 5.16 7.00 0.01 0.42 0.23 1,333 0.05 0.02 0.02 1,338 Average Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.18 1.71 2.26 < 0.005 0.14 0.08 457 0.02 0.01 0.06 460 Annual (Max) — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.03 0.31 0.41 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 75.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 76.2 Exceeds
(Daily Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Threshold 75.0 100 550 150 150 55.0 — — — — —
Unmit. No No No No No No — — — — —
Exceeds
(Average
Daily)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Threshold 75.0 100 550 150 150 55.0 — — — — —
Van Buren 7-Eleven Detailed Report, 7/18/2024
9 / 42
Unmit. No No No No No No — — — — —
2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.12 10.1 10.7 0.02 2.22 1.15 2,365 0.08 0.23 3.43 2,438 Daily - Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.90 5.16 7.00 0.01 0.42 0.23 1,333 0.05 0.02 0.02 1,338 2026 7.23 0.86 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 136 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 136 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.18 1.71 2.26 < 0.005 0.14 0.08 457 0.02 0.01 0.06 460 2026 0.10 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.86 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.87 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.03 0.31 0.41 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 75.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 76.2 2026 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 11.1 5.29 43.9 0.08 6.86 1.79 8,565 0.78 0.51 660 9,397 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 10.3 5.63 40.9 0.08 6.86 1.79 8,087 0.84 0.53 633 8,898 Van Buren 7-Eleven Detailed Report, 7/18/2024
10 / 42
Average Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 10.2 5.69 42.0 0.08 6.78 1.77 8,156 0.84 0.53 644 8,980 Annual (Max) — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.86 1.04 7.67 0.01 1.24 0.32 1,350 0.14 0.09 107 1,487 Exceeds
(Daily Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Threshold 55.0 55.0 550 150 150 55.0 — — — — —
Unmit. No No No No No No — — — — —
Exceeds
(Average
Daily)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Threshold 55.0 55.0 550 150 150 55.0 — — — — —
Unmit. No No No No No No — — — — —
Exceeds
(Annual)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Threshold — — — — — — — — — — 3,000
Unmit. — — — — — — — — — — No
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 11.0 5.27 43.7 0.08 6.85 1.79 8,397 0.62 0.51 27.7 8,592 Area 0.10 < 0.005 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.55 Energy < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 165 0.01 < 0.005 — 166 Water — — — — — — 1.03 0.01 < 0.005 — 1.43
Waste — — — — — — 1.37 0.14 0.00 — 4.79
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — 632 632
Van Buren 7-Eleven Detailed Report, 7/18/2024
11 / 42
Total 11.1 5.29 43.9 0.08 6.86 1.79 8,565 0.78 0.51 660 9,397 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 10.2 5.62 40.9 0.08 6.85 1.79 7,919 0.67 0.53 0.72 8,094 Area 0.08 — — — — — — — — — —
Energy < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 165 0.01 < 0.005 — 166 Water — — — — — — 1.03 0.01 < 0.005 — 1.43
Waste — — — — — — 1.37 0.14 0.00 — 4.79
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — 632 632
Total 10.3 5.63 40.9 0.08 6.86 1.79 8,087 0.84 0.53 633 8,898 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 10.1 5.68 41.9 0.08 6.78 1.77 7,988 0.68 0.53 12.0 8,175 Area 0.09 < 0.005 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.37 Energy < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 165 0.01 < 0.005 — 166 Water — — — — — — 1.03 0.01 < 0.005 — 1.43
Waste — — — — — — 1.37 0.14 0.00 — 4.79
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — 632 632
Total 10.2 5.69 42.0 0.08 6.78 1.77 8,156 0.84 0.53 644 8,980 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.84 1.04 7.65 0.01 1.24 0.32 1,323 0.11 0.09 1.98 1,354 Area 0.02 < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.06 Energy < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 27.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.4 Water — — — — — — 0.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.24
Waste — — — — — — 0.23 0.02 0.00 — 0.79
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — 105 105
Total 1.86 1.04 7.67 0.01 1.24 0.32 1,350 0.14 0.09 107 1,487
3. Construction Emissions Details
Van Buren 7-Eleven Detailed Report, 7/18/2024
12 / 42
3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.47 4.33 5.65 0.01 0.16 0.14 852 0.03 0.01 — 855
Demolition — — — — 1.08 0.16 — — — — —
Onsite truck < 0.005 0.04 0.03 < 0.005 0.28 0.03 7.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.66 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.12 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 23.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.4 Demolition — — — — 0.03 < 0.005 — — — — —
Onsite truck < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.21 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.88 Demolition — — — — 0.01 < 0.005 — — — — —
Onsite truck < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.77 0.00 0.13 0.03 141 0.01 < 0.005 0.52 143 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.02 1.51 0.37 0.01 0.38 0.13 1,364 0.03 0.21 2.91 1,432 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Van Buren 7-Eleven Detailed Report, 7/18/2024
13 / 42
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.65 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.04 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 37.4 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 39.2 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.60 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 6.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.49
3.3. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.47 4.16 5.57 0.01 0.21 0.20 859 0.03 0.01 — 862
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — 0.14 0.01 — — — — —
Onsite truck < 0.005 0.04 0.03 < 0.005 0.28 0.03 7.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.66 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.35 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.36 Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — —
Onsite truck < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Van Buren 7-Eleven Detailed Report, 7/18/2024
14 / 42
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.39 Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — —
Onsite truck < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.39 0.00 0.07 0.02 70.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.26 71.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.18 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.09 10.1 10.0 0.02 0.46 0.43 1,714 0.07 0.01 — 1,720
Van Buren 7-Eleven Detailed Report, 7/18/2024
15 / 42
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — 1.38 0.67 — — — — —
Onsite truck < 0.005 0.04 0.03 < 0.005 0.28 0.03 7.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.66 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 9.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.42 Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — 0.01 < 0.005 — — — — —
Onsite truck < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.56 Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — —
Onsite truck < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.58 0.00 0.10 0.02 106 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.39 107 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.55 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Van Buren 7-Eleven Detailed Report, 7/18/2024
16 / 42
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.52 5.14 6.94 0.01 0.22 0.20 1,305 0.05 0.01 — 1,309
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.52 5.14 6.94 0.01 0.22 0.20 1,305 0.05 0.01 — 1,309
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.14 1.41 1.90 < 0.005 0.06 0.05 357 0.01 < 0.005 — 359 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.03 0.26 0.35 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 59.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 59.4 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 13.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 14.0 Van Buren 7-Eleven Detailed Report, 7/18/2024
17 / 42
Vendor < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 15.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 16.0 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 12.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 12.8 Vendor < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 15.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 16.0 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.56 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.39 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.58 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.59 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.73 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.9. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.51 4.37 5.31 0.01 0.19 0.18 823 0.03 0.01 — 826
Paving 0.31 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Van Buren 7-Eleven Detailed Report, 7/18/2024
18 / 42
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 11.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.3 Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.87 Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.08 1.02 0.00 0.23 0.05 227 0.01 0.01 0.02 230 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.19 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.53 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.11. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Van Buren 7-Eleven Detailed Report, 7/18/2024
19 / 42
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architectural
Coatings
7.11 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.83 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.84 Architectural
Coatings
0.10 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.30 Architectural
Coatings
0.02 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.50 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 Van Buren 7-Eleven Detailed Report, 7/18/2024
20 / 42
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Convenience
Market with
Gas Pumps
11.0 5.27 43.7 0.08 6.85 1.79 8,397 0.62 0.51 27.7 8,592 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 11.0 5.27 43.7 0.08 6.85 1.79 8,397 0.62 0.51 27.7 8,592 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Convenience
Market with
Gas Pumps
10.2 5.62 40.9 0.08 6.85 1.79 7,919 0.67 0.53 0.72 8,094 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 10.2 5.62 40.9 0.08 6.85 1.79 7,919 0.67 0.53 0.72 8,094 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Van Buren 7-Eleven Detailed Report, 7/18/2024
21 / 42
1,3541.980.090.111,3230.321.240.017.651.041.84Convenience Market with
Gas Pumps
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1.84 1.04 7.65 0.01 1.24 0.32 1,323 0.11 0.09 1.98 1,354
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Convenience
Market with
Gas Pumps
— — — — — — 120 0.01 < 0.005 — 121
Parking Lot — — — — — — 28.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.3
Total — — — — — — 149 0.01 < 0.005 — 149
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Convenience
Market with
Gas Pumps
— — — — — — 120 0.01 < 0.005 — 121
Parking Lot — — — — — — 28.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.3
Total — — — — — — 149 0.01 < 0.005 — 149
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Convenience
Market with
Gas Pumps
— — — — — — 19.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20.0
Parking Lot — — — — — — 4.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.69
Total — — — — — — 24.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.7
Van Buren 7-Eleven Detailed Report, 7/18/2024
22 / 42
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Convenience
Market with
Gas Pumps
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 16.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.4 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 16.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.4 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Convenience
Market with
Gas Pumps
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 16.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.4 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 16.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.4 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Convenience
Market with
Gas Pumps
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.71 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.72 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.71 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.72
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Van Buren 7-Eleven Detailed Report, 7/18/2024
23 / 42
Consumer
Products
0.07 — — — — — — — — — —
Architectural
Coatings
0.01 — — — — — — — — — —
Landscape
Equipment
0.02 < 0.005 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.55 Total 0.10 < 0.005 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.55 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Consumer
Products
0.07 — — — — — — — — — —
Architectural
Coatings
0.01 — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.08 — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Consumer
Products
0.01 — — — — — — — — — —
Architectural
Coatings
< 0.005 — — — — — — — — — —
Landscape
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.06 Total 0.02 < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.06
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Convenience
Market with
Gas Pumps
— — — — — — 0.76 0.01 < 0.005 — 1.16
Van Buren 7-Eleven Detailed Report, 7/18/2024
24 / 42
Parking Lot — — — — — — 0.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.27
Total — — — — — — 1.03 0.01 < 0.005 — 1.43
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Convenience
Market with
Gas Pumps
— — — — — — 0.76 0.01 < 0.005 — 1.16
Parking Lot — — — — — — 0.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.27
Total — — — — — — 1.03 0.01 < 0.005 — 1.43
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Convenience
Market with
Gas Pumps
— — — — — — 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.19
Parking Lot — — — — — — 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.05
Total — — — — — — 0.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.24
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Convenience
Market with
Gas Pumps
— — — — — — 1.37 0.14 0.00 — 4.79
Parking Lot — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 1.37 0.14 0.00 — 4.79
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Van Buren 7-Eleven Detailed Report, 7/18/2024
25 / 42
4.79—0.000.141.37——————Convenience
Market with
Gas Pumps
Parking Lot — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 1.37 0.14 0.00 — 4.79
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Convenience
Market with
Gas Pumps
— — — — — — 0.23 0.02 0.00 — 0.79
Parking Lot — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 0.23 0.02 0.00 — 0.79
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Convenience
Market with
Gas Pumps
— — — — — — — — — 632 632
Total — — — — — — — — — 632 632
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Convenience
Market with
Gas Pumps
— — — — — — — — — 632 632
Total — — — — — — — — — 632 632
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Convenience
Market with
Gas Pumps
— — — — — — — — — 105 105
Van Buren 7-Eleven Detailed Report, 7/18/2024
26 / 42
Total — — — — — — — — — 105 105
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Van Buren 7-Eleven Detailed Report, 7/18/2024
27 / 42
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Van Buren 7-Eleven Detailed Report, 7/18/2024
28 / 42
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Van Buren 7-Eleven Detailed Report, 7/18/2024
29 / 42
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 7/16/2025 7/30/2025 5.00 10.0 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 7/31/2025 8/1/2025 5.00 1.00 — Grading Grading 8/2/2025 8/4/2025 5.00 2.00 —
Building Construction Building Construction 8/5/2025 12/23/2025 5.00 100 — Paving Paving 12/24/2025 12/31/2025 5.00 5.00 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/1/2026 1/8/2026 5.00 5.00 —
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Van Buren 7-Eleven Detailed Report, 7/18/2024
30 / 42
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 1.00 367 0.40 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 4.00 6.00 10.0 0.56
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 10.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 19.8 20.0 HHDT
Van Buren 7-Eleven Detailed Report, 7/18/2024
31 / 42
Demolition Onsite truck 3.00 0.25 HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 5.00 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck 3.00 0.25 HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 7.50 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck 3.00 0.25 HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 0.98 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 0.50 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 17.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 0.20 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
Van Buren 7-Eleven Detailed Report, 7/18/2024
32 / 42
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water unpaved roads twice daily 55% 55%
Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 25 mph 44% 44% Sweep paved roads once per month 9% 9%
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 4,572 1,524 1,568
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Ton of Debris)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 791 —
Site Preparation — — 0.50 0.00 —
Grading — — 1.50 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 3 74% 74%
Water Demolished Area 2 36% 36%
5.7. Construction Paving
Van Buren 7-Eleven Detailed Report, 7/18/2024
33 / 42
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 0.00 0%
Parking Lot 0.60 100%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Y ear kWh per Y ear CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 873 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 873 0.03 < 0.005
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Convenience
Market with Gas
Pumps
3,182 3,182 3,182 1,161,423 9,580 9,580 9,580 3,496,525 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 4,572 1,524 1,568
Van Buren 7-Eleven Detailed Report, 7/18/2024
34 / 42
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Convenience Market with Gas
Pumps
97,779 449 0.0330 0.0040 51,160
Parking Lot 22,895 449 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 62,743 17,822
Parking Lot 0.00 41,574
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 2.54 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
Van Buren 7-Eleven Detailed Report, 7/18/2024
35 / 42
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Convenience Market
with Gas Pumps
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Convenience Market
with Gas Pumps
Supermarket
refrigeration and
condensing units
R-404A 3,922 26.5 16.5 16.5 18.0
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)
5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
5.18. Vegetation
Van Buren 7-Eleven Detailed Report, 7/18/2024
36 / 42
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 25.1 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 2.00 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 3.16 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Van Buren 7-Eleven Detailed Report, 7/18/2024
37 / 42
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 3 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 3 1 1 3
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Van Buren 7-Eleven Detailed Report, 7/18/2024
38 / 42
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 93.6
AQ-PM 92.6
AQ-DPM 96.2
Drinking Water 77.4
Lead Risk Housing 86.5
Pesticides 27.1
Toxic Releases 72.0
Traffic 93.7
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00
Groundwater 26.2
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 61.8
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 0.00
Van Buren 7-Eleven Detailed Report, 7/18/2024
39 / 42
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 67.0
Cardio-vascular 82.7
Low Birth Weights 81.0
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 75.2
Housing 57.9
Linguistic 68.9
Poverty 83.2
Unemployment 70.9
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 32.34954446
Employed 44.86077249
Median HI 30.96368536
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 17.50288721
High school enrollment 2.489413576
Preschool enrollment 34.72346978
Transportation —
Auto Access 65.16104196
Active commuting 66.2517644
Social —
2-parent households 61.26010522
Voting 8.161170281
Van Buren 7-Eleven Detailed Report, 7/18/2024
40 / 42
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 23.7520852
Park access 27.15257282
Retail density 94.21275504
Supermarket access 59.69459772
Tree canopy 22.43038624
Housing —
Homeownership 40.75452329
Housing habitability 34.9544463
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 26.43397921 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 65.8026434
Uncrowded housing 23.3029642
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 33.3504427
Arthritis 39.1
Asthma ER Admissions 31.6
High Blood Pressure 43.5
Cancer (excluding skin) 60.5
Asthma 21.6
Coronary Heart Disease 40.3
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 25.1
Diagnosed Diabetes 36.9
Life Expectancy at Birth 22.9
Cognitively Disabled 58.3
Physically Disabled 80.2
Heart Attack ER Admissions 9.2
Mental Health Not Good 22.6
Chronic Kidney Disease 27.1
Van Buren 7-Eleven Detailed Report, 7/18/2024
41 / 42
Obesity 17.5
Pedestrian Injuries 51.3
Physical Health Not Good 25.2
Stroke 34.3
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 43.3
Current Smoker 19.7
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 22.4
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 32.5
Elderly 79.3
English Speaking 70.1
Foreign-born 53.2
Outdoor Workers 45.9
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 67.4
Traffic Density 87.9
Traffic Access 51.6
Other Indices —
Hardship 83.8
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 20.3
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 93.0 Van Buren 7-Eleven Detailed Report, 7/18/2024
42 / 42
Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 20.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Y es Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Y es Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Total project site 0.86 acres. 10% landscaped
Operations: Vehicle Data Daily trip rate from Traffic Study. 75.5% passby trips
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
Appendix B
APPENDIX B
EMFAC2021 Model Printouts
Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.2) Emissions Inventory
Region Type: Sub‐Area
Region: Riverside (SC)
Calendar Year: 2025
Season: Annual
Vehicle Classification: EMFAC202x Categories
Units: miles/day for CVMT and EVMT, trips/day for Trips, kWh/day for Energy Consumption, tons/day for Emissions, 1000 gallons/day for Fuel Consumption Region Calendar YeVehicle Category Model Year Speed Fuel Population Total VMT Trips Fuel Consumption Riverside (SC) 2025 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 469318.5 20373765.8 2183259.5 673.3 Riverside (SC) 2025 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 39844.4 1499609.6 172787.8 59.9 Riverside (SC) 2025 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 201900.8 8973974.0 947238.8 360.0 Riverside (SC) 2025 MCY Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 24005.5 138549.8 48010.9 3.3 Riverside (SC) 2025 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 157992.6 6448292.7 723018.6 323.5 Riverside (SC) 2025 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2427.3 99526.1 11179.1 4.1 Riverside (SC) 2025 T6 Instate Delivery Class 6 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1272.8 43120.4 18162.6 4.8 Riverside (SC) 2025 T6 Instate Delivery Class 7 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 182.4 9851.6 2603.5 1.1 Riverside (SC) 2025 T6 Instate Other Class 5 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 3832.9 166777.6 44308.4 18.9 Riverside (SC) 2025 T6 Instate Other Class 6 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2725.5 116482.3 31506.4 13.0 Riverside (SC) 2025 T6 Instate Other Class 7 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1319.9 60644.3 15258.2 6.6 Riverside (SC) 2025 T6 Instate Tractor Class 6 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 17.6 872.4 203.9 0.1 Riverside (SC) 2025 T6 Instate Tractor Class 7 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 453.3 26565.3 5239.7 2.7 Riverside (SC) 2025 T7 Single Concrete/Transit M Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1266.6 87445.4 11931.8 14.3 Riverside (SC) 2025 T7 Single Dump Class 8 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1179.0 68603.4 11106.4 11.5 Riverside (SC) 2025 T7 SWCV Class 8 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 47.9 3106.8 220.2 1.2 Riverside (SC) 2025 T7 Tractor Class 8 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 4101.0 312988.5 59587.4 50.3 Worker (Autos) vehicle miles per day 37,434,192 1,420 1,000 gall per day Workers (Autos) Avg Miles per gallon 26.4 1,420,055 gallons per day Diesel Truck vehicle miles per day 995,984 129 1,000 gall per day Diesel Truck Fleet Avg Miles per gallon 7.7 128,639 gallons per day
Van Buren 7‐Eleven Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Analysis City of Riverside
Appendix C
APPENDIX C
Gas Station Cancer RiskTool (V1.103) Printouts
GASOLINE DISPENSING SERVICE STATION AN:
(Procedure V ersion 8.1 & Package N, September 1, 2017 ) - Risk Tool V1.103 Facility Name:
Deem Complete Date:
Storage Tank Type Underground MET Station
Annual Throughput 3 million gallons /year Distance to Resident 36 meter T-BACT YES Distance to Commercial 17 meter
MICR Calculation: MICR = MICR per 1 Million gallons/yr x Annual Throughput (Million gallons/yr) HIA & HIC Calculation: Negligible compared to Cancer risk and is not calculated.
MICR Result
MICR
MICR ≤ 10
Interpolation for MICR from Nearest Distances Residential Commercial near actual far near actual far
25 36 50 17 17 25
4.141 3.0573 1.678 0.341 0.341 0.341
Look up from Table 12 - MICR for Underground Storage Tank Station Receptor 25 50 75 100 200 300 500 1000
Resident 4.141 1.678 0.922 0.588 0.177 0.088 0.038 0.013 Commercial 0.341 0.138 0.076 0.049 0.015 0.007 0.003 0.001 Van Buren 7-Eleven
Downwind Distance (m)
Resident
9.172
PASS
Commercial
1.023
PASS
Distance (meter)
MICR (per 1 million gasoline
gallon throughput per year)
Riverside Airport
Riverside Airport
Gas Station -
190410-copy-of-risktool-(v1-103)-r040919---aqmd-procedure-8-1 7/19/2024
GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
AND
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MSHCP
CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
FOR
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS
234-150-039 & -040
CITY OF RIVERSIDE, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
Duong Le
Adkans Engineers
6879 Airport Drive
Riverside, CA 92504
Prepared by:
Hernandez Environmental Services
17037 Lakeshore Drive
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
JUNE 2024
Page | 1 3596 Van Buren Boulevard Riverside, CA 92503
General Biological Assessment
MSHCP Consistency Analysis
Hernandez Environmental Services
17037 Lakeshore Drive
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Project Site Location .................................................................................................................... 3
2.0 Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Literature Review .......................................................................................................................... 3
2.1.1 Western Riverside County MSHCP ...................................................................................... 4
2.1.2 Project Relationship to the Western Riverside County MSHCP ........................................... 4
2.2 Field Survey .................................................................................................................................. 5
3.0 Existing Conditions and Results ....................................................................................................... 5
3.1 Environmental Setting................................................................................................................... 5
3.2 Soils............................................................................................................................................... 5
3.3 Plant and Habitat Communities .................................................................................................... 6
3.4 Wildlife ......................................................................................................................................... 6
3.5 Regional Connectivity/Wildlife Movement .................................................................................. 6
3.6 Sensitive Biological Resources ..................................................................................................... 6
3.6.1 Sensitive Plant Resources ..................................................................................................... 7
3.6.2 Sensitive Animal Resources .................................................................................................. 9
3.6.3 Nesting Birds ...................................................................................................................... 13
3.7 Jurisdictional Waters ................................................................................................................... 13
4.0 Project Impacts ................................................................................................................................ 13
4.1 Impacts to Habitats ..................................................................................................................... 13
4.2 Impacts to Sensitive Species ....................................................................................................... 13
4.3 Impacts to Nesting Birds ............................................................................................................. 13
4.4 Impacts to Critical Habitat .......................................................................................................... 13
4.5 Impacts to Wildlife Movement Corridors ................................................................................... 13
4.6 Conflict with Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources ............................ 14
4.7 Conflict with the Provisions of an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or Other Approved Local, Regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan ............... 14
4.8 State and Federal Drainages ........................................................................................................ 14
5.0 Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ............................................................. 14
5.1 MSHCP Requirements ................................................................................................................ 14
6.0 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................... 15
7.0 Certification .................................................................................................................................... 17
8.0 References ...................................................................................................................................... 18
P
age | 2
3596 Van Buren Boulevard Riverside, CA 92503
General Biological Assessment
MSHCP Consistency Analysis
Hernandez Environmental Services
170
37 Lakeshore Drive
Lake Elsinore, California 92530
Tel. 909.772.9009
F
IGURES
Figure 1 – Location Map
Figure 2 – Vicinity Map
Figure 3 – Project Plans
Figure 4 – Habitat Map
Figure 5 – Impacts Map
AP
PENDICES
A
ppendix A – Species List
Appendix B – Species Probability List
Appendix C – Site Photographs
Appendix D – Soils Map
Page | 3 3596 V an Buren Boulevard Riverside, CA 92503 General Biological Assessment
MSHCP Consistency Analysis
Hernandez Environmental Services
17037 Lakeshore Drive
Lake Elsinore, California 92530
Tel. 909.772.9009
1.0 Introduction
HES was contracted to prepare a General Biological Assessment (GBA) and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis for Assessor’s Parcel Number s (APNs) 234-150-039 and 234-150-040. The project site consists of approximately 0.86 acres located in the city of Riverside, County of Riverside, California.
1.1 Project Site Location
The project site consists of Riverside County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 234-150-039 and 234-150-040. The 0.86-acre property is located southwest of the Van Buren Boulevard and Primrose Drive intersection. The site is in the city of Riverside , County of Riverside, California.
Specifically, the project site is located in Riverside West United States Geological Survey (USGS)
7.5’ topographic quadrangle. The center point latitude and longitude for the project site are latitude and longitude for the project site are 33° 54' 59.7254" North, 117° 26' 38.7431" West (Figures 1 and 2, Location Map and Vicinity Map).
1.2 Project Description
The proposed project includes the construction of 3,048 square feet (S.F.) proposed 7 Eleven convenience store, associated landscaping, a fuel canopy with 6 gas pump stations, a total of 24 parking spaces, and an air/water unit (Figure 3, Project Plans). The proposed project will result in impacts of approximately 0.86- acre of the project site. The proposed project also include approximately 0.03 acre of offsite impacts for proposed driveways.
2.0 Methodology
2.1 Literature Review
HES conducted a literature review and reviewed aerial photographs and topographic maps of the project site and surrounding areas. The Riverside West USGS 7.5’ topographic quadrangle and eight surrounding quadrangles were used to identify sensitive species with the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Endangered Species Lists, and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) rare plant lists to obtain species information for the project area. The CNDDB and USFWS critical habitat databases were utilized, together with Geographic Information System (GIS) software, to locate the previously recorded locations of sensitive plant and wildlife occurrences and designated critical habitat and determine the distance from the project site. Additionally, the Western Riverside County MSHCP was reviewed for information on known occurrences of sensitive species within Riverside County.
Page | 4 3596 Van Buren Boulevard Riverside, CA 92503 General Biological Assessment
MSHCP Consistency Analysis
Hernandez Environmental Services
17037 Lakeshore Drive
Lake Elsinore, California 92530
Tel. 909.772.9009
2.1.1 Western Riverside County MSHCP
The Western Riverside County MSHCP (Dudek and Associates 2003) is a comprehensive, multijurisdictional habitat conservation planning program for western Riverside County, California. The purpose of the Western Riverside County MSHCP is to preserve native habitats, and to this end, the plan focuses upon the habitat needs of multiple species rather than one species at a time. The Western Riverside County MSHCP provides coverage/take authorization for some species listed under the federal or state Endangered Species Act (ESA) as well as non -listed special-status plant and wildlife species. It also provides mitigation for impacts to special- status species and their associated habitats.
Through agreements with the USFWS and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFWG), 112 listed and special -status plant and animal species receive some level of coverage under the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Of the 112 covered species, the majority have no additional survey needs or conservation requirements. Furthermore, the Western Riverside County MSHCP provides mitigation for project -specific impacts to these species, thereby reducing the degree of impact to below a level of significance, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Several of the species covered under the Western Riverside County MSHCP have additional survey requirements. These include the riparian communities and associated species addressed in Section
6.1.2 of the Western Riverside County MSHCP document (“Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools”), plants identified in Section 6.1.3 (“Narrow Endemic Plant Species”); and plants and animal species addressed in Section 6.3.2 (“Additional Survey Needs and Procedures”).
2.1.2 Project Relationship to the Western Riverside County MSHCP The project area is located within the Western Riverside County MSHCP boundaries. The City of Riverside, acting as the lead agency for the proposed project, is a permittee under the Western Riverside County MSHCP and, therefore, is afforded coverage under the state or federal ESAs for impacts to listed species covered by the plan. The City is required to document consistency with the Western Riverside County MSHCP in conjunction with any discretionary approvals for the project. As such, this report was pr epared to provide all necessary information required to determine project consistency with the Western Riverside County MSHCP.
The project area is located within the Cities of Riverside and Norco Area Plan of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The project site is not located within a MSHCP Criteria Cell or a Cell Group. The site is not located within plan-defined areas requiring surveys for criteria area species, narrow endemic plant species, amphibian species, mammalian species , invertebrate species , or burrowing owl ( Athene cunicularia). Further, the project area does not contain any habitat that
Page | 5 3596 Van Buren Boulevard Riverside, CA 92503 General Biological Assessment
MSHCP Consistency Analysis
Hernandez Environmental Services
17037 Lakeshore Drive
Lake Elsinore, California 92530
Tel. 909.772.9009
would be considered riparian/riverine areas as defined in Section 6.1.2 of the Western Riverside MSHCP, and no vernal pools were observed within the project boundaries.
2.2 Field Survey
On May 20, 2024, HES conducted a field survey of the site. The Ambient temperature at 9:39 a.m. was 60 degrees Fahrenheit, overcast , with winds ranging from 0 to 6 miles per hour from the northwest. The purpose of the field survey was to document the existing habitat conditions, obtain plant and animal species information, view the surrounding land uses, assess the potential for state and federal waters, assess the potential for wildlife movement corridors, and assess the presen ce of constituent elements for critical habitat if present.
Linear transects were walked across the project site for 100 percent coverage. All species observed were recorded. A comprehensive list of all plant and wildlife species that were detected during the field survey within the project site is included in App endix A, Species List. Sensitive plant and wildlife species with the potential to occur within the project area are listed in Appendix B, Species Probability List. Representative site photographs were taken and are included within Appendix C, Site Photographs.
3.0 Existing Conditions and Results
3.1 Environmental Setting
The 0.86-acre project site is located southwest of the intersection Van Buren Boulevard and Primrose Drive, in the City of Riverside, County of Riverside, California . The site consists of a commercial building with a small associate d parking lot , and an abandoned building with an associated parking lot as well that is fenced. A majority of the site is on asphalt and developed.
The plant species found on site are only emerging in the crevices of the asphalt. North of the site is a busy intersection of two roads, Van Buren Boulevard and Primrose Drive. Southeast of the site is another commercial building separated by a fence, and southwest of the site is residential development also separated by a brick wall. The property is relatively flat with elevations ranging from 807 feet to 810 feet above mean sea level (AMSL).
3.2 Soils
Three soil classes are identified to occur on the project site by the USDA Web Soil Survey (Appendix D, Soils Map). Soils at the project site are classified as follows:
• Hanford coarse sandy loam (HcC), 2 to 8 percent slopes.
The soils listed above are not classified as hydric soils.
Page | 6 3596 Van Buren Boulevard Riverside, CA 92503 General Biological Assessment
MSHCP Consistency Analysis
Hernandez Environmental Services
17037 Lakeshore Drive
Lake Elsinore, California 92530
Tel. 909.772.9009
3.3 Plant and Habitat Communities
The 0.86-acre project site consists of developed habitat (Figure 4, Habitat Map). The following is a description of this habitat type:
Developed
The 0.86-acre project site is entirely comprised of developed habitat. The site contains ornamental vegetation including Chinese elm ( Ulmus parviflora) and t ree of heaven ( Ailanthus altissima ) There are two structures on site structures, asphalt, and associated parking lots on site.
3.4 Wildlife
General wildlife species documented on the project site or within the vicinity of the site include house finch ( Haemorhous mexicanus ), northern mockingbird ( Mimus polyglottos ), and house sparrow (Passer domesticus).
3.5 Regional Connectivity/Wildlife Movement
Wildlife movement corridors link together areas of suitable habitat that are otherwise separated by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbances. The project area was evaluated for its function as a wildlife corridor that species use to move between wildlife habitat zones. Usually, mountain canyons or riparian corridors are used by wildlife as corridors.
The project area was evaluated for its function as a wildlife corridor that species use to move between wildlife habitat zones. The project site consists of flat developed land surrounded by busy roads, a commercial building, and residential sites. No wildlife movement corridors were found to be present on the project site.
3.6 Sensitive Biological Resources
According to the CNDDB , a total of 45 sensitive species of plants and 58 sensitive species of animals has the potential to occur on or within the vicinity of the project area. These include those species listed or candidates for listing by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and California Native Plant Society (CNPS). All habitats with the potential to be used by sensitive species were evaluated during the site visit and a determination has been made for the presence or potential for presence within this report. This section will address those species listed as Candidate, Rare, Threatened, or Endangered under the state and federal Endangered Species laws or directed to be evaluated under the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Sensitive Species which have a potential to occur will also be discussed in this section. Other special status species are addressed within Appendix B, Species Potential to be Present List.
Page | 7 3596 Van Buren Boulevard Riverside, CA 92503 General Biological Assessment
MSHCP Consistency Analysis
Hernandez Environmental Services
17037 Lakeshore Drive
Lake Elsinore, California 92530
Tel. 909.772.9009
3.6.1 Sensitive Plant Resources
A total of fifteen plant species are listed as state and/or federal Threatened, Endangered, or Candidate species; are 1B.1 listed plants on the CNPS Rare Plan Inventory; or have been found to have a potential to exist on the project site. Below are descriptions of these species:
Chaparral sand-verbena
Chaparral sand -verbena ( Abronia villosa var. aurita) is ranked 1B.1 in the CNPS Rare Plant Inventory. It is found in sandy areas of chaparral, coastal scrub, and desert dunes habitats. No habitat for this species is present on the project site. This species is not present.
Munz’s onion
Munz’s onion (Allium munzii) is a federally Endangered, state Threatened, and CNPS 1B.1 listed plant species. It is found in chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grasslands, cismontane woodland, and pinyon and juniper woodland. The project site does not have suitable habitat for this species. This species is not present.
San Diego ambrosia
San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila) is a federally Endangered Species and is ranked 1B.1 in the CNPS Rare Plant Inventory. It can be found in sandy loam or clay soil on margins or near vernal pools. Its habitats include chaparral, coastal scrub, valley, and foothill grassland. There is no habitat for this species present on the project site. This species is not present.
Marsh sandwort
Marsh sandwort (Arenaria paludicola) is federally, and state listed as an Endangered Species. It is also ranked as 1B.1 in the CNPS Rare Plant Inventory. This species grows up through dense mats of Typha, Juncus, and Scirpus in freshwater marsh. This species is found in marsh and swamp habitats. There is no habitat for this species present on the project site. This species is not present.
Horn’s milk-vetch
Horn’s milk-vetch (Astragalus hornii var. hornii) is ranked 1B.1 in the CNPS Rare Plant Inventory.
It is often found in lake margins and habitats such as meadows, seeps, and playas. There is no habitat for this species present on the project site. This species is not present.
Nevin’s barberry
Nevin’s barberry (Berberis nevinii) is federally, and state listed as an Endangered Species. It is also ranked as 1B.1 in the CNPS Rare Plant Inventory. It is commonly found on steep, north facing slopes or in low grade sandy washes. The habitat for this species includes chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and riparian scrub. There is no suitable habitat on site for this species.
This species is not present.
Page | 8 3596 Van Buren Boulevard Riverside, CA 92503 General Biological Assessment
MSHCP Consistency Analysis
Hernandez Environmental Services
17037 Lakeshore Drive
Lake Elsinore, California 92530
Tel. 909.772.9009
Smooth tarplant
Smooth tarplant ( Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis ) is ranked 1B.1 in the CNPS Rare Plant Inventory. The species occurs in habitats that include alkali playa, chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps, riparian woodlands, wetlands, and valley and foothill grasslands. No habitat for this species is present on the project site. This species is not present.
Salt marsh bird’s-beak
Salt marsh bird’s -beak (Chloropyron maritimum ssp. Maritimum ) is a federally, and state listed Endangered Species. It can often be found in higher zones of salt marsh. This species’ habitats include marshes, swamps, and coastal dunes. There is no suitable habitat on site for this species.
This species is not present.
Parry’s spineflower
Parry’s spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi ) is ranked 1B.1 in the CNPS Rare Plant Inventory. The species occurs in dry, sandy soils on dry slopes and flats, sometimes at the interface of two vegetations types, such as chaparral and oak woodland. Its habitat includes coastal scrub, chaparral, cis montane woodland, valley, and foothill grassland. No habitat for this species is present on the project site. This species is not present.
Slender-horned spineflower
Slender-horned spineflower ( Dodecahema leptoceras) is a federally and state listed Endangered Species and is ranked 1B.1 in the CNPS Rare Plant Inventory. Its habitat includes chaparral, cismontane woodland, and coastal scrub (alluvial fan sage scrub). No habitat for this species exists on the project site. This species is not present.
Santa Ana River woollystar
Santa Ana River woollystar ( Eriastrum densifolium ssp. Sanctorum ) is federally, and state listed as an Endangered Species and is ranked as 1B.1 in the CNPS Rare Plant Inventory. It can be found in sandy soils on river floodplains or terraced fluvial deposits. Its habitat includes coastal scrub and chaparral. there is no suitable habitat on site for this species. This species is not present.
Mesa horkelia
Mesa horkelia (Horkelia cuneata var. puberula) is ranked 1B.1 in the CNPS Rare Plant Inventory.
This plant species can be found in sandy or gravelly habitat sites such as: chaparral, cismontane woodland and coastal scrub. There is no suitable habitat on site for this species. This species is not present.
Coulter’s goldfields
Coulter’s goldfields ( Lasthenia glabrata ssp.coulteri ) is ranked 1B.1 in the CNPS Rare Plant Inventory. This species is usually found on alkaline soils in playas, sinks, and grasslands and
Page | 9 3596 Van Buren Boulevard Riverside, CA 92503 General Biological Assessment
MSHCP Consistency Analysis
Hernandez Environmental Services
17037 Lakeshore Drive
Lake Elsinore, California 92530
Tel. 909.772.9009
flowers during April through May. Its habitat includes alkali playas, marsh, swamp, salt marsh, vernal pool, and wetland. No habitat for this species is present on the project site . This species is not present.
Gambel’s water cress
Gambel’s water cress (Nasturtium gambelii) is federally listed as an Endangered Species and state listed as a Threatened Species. It’s also ranked as 1B.1 in the CNPS Rare Plant Inventory. This species is commonly found in freshwater and brackish marshes at the margins of lakes and along streams, in or just above the water level. Its habitat includes marshes and swamps. There is no suitable habitat on site for this species. This species is not present.
Brand’s star phacelia
Brand’s star phacelia (Phacelia stellaris) is ranked as 1B.1 in the CNPS Rare Plant Inventory. This species can be found in open areas. The habit for this species includes coastal scrub and coastal dunes. There is no suitable habitat on site for this species. This species is not present.
3.6.2 Sensitive Animal Resources
A total of nineteen animal species listed as state and/or federal Threatened, Endangered, Candidate will be reviewed in this section. Sensitive species which have a potential to occur will also be discussed in this section. All sensitive species within a 5-mile radius of project area were reviewed and a complete list of those species are discussed within Appendix B, Potential Species List. Below are descriptions of these species:
Tricolored blackbird
Tricolored blackbird ( Agelaius tricolor) is a state listed Threatened Species and listed by the CDFW as a Species of Special Concern. The species occupies freshwater marshes with canopies of willows and other riparian trees. This species requires open accessible water and suitable foraging space. There is no habitat for this species on the project site. This species is not present.
Arroyo toad
Arroyo toad (Anaxyrus californicus) is federally listed as an Endangered Species and listed by the CDFW as a Species of Special Concern. This species is commonly found in rivers with sandy banks, willows, cottonwoods, and sycamores. The habitat of this species consists of: riparian scrub, riparian woodland, south coast flowing waters, and south coast standing waters. There is no suitable habitat for this species on site. This species is not present.
Burrowing owl
Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) is listed by the CDFW as a Species of Special Concern. This species is commonly found in open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, deserts, and scrublands characterized by low -growing vegetation. Burrowing owls are dependent upon burrowing
Page | 10 3596 Van Buren Boulevard Riverside, CA 92503 General Biological Assessment
MSHCP Consistency Analysis
Hernandez Environmental Services
17037 Lakeshore Drive
Lake Elsinore, California 92530
Tel. 909.772.9009
mammals, most notably, the California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi). The site is developed with the vegetation on site being sparse and ornamental. The site has frequent human activity. The soil on site is compact from the frequent use of motor vehicles and covered in gravel.
No burrowing wildlife such as the California ground squirrel were noted on site. No suitable burrows or burrow surrogates were found on site. There is no suitable habitat for this species on site. This species is not present.
Crotch’s bumble bee
Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) is a state Candidate Endangered S pecies. It is located in coastal California east to the Sierra- Cascade crest and south into Mexico. Its food plan genera include Antirrhinum, Phacelia, Clarkia, Dendromecon, Eschscholzia, and Eriogonum. There is no habitat for this species on the project site. This species is not present.
Swainson’s hawk
Swainson’s hawk ( Buteo swainsoni ) is a state listed Threatened Species. This species requires adjacent suitable foraging areas such as grasslands, alfalfa, or grain fields supporting rodent populations. The habitat for this species includes Great Basin grassland, riparian forest, riparian woodland, valley, and foothill grassland. There is no habitat for this species on the project site.
This species is not present.
Santa Ana sucker
Santa Ana sucker ( Catostomus santaanae) is state listed as a Threatened Species. This species prefers sand -rubble-boulder bottoms, cool, clear water, and algae. The habitat for this species includes aquatic and south coast flowing waters. There is no habitat for this species on the project site. This species is not present.
Western yellow-billed cuckoo
Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) is a federally listed Threatened and state listed Endangered Species. This species typically nests in riparian jungles of willows, often mixed with cottonwoods, with a lower story of blackberry, nettles, or wild grape. It is found in riparian forest habitat. The project site does not contain suitable habitat for this species. This species is not present.
San Bernardino kangaroo rat
San Bernardino kangaroo rat ( Dipodomys merriami parvus ) is a federally and state listed Endangered Species, state listed Candidate Endangered Species, and a CDFW Species of Special Concern. It is found in coastal scrub habitat. This species is found in alluvial scrub vegetation on sandy loam substrates, characteristic of alluvial fan s and flood plains. It needs early to intermediate seral stages. The project site does not contain suitable habitat for this species. This species is not present.
Page | 11 3596 Van Buren Boulevard Riverside, CA 92503 General Biological Assessment
MSHCP Consistency Analysis
Hernandez Environmental Services
17037 Lakeshore Drive
Lake Elsinore, California 92530
Tel. 909.772.9009
Stephen’s kangaroo rat
Stephens’ kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi) is a federally, and state listed Threatened Species.
This species is found in coastal sage scrub with sparse vegetation cover, and in valley and foothill grasslands. This species prefers buckwheat (Eriogonum sp.), chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), brome grass (Bromus sp.), and filaree (Erodium sp.) and will burrow into firm soil. The project site does not have suitable habitat for this species. This species is not present.
Southwestern willow flycatcher
Southwestern willow flycatcher ( Empidonax traillii extimus ) is a federally, and state listed Endangered Species. This species is found in riparian woodland habitats in Southern California.
The project site does not contain suitable habitat for this species. This species is not present.
Western pond turtle
Western pond turtle (Emys marmorata) is federally listed as Proposed Threatened and a CDFW Species of Special Concern. This species needs basking sites and suitable (sandy banks or grassy fields) upland habitat up to 0.5 km from water for egg-laying. The habitat for this species includes marshes, rivers, streams, and irrigation ditches, usually with aquatic vegetation. There is no suitable habitat for this species on site. This species is not present.
Quino checkerspot butterfly
Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) is a federally listed Endangered Species.
It is found in chaparral and coastal sage scrub. This species requires high densities of food plants, including Plantago erecta, P . insularis, and Orthocarpus purpurescens. The project site does not have suitable habitat for this species. This species is not present.
Bald eagle
The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is state listed as an Endangered Species. The bald eagle nests in large, old growth, or dominant live tree with open branches, especially ponderosa pine.
The habitat for this species includes lower montane coniferous forest and old growth. There is no suitable habitat for this species on site. This species is not present.
California black rail
California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus) is state listed as a Threatened Species.
This species needs water depths about 1 inch that do not fluctuate during the year and dense vegetation for nesting habitat. The habitat for this species includes brackish marsh, freshwater marsh, salt marsh, swamp, and wetland. There is no suitable habitat for this species on site. This species is not present.
Page | 12 3596 Van Buren Boulevard Riverside, CA 92503 General Biological Assessment
MSHCP Consistency Analysis
Hernandez Environmental Services
17037 Lakeshore Drive
Lake Elsinore, California 92530
Tel. 909.772.9009
Steelhead-southern California DPS
Steelhead-southern California DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 10) is federally listed as an Endangered Species and state listed as a Candidate Endangered Species. The Southern steelhead likely have greater physiological tolerances to warmer water and more variable conditions. The habitat for this species includes aquatic and south coast flowing waters. There is no suitable habitat for this species on site. This species is not present.
Coastal California gnatcatcher
Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) is a federally listed Threatened Species and CDFW Species of Special Concern. This species is found in coastal bluff scrub and coastal scrub habitat. This species is typically found in low, coastal sage scrub in arid washes, on mesas and slopes. The project site does not have suitable habitat for this species. This species is not present.
Delhi Sands flower-loving fly
Delhi Dands flower -loving fly ( Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) is federally listed as an Endangered Species. This species requires fine, sandy, soils, often with wholly or partly consolidated dunes and sparse vegetation. The habitat for this species is interior dunes. There is no suitable habitat for this species on site. This species is not present.
Western spadefoot
Western spadefoot (Spea hammondii) is federally listed as a Proposed Threatened Species. This species occurs primarily in grassland habitats but can be found in valley- foothill hardwood woodlands. The habitat or this species includes cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, grassland, vernal pool, wetland, valley and foothill. There is no suitable habitat for this species on site. This species is not present.
Riverside fairy shrimp
Riverside fairy shrimp ( Streptocephalus woottoni) is a federally listed Endangered Species. This species is found in coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pool, and wetland habitat.
This species typically inhabits seasonally astatic pools filled by winter/spring rains. The project site does not contain suitable habitat for this species. This species is not present.
Least Bell’s vireo
Least Bell’s vireo ( Vireo bellii pusillus) is a federal and state listed Endangered Species. This species is found in riparian forest, riparian scrub, and riparian woodland. Nesting habitat of this species is restricted to willow and/or mulefat dominated riparian scrub along permanent or nearly permanent streams. The project site does not contain suitable habitat for this species. This species is not present.
Page | 13 3596 Van Buren Boulevard Riverside, CA 92503 General Biological Assessment
MSHCP Consistency Analysis
Hernandez Environmental Services
17037 Lakeshore Drive
Lake Elsinore, California 92530
Tel. 909.772.9009
3.6.3 Nesting Birds
Migratory non-game native bird species are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Additionally, Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit the taking of all birds and their active nests. Very few trees occur on site. The project site does not contain grasses that can support ground nesting songbirds during the nesting bird season of February 1 through September 15.
3.7 Jurisdictional Waters
No streams, drainages, or riparian habitat occur on site. No CDFW, United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) jurisdictional waters occur on site. Further, no wetlands or vernal pools were found on site.
4.0 Project Impacts
4.1 Impacts to Habitats
The proposed project is expected to impact approximately 0.86- acre of the project site and 0.03 acre of offsite areas consisting of developed habitat (Figure 5, Impacts Map). The proposed project will result in a total of 0.89 acre of impacts to developed habitat.
4.2 Impacts to Sensitive Species
The project site has no sensitive plant or animal species that have the potential to occur on site.
Therefore, no sensitive species are expected to be impacted by project implementation.
4.3 Impacts to Nesting Birds
The project site contains potential nesting opportunities for ground nesting birds during the nesting bird season of February 1 through September 15. Implementation of the measures identified in the Recommendations section of this report (Section 6) will mitigate potential impacts to nesting birds.
4.4 Impacts to Critical Habitat
The project is not located within designated federal critical habitat. No impacts to critical habitat are expected to occur.
4.5 Impacts to Wildlife Movement Corridors
Wildlife movement corridors link together areas of suitable habitat that are otherwise separated by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbances. The project site was evaluated for its function as a wildlife corridor that species would use to move between wildlife habitat zones.
Typically, mountain canyons or riparian corridors are used by wildlife as corridors; the project site does not contain these features. The project site consists of relatively flat d eveloped land surrounded by busy ro ads, commercial buildings and residential development. No wildlife
Page | 14 3596 Van Buren Boulevard Riverside, CA 92503 General Biological Assessment
MSHCP Consistency Analysis
Hernandez Environmental Services
17037 Lakeshore Drive
Lake Elsinore, California 92530
Tel. 909.772.9009
movement corridors were found to be present on the project site. No impacts to wildlife movement corridors are expected.
4.6 Conflict with Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources The development of the project site would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.
4.7 Conflict with the Provisions of an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or Other Approved Local, Regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan
The project is within the Western Riverside MSHCP. If Western Riverside MSHCP guidelines and requirements are followed, no conflicts are expected.
4.8 State and Federal Drainages
No jurisdictional waters or associated habitat occur on site. Therefore, no impacts to state or federal jurisdictional drainages will result from project implementation.
5.0 Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis
5.1 MSHCP Requirements
The project area is located within the Cities of Riverside and Norco Area Plan of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The project site is not located within a MSHCP Criteria Cell or Cell Group. The developed habitat of the project site would not result from project implementation.
Section 6.1.2 Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Habitat and Vernal Pools The project site does not contain streams or habitat that may be considered riparian/riverine areas as defined in Section 6.1.2 of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Due to the lack of suitable riparian habitat on the project site, focused surveys for riparian/riverine bird species listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP are not warranted.
Vernal pools are seasonal depressional wetlands that occur under Mediterranean climate conditions of the west coast and in glaciated conditions of northeastern and midwestern states.
They are covered by shallow water for variable periods from winter to spring but may be completely dry most of the summer and fall. Vernal pools are usually associated with hard clay layers or bedrock, which helps keep water in the pools. Vernal pools and seasonal depressions usually are dominated by hydrophytic plans, hydric soils, and evidence of hydrology.
The entire site was evaluated for the presence of habitat capable of supporting branchiopods. The site was evaluated as described in the USFWS Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods (May 31, 2016). The project area is primarily comprised of Hanford coarse sandy
Page | 15 3596 Van Buren Boulevard Riverside, CA 92503 General Biological Assessment
MSHCP Consistency Analysis
Hernandez Environmental Services
17037 Lakeshore Drive
Lake Elsinore, California 92530
Tel. 909.772.9009
loam. The onsite soil does not allow for water pooling on the site for any significant length of time after rain events. No vernal pools, swales, or vernal pool mimics such as ditches, borrow pits, cattle troughs, or cement culverts with signs of pooling water were found on the site. In addition, the site does not contain areas that showed signs of ponding water, hydrophytic vegetation, or soils typical of vernal pools that would be suitable for large branchiopods.
Section 6.1.3 Sensitive Plant Species
The project site is not located within the Western Riverside County MSHCP Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA) pursuant to Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP. Therefore, the NEPSSA requirements are not applicable to the project.
Section 6.1.4 Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines
The project site is not located within or adjacent to a Western Riverside County MSHCP Conservation Area; therefore, the project site is not required to address Section 6.1.4 of the Western Riverside County MSHCP.
Section 6.3.2 Additional Surveys and Procedures
The project site is not located within the Western Riverside County MSHCP Additional Survey areas for amphibians, mammals, burrowing owl, invertebrate species or any special linkage areas.
In addition, the project site is not located within the Western Riverside County MSHCP Criteria Area Plant Species Survey Area (CAPSSA) pursuant to Section 6.3.2 of the Western Riverside County MSHCP.
6.0 Recommendations
Implementation of the following measures will mitigate any potential impacts resulting from project activities.
Nesting Birds
• It is recommended that vegetation removal and initial ground disturbance on undeveloped land be conducted during the non-nesting season for migratory birds to avoid direct impacts.
The non-nesting season is between February 1 and September 15.
• If vegetation removal will occur during the migratory bird nesting season, between February 1 and September 15, it is recommended that pre-construction nesting bird surveys be performed within three days prior to vegetation removal.
• If active nests are found during nesting bird surveys, they shall be flagged, and a 200-foot buffer shall be fenced around the nests.
Page | 16 3596 Van Buren Boulevard Riverside, CA 92503 General Biological Assessment
MSHCP Consistency Analysis
Hernandez Environmental Services
17037 Lakeshore Drive
Lake Elsinore, California 92530
Tel. 909.772.9009
• A biological monitor shall visit the site once a week during ground disturbing activities to ensure all fencing is in place and no sensitive species are being impacted.
Page | 17 3596 Van Buren Boulevard Riverside, CA 92503 General Biological Assessment
MSHCP Consistency Analysis
Hernandez Environmental Services
17037 Lakeshore Drive
Lake Elsinore, California 92530
Tel. 909.772.9009
7.0 Certification
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this biological evaluation, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Date 6-14-24 Signed
PROJECT MANAGER
Fieldwork Performed By:
Carissa Gomez
ASSOCIATE BIOLOGIST
Sarah Vasquez
ASSOCIATE BIOLOGIST
Page | 18 3596 Van Buren Boulevard Riverside, CA 92503 General Biological Assessment
MSHCP Consistency Analysis
Hernandez Environmental Services
17037 Lakeshore Drive
Lake Elsinore, California 92530
Tel. 909.772.9009
8.0 References
Burt, W. H., 1986. A Field Guide to the Mammals in North American North of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB).
Accessed June 2024. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, California.
Garrett, K. and J. Dunn, 1981. Birds of Southern California. Los Angeles Audubon Society. The Artisan Press, Los Angeles, California.
Grenfell, W. E., M. D. Parisi, and D. McGriff, 2003. A Checklist of the Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds and Mammals of California. California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.
Grinnell, J., 1933. Review of the Recent Mammal Fauna of California. University of California Publications in Zoology, 40:71-234.
Hall, E. R., 1981. The Mammals of North America, V olumes I and II. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York.
Hickman, J. C., ed. 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California Press.
Peterson, R. 1990. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.
Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) 2003 Final Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Riverside, CA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to List the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat as Endangered, V ol. 63, No. 185, pp. 51005 – 51017.
U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, 2014. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. https://www.fws.gov/endangered/species/us-species.html. Accessed June 2024.
Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed June 2024.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Burrowing Owl Instructions for Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Section 6.0 MSHCP Implementing Structure.
FIGURES
N
Figure 1
234-150-039 & -040
Riverside, Riverside County, California
Location Map
3596 Van Buren Boulevard
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
Project site
33° 54' 59.7254" N, 117° 26' 38.7431" W
Legend
Project site (0.86 acres)
N
Figure 2
234-150-039 & -040
Riverside, Riverside County, California
Vicinity Map
3596 Van Buren Boulevard
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
Project site
33° 54' 59.7254" N, 117° 26' 38.7431" W
Legend
Project site (0.86 acres)
N
Figure 4
Riverside, Riverside County, California
Habitat Map
3596 Van Buren Boulevard
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
Legend
Project site (0.86 acres)
Developed habitat (0.86 acres)APN 234-150-039 & -040
N
Figure 5
Riverside, Riverside County, California
Impact Map
3596 Van Buren Boulevard
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
Legend
Project site (0.86 acres)
Developed habitat (0.86 acres)APN 234-150-039 & -040
Offsite Developed habitat (0.03 acres)
APPENDIX A
Observed Species
Plant List
Scientific Name Common Name
Ailanthus altissima Tree of heaven
Amaranthus blitoides Mat amaranth
Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass
Digitaria ischaemum Smooth crabgrass
Erigeron bonariensis Flax-leaved horseweed
Lactuca serriola Prickly lettuce
Malva parviflora Cheeseweed mallow
Morus alba White mulberry
Paxistima myrsinites Oregon boxwood
Polycarpon tetraphyllum Fourleaf manyseed
Portulaca oleracea Common purslane
Sisymbrium irio London rocket
Sonchus oleraceus Common sowthistle
Ulmus parviflora Chinese elm
Wildlife List
Scientific Name Common Name
Haemorhous mexicanus House finch
Mimus polyglottos Northern mockingbird
Passer domesticus House sparrow
APPENDIX B
Scientific Name CommonNa
me
Taxon
Group Federal List State List
Rare
Plant
Rank
Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Abronia villosa
var. aurita
chaparral sand-
verbena Dicots None None 1B.1
BLM_S-
Sensitive |
SB_CalBG/RS
ABG-
California/Ran
cho Santa Ana
Botanic
Garden |
USFS_S-
Sensitive
Chaparral
| Coastal
scrub |
Desert
dunes
Chaparral,
coastal
scrub, desert
dunes.
Sandy areas. -
60-1570 m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Allium marvinii Yucaipa
onion Monocots None None 1B.2
BLM_S-
Sensitive |
SB_CalBG/RS
ABG-
California/Ran
cho Santa Ana
Botanic
Garden |
USFS_S-
Sensitive
Chaparral Chaparral.
In openings on
clay soils. 850-
1070 m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Scientific Name CommonNa
me
Taxon
Group Federal List State List
Rare
Plant
Rank
Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Allium munzii Munz's onion Monocots Endangered Threatened 1B.1 SB_CalBG/RS
ABG-
California/Ran
cho Santa Ana
Botanic
Garden
Chaparral
|
Cismonta
ne
woodland
| Coastal
scrub |
Pinon &
juniper
woodland
s | Valley
& foothill
grassland
Chaparral,
coastal
scrub,
cismontane
woodland,
pinyon and
juniper
woodland,
valley and
foothill
grassland.
Heavy clay
soils; grows in
grasslands and
openings
within
shrublands or
woodlands.
375-1040 m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Ambrosia
pumila
San Diego
ambrosia Dicots Endangered None 1B.1
SB_CRES-San
Diego Zoo
CRES Native
Gene Seed
Bank
Chaparral
| Coastal
scrub |
Valley &
foothill
grassland
Chaparral,
coastal
scrub,
valley and
foothill
grassland.
Sandy loam or
clay soil;
sometimes
alkaline. In
valleys;
persists where
disturbance
has been
superficial.
Sometimes on
margins or
near vernal
pools. 3-580
m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Scientific Name CommonNa
me
Taxon
Group Federal List State List
Rare
Plant
Rank
Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Arenaria
paludicola
marsh
sandwort Dicots Endangered Endangered 1B.1
SB_SBBG-
Santa Barbara
Botanic
Garden
Freshwate
r marsh |
Marsh &
swamp |
Wetland
Marshes
and
swamps.
Growing up
through dense
mats of Typha,
Juncus,
Scirpus, etc. in
freshwater
marsh. Sandy
soil. 3-170 m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Astragalus
hornii var.
hornii
Horn's milk-
vetch Dicots None None 1B.1 BLM_S-
Sensitive
Alkali
playa |
Meadow
& seep |
Wetland
Meadows
and seeps,
playas.
Lake margins,
alkaline sites.
75-350 m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Berberis nevinii Nevin's
barberry Dicots Endangered Endangered 1B.1
SB_CalBG/RS
ABG-
California/Ran
cho Santa Ana
Botanic
Garden |
SB_SBBG-
Santa Barbara
Botanic
Garden
Chaparral
|
Cismonta
ne
woodland
| Coastal
scrub |
Riparian
scrub
Chaparral,
cismontane
woodland,
coastal
scrub,
riparian
scrub.
On steep, N-
facing slopes
or in low grade
sandy washes.
90-1590 m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Scientific Name CommonNa
me
Taxon
Group Federal List State List
Rare
Plant
Rank
Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Calochortus
plummerae
Plummer's
mariposa-lily Monocots None None 4.2
SB_CalBG/RS
ABG-
California/Ran
cho Santa Ana
Botanic
Garden
Chaparral
|
Cismonta
ne
woodland
| Coastal
scrub |
Lower
montane
coniferous
forest |
Valley &
foothill
grassland
Coastal
scrub,
chaparral,
valley and
foothill
grassland,
cismontane
woodland,
lower
montane
coniferous
forest.
Occurs on
rocky and
sandy sites,
usually of
granitic or
alluvial
material. Can
be very
common after
fire. 60-2500
m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Calochortus
weedii var.
intermedius
intermediate
mariposa-lily Monocots None None 1B.2
SB_CalBG/RS
ABG-
California/Ran
cho Santa Ana
Botanic
Garden |
USFS_S-
Sensitive
Chaparral
| Coastal
scrub |
Valley &
foothill
grassland
Coastal
scrub,
chaparral,
valley and
foothill
grassland.
Dry, rocky
calcareous
slopes and
rock outcrops.
60-1575 m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Scientific Name CommonNa
me
Taxon
Group Federal List State List
Rare
Plant
Rank
Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Carex comosa bristly sedge Monocots None None 2B.1 IUCN_LC- Least Concern
Coastal
prairie |
Freshwate
r marsh |
Marsh &
swamp |
Valley &
foothill
grassland |
Wetland
Marshes
and
swamps,
coastal
prairie,
valley and
foothill
grassland.
Lake margins,
wet places; site
below sea
level is on a
Delta island. -5-
1010 m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Centromadia
pungens ssp.
laevis
smooth
tarplant Dicots None None 1B.1
SB_CalBG/RS
ABG-
California/Ran
cho Santa Ana
Botanic
Garden
Alkali
playa |
Chenopod
scrub |
Meadow
& seep |
Riparian
woodland
| Valley &
foothill
grassland |
Wetland
Valley and
foothill
grassland,
chenopod
scrub,
meadows
and seeps,
playas,
riparian
woodland.
Alkali
meadow, alkali
scrub; also in
disturbed
places. 5-1170
m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Scientific Name CommonNa
me
Taxon
Group Federal List State List
Rare
Plant
Rank
Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Chloropyron
maritimum ssp.
maritimum
salt marsh
bird's-beak Dicots Endangered Endangered 1B.2
BLM_S-
Sensitive |
SB_CalBG/RS
ABG-
California/Ran
cho Santa Ana
Botanic
Garden |
SB_CRES-San
Diego Zoo
CRES Native
Gene Seed
Bank |
SB_SBBG-
Santa Barbara
Botanic
Garden
Coastal
dunes |
Marsh &
swamp |
Salt marsh
| Wetland
Marshes
and
swamps,
coastal
dunes.
Limited to the
higher zones
of salt marsh
habitat. 0-10
m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Scientific Name CommonNa
me
Taxon
Group Federal List State List
Rare
Plant
Rank
Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Chorizanthe
parryi var. parryi
Parry's
spineflower Dicots None None 1B.1
BLM_S-
Sensitive |
SB_CalBG/RS
ABG-
California/Ran
cho Santa Ana
Botanic
Garden |
USFS_S-
Sensitive
Chaparral
|
Cismonta
ne
woodland
| Coastal
scrub |
Valley &
foothill
grassland
Coastal
scrub,
chaparral,
cismontane
woodland,
valley and
foothill
grassland.
Dry slopes and
flats;
sometimes at
interface of 2
vegetation
types, such as
chaparral and
oak woodland.
Dry, sandy
soils. 90-1220
m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Chorizanthe
polygonoides
var. longispina
long-spined
spineflower Dicots None None 1B.2
BLM_S-
Sensitive |
SB_CalBG/RS
ABG-
California/Ran
cho Santa Ana
Botanic
Garden |
SB_CRES-San
Diego Zoo
CRES Native
Gene Seed
Bank
Chaparral
| Coastal
scrub |
Meadow
& seep |
Ultramafi
c | Valley
& foothill
grassland |
Vernal
pool
Chaparral,
coastal
scrub,
meadows
and seeps,
valley and
foothill
grassland,
vernal
pools.
Gabbroic clay.
30-1630 m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Scientific Name CommonNa
me
Taxon
Group Federal List State List
Rare
Plant
Rank
Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Cladium
californicum
California
saw-grass Monocots None None 2B.2
SB_CalBG/RS
ABG-
California/Ran
cho Santa Ana
Botanic
Garden |
USFS_S-
Sensitive
Alkali
marsh |
Freshwate
r marsh |
Meadow
& seep |
Wetland
Meadows
and seeps,
marshes and
swamps
(alkaline or
freshwater).
Freshwater or
alkaline moist
habitats. -40-
2150 m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Cuscuta
obtusiflora var.
glandulosa
Peruvian
dodder Dicots None None 2B.2
Marsh &
swamp |
Wetland
Marshes
and swamps
(freshwater)
.
Freshwater
marsh. 15-280
m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Dodecahema
leptoceras
slender-
horned
spineflower
Dicots Endangered Endangered 1B.1
SB_CalBG/RS
ABG-
California/Ran
cho Santa Ana
Botanic
Garden
Chaparral
|
Cismonta
ne
woodland
| Coastal
scrub
Chaparral,
cismontane
woodland,
coastal
scrub
(alluvial fan
sage scrub).
Flood
deposited
terraces and
washes;
associates
include
Encelia, Dalea,
Lepidospartum
, etc. Sandy
soils. 200-765
m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Scientific Name CommonNa
me
Taxon
Group Federal List State List
Rare
Plant
Rank
Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Dudleya
multicaulis
many-
stemmed
dudleya
Dicots None None 1B.2
SB_CalBG/RS
ABG-
California/Ran
cho Santa Ana
Botanic
Garden |
USFS_S-
Sensitive
Chaparral
| Coastal
scrub |
Valley &
foothill
grassland
Chaparral,
coastal
scrub,
valley and
foothill
grassland.
In heavy, often
clayey soils or
grassy slopes.
1-910 m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Eriastrum
densifolium ssp.
sanctorum
Santa Ana
River
woollystar
Dicots Endangered Endangered 1B.1
SB_CalBG/RS
ABG-
California/Ran
cho Santa Ana
Botanic
Garden
Chaparral
| Coastal
scrub
Coastal
scrub,
chaparral.
In sandy soils
on river
floodplains or
terraced fluvial
deposits. 180-
705 m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Galium
californicum
ssp. primum
Alvin
Meadow
bedstraw
Dicots None None 1B.2
SB_CalBG/RS
ABG-
California/Ran
cho Santa Ana
Botanic
Garden |
USFS_S-
Sensitive
Chaparral
| Lower
montane
coniferous
forest
Chaparral,
lower
montane
coniferous
forest.
Grows in
shade of trees
and shrubs at
the lower edge
of the pine
belt, in pine
forest-
chaparral
ecotone.
Granitic, sandy
soils. 1460-
1830 m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Scientific Name CommonNa
me
Taxon
Group Federal List State List
Rare
Plant
Rank
Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Harpagonella
palmeri
Palmer's
grapplinghoo
k
Dicots None None 4.2
SB_CalBG/RS
ABG-
California/Ran
cho Santa Ana
Botanic
Garden |
SB_CRES-San
Diego Zoo
CRES Native
Gene Seed
Bank
Chaparral
| Coastal
scrub |
Valley &
foothill
grassland
Chaparral,
coastal
scrub,
valley and
foothill
grassland.
Clay soils;
open grassy
areas within
shrubland. 20-
955 m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Helianthus
nuttallii ssp.
parishii
Los Angeles
sunflower Dicots None None 1A
Freshwate
r marsh |
Marsh &
swamp |
Salt marsh
| Wetland
Marshes
and swamps
(coastal salt
and
freshwater).
35-1525 m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Horkelia
cuneata var.
puberula
mesa horkelia Dicots None None 1B.1
SB_CalBG/RS
ABG-
California/Ran
cho Santa Ana
Botanic
Garden |
USFS_S-
Sensitive
Chaparral
|
Cismonta
ne
woodland
| Coastal
scrub
Chaparral,
cismontane
woodland,
coastal
scrub.
Sandy or
gravelly sites.
15-1645 m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Scientific Name CommonNa
me
Taxon
Group Federal List State List
Rare
Plant
Rank
Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Lasthenia
glabrata ssp.
coulteri
Coulter's
goldfields Dicots None None 1B.1
BLM_S-
Sensitive |
SB_CalBG/RS
ABG-
California/Ran
cho Santa Ana
Botanic
Garden |
SB_SBBG-
Santa Barbara
Botanic
Garden
Alkali
playa |
Marsh &
swamp |
Salt marsh
| Vernal
pool |
Wetland
Coastal salt
marshes,
playas,
vernal
pools.
Usually found
on alkaline
soils in playas,
sinks, and
grasslands. 1-
1375 m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Lepechinia
cardiophylla
heart-leaved
pitcher sage Dicots None None 1B.2
SB_CalBG/RS
ABG-
California/Ran
cho Santa Ana
Botanic
Garden |
SB_CRES-San
Diego Zoo
CRES Native
Gene Seed
Bank | USFS_S-
Sensitive
Chaparral
|
Cismonta
ne
woodland
| Closed-
cone
coniferous
forest
Closed-cone
coniferous
forest,
chaparral,
cismontane
woodland.
115-1345 m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Scientific Name CommonNa
me
Taxon
Group Federal List State List
Rare
Plant
Rank
Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Lepidium
virginicum var.
robinsonii
Robinson's
pepper-grass Dicots None None 4.3
Chaparral
| Coastal
scrub
Chaparral,
coastal
scrub.
Dry soils,
shrubland. 4-
1435 m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Lycium parishii Parish's desert-
thorn Dicots None None 2B.3
SB_CRES-San
Diego Zoo
CRES Native
Gene Seed
Bank
Coastal
scrub |
Sonoran
desert
scrub
Coastal
scrub,
Sonoran
desert scrub.
-3-570 m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Malacothamnus
parishii
Parish's
bushmallow Dicots None None 1A
Chaparral
| Coastal
scrub
Chaparral,
coastal sage
scrub.
In a wash. 305-
455 m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Scientific Name CommonNa
me
Taxon
Group Federal List State List
Rare
Plant
Rank
Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Monardella
hypoleuca ssp.
intermedia
intermediate
monardella Dicots None None 1B.3
Chaparral
|
Cismonta
ne
woodland
| Lower
montane
coniferous
forest
Chaparral,
cismontane
woodland,
lower
montane
coniferous
forest
(sometimes)
.
Often in steep,
brushy areas.
195-1675 m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Monardella
pringlei
Pringle's
monardella Dicots None None 1A Coastal
scrub
Coastal
scrub.
Sandy hills.
300-400 m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Muhlenbergia
californica
California
muhly Monocots None None 4.3
SB_CalBG/RS
ABG-
California/Ran
cho Santa Ana
Botanic
Garden
Chaparral
| Coastal
scrub |
Lower
montane
coniferous
forest |
Meadow
& seep
Coastal
scrub,
chaparral,
lower
montane
coniferous
forest,
meadows
and seeps.
Usually found
near streams or
seeps. 100-
2000 m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Scientific Name CommonNa
me
Taxon
Group Federal List State List
Rare
Plant
Rank
Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Muhlenbergia
utilis aparejo grass Monocots None None 2B.2
Chaparral
|
Cismonta
ne
woodland
| Coastal
scrub |
Marsh &
swamp |
Meadow
& seep |
Ultramafi
c
Meadows
and seeps,
marshes and
swamps,
chaparral,
coastal
scrub,
cismontane
woodland.
Sometimes
alkaline,
sometimes
serpentinite.
25-2325 m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Myosurus
minimus ssp.
apus
little
mousetail Dicots None None 3.1
SB_CRES-San
Diego Zoo
CRES Native
Gene Seed
Bank
Valley &
foothill
grassland |
Vernal
pool |
Wetland
Vernal
pools,
valley and
foothill
grassland.
Alkaline soils.
20-640 m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Scientific Name CommonNa
me
Taxon
Group Federal List State List
Rare
Plant
Rank
Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Nasturtium
gambelii
Gambel's
water cress Dicots Endangered Threatened 1B.1
SB_CalBG/RS
ABG-
California/Ran
cho Santa Ana
Botanic
Garden |
SB_SBBG-
Santa Barbara
Botanic
Garden
Brackish
marsh |
Freshwate
r marsh |
Marsh &
swamp |
Wetland
Marshes
and
swamps.
Freshwater and
brackish
marshes at the
margins of
lakes and
along streams,
in or just
above the
water level. 5-
305 m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Navarretia
prostrata
prostrate
vernal pool
navarretia
Dicots None None 1B.2
Coastal
scrub |
Meadow
& seep |
Valley &
foothill
grassland |
Vernal
pool |
Wetland
Coastal
scrub,
valley and
foothill
grassland,
vernal
pools,
meadows
and seeps.
Alkaline soils
in grassland, or
in vernal
pools. Mesic,
alkaline sites.
3-1235 m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Scientific Name CommonNa
me
Taxon
Group Federal List State List
Rare
Plant
Rank
Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Nolina
cismontana
chaparral
nolina Monocots None None 1B.2
SB_CalBG/RS
ABG-
California/Ran
cho Santa Ana
Botanic
Garden |
SB_SBBG-
Santa Barbara
Botanic
Garden |
USFS_S-
Sensitive
Chaparral
| Coastal
scrub |
Ultramafi
c
Chaparral,
coastal
scrub.
Primarily on
sandstone and
shale
substrates; also
known from
gabbro. 140-
1100 m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Phacelia keckii Santiago Peak
phacelia Dicots None None 1B.3
SB_CalBG/RS
ABG-
California/Ran
cho Santa Ana
Botanic
Garden |
USFS_S-
Sensitive
Chaparral
| Closed-
cone
coniferous
forest
Closed-cone
coniferous
forest,
chaparral.
Open areas,
sometimes
along creeks.
545-1525 m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Phacelia
stellaris
Brand's star
phacelia Dicots None None 1B.1
SB_CalBG/RS
ABG-
California/Ran
cho Santa Ana
Botanic
Garden
Coastal
dunes |
Coastal
scrub
Coastal
scrub,
coastal
dunes.
Open areas. 3-
370 m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Scientific Name CommonNa
me
Taxon
Group Federal List State List
Rare
Plant
Rank
Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Pseudognaphali
um
leucocephalum
white rabbit-
tobacco Dicots None None 2B.2
Chaparral
|
Cismonta
ne
woodland
| Coastal
scrub |
Riparian
woodland
Riparian
woodland,
cismontane
woodland,
coastal
scrub,
chaparral.
Sandy,
gravelly sites.
35-515 m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Ribes
divaricatum var.
parishii
Parish's
gooseberry Dicots None None 1A Riparian
woodland
Riparian
woodland.
Salix swales in
riparian
habitats. 65-
300 m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Riversidian
Alluvial Fan
Sage Scrub
Riversidian
Alluvial Fan
Sage Scrub
Scrub None None Coastal
scrub
Not
present.
Scientific Name CommonNa
me
Taxon
Group Federal List State List
Rare
Plant
Rank
Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Senecio
aphanactis
chaparral
ragwort Dicots None None 2B.2
SB_CalBG/RS
ABG-
California/Ran
cho Santa Ana
Botanic
Garden |
SB_CRES-San
Diego Zoo
CRES Native
Gene Seed
Bank
Chaparral
|
Cismonta
ne
woodland
| Coastal
scrub
Chaparral,
cismontane
woodland,
coastal
scrub.
Drying
alkaline flats.
20-1020 m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Sidalcea
neomexicana
salt spring
checkerbloom Dicots None None 2B.2 USFS_S-
Sensitive
Alkali
playa |
Chaparral
| Coastal
scrub |
Lower
montane
coniferous
forest |
Mojavean
desert
scrub |
Wetland
Playas,
chaparral,
coastal
scrub, lower
montane
coniferous
forest,
Mojavean
desert scrub.
Alkali springs
and marshes. 3-
2380 m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Scientific Name CommonNa
me
Taxon
Group Federal List State List
Rare
Plant
Rank
Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Southern
California
Arroyo
Chub/Santa Ana
Sucker Stream
Southern
California
Arroyo
Chub/Santa
Ana Sucker
Stream
Inland
Waters None None Not
present.
Southern Coast
Live Oak
Riparian Forest
Southern
Coast Live
Oak Riparian
Forest
Riparian None None Riparian
forest
Not
present.
Southern
Cottonwood
Willow Riparian
Forest
Southern
Cottonwood
Willow
Riparian
Forest
Riparian None None Riparian
forest
Not
present.
Southern
Interior Cypress
Forest
Southern
Interior
Cypress
Forest
Forest None None
Closed-
cone
coniferous
forest
Not
present.
Southern
Riparian Forest
Southern
Riparian
Forest
Riparian None None Riparian
forest
Not
present.
Southern
Riparian Scrub
Southern
Riparian
Scrub
Riparian None None Riparian
scrub
Not
present.
Scientific Name CommonNa
me
Taxon
Group Federal List State List
Rare
Plant
Rank
Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Southern
Sycamore Alder
Riparian
Woodland
Southern
Sycamore
Alder
Riparian
Woodland
Riparian None None Riparian
woodland
Not
present.
Southern
Willow Scrub
Southern
Willow Scrub Riparian None None Riparian
scrub
Not
present.
Sphenopholis
obtusata
prairie wedge
grass Monocots None None 2B.2
Cismonta
ne
woodland
| Meadow
& seep |
Wetland
Cismontane
woodland,
meadows
and seeps.
Open moist
sites, along
rivers and
springs,
alkaline desert
seeps. 15-2625
m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Scientific Name CommonNa
me
Taxon
Group Federal List State List
Rare
Plant
Rank
Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Symphyotrichu
m defoliatum
San
Bernardino
aster
Dicots None None 1B.2
SB_CalBG/RS
ABG-
California/Ran
cho Santa Ana
Botanic
Garden |
SB_CRES-San
Diego Zoo
CRES Native
Gene Seed
Bank | USFS_S-
Sensitive
Cismonta
ne
woodland
| Coastal
scrub |
Lower
montane
coniferous
forest |
Marsh &
swamp |
Meadow
& seep |
Valley &
foothill
grassland
Meadows
and seeps,
cismontane
woodland,
coastal
scrub, lower
montane
coniferous
forest,
marshes and
swamps,
valley and
foothill
grassland.
Vernally mesic
grassland or
near ditches,
streams and
springs;
disturbed
areas. 3-2045
m.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is
not
present.
Texosporium
sancti-jacobi
woven-spored
lichen Lichens None None 3 Chaparral Chaparral.
Open sites; in
California with
Adenostoma
fasciculatum,
Eriogonum,
Selaginella.
Found on soil,
small mammal
pellets, dead
twigs, and on
Selaginella. 60-
870 m.
Not
present.
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Taxon
Group
Federal
List State List Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Accipiter
cooperii
Cooper's
hawk Birds None None
CDFW_WL-
Watch List |
IUCN_LC-
Least Concern
Cismontane
woodland |
Riparian forest |
Riparian
woodland |
Upper montane
coniferous
forest
Woodland,
chiefly of open,
interrupted or
marginal type.
Nest sites
mainly in
riparian
growths of
deciduous
trees, as in
canyon bottoms
on river flood-
plains; also,
live oaks.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Agelaius
tricolor
tricolored
blackbird Birds None Threatened
BLM_S-
Sensitive |
CDFW_SSC-
Species of
Special
Concern |
IUCN_EN-
Endangered |
USFWS_BCC-
Birds of
Conservation
Concern
Freshwater
marsh | Marsh
& swamp |
Swamp |
Wetland
Highly colonial
species, most
numerous in
Central Valley
and vicinity.
Largely
endemic to
California.
Requires open
water,
protected
nesting
substrate, and
foraging area
with insect prey
within a few
km of the
colony.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Taxon
Group
Federal
List State List Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Aimophila
ruficeps
canescens
southern
California
rufous-
crowned
sparrow
Birds None None CDFW_WL-
Watch List
Chaparral |
Coastal scrub
Resident in
Southern
California
coastal sage
scrub and
sparse mixed
chaparral.
Frequents
relatively steep,
often rocky
hillsides with
grass and forb
patches.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Anaxyrus
californicus arroyo toad Amphibians Endangered None
CDFW_SSC-
Species of
Special
Concern |
IUCN_EN-
Endangered
Desert wash |
Riparian scrub |
Riparian
woodland |
South coast
flowing waters |
South coast
standing waters
Semi-arid
regions near
washes or
intermittent
streams,
including
valley-foothill
and desert
riparian, desert
wash, etc.
Rivers with
sandy banks,
willows,
cottonwoods,
and sycamores;
loose, gravelly
areas of
streams in drier
parts of range.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Taxon
Group
Federal
List State List Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Anniella
stebbinsi
Southern
California
legless lizard
Reptiles None None
CDFW_SSC-
Species of
Special
Concern |
USFS_S-
Sensitive
Broadleaved
upland forest |
Chaparral |
Coastal dunes |
Coastal scrub
Generally south
of the
Transverse
Range,
extending to
northwestern
Baja California.
Occurs in
sandy or loose
loamy soils
under sparse
vegetation.
Disjunct
populations in
the Tehachapi
and Piute
Mountains in
Kern County.
Variety of
habitats;
generally in
moist, loose
soil. They
prefer soils
with a high
moisture
content.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Taxon
Group
Federal
List State List Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Arizona elegans
occidentalis
California
glossy snake Reptiles None None
CDFW_SSC-
Species of
Special
Concern
Patchily
distributed
from the
eastern portion
of San
Francisco Bay,
southern San
Joaquin Valley,
and the Coast,
Transverse, and
Peninsular
ranges, south to
Baja California.
Generalist
reported from a
range of scrub
and grassland
habitats, often
with loose or
sandy soils.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Artemisiospiza
belli belli
Bell's
sparrow Birds None None CDFW_WL-
Watch List
Chaparral |
Coastal scrub
Nests in
chaparral
dominated by
fairly dense
stands of
chamise. Found
in coastal sage
scrub in south
of range.
Nest located on
the ground
beneath a shrub
or in a shrub 6-
18 inches
above ground.
Territories
about 50 yds
apart.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Taxon
Group
Federal
List State List Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Asio otus long-eared
owl Birds None None
CDFW_SSC-
Species of
Special
Concern |
IUCN_LC-
Least Concern |
USFWS_BCC-
Birds of
Conservation
Concern
Cismontane
woodland |
Great Basin
scrub | Riparian
forest | Riparian
woodland |
Upper montane
coniferous
forest
Riparian
bottomlands
grown to tall
willows and
cottonwoods;
also, belts of
live oak
paralleling
stream courses.
Require
adjacent open
land,
productive of
mice and the
presence of old
nests of crows,
hawks, or
magpies for
breeding.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Aspidoscelis
hyperythra
orange-
throated
whiptail
Reptiles None None
CDFW_WL-
Watch List |
IUCN_LC-
Least Concern |
USFS_S-
Sensitive
Chaparral |
Cismontane
woodland |
Coastal scrub
Inhabits low-
elevation
coastal scrub,
chaparral, and
valley-foothill
hardwood
habitats.
Prefers washes
and other sandy
areas with
patches of
brush and
rocks.
Perennial
plants
necessary for
its major food:
termites.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Taxon
Group
Federal
List State List Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Aspidoscelis
tigris stejnegeri
coastal
whiptail Reptiles None None
CDFW_SSC-
Species of
Special
Concern
Found in
deserts and
semi-arid areas
with sparse
vegetation and
open areas.
Also found in
woodland and
riparian areas.
Ground may be
firm soil,
sandy, or rocky.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Athene
cunicularia
burrowing
owl Birds None None
BLM_S-
Sensitive |
CDFW_SSC-
Species of
Special
Concern |
IUCN_LC-
Least Concern |
USFWS_BCC-
Birds of
Conservation
Concern
Coastal prairie |
Coastal scrub |
Great Basin
grassland |
Great Basin
scrub |
Mojavean
desert scrub |
Sonoran desert
scrub | Valley &
foothill
grassland
Open, dry
annual or
perennial
grasslands,
deserts, and
scrublands
characterized
by low-growing
vegetation.
Subterranean
nester,
dependent upon
burrowing
mammals, most
notably, the
California
ground squirrel.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Taxon
Group
Federal
List State List Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Bombus
crotchii
Crotch's
bumble bee Insects None Candidate
Endangered
IUCN_EN-
Endangered
Coastal
California east
to the Sierra-
Cascade crest
and south into
Mexico.
Food plant
genera include
Antirrhinum,
Phacelia,
Clarkia,
Dendromecon,
Eschscholzia,
and
Eriogonum.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Taxon
Group
Federal
List State List Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Bombus
pensylvanicus
American
bumble bee Insects None None IUCN_VU-
Vulnerable
Coastal prairie |
Great Basin
grassland |
Valley &
foothill
grassland
Long-tongued;
forages on a
wide variety of
flowers
including
vetches (Vicia),
clovers
(Trifolium),
thistles
(Cirsium),
sunflowers
(Helianthus),
etc. Nests
above ground
under long
grass or
underground.
Queens
overwinter in
rotten wood or
underground.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Taxon
Group
Federal
List State List Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Buteo
swainsoni
Swainson's
hawk Birds None Threatened
BLM_S-
Sensitive |
IUCN_LC-
Least Concern
Great Basin
grassland |
Riparian forest |
Riparian
woodland |
Valley &
foothill
grassland
Breeds in
grasslands with
scattered trees,
juniper-sage
flats, riparian
areas,
savannahs, and
agricultural or
ranch lands
with groves or
lines of trees.
Requires
adjacent
suitable
foraging areas
such as
grasslands, or
alfalfa or grain
fields
supporting
rodent
populations.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Catostomus
santaanae
Santa Ana
sucker Fish Threatened None
AFS_TH-
Threatened |
CDFW_SSC-
Species of
Special
Concern |
IUCN_EN-
Endangered
Aquatic | South
coast flowing
waters
Endemic to Los
Angeles Basin
south coastal
streams.
Habitat
generalists, but
prefer sand-
rubble-boulder
bottoms, cool,
clear water, and
algae.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Ceratochrysis
longimala
Desert
cuckoo wasp Insects None None
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Taxon
Group
Federal
List State List Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Chaetodipus
fallax fallax
northwestern
San Diego
pocket mouse
Mammals None None Chaparral |
Coastal scrub
Coastal scrub,
chaparral,
grasslands,
sagebrush, etc.
in western San
Diego,
Riverside, San
Bernardino,
and Los
Angeles
Counties,
inclusive of
Orange County.
Sandy,
herbaceous
areas, usually
in association
with rocks or
coarse gravel.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Cicindela
tranquebarica
viridissima
greenest tiger
beetle Insects None None Riparian
woodland
Inhabits the
woodlands
adjacent to the
Santa Ana
River basin.
Usually found
in open spots
between trees.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Taxon
Group
Federal
List State List Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Coccyzus
americanus
occidentalis
western
yellow-billed
cuckoo
Birds Threatened Endangered
BLM_S-
Sensitive |
USFS_S-
Sensitive
Riparian forest
Riparian forest
nester, along
the broad,
lower flood-
bottoms of
larger river
systems.
Nests in
riparian jungles
of willow,
often mixed
with
cottonwoods,
with lower
story of
blackberry,
nettles, or wild
grape.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Coleonyx
variegatus
abbotti
San Diego
banded gecko Reptiles None None
CDFW_SSC-
Species of
Special
Concern
Chaparral |
Coastal scrub
Coastal and
cismontane
Southern
California.
Found in
granite or rocky
outcrops in
coastal scrub
and chaparral
habitats.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Taxon
Group
Federal
List State List Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Coturnicops
noveboracensis yellow rail Birds None None
CDFW_SSC-
Species of
Special
Concern |
IUCN_LC-
Least Concern |
USFS_S-
Sensitive |
USFWS_BCC-
Birds of
Conservation
Concern
Freshwater
marsh |
Meadow & seep
Summer
resident in
eastern Sierra
Nevada in
Mono County.
Freshwater
marshlands.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Crotalus ruber red-diamond
rattlesnake Reptiles None None
CDFW_SSC-
Species of
Special
Concern |
IUCN_LC-
Least Concern |
USFS_S-
Sensitive
Chaparral |
Mojavean
desert scrub |
Sonoran desert
scrub
Chaparral,
woodland,
grassland, and
desert areas
from coastal
San Diego
County to the
eastern slopes
of the
mountains.
Occurs in rocky
areas and dense
vegetation.
Needs rodent
burrows, cracks
in rocks or
surface cover
objects.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Taxon
Group
Federal
List State List Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Diadophis
punctatus
modestus
San
Bernardino
ringneck
snake
Reptiles None None USFS_S-
Sensitive
Most common
in open,
relatively rocky
areas. Often in
somewhat
moist
microhabitats
near
intermittent
streams.
Avoids moving
through open or
barren areas by
restricting
movements to
areas of surface
litter or
herbaceous
veg.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Dipodomys
merriami
parvus
San
Bernardino
kangaroo rat
Mammals Endangered Endangered
CDFW_SSC-
Species of
Special
Concern
Coastal scrub
Alluvial scrub
vegetation on
sandy loam
substrates
characteristic of
alluvial fans
and flood
plains.
Needs early to
intermediate
seral stages.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Dipodomys
stephensi
Stephens'
kangaroo rat Mammals Threatened Threatened IUCN_VU-
Vulnerable
Coastal scrub |
Valley &
foothill
grassland
Primarily
annual and
perennial
grasslands, but
also occurs in
coastal scrub
and sagebrush
with sparse
canopy cover.
Prefers
buckwheat,
chamise, brome
grass and
filaree. Will
burrow into
firm soil.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Taxon
Group
Federal
List State List Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Elanus leucurus white-tailed
kite Birds None None
BLM_S-
Sensitive |
CDFW_FP-
Fully Protected |
IUCN_LC-
Least Concern
Cismontane
woodland |
Marsh &
swamp |
Riparian
woodland |
Valley &
foothill
grassland |
Wetland
Rolling
foothills and
valley margins
with scattered
oaks and river
bottomlands or
marshes next to
deciduous
woodland.
Open
grasslands,
meadows, or
marshes for
foraging close
to isolated,
dense-topped
trees for
nesting and
perching.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Empidonax
traillii extimus
southwestern
willow
flycatcher
Birds Endangered Endangered Riparian
woodland
Riparian
woodlands in
Southern
California.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Taxon
Group
Federal
List State List Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Emys
marmorata
western pond
turtle Reptiles Proposed
Threatened None
BLM_S-
Sensitive |
CDFW_SSC-
Species of
Special
Concern |
IUCN_VU-
Vulnerable |
USFS_S-
Sensitive
Aquatic |
Artificial
flowing waters |
Klamath/North
coast flowing
waters |
Klamath/North
coast standing
waters | Marsh
& swamp |
Sacramento/San
Joaquin flowing
waters |
Sacramento/San
Joaquin
standing waters
| South coast
flowing waters |
South coast stan
A thoroughly
aquatic turtle of
ponds,
marshes, rivers,
streams and
irrigation
ditches, usually
with aquatic
vegetation,
below 6000 ft
elevation.
Needs basking
sites and
suitable (sandy
banks or grassy
open fields)
upland habitat
up to 0.5 km
from water for
egg-laying.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Eremophila
alpestris actia
California
horned lark Birds None None
CDFW_WL-
Watch List |
IUCN_LC-
Least Concern
Marine
intertidal &
splash zone
communities |
Meadow & seep
Coastal
regions, chiefly
from Sonoma
County to San
Diego County.
Also main part
of San Joaquin
Valley and east
to foothills.
Short-grass
prairie, "bald"
hills, mountain
meadows, open
coastal plains,
fallow grain
fields, alkali
flats.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Taxon
Group
Federal
List State List Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Eugnosta
busckana
Busck's
gallmoth Insects None None Coastal dunes |
Coastal scrub
Coastal
southern
California.
Tiny micro-
moth (1 cm)
with larva
forming galls
on host plant
Encelia
californica
(California
brittlebush).
Adult flight
period is during
winter,
generally from
November to
February, and
have been
reported at UV
lights and
porch lights.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Eumops perotis
californicus
western
mastiff bat Mammals None None
BLM_S-
Sensitive |
CDFW_SSC-
Species of
Special
Concern
Chaparral |
Cismontane
woodland |
Coastal scrub |
Valley &
foothill
grassland
Many open,
semi-arid to
arid habitats,
including
conifer and
deciduous
woodlands,
coastal scrub,
grasslands,
chaparral, etc.
Roosts in
crevices in cliff
faces, high
buildings, trees
and tunnels.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Taxon
Group
Federal
List State List Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Euphydryas
editha quino
quino
checkerspot
butterfly
Insects Endangered None Chaparral |
Coastal scrub
Sunny openings
within
chaparral and
coastal sage
shrublands in
parts of
Riverside and
San Diego
counties.
Hills and mesas
near the coast.
Need high
densities of
food plants
Plantago erecta,
P. insularis, and
Orthocarpus
purpurescens.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Falco
columbarius merlin Birds None None
CDFW_WL-
Watch List |
IUCN_LC-
Least Concern
Estuary | Great
Basin grassland
| Valley &
foothill
grassland
Seacoast, tidal
estuaries, open
woodlands,
savannahs,
edges of
grasslands and
deserts, farms
and ranches.
Clumps of trees
or windbreaks
are required for
roosting in
open country.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Taxon
Group
Federal
List State List Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Gila orcuttii arroyo chub Fish None None
AFS_VU-
Vulnerable |
CDFW_SSC-
Species of
Special
Concern |
IUCN_VU-
Vulnerable |
USFS_S-
Sensitive
Aquatic | South
coast flowing
waters
Native to
streams from
Malibu Creek
to San Luis Rey
River basin.
Introduced into
streams in
Santa Clara,
Ventura, Santa
Ynez, Mojave
and San Diego
river basins.
Slow water
stream sections
with mud or
sand bottoms.
Feeds heavily
on aquatic
vegetation and
associated
invertebrates.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus bald eagle Birds Delisted Endangered
BLM_S-
Sensitive |
CDF_S-
Sensitive |
CDFW_FP-
Fully Protected |
IUCN_LC-
Least Concern |
USFS_S-
Sensitive
Lower montane
coniferous
forest |
Oldgrowth
Ocean shore,
lake margins,
and rivers for
both nesting
and wintering.
Most nests
within 1 mile
of water.
Nests in large,
old-growth, or
dominant live
tree with open
branches,
especially
ponderosa pine.
Roosts
communally in
winter.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Taxon
Group
Federal
List State List Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Icteria virens yellow-
breasted chat Birds None None
CDFW_SSC-
Species of
Special
Concern |
IUCN_LC-
Least Concern
Riparian forest |
Riparian scrub |
Riparian
woodland
Summer
resident;
inhabits
riparian
thickets of
willow and
other brushy
tangles near
watercourses.
Nests in low,
dense riparian,
consisting of
willow,
blackberry,
wild grape;
forages and
nests within 10
ft of ground.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Lanius
ludovicianus
loggerhead
shrike Birds None None
CDFW_SSC-
Species of
Special
Concern |
IUCN_NT-Near
Threatened
Broadleaved
upland forest |
Desert wash |
Joshua tree
woodland |
Mojavean
desert scrub |
Pinon & juniper
woodlands |
Riparian
woodland |
Sonoran desert
scrub
Broken
woodlands,
savannah,
pinyon-juniper,
Joshua tree,
and riparian
woodlands,
desert oases,
scrub and
washes.
Prefers open
country for
hunting, with
perches for
scanning, and
fairly dense
shrubs and
brush for
nesting.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Lasiurus
xanthinus
western
yellow bat Mammals None None
CDFW_SSC-
Species of
Special
Concern |
IUCN_LC-
Least Concern
Desert wash
Found in valley
foothill
riparian, desert
riparian, desert
wash, and palm
oasis habitats.
Roosts in trees,
particularly
palms. Forages
over water and
among trees.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Taxon
Group
Federal
List State List Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Laterallus
jamaicensis
coturniculus
California
black rail Birds None Threatened
BLM_S-
Sensitive |
CDFW_FP-
Fully Protected |
IUCN_EN-
Endangered
Brackish marsh
| Freshwater
marsh | Marsh
& swamp | Salt
marsh | Wetland
Inhabits
freshwater
marshes, wet
meadows and
shallow
margins of
saltwater
marshes
bordering
larger bays.
Needs water
depths of about
1 inch that do
not fluctuate
during the year
and dense
vegetation for
nesting habitat.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Lepus
californicus
bennettii
San Diego
black-tailed
jackrabbit
Mammals None None Coastal scrub
Intermediate
canopy stages
of shrub
habitats and
open shrub /
herbaceous and
tree /
herbaceous
edges.
Coastal sage
scrub habitats
in Southern
California.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Myotis
yumanensis Yuma myotis Mammals None None
BLM_S-
Sensitive |
IUCN_LC-
Least Concern
Lower montane
coniferous
forest | Riparian
forest | Riparian
woodland |
Upper montane
coniferous
forest
Optimal
habitats are
open forests
and woodlands
with sources of
water over
which to feed.
Distribution is
closely tied to
bodies of
water.
Maternity
colonies in
caves, mines,
buildings or
crevices.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Taxon
Group
Federal
List State List Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Neolarra alba white cuckoo
bee Insects None None
Known only
from localities
in Southern
California.
Cleptoparasitic
in the nests of
perdita bees.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Neotoma lepida
intermedia
San Diego
desert
woodrat
Mammals None None
CDFW_SSC-
Species of
Special
Concern
Coastal scrub
Coastal scrub
of Southern
California from
San Diego
County to San
Luis Obispo
County.
Moderate to
dense canopies
preferred. They
are particularly
abundant in
rock outcrops,
rocky cliffs,
and slopes.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Nyctinomops
femorosaccus
pocketed free-
tailed bat Mammals None None
CDFW_SSC-
Species of
Special
Concern |
IUCN_LC-
Least Concern
Joshua tree
woodland |
Pinon & juniper
woodlands |
Riparian scrub |
Sonoran desert
scrub
Variety of arid
areas in
Southern
California; pine-
juniper
woodlands,
desert scrub,
palm oasis,
desert wash,
desert riparian,
etc.
Rocky areas
with high cliffs.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Taxon
Group
Federal
List State List Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Oncorhynchus
mykiss irideus
pop. 10
steelhead -
southern
California
DPS
Fish Endangered Candidate
Endangered
AFS_EN-
Endangered
Aquatic | South
coast flowing
waters
Federal listing
refers to
populations
from Santa
Maria River
south to
southern extent
of range (San
Mateo Creek in
San Diego
County).
Southern
steelhead likely
have greater
physiological
tolerances to
warmer water
and more
variable
conditions.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Onychomys
torridus ramona
southern
grasshopper
mouse
Mammals None None
CDFW_SSC-
Species of
Special
Concern
Chenopod scrub
Desert areas,
especially scrub
habitats with
friable soils for
digging. Prefers
low to
moderate shrub
cover.
Feeds almost
exclusively on
arthropods,
especially
scorpions and
orthopteran
insects.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Pandion
haliaetus osprey Birds None None
CDF_S-
Sensitive |
CDFW_WL-
Watch List |
IUCN_LC-
Least Concern
Riparian forest
Ocean shore,
bays,
freshwater
lakes, and
larger streams.
Large nests
built in tree-
tops within 15
miles of a good
fish-producing
body of water.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Taxon
Group
Federal
List State List Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Perognathus
longimembris
brevinasus
Los Angeles
pocket mouse Mammals None None
CDFW_SSC-
Species of
Special
Concern
Coastal scrub
Lower
elevation
grasslands and
coastal sage
communities in
and around the
Los Angeles
Basin.
Open ground
with fine, sandy
soils. May not
dig extensive
burrows, hiding
under weeds
and dead leaves
instead.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Phrynosoma
blainvillii
coast horned
lizard Reptiles None None
BLM_S-
Sensitive |
CDFW_SSC-
Species of
Special
Concern |
IUCN_LC-
Least Concern
Chaparral |
Cismontane
woodland |
Coastal bluff
scrub | Coastal
scrub | Desert
wash | Pinon &
juniper
woodlands |
Riparian scrub |
Riparian
woodland |
Valley &
foothill
grassland
Frequents a
wide variety of
habitats, most
common in
lowlands along
sandy washes
with scattered
low bushes.
Open areas for
sunning, bushes
for cover,
patches of
loose soil for
burial, and
abundant
supply of ants
and other
insects.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Taxon
Group
Federal
List State List Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Polioptila
californica
californica
coastal
California
gnatcatcher
Birds Threatened None
CDFW_SSC-
Species of
Special
Concern
Coastal bluff
scrub | Coastal
scrub
Obligate,
permanent
resident of
coastal sage
scrub below
2500 ft in
Southern
California.
Low, coastal
sage scrub in
arid washes, on
mesas and
slopes. Not all
areas classified
as coastal sage
scrub are
occupied.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Rhaphiomidas
terminatus
abdominalis
Delhi Sands
flower-loving
fly
Insects Endangered None Interior dunes
Found only in
areas of the
Delhi Sands
formation in
southwestern
San Bernardino
and
northwestern
Riverside
counties.
Requires fine,
sandy soils,
often with
wholly or partly
consolidated
dunes and
sparse
vegetation.
Oviposition
req. shade.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Taxon
Group
Federal
List State List Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Rhinichthys
osculus ssp. 8
Santa Ana
speckled dace Fish None None
AFS_TH-
Threatened |
CDFW_SSC-
Species of
Special
Concern |
USFS_S-
Sensitive
Aquatic | South
coast flowing
waters
Headwaters of
the Santa Ana
and San
Gabriel rivers.
May be
extirpated from
the Los
Angeles River
system.
Requires
permanent
flowing
streams with
summer water
temps of 17-20
C. Usually
inhabits
shallow cobble
and gravel
riffles.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Setophaga
petechia
yellow
warbler Birds None None
CDFW_SSC-
Species of
Special
Concern |
IUCN_LC-
Least Concern
Riparian forest |
Riparian scrub |
Riparian
woodland
Riparian plant
associations in
close proximity
to water. Also
nests in
montane
shrubbery in
open conifer
forests in
Cascades and
Sierra Nevada.
Frequently
found nesting
and foraging in
willow shrubs
and thickets,
and in other
riparian plants
including
cottonwoods,
sycamores, ash,
and alders.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Taxon
Group
Federal
List State List Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Spea
hammondii
western
spadefoot Amphibians Proposed
Threatened None
BLM_S-
Sensitive |
CDFW_SSC-
Species of
Special
Concern |
IUCN_NT-Near
Threatened
Cismontane
woodland |
Coastal scrub |
Valley &
foothill
grassland |
Vernal pool |
Wetland
Occurs
primarily in
grassland
habitats, but
can be found in
valley-foothill
hardwood
woodlands.
Vernal pools
are essential for
breeding and
egg-laying.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Spinus
lawrencei
Lawrence's
goldfinch Birds None None
IUCN_LC-
Least Concern |
USFWS_BCC-
Birds of
Conservation
Concern
Broadleaved
upland forest |
Chaparral |
Pinon & juniper
woodlands |
Riparian
woodland
Nests in open
oak or other
arid woodland
and chaparral,
near water.
Nearby
herbaceous
habitats used
for feeding.
Closely
associated with
oaks.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Taxon
Group
Federal
List State List Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Streptocephalus
woottoni
Riverside
fairy shrimp Crustaceans Endangered None IUCN_EN-
Endangered
Coastal scrub |
Valley &
foothill
grassland |
Vernal pool |
Wetland
Endemic to
Western
Riverside,
Orange, and
San Diego
counties in
areas of
tectonic
swales/earth
slump basins in
grassland and
coastal sage
scrub.
Inhabit
seasonally
astatic pools
filled by
winter/spring
rains. Hatch in
warm water
later in the
season.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Taxon
Group
Federal
List State List Other Status Habitats General
Habitat Microhabitat Presence/
Absence
Taxidea taxus American
badger Mammals None None
CDFW_SSC-
Species of
Special
Concern |
IUCN_LC-
Least Concern
Alkali marsh |
Alkali playa |
Alpine | Alpine
dwarf scrub |
Bog & fen |
Brackish marsh
| Broadleaved
upland forest |
Chaparral |
Chenopod scrub
| Cismontane
woodland |
Closed-cone
coniferous
forest | Coastal
bluff scrub |
Coastal dunes |
Coastal prairie |
Most abundant
in drier open
stages of most
shrub, forest,
and herbaceous
habitats, with
friable soils.
Needs
sufficient food,
friable soils and
open,
uncultivated
ground. Preys
on burrowing
rodents. Digs
burrows.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
Vireo bellii
pusillus
least Bell's
vireo Birds Endangered Endangered
Riparian forest |
Riparian scrub |
Riparian
woodland
Summer
resident of
Southern
California in
low riparian in
vicinity of
water or in dry
river bottoms;
below 2000 ft.
Nests placed
along margins
of bushes or on
twigs
projecting into
pathways,
usually willow,
Baccharis,
mesquite.
There is no
suitable
habitat on
site. This
species is not
present.
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
Soil Map—Western Riverside Area, California
(web soil)
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
6/12/2024