Riverside City Council
December 3, 2024

The Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) is a strategic plan that WMWD uses to prepare for and respond to foreseeable and unforeseeable water shortages. A water shortage occurs Section 5.19 City of Riverside
Utilities and Services Systems Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.19-8
when available water supply is insufficient to meet the normally expected customer water use at a given point in time. A shortage may occur due to a number of reasons, such as water supply quality changes, climate change, drought, regional power outage, and catastrophic events (e.g., earthquake). Additionally, the State may declare a statewide drought emergency and mandate that water suppliers reduce demands, as occurred in 2014. The WSCP serves as the operating manual that WMWD will use to address catastrophic service disruptions through proactive, rather than reactive, mitigation of water shortages. The Western WSCP provides a process for an annual water supply and demand assessment and structured steps designed to respond to actual conditions. This level of detailed planning and preparation provide accountability and predictability and will help WMWD maintain reliable supplies and reduce the impacts of any supply shortages and/or interruptions. Th e WSCP was originally prepared in conjunction with W MWD’s 2020 UWMP and is compliant with the California Water Code (CWC) Section 10632 and incorporates guidance from the State of California Department of Water Resources (DWR) UWMP Guidebook 2020. (UMWP)
In the 2020 UWMP, WMWD conducted a Water Reliability Assessment to compare the total water supply sources available to long- term projected water use over the next 25 years, in five- year increments, for a normal water year, a single dry water year, and a drought lasting five consecutive water years. WMWD also conducted a Drought Risk Assessment to evaluate a drought period that lasts five consecutive water years starting in 2021. An analysis of both assessments determined that W MWD is reliable and anticipates meeting retail deman ds through local and imported water sources. WMWD Wholesale expects to have sufficient supplies available to meet the demands of Western Retail and its other wholesale customers, even in dry years, based on Metropolitan’s 2020 UWMP.

5.19.2 Related Regulation

5.19.2.1 Federal Regulations
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA), enacted by Congress in 1972, requires states to set standards to protect, maintain, and restore water quality through the regulation of point source and non- point source discharges to surface w ater. Those discharges are regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process (CWA Section 402). The California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and its nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) administer NPDES permitting authority. The P roject site is within RWQCB Region 8 (Santa Ana Region).

5.19.2.2 State Regulations
Public Resource Code
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 requires that each county prepare a new Integrated Waste Management Plan. The Act further required each city to prepare a Source Reduction Plan and Recycling Element (SRRE) by July 1, 1991. Each source reduction element includes a plan for achieving a solid waste goal of 25% by January 1, 1995, and 50% by January City of Riverside Section 5.19
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Utilities and Service Systems

5.19-9
1, 2000. A number of changes to the municipal solid waste diversion requirements under the Integrated Waste Management Act were adopted, including a revision to the statutory requirement for 50% diversion of solid waste. Under these provisions, local go vernments shall continue to diver 50% of all solid waste on and after January 1, 2000.

State Water Resources Control Board
The SWRCB regulates water quality in California for human uses and environmental protection.

The SWRCB, along with nine RWQCBs, regu lates wastewater, stormwater, and irrigation discharges, dredge and fill activities, and alteration of Federal water bodies under the CWA’s 401 program. Additionally, the SWRCB implements the Federal NPDES program under the CWA, including issuance of the N PDES Construction General Permit for regulation of construction stormwater discharges.

Senate Bill X7-7
California adopted Senate Bill (SB) X7- 7, or the Water Conservation Act of 2009, in November 2009. The legislation requires urban water retailers to set urban water use targets to achieve a 20 percent reduction in per capita urban water use by December 31, 2020. Additionally, the law requires agricultural water suppliers to prepare, adopt, and regularly update agricultural water management plans. Agricultural and urban water providers are ineligible for certain State grants and loans if they do not adhere to water conservation requirements outlined in the law.

Senate Bill No. 7
California adopted Senate Bill (SB) SB-7, the California Water Submeter Requirements for Multi- Family Housing, in 2018. The legislation requires owners of new multi-unit residential properties built after January 1, 2018, to include water submetering systems in the building’s design when submitting an application for water service connection to measure the quantity of water supplied to each individual. This will ensure each tenant will be appropriately billed for their individual water use.

Senate Bills 610 and 221
In 2001, California adopted SB 610 and SB 221, thereby amending the California Water Code.

Under these new laws, certain types of development projects are now required to provide detailed water supply assessments (WSAs) to planning agencies. The primary purpose of a WSA is to determine if the identified water supply or water supplier will be able to meet projected demands for the project, in addition to existing and planned future uses, over a 20-year projection and with consideration to normal, dry, and multi-dry water years. Thresholds requiring the preparation of a WSA include residential developments of more than 500 dwelling units, shopping centers or business establishments employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space, commercial office buildings employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space, and projects that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project.

As the Project consists of the development of 347 apartment units, the Project falls below the threshold of more than 500 dwelling units that would trigger the need for a project-specific WSA.

Section 5.19 City of Riverside
Utilities and Services Systems Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.19-10
Senate Bill 1305
SB 1305, the Power Source Disclosure requires suppliers of electricity to disclose to consumers “accurate, reliable, and simple to understand information on the sources of energy that are being used…” (Public Utilities Code Section 398.1 (b)) The law requires that these suppliers tell consumers about what type of resources is used to generate the electricity being used.

Regional Water Management Planning Act
Adopted by the state legislature in 2002, the Regional Water Management Planning Act, or SB 1672, authorizes preparation of integrated regional water management plans. Such plans are developed by regional water management groups, defined as three or more local public agencies, at least two of which have statutory authority over water supply. Integrated regional water management plans address qualified programs and projects relating to water supply, water quality, flood protection, or other water -related topics undertaken by the participating public agencies. Qualified projects, as detailed in the legislation, include but are not limited to groundwater, urban, and agricultural water mana gement planning efforts, levee or flood control infrastructure maintenance or construction, water recycling projects, and water conservation programs.

5.19.2.3 Regional Regulations
Riverside County Waste Resources Department Construction and Demolition Recycling The Riverside County Waste Resource Department (RCWRD) requires that projects that have the potential to generate construction and demolition waste complete a Waste Recycling Plan (WRP) to identify the estimated quali ty and location of recycling of construction and demolition waste from the project. A waste recycling report is then required upon completion of the project that demonstrates that the project recycled a minimum of 50 percent of its construction and demolition waste per its WRP.
2020 Urban Water Management Plan for Western Municipal Water District The California Water Code requires any municipal water supplier serving over 3,000 connections or 3,000 acre feet per year (AFY) to prepare an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Water suppliers are required to update their UWMPs every five years. WMWD is a water service provider serving both retail and wholesale customers. WMWD’s 2020 UWMP forecasts demand through 2050 and details normal, dry year, and multiple dry year supplies needed to meet demand.

Additionally, the UWMP describes water supply reliability, conservation and demand management strategies, and WMWD’s current and anticipated water infrastructure projects.

5.19.2.4 Local Regulations
Riverside General Plan 2025
The Riverside General Plan 2025 guides land use, development, and strategic planning decision- making in the City. The Public Facilities and Infrastructure Element and the Open Space and Conservation Element include objectives and policies intended to support well -designed and maintained infrastructure, and to provide adequate water supply and water quality to City of Riverside Section 5.19
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Utilities and Service Systems

5.19-11
accommodate the needs of the community now and into the future (City of Riverside 2007).

Objectives and policies applicable to utilities and service systems are presented below:

Public Facilities and Infrastructure Element
Objective PF-1: Provide superior water service to customers.

Policy PF-1.1: Coordinate the demands of new development with the capacity of the water system.

Policy PF-1.2: Support the efforts of the Riverside Public Utilities Department, Eastern Municipal Water District and Western Municipal Water District to work together for coordination of water services.

Policy PF-1.3: Continue to require that new development fund fair -share costs associated with the provision of water service.

Policy PF-1.4: Ensure the provision of water services consistent with the growth planned for the General Plan area, including the Sphere of Influence, working with other providers.

Policy PF- 1.5: Implement water conservation programs aimed at reducing demands from new and existing development.

Policy PF-1.7: Protect local groundwater resources from local ized and regional contamination sources such as septic tanks, underground storage tanks, industrial businesses and urban runoff.

Objective PF-3: Maintain sufficient levels of wastewater service throughout the community.

Policy-PF-3.1: Coordinate the demands of new development with the capacity of the wastewater system.

Policy PF-3.2: Continue to require that new development fund fair -share costs associated with the provision of wastewater service.

Policy PF- 3.3: Pursue improvements and upgrades to the City’s wastewater collection facilities consistent with current master plans and the City’s Capital Improvement Program.

Policy PF-3.4: Continue to investigate and carry out cost -effective methods for reducing stormwater flows into the wastewater system and the Santa Ana River.

Objective PF-5: Minimize the volume of waste materials entering regional landfills.

Policy PF-5.4: Implement more severe fines for dumping bio-solids into the City’s sewer and storm drain system.

Section 5.19 City of Riverside
Utilities and Services Systems Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.19-12
Objective PF-4: Provide sufficient levels of storm drainage service to protect the community from flood hazards and minimize the discharge of materials into the storm drain system that are toxic or which would obstruct flows.

Policy PF-4.1: Continue to fund and undertake storm drain improvement projects as identified in the City of Riverside Capital Improvement Plan.

Policy PF -4.2: Continue to cooperate in regional programs to implement the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program.

Policy PF-4.3: Continue to routinely monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the storm drain system and make adjustments as needed.

Open Space and Conservation Element
Objective OS -10: Preserve the quantity and quality of all water resources throughout Riverside.

Policy OS-10.1: Support the development and promotion of water conservation programs.

Policy OS-10.2: Coordinate plans, regulations and programs with those of other public and private entities which affect the consumption and quality of water resources within Riverside.

Policy OS -10.4: Develop a recommended native, low -water-use and drought - tolerant plant species list for use with open space and park development. Include this list in the landscape standards for private development.

Policy OS -10.5: Establish standards for the use of reclaimed water for landscaping.

Policy OS -10.9: Evaluate development projects for compliance with NPDES requirements and require new development to landscape a percentage of the site to filter pollutant loads in stormwater runoff and provide groundwater percolation zones.

Policy OS -10.11: Monitor the quality and quantity of groundwater and surface water resources and consider revisions to the General Plan’s policies if monitoring identifies significant reductions in water quality.

City of Riverside Water Conservation Ordinance
Chapter 14.22, Water Cons ervation, of the Riverside Municipal Code (RMC) establishes procedures for implementing and enforcing water conservation measures. Section 14.22.010 establishes unreasonable water uses in the City, including, among others, application of potable water to outdoor landscapes in a manner that causes runoff to adjacent property, non -irrigated areas, or walkways; non -recirculating fountains or water features which use potable water; and application of potable water to outdoor landscaping within 48 hours of measurable rainfall.

City of Riverside Section 5.19
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Utilities and Service Systems

5.19-13
The ordinance also establishes a four-stage Water Conservation Program, where stages increase with the severity of the water shortage. The four stages of the Water Conservation Program are as follows:

Stage One – Normal Water Supply. The City can meet all water demands, but baseline conservation measures, such as time restrictions on non-agricultural irrigation, still apply.

Stage Two – Minimum Water Shortage. There is a reasonable probability that the City will not be able to meet all of its water demands. Stage One restrictions apply, as well as other restrictions on irrigation and plumbing leaks. Customers will be asked to reduce monthly water consumption by up to 15 percent, and construction operations are not authorized to use water unnecessarily for any purpose, other than those required by regulatory agencies.

Stage Three – Moderate Water Shortage. All measures from preceding stages apply and more restrictive irrigation measures are implemented. Water customers will be asked to reduce monthly consumption by up to 20 percent.

Stage Four – Severe Water Shortage. The City’s ability to meet water demand is seriously impaired. Stage Four includes the most restrictive irrigation measures, including a prohibition on outdoor lawn watering, as well as prohibitions on automobile washing, and pool filling.

Concurrently with a Stage Three or Stage Four declaration, the City Council may proclaim a Water Shortage Emergency. During such time, no new construction meters may be issued, no construction water may be used for earthwork including dust control, and no new building permits may be issued unless such projects meet certain water conservation requirements. RPU is operating currently under Stage One of the Water Conservation Program (RPU 2018).

Water Efficient Landscaping and Irrigation Ordinance
Chapter 19.570 of the RMC c ontains the City’s Water Efficient Landscaping and Irrigation Ordinance, which is intended to promote quality landscaping as well as efficient use of water within the City. The ordinance requires preparation and implementation of a planting plan that identifies the Maximum Applied Water Allowance and the Estimated Annual Water Use of the project’s landscaping, as well as irrigation design and soil management plans.

Riverside Municipal Code Title 6 – Health and Sanitation The City’s Health and Sanitation Code (Municipal Code, Title 6, Section 6.04 et seq.) specifies the requirements for handling solid waste and recycling materials.

5.19.3 Project Design Considerations
The Project landscape design includes quality landscaping and efficient use of water in compliance with the City’s Water Efficient Landscaping and Irrigation Ordinance (Chapter 19.570 of the RMC). The Project will adhere to CALGreen building code standards which include water conserving plumbing fixtures and fittings, outdoor potable water use in landscaped areas, Section 5.19 City of Riverside
Utilities and Services Systems Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.19-14
management of construction waste, reuse or recycling of excavated soil and land clearing debris, and recycling by occupants. Additionally, the Project would include solar panels with the capacity to generate approximately 1,275,500 kWh per year.

5.19.4 Thresholds of Significance
The City of Riverside has not established local CEQA significance thresholds as described in Section 15064.7 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The City generally utilizes the CEQA significance thresholds in Appendix G (“Environmental Checklist”) of the State CEQA Guidelines. According to the Appendix G significance thresholds, impacts related to the Mission Grove Apartments Project may be considered potentially significant if the Project would:
• (Threshold A) require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects;
• (Threshold B) have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years; • (Threshold C) result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity t o serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments; • (Threshold D) generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals;
• (Threshold E) comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

5.19.5 Environmental Impacts
Threshold A: Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Water
As outlined in 5.19.1 Setting, domestic water services will be provided to the Project by WMWD.

The proposed Project site is located within the WMWD Improvement District No. 3. Major distribution facilities are currently available within this District to serve the needs of the Project and surrounding area. WMWD has 12-inch domestic watermains located in Mission Village Drive and Mission Grove Parkway to provide connections for service to the Project. Additionally, domestic and fire services once serving the previous K-Mart building still exist and may be used for the project if they are determined to be adequately sized for the demands of the Project. The Project will be required to relocate existing 8 -inch onsite WMWD mainlines and appurtenances City of Riverside Section 5.19
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Utilities and Service Systems

5.19-15
within the Project footprint to locations that will allow for access and maintenance. All onsite WMWD facilities shall be within easements dedicated to WMWD.

WMWD’s 2014 Master Plan shows a proposed 36-inch waterline fronting this property on Mission Grove Parkway. The Project may be required to construct this master planned facility. Western provides recycled water, however, is currently not available within the limits of this project.

The Project will construct water main extensions from the existing water lines in City street rights- of-way (Mission Village Drive and Mission Grove Parkway) to the Project and within the Project site to ensure they are located to allow for access and maintenance. Because the construction of water main extensions, relocation of 8-inch mainlines within the Project site, and construction of 36-inch waterline would be within already developed areas for retail, parking, and public roadways, do not contain sensitive natural resources and have a relatively small constr uction footprint with associated minimal construction impacts, construction of these facilities would not cause significant environment effects. No additional improvements or relocations are needed to serve the proposed Project.

Wastewater
A Sewer Capacity Evaluation ( Sewer Study 2022, Appendix J) was conducted to assess the impact the Project could have on the City’s wastewater collection system. The Project will connect to an existing 8-inch diameter gravity sewer pipeline in Mission Village Drive, south of the Project site, which connects to an existing 10-16-inch diameter gravity sewer line in Trautwein Road.

The Sewer Capacity Evaluation included an existing hydraulic evaluation to verify that the existing system improvements were appropriately sized to convey existing peak wet weather flows (PWWFs) in addition to Project flows and to identify new locations of sewers that cannot convey the increased flows. The evaluation showed that the City’s existing collection system has sufficient capacity to convey proposed PWWFs downstream of the Project without exceeding the established flow depth criterion. Additionally, the hydraulic analysis showed that the City’s 2020 Update of the Integrated Master Plan for the Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities ’ (Master Plan Updates) proposed existing collection system projects are adequately sized to handle the change in the land use type at the proposed point of connection. (Sewer Study 2022) Further, the Sewer Capacity Evaluation’s future capacity evaluation including the Project did not identify new system deficiencies not already identified in the Master Plan Update. The hydraulic analysis showed that the proposed Master Plan Update’s proposed future projects are adequately sized for the change in land use type at the proposed point of connection. (Sewer Study 2022) The Project’s Sewer Capacity Evaluation determined that the City’s collection system has sufficient capacity to convey existing PWWFs downstream of the Project without exceeding the established flow depth criteria. Thus, the Project would not result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities that would cause significant environmental effects.

Stormwater
The Preliminary Project Specific WQMP outlines the LID BMPs required to adequately meet water quality standards and reduce storm water runoff. The proposed Project includes four biotreatment Section 5.19 City of Riverside
Utilities and Services Systems Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.19-16
basins located throughout the site; site runoff in the parking lot and roof runoff will be directed to these proposed Modular Wetlands Biofiltration systems. These LID BMPs have been incorporated into the site design to fully address all expected pollutant sources and storm water runoff volumes.

Furthermore, the storm water drainage system w ould be installed concurrently with the construction of the proposed P roject and w ould be adequately sized to accommodate the drainage created by this Project. On-site storm water and non-stormwater runoff would be treated with onsite BMPs identified in the Preliminary Project Specific WQMP and then discharged to the existing drainage facilities that extend off-site, thus retaining the overall drainage pattern of the site. Therefore, the project would not result in storm water runoff from the site that requires the construction of additional stormwater facilities downstream and off-site.

Dry Utilities
As discussed in Section 5.19.1 Setting, RPU will provide electricity to the proposed Project.

Telecommunications will be provided by a local provider such as Spectrum or AT&T. The proposed Project does not require upgrades to off -site RPU transmission facilities and does not cause or result in the need for additional energy producing facilities off-site. The proposed Project includes 18 solar photovoltaic (PV) arrays on carport and building rooftops with the capacity to generate approximately 1,275,500 kWh per year , which would lessen the Project’s potential of resulting in a substantial increase in demand of energy supply sources. Telecommunication lines will have extensions from existing lines within the City’s street Right -of-Way (ROW) into the development. Therefore, the Project would not result in the need for new or expanded electric or telecommunications facilities.

As there are existing dry and wet utility facilities in the adjacent roadways and only extensions into the Project site are required, the Project will not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded facilities offsite, or relocation of facilities. Potential impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold B: Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? As discussed in Section 5.19.2.2, under SB 610 and SB 221, certain types of development projects are required to provide detailed WSAs to planning agencies. The threshold requiring the preparation of a WSA for residential developments is over 500 dwelling units. The Project includes a total of 347 residential apartment units , which is below the threshold of 500 dwelling units; therefore, the Project does not trigger the need for the preparation of a project-specific WSA.

Construction Demand
Water would be required for temporary construction activities on the P roject site, including dust suppression, grading and grubbing, compaction, construction equipment wheel washing, and concrete mixing and casting. Water consumption by construction workers and cleaning of portable toilets on the Project site may also account for a small portion of overall construction water demand.

City of Riverside Section 5.19
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Utilities and Service Systems

5.19-17
Construction water demand would be temporary and, therefore, would not result in long- term strain on water supplies. As discussed in Section 5.19.2.3, Regional Regulations, the City’s Water Conservation Ordinance allows the City Council to declare a Water Shortage Emergency, during which no construction water may be used for earthwork, including dust suppression and compaction activities. However, the City is currently in Stage 1 and not experiencing a water emergency.

Given the temporary and minimal nature of construction water demand in addition to the fact that the City would restrict water intensive construction activities through a Water Shortage Emergency declaration if it lacked adequate water supply, impacts related to construction water consumption would be less than significant.

Operational Demand – Indoor and Outdoor Use
The Project would introduce a new development consisting of multi- family residential uses. The Project would comply with all requirements of the California Green Building Code, as adopted by the City, pertaining to maximum flow rates for plumbing fixtures, such as toilets, showerheads, and faucets in the residential buildings.

WMWD has various water supply sources available (groundwater, imported water, and recycled water) to meet retail demands during normal, single- dry, and multiple- dry years. These supply sources may be impacted by climatic and hydrologic conditions, water qualit y, and legal restrictions, as well as potential for interruption of supply driven by catastrophic events. WMWD evaluated supply reliability during a single dry year, multiple dry years, and a multiple year drought that could potentially occur within the next five years (2021-2025). In all cases, WMWD’s supplies were sufficient to meet demand without any supply shortages. (UWMP) WMWD’s expected retail water supply reliability for a normal year, single dry year, and five consecutive dry years, including projections for 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040, and 2045 are shown in the following tables (Tables 11-2, 11-3, and 11-4 of the UWMP); WMWD anticipates adequate supplies for years 2025 to 2045 to meet retail demand under normal, single dry and multiple-dry year conditions.

Table 5.19-5 – WMWD Water Service Reliability – Normal Year Retail Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison, AFY
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Potable
Supply 27,073 30,199 33,686 37,574 41,821
Demand 24,612 27,454 30,624 34,158 38,019
Difference 2,461 2,745 3,062 3,416 3,802
Non-Potable
Supply 7,031 8,066 8,964 9,966 11,079
Demand 5,555 6,426 7,168 7,997 8,921
Difference 1,476 1,640 1,796 1,969 2,158

Section 5.19 City of Riverside
Utilities and Services Systems Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.19-18
Table 5.19-6 – WMWD Water Service Reliability – Single Dry Year Retail Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison, AFY 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Potable
Supply 27,073 30,199 33,686 37,574 41,821
Demand 24,612 27,454 30,624 34,158 38,019
Difference 2,461 2,745 3,062 3,416 3,802
Non-Potable
Supply 7,031 8,066 8,964 9,966 11,079
Demand 5,555 6,426 7,168 7,997 8,921
Difference 1,476 1,640 1,796 1,969 2,158

Table 5.19-7 – WMWD Water Service Reliability – Five Consecutive Dry Year Retail Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison, AFY 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
First Year
Potable
Supply 27,073 30,199 33,686 37,574 41,821
Demand 24,612 27,454 30,624 34,158 38,019
Difference 2,461 2,745 3,062 3,416 3,802
Non-Potable
Supply 7,031 8,066 8,964 9,966 11,079
Demand 5,555 6,426 7,168 7,997 8,921
Difference 1,476 1,640 1,796 1,969 2,158
Second Year
Potable
Supply 27,073 30,199 33,686 37,574 41,821
Demand 24,612 27,454 30,624 34,158 38,019
Difference 2,461 2,745 3,062 3,416 3,802
Non-Potable
Supply 7,031 8,066 8,964 9,966 11,079
Demand 5,555 6,426 7,168 7,997 8,921
Difference 1,476 1,640 1,796 1,969 2,158
Third Year
Potable
Supply 27,073 30,199 33,686 37,574 41,821
Demand 24,612 27,454 30,624 34,158 38,019
Difference 2,461 2,745 3,062 3,416 3,802
Non-Potable
Supply 7,031 8,066 8,964 9,966 11,079
Demand 5,555 6,426 7,168 7,997 8,921
Difference 1,476 1,640 1,796 1,969 2,158
Fourth Year
Potable
Supply 27,073 30,199 33,686 37,574 41,821
Demand 24,612 27,454 30,624 34,158 38,019
Difference 2,461 2,745 3,062 3,416 3,802
Non-Potable
Supply 7,031 8,066 8,964 9,966 11,079
Demand 5,555 6,426 7,168 7,997 8,921
Difference 1,476 1,640 1,796 1,969 2,158
Fifth Year
Potable
Supply 27,073 30,199 33,686 37,574 41,821
Demand 24,612 27,454 30,624 34,158 38,019
Difference 2,461 2,745 3,062 3,416 3,802
Non-Potable
Supply 7,031 8,066 8,964 9,966 11,079
Demand 5,555 6,426 7,168 7,997 8,921
Difference 1,476 1,640 1,796 1,969 2,158

City of Riverside Section 5.19
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Utilities and Service Systems

5.19-19
Commercial customers account for 5% of WMWD’s retail water supply use, while multi -family residential only uses 3% of the supply; these two uses account for a small percentage of the water supplied to the area. While the Mixed-Use – Urban land designation of the proposed Project would result in great er water usage than the current commercial land use designation, a slight increase in water usage would actually only result in a negligible change to water supplies.

Therefore, there would be less than significant impacts to water supplies.

Although the Project is changing land use, it would result in a very small incremental increase in population growth, approximately one and a half percent, of what was anticipated under the GP 2025 typical growth scenario (refer to Section 5.14 Population and Housing). Thus, the Project is within the City’s anticipated 2025 growth projection. Implementation of the Project would not require new or expanded entitlements for water supplies; potential impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold C: Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? The City provides sewer services to the proposed Project site. As discussed for Threshold A, a Sewer Capacity Evaluation (Sewer Study 2022, Appendix J) was conducted to assess the impact the Project will have on the City’s wastewater collection system. As described for Threshold A above, the Sewer Capacity Evaluation determined that the City’s collection system has sufficient capacity to convey existing PWWFs downstream of the Project without exceeding the established flow depth criteria.

As it has been determined that the City’s existing collection system has sufficient capacity to convey proposed PWWFs downstream of the Project without exceeding the established flow depth criterion, the Project would result in a determination that the Project’s wastewater treatment provider (the City) has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the City’s existing commitments. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold D: Would the Project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
The City of Riverside Public Works Department collects trash from 70 percent of the City’s households and the remai nder is collected by private contractors. Athens, one of the City’s franchise haulers would provide solid waste disposal services for the Project.

The Project would generate both construction and operational solid waste, which would be disposed of at nearby landfills. Per the City of Riverside’s General Plan, Public Facilities and Infrastructure Element, all solid waste collected is tipped at the Robert A. Nelson Transfer Station, which is owned by the County of Riverside. The waste is then transferred to either the Badlands Landfill in Moreno Valley, the El Sobrante Landfill located south of the City of Corona or the Lamb Canyon Landfill located between the City of Beaumont and the City of San Jacinto for disposal.

Implementation of the General Plan is anticipated to increase solid waste collection and disposal Section 5.19 City of Riverside
Utilities and Services Systems Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.19-20
capacity between 884 tons per day and 2,573 tons per day at buildout. By 2025 the City will contribute 14% of the amount of solid waste. As shown on Table 5.16 -M of the City’s GP 2025 PEIR, the generation of solid waste for Multi-Family Residents is anticipated to increase between 139.30 tons for typical and 208.90 for maximum. The Project falls under this category as it has more than 15 dwelling units/acre. With the remaining capacity of the current landfills, the proposed Project is not anticipated to exceed capacity of the landfills. In addition, Public Resource Code Section 41780 requires every city and county to divert from landfills at least 50% of waste generated within their jurisdiction, and the City has exceeded its required reduction in recent years. (GP 2025, GP 2025 PEIR)
Per the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, the Project would have access to green waste collection, curbside recycling, newspaper drop- off, car tire amnesty, household hazardous waste and other service which will divert solid waste to the landfills (GP 2025).

As outlined in 5.19.3, Project Design Considerations, the Project will adhere to CALGreen building code standards which include management of construction waste, reuse or recycling of excavated soil and land clearing debris, and recycling by occupants (per Section 5.7.3.3, summary of the CALGreen standards that are applicable to the Project) as further outlined below:
• Construction waste management - Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste or meet a local construction and demolition waste management ordinance, whichever is more stringent. • Excavated soil and land clearing debris - 100 percent of trees, stumps, rocks and associated vegetation and soils resulting primarily from land clearing shall be reused or recycled. For a phased project, such material may be stockpiled on site until the storage site is developed.
• Recycling by Occupants - Provide readily accessible areas that serve the entire building and are identified for the depositing, storage and collection of non-hazardous materials for recycling, including (at a minimum) paper, corrugated cardboard, glass, plastics, organic waste, and metals or meet a lawfully enacted local recycling ordinance, if more restrictive.

With compliance with the CALGreen standards, the Project will not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals . Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.

5.19.6 Proposed Mitigation Measures
A EIR is required to describe feasible mitigation measures which could minimize significant adverse impacts (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.4). Implementation of the proposed Project will not result in any significant impacts related to utilities and service systems , and therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary.

City of Riverside Section 5.19
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Utilities and Service Systems

5.19-21

5.19.7 Cumulative Environmental Effects
As discussed in Section 4, Environmental Setting, c umulative development in the City and surrounding cities and County would include residential development, warehouses, commercial, office, and public facilities. As discussed, the Project would not result in any significant impacts related to utilities and service systems, nor would the Project impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant related to utilities and service systems.

5.19.8 References
The following references were used in the preparation of this section of the EIR:

GP 2025
City of Riverside, Riverside General Plan 2025, November 2007, with subsequent amendments to various elements. (Available at https://riversideca.gov/cedd/planning/city-plans/general-plan-0, accessed March 15, 2023)
GP 2025 PEIR
City of Riverside, City of Riverside General Plan 2025 Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) (SCH# 2004021108),
certified November 2007 . (Available at
https://riversideca.gov/cedd/planning/city-plans/general-plan-0, accessed March 15, 2023)
MGSP 1985
City of Riverside, Mission Grove Specific Plan, Adopted 1985, as Amended 1986 to 1997. (Available at
https://riversideca.gov/cedd/planning/city-plans/specific-plans-0, accessed on March 15, 2023)
rcwaste.org Riverside County Department of Waste Resources (Available at https://www.rcwaste.org/, accessed January 2023)
CalRecycle Available at https://calrecycle.ca.gov/, accessed January 2023 WQMP 2022
Rick Engineering Company, Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan: 375 Alessandro Boulevard . August 25, 2022 (Appendix G)
UWMP
Western Municipal Water District (WMWD) , 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, June 16, 2021, revised March 30, 2022. (Available at
https://www.wmwd.com/DocumentCenter/View/5339, accessed March 2023)
Sewer Study 2022 Carollo Engineering, Mission Grove Apartments Sewer Study .

November 23, 2022 (Appendix J).
2019 Sewer Master Plan
City of Riverside Public Works Department, January 2020. UPDATE OF

THE INTEGRATED MASTER PLAN FOR THE WASTEWATER
COLLECTION AND TREATMENT FACILITIES. (Available at
https://riversideca.gov/publicworks/sewer/wqcp.asp, accessed January 2023)

City of Riverside Section 5.20
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Wildfire

5.20-1

5.20 Wildfire
This section analyzes the Project’s potential impacts related to fire protection services, emergency response or evacuation plans, and wildfire risks. The information in this section is based on the architectural plans, including building elevations, section views, visual simulations, and review of aerial photographs, street views, and the General Plan 2025 Public Safety Element and Public Safety Technical Report.

5.20.1 Setting
A wildfire is a nonstructural and unplanned fire that occurs in vegetative fuels. Wildfires can occur in undeveloped areas and spread to urban areas where the landscape and structures are not designed and maintained to be ignition resistant. Wildfires burn in many types of vegetation— forest, woodland, scrub (including chaparral, sage scrub, and desert scrub), and grassland. Many species of native California plants are adapted to fire.

The City's undeveloped hillsides are visually appealing but can provide fuel for a wildfire or mudslides in heavy rains. The Project site is not located within a High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, nor are there any hillsides or wildland areas within or adjacent to the site, as it is developed. However, while the Project site is within a mostly urbanized area, no part of the City is immune from fire danger. Structural and automobile fires represent the most common types of fire in urbanized areas and can be caused by a variety of human, mechanical and natural factors.

Urban fires have the potential to spread to other structures or areas, particularly if not extinguished promptly. Proactive efforts, such as fire sprinkler systems, fire alarms, fire resistant roofing and construction methods, can collectively lessen the likelihood and reduce the severity of urban fires.

Areas of dense, dry vegetation, particularly in canyon areas and on hillsides, pose the greatest potential for wildfire risks. An urban/wildland interface is an area where urban development is in proximity to open space or “wildland” areas. The potential for wildland fires represents a hazard where development is adjacent to open space or within close proximity to wildland fuels or designated fire severity zones. Figure CP-5: Very-High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Areas, of the GP 2025 Public Safety Technical Report identifies Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, Local Responsibility Areas and State Responsibility Areas. The proposed Project site is not located in these zones. Furthermore, there are no major urban/wildland interface areas near the proposed Project site.

City of Riverside Fire Department
Delivering and maintaining such a high level of service in the future as the City grows is a major concern to the City of Riverside Fire Department (RFD). RFD’s Fire Department Operations Division responds to more than 46,000 calls for service annually, as of 2022. RFD has established a performance goal for emergency response to arrive within 6 minutes of dispatch over 90 percent of the time.

For purposes of underwriting fire insurance, communities are classified with res pect to their fire defenses and physical characteristics. These classifications are referred to as ISO ratings and Section 5.20 City of Riverside
Wildfire Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.20-2
range on a scale of 1 to 10. ISO Class 1 represents the highest level of fire protection and ISO Class 10 represents the lowest level of protection. A community’s ISO rating takes into account water supply, fire department capabilities, communities, regulations, hazards, and climate. The availability of an adequate water supply and delivery system is a major consideration. In 2019 RFD was awarded the highest available ISO rating of Class 1. (General Plan 2025, Public Safety Technical Report)
RFD’s major facilities include 14 fire stations throughout the City, Administration/Fire Prevention offices, and a Fire Training Center used for the advanced training of personnel. The 14 fire stations house 212 sworn firefighter personnel and 72 emergency services personnel including Basic Life Support and Advanced Life Support personnel. RFD staff includes 23 civilian personnel including administrative, inspector, engineering, and support staff. (General Plan 2025, Public Safety Technical Report)
The RFD provides fire protection for the Mission Grove area from two facilities that are closest to the project site:
• Orangecrest Station No. 11, located at 19595 Orange Terrace Parkway, is less than 2 miles from the Mission Grove Shopping Center and Project site. • Canyon Crest Station No. 9, located at 6674 Alessandro Boulevard, is less than 2 miles from the Mission Grove Shopping Center and Project site.

5.20.2 Related Regulations

5.20.2.1 Federal Regulations
No Federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws related to fire response and wildfire hazards apply to the project under consideration.

5.20.2.2 State and Regional Regulations
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
The C al Fire is dedicated to the fire protection and stewardship of over 31 million acres of California’s wildlands. The Office of the State Fire Marshal supports the Cal Fire mission to protect life and property through fire prevention engineering programs, law and code enforcement, and education. The State Fire Marshal provides for fire prevention by enforcing fire -related laws in state-owned or -operated buildings, investigating arson fires in California, licensing those who inspect and service fire protection systems, approving fireworks as safe and sane for use in California, regulating the use of chemical flame retardants, evaluating building materials against fire safety standards, regulating hazardous liquid pipelines, and tracking incident statistics for local and state government emergency response agencies. Classification of a zone as moderate, high, or very high fire hazard is based on a combination of how a fire will behave and the probability of flames and embers threatening buildings. Each area of the map gets a score for flame length, embers, and the likelihood of the area burning. Scores are then averaged over the zone areas.

Final zone class (moderate, high, and very high) is based on the average scores for the zone (FHSZ Viewer).

City of Riverside Section 5.20
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Wildfire

5.20-3
The Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (Board) is a government-appointed body within the Cal Fire. It is responsible for developing the general forest policy of the State, determining the guidance policies of the Cal Fire, and representing the State's interest in Federal forestland in California. Together, the Board and the Cal Fire work to carry out the California Legislature's mandate to protect and enhance the State's unique forest and wildland resources.

The Board is charged with protecting all wildland forest resources in California that are not under Federal jurisdiction. These resources include major commercial and non -commercial stands of timber, areas reserved for parks and recreation, woodlands, brush- range watersheds, and all private and State lands that contribute to California's forest resource wealth. 2019 Strategic Fire Plan for California
The Board has adopted Strategic Fire Plans for California since the 1930s and periodically updates them to reflect current and anticipated needs of California’s wildland. The Strategic Fire Plan is the State’s road map for reducing the risk of wildfire through planning and prevention to reduce firefighting costs and property losses, increase firefighter safety, and contribute to ecosystem health. The Strategic Fire Plan is adopted to better respond to the changes of the environmental, social, and economic landscape of California’s wildlands and to provide the Cal Fire with appropriate guidance for adequate statewide fire protection of State responsibility areas.

The latest Strategic Fire Plan is dated January 22, 2019. Cal Fire implements and enforces the Board’s policies and regulations. The 2019 Strategic Fire Plan reflects C al Fire’s focus on (1) improvement of core capabilities (2) enhancement of internal operations (3) ensuring health and safety, and (4) building an engaged, motivated, innovative workforce. Cal Fire is in the process of developing a new 2024 Strategic Plan, building on the 2019 iteration.

California Office of Emergency Services
The California Emergency Management Agency was incorporated into the Governor’s Office on January 1, 2009, by Assembly Bill (AB) 38, and merged the duties, powers, purposes, and responsibilities of the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) with those of the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security. Cal OES is responsible for the coordination of overall State agency r esponse to major disasters in support of local government. The agency is responsible for ensuring the S tate’s readiness to respond to and recover from all hazards — natural, man-made, emergencies, and disasters —and for assisting local governments in their emergency preparedness, response, recovery, and hazard mitigation efforts.

The Cal OES Fire and Rescue Division is responsible for the development, implementation and coordination of the California Fire Service and Rescue Emergency Mutual Aid Plan. The Cal OES Operations Division under the Fire and Rescue Branch. The response of fire and rescue personnel and resources, through the Mutual Aid System, includes responses to major fires, earthquakes, tsunamis, hazardous materials and other disasters.

California Building Code
The California Building Standards Code (CBC), in Part 2 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), identifies building design standards, including those for fire safety. The CBC Section 5.20 City of Riverside
Wildfire Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.20-4
is based on the International Building Code but has been amended for California conditions. The CBC is updated every three years, and the current 2022 CBC went into effect January 1, 2023. It is effective statewide, but a local jurisdiction may adopt more restrictive standards based on local conditions under specific amendment rules prescribed by the State Building Standards Commission. Commercial and residential buildings are plan ‐checked by local city and county building officials for compliance with the CBC. Typical fire safety requirements of the CBC related to this Project include the installation of fire sprinklers in all new residential buildings, the establishment of fire resistance standards for fire doors, building materials, and particular types of construction, and clearance of debris and v egetation within a prescribed distance from occupied structures in wildfire hazard areas.

California Fire Code
The CFC, contained in Part 9 of CCR Title 24, incorporates by adoption the International Fire Code of the International Code Council, with California amendments. The CFC is updated every three years, and the current 2022 CFC went into effect January 1, 2023. It is effective statewide, but a local jurisdiction may adopt more restrictive standards based on local conditions under specific amendment r ules prescribed by the State Building Standards Commission. The CFC regulates building standards in the CBC, fire department access, fire protection systems and devices, fire and explosion hazards safety, hazardous materials storage and use, and standards for building inspection.

Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
Public Resource Code Sections 4201 to 4204 and Government Code Title 5, Part 1, Chapter 6.8, 51178 to 51179 and 51181 direct Cal Fire to identify areas of very high fire hazard within local responsibility areas. Mapping of Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) is based on data and models of potential fuels over a 30- to 50- year time horizon and their associated expected fire behavior and expected burn probabilities in order to quantify the likelihood and nature of vegetation fire exposure (including firebrands) to buildings. Local Responsibility Area (LRA) VHFHSZ maps were initially developed in the mid-1990s and are now being updated based on improved science, mapping techniques, and data.

In late 2005, effective in 2008, the California Building Commission adopted CBC Chapter 7A, requiring new buildings in VHFHSZ to use ignition-resistant construction methods and materials.

CBC Chapter 7A is applicable to building materials, systems, and/or assemblies used in the exterior design and construction of new buildings in a Wildland- Urban Interface Fire Area as defined in CBC Section 702A. Chapter 7A establishes minimum standards for th e protection of life and property by increasing the ability of a building in any fire hazard severity zone within State Responsibility Areas or any wildland-urban interface fire area to resist the intrusion of flames or burning embers projected by a vegetation fire, and therefore contributes to a systematic reduction in conflagration losses. Related regulations include CFC Chapter 49 , which provides the requirements for wildland- urban interface areas , and Title 19 California Code of Regulations (CCR) § 3.07, which provides provisions on clearances. Additionally, Title 14 CCR § 1299 – 1299.05 discuss fire hazard reduction around buildings and structures, with § 1299.03 providing City of Riverside Section 5.20
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Wildfire

5.20-5
Zone 1 and Zone 2 requirements for defensible space and § 1299.05 discussing Alternate Methods.

5.20.2.3 Local Regulations
Riverside General Plan 2025
The GP 2025 contains guiding principle and policies to protect against public safety issues within the City in the Public Safety Element, Phase 1 General Plan Update – Adopted 2021.

Guiding Principle: Comprehensively address the public safety needs and c oncerns of its residents, businesses, institutions, and visitors in a proactive and coordinated way to ensure protection from foreseeable natural and human-caused hazards.

Policy PSE-1 – Natural Hazards
Reduce the risk to the community from hazards related to geologic conditions, seismic activity, flooding, drought, and structural and wildland fires.

Policy PSE-2 – Natural Hazards
Reduce the risk to the community from hazards related to geologic conditions, seismic activity, flooding, drought, and structural and wildland fires.

Policy PSE-3 – Transportation
Minimize the risk of potential hazards associated with air and ground transporation.

Policy PSE-4 – Emergency Services
Provide high-quality and responsive police, fire, and emergency services to all residents and businesses in Riverside.

Policy PSE-6 – Homelessness
Reduce homelessness in Riverside through coordinated implementation of and equitable accessibility to public safety, economic and social programs.

City of Riverside Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP)
The City of Riverside’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) dated January 1, 2018, evaluated and assessed the risks that identified hazards pose to the City, reviewed and assessed past disaster occurrences, and, through the engagement of the co mmunity, set goals to mitigate potential risks to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people, property, and the environment from natural, man-made, and technological hazards.

Emergency Operations Plan
The Emergency Operations Plan, approved in May 2002 and updated in 2017 , addresses the City’s planned response to emergencies associated with natural disasters and technological incidents – including both peacetime and wartime nuclear defense operations.

Section 5.20 City of Riverside
Wildfire Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.20-6
Hazardous Materials Response Plan
The RFD has two levels of a Hazardous Materials Response Plan. The first level is for all responders and the second is specifically for the City’s Hazardous Materials Response Team. In addition, the County has a similar plan for multi-agency hazmat response.

5.20.3 Project Design Considerations
The Project plans include a Fire Access Plan, and the Project will provide adequate fire access to ensure the safety of the residents. The fire access will leave room for the fire trucks to come in and out of the Project site and will allow them to reach all areas of the site in case of a fire. As RFD requires a minimum 20 -foot-wide fire lane, the Project’s fire access will have a clear f ire lane/fire access to allow room for the fire trucks to navigate through the Project. There will be 4 fire hydrants throughout the site and three additional along the Project’s frontage with Mission Village Drive and Mission Grove Parkway South.

5.20.4 Thresholds of Significance
The City has not established local CEQA significance thresholds as described in Section 15064.7 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The City generally utilizes the CEQA significance thresholds in Appendix G (“ Environmental Checklist ”) of the S tate CEQA Guidelines . The Environmental Checklist prepared by the City for the Project (see Appendix A of this document) indicates that impacts related to the Mission Grove Apartments Project may be considered potentially significant if the Project would:
• (Threshold A) S ubstantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan;
• (Threshold B) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire;
• (Threshold C) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment; or
• (Threshold D) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

5.20.5 Environmental Impacts
Threshold A: Would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
City of Riverside Section 5.20
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Wildfire

5.20-7
Per a review of Figure CP-5 – Very-High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Areas (GP 2025 Public Safety Element TBR), the proposed Project site is not located within an area or land classified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ).

The Project will be served by Mission Grove Parkway South and Mission Village Drive. No street closures are required during the Project’s construction. Per the GP 2025, Public Safety Element Technical Background Report (TBR), Figure CP-8: Evacuation Routes, Alessandro Boulevard is an arterial evacuation rout e and the SR -60 and I-215 are designated as freeway evacuation routes. Thus, the Project site is located adjacent to and has access to Alessandro Boulevard and SR-60 and I-215, designated evacuation routes.

Emergency response and evacuation procedures would be coordinated through the City in coordination with the police and RFD. The Project would not impair an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan and would comply with necessary procedures. While there would be an increase in the city population of 829 persons from the proposed Project, as outlined in Section 5.14 Population and Housing, the Project is anticipated to only contribute approximately

1.4 percent of the total anticipated population growth from 2020 to 2040 (per the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Update). Due to its small proportion of the GP anticipated population growth, the proposed Project would not result in significant enough increase in population to directly impair the use of Alessandro Boulevard as an evacuation route. The Project’s surrounding roadways would continue to provide emergency access to the Project area and to surrounding properties during construction and operation of the Project. Therefore, the Project will have a less than significant impact directly or indirectly to an emergency response or evacuation plan.

Threshold B: Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the Project exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Per a review of Figure CP-5 – Very-High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Areas (GP 2025 Public Safety Element TBR), the proposed Project site is not located within an area or land classified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ).

The Project site is bordered by Mission Grove Parkway South to the east and Mission Village Drive to the south. The Project site has the Mission Grove Shopping Center and parking to the north and west. Outside of the shopping center is existing residential development to the south, west and north, and commercial/retail to the east. The only open space area with vegetation that could fuel a wildland fire near the Project site is the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park, located approximately 3,500 feet to the northeast. If there were a wildland fire in the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park it would not be expected to spread to the Project site due to the distance between them and separation by existing development and Alessandro Boulevard. For these same reasons, if a fire were to occur at the Project site it would not be expected to spread to the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park.

The Project will incorporate RMC standards related to fire suppression at the Project site such as smoke detectors meeting the current CBC and CFCs installed in all units and other enclosed common areas such as hallways, recreation rooms, and utility rooms. Additional fire suppression Section 5.20 City of Riverside
Wildfire Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.20-8
equipment such as alarm systems, fire extinguishers and sprinklers will also be incorporated as recommended by the RFD. Furthermore, Project structures would be required to comply with the CFC with regard to emergency fire access and use of building materials that would limit the spread of wildfire to the greatest extent possible. This would reduce potential spread of a fire from the Project site to areas outside the Project site boundary, reduc ing the Project’s potential to exacerbate wildfire risks.

Overall, the Project would be constructed in compliance with the CFC and CBC, along with being compliant with the GP 2025 and RFD requirements. T he Project would not expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire by exacerbating wildfire risks. Impacts would be less than significant with compliance with the CFC and CBC and RFD requirements.

Threshold C: Would the Project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts t o the environment?
Per a review of Figure CP-5 – Very-High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Areas (GP 2025 Public Safety Element TBR), the proposed Project site is not located within an area or land classified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ).

The Project site is currently fully developed with a structure, surface parking lot, and landscaped areas. The Project site is surrounded by roadways and other residential and commercial/retail development. There are existing utilities adjacent to the Project site that will serve the Project .

There are no offsite staging areas , and no offsite improvements are required that would extend into an undeveloped wildland area.

The Project would not require the installation or maintenance of other associated infrastructure beyond already existing developed conditions in Mission Grove Parkway South and Mission Village Drive to the east and south , where the Project would connect to existing utilities .

Implementation of the Project would not require installation of new or increased level of infrastructure maintenance into wildland areas that could exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment . The Project’s potential to exacerbate wildfire risk from installation and maintenance of infrastructure would be less than significant.

Threshold D: Would the Project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Per a review of Figure CP-5 – Very-High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Areas (GP 2025 Public Safety Element TBR), the proposed Project site is not located within an area or land classified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ).

The Project sit e is developed and relatively flat. There are no steep slopes on or around the Project site. The existing drainage patterns have been identified as southwesterly overland flow.

The proposed drainage patterns will be preserved at the existing site drainage discharge City of Riverside Section 5.20
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Wildfire

5.20-9
locations. The proposed Project includes four biotreatment basins located throughout the site; site runoff in the parking lot and roof runoff will be directed to these proposed Modular Wetlands Biofiltration systems which have been incorporated i nto the site design to fully address storm water runoff volumes. The proposed Project will not result in an increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff from the site, and in turn would not result in flooding or substantial erosion that could cause slope instability.

The Project would be constructed in compliance with the CFC and CBC, along with being compliant with the GP 2025 and RFD requirements. The Project would not expose people or structures within the Project to significant risks from wildfire or exacerbate wildfire risks from the Project to adjacent areas.

Impacts related to exposure of people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope inst ability, or drainage changes would be less than significant with compliance with the CFC and CBC and implementation of design considerations, including landscaping and drainage improvements.

Threshold F: Would the Project expose people or structures, eithe r directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Per a review of Figure CP-5 – Very-High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Areas (GP 2025 Public Safety Element TBR), the proposed Project site is not located within an area or land classified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ).

As outlined in Threshold B analysis above, the proposed Project site is not located within an area or land classified as a VHFHSZ. The only open space area with vegetation that could fuel a wildland fire near the Project site is the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park , located approximately 3,500 feet to the northeast. If there were a wildland fire in the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park , it would not be expected to spread to the Project site due to the distance between them and separation by existing development and Alessandro Boulevard. F or these same reasons, if a fire were to occur at the Project site it would not be expected to spread to the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park.

The Project will incorporate RMC standards related to fire suppression at the Project site such as smoke detectors meeting the current CBC and CFCs installed in all units and other enclosed common areas such as hallways, recreation rooms, and utility rooms. Additional fire suppression equipment such as alarm systems, fire extinguishers and sprinklers will also be incorporated as recommended by the RFD. Furthermore, Project structures would be required to comply with the CFC with regard to emergency fire access and use of building materials that would limit the spread of wildfire to the greatest extent possible. This would reduce potential spread of a fire from the Project site to areas outside the Project site boundary, reduc ing the Project’s poten tial to exacerbate wildfire risks.

The nearest fire stations are Orangecrest Station No. 11 , located at 19595 Orange Terrace Parkway and Canyon Crest Station No. 9, located at 6674 Alessandro Boulevard, both of which are less than 2 miles from the Project site. Due to the Project’s close proximity to existing fires Section 5.20 City of Riverside
Wildfire Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.20-10
stations, adequate response times can be provided by RFD. Also, the Project plans include a Fire Access Plan which demonstrates adequate fire access will be provided.

The Project would be constructed in compliance with the CFC and CBC, along with being compliant with the GP 2025 and RFD requirements. T he Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Impacts would be less than significant with compliance with the CFC and CBC and implementation of design considerations.

5.20.6 Proposed Mitigation Measures
As there would be a less than significant impact related to wildfire as a result of the proposed Project, no Mitigation Measures are required.

5.20.7 Cumulative Environmental Effects
The Project will have a less than significant impact directly or indirectly to an emergency response or evacuation plan and mitigation is not required. With the Project design (including Fire Access Plan), the two nearest Fire Stations being less than two miles from the Project site, the Project’s incremental impacts on fire protection services would be less than significant , and mitigation is not required. The Project’s potential to exacerbate wildfire risk from installation and maintenance of infrastructure would be less than significant and mitigation is not required.

The planned and pending projects near the Project site, listed in Table 4.0-1 of this EIR, include residential, commercial, distribution warehouse, and Meridian Specific Plan – West Campus Upper Plateau Project with warehouses for high-cube fulfillment and cold storage, business park office, warehouse, and mixed-use buildings, retail, and park (active and public) . These planned and pending projects would increase structural development near the Project site, in turn exposing new residents and property to potential risks from fires in the area.

The Project site is not located in a VHFHSZ and the other cumulative projects are not either. With compliance with the CFC and CBC and implementation of design considerations potential impacts from the Project are reduced to less than significant levels . The other cumulative projects would also be required to comply with applicable codes, laws and standards and implement any project specific mitigation measures as appropriate identified through the CEQA review process for that project’s specific site conditions and design. All cumulative projects are required to be constructed in compliance with applicable C BC and CFC that ensure appropriate measures, including fire prevention and fuel modification features , are provided so that urban development does not expose project occupants to increased and uncontrolled fire hazards. Applicable CBC and CFC standards are designed to minimize the potential for uncontrolled fires. Furthermore, the cumulative projects would not result in permanent road closures, nor impede an established emergency or evacuation access route, or interfere with emergency response requirements, or fire protection response time standards. The Project is surrounded by mostly urban development and served by existing infrastructure. It would not contribute incrementally with other projects in City of Riverside Section 5.20
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Wildfire

5.20-11
the City or surrounding area to create an environment tha t would exacerbate wildfire risks.

Cumulative wildfire hazard impacts would be less than significant.

5.20.8 References
The following references were used in the preparation of this section of the EIR:

Cal Fire 2019
Strategic Plan
Strategic Plan January 2019 (Available at https://www.paperturn- view.com/cal-fire-communications/strategicplan2019-
final?pid=MjU253660&p=3, accessed September 2023)
Cal OES
Cal OES Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, Fire & Rescue, Fire Operations webpage (Available at https://www.caloes.ca.gov/office-of-the- director/operations/response-operations/fire-rescue/fire-operations/, accessed September 2023)
FHSZ Viewer
California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. (Available at:
https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/789d5286736248f69c4515c04f58f414, accessed September 2023)
GP 2025
City of Riverside, General Plan 2025, Public Safety Element and Public Safety Technical Report. (Available at
https://riversideca.gov/cedd/planning/city-plans/general-plan-0, accessed September 2023)
GP 2025 FPEIR
City of Riverside, General Plan 2025 Program Environment Impact Report (SCH# 2004021108), Section 5.13 Public Services. (Available at https://riversideca.gov/cedd/planning/city-plans/general-plan-0, accessed September 2023)

City of Riverside Section 6.0
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Other CEQA Topics

6.0-1

6.0 Other CEQA Topics
This section analyzes the Project’s consistency with regional plans, potential irreversible environm6ental effects, and growth-inducing impacts of the proposed Project.

Consistency with Regional Plans
CEQA, Section 15125(d), requires an EIR to discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed Project and applicable general and regional plans.

City of Riverside General Plan and Municipal Code
A discussion of the Project’s consistency with applicable GP 2025 objectives and policies in the Housing Element, Land Use and Urban Design Element, Circulation and Community Mobility Element, and Public and Safety Element is contained in Section 5.11 Land Use and Planning of this EIR, Table 5.11-1 Consistency with Applicable General Plan Policies in these elements. As discussed in Section 5.11 Land Use and Planning, the Project would comply with all applicable GP 2025 objectives and policies in the Housing Element, Land Use and Design Element, Circulation and Community Mobility Element, and Public and Safety Element, with the exception of Policy CCM-11.1, LU-22.3, LU-22.5, and LU-69.1 related to the MARB/IPA LUCP. The Project’s proposed 35.0 dwelling units per acre would exceed the maximum permitted density of 6.0 dwelling units per acre within Zone C2. However, the Project does not exceed the non-residential average criteria (limited to 200 people per acre) or single-acre intensity criteria (limited to 500 people per acre) . Thus, the Project would be partially inconsistent with and partially consistent with GP 2025 Policies CCM -11.1, LU-22.3, LU-22.5, and LU -69.1. Section 5.11 Land Use and Planning also includes a discussion of consistency with applicable sections of the Zoning and Grading Codes. The proposed Project will comply with the applicable GP 2025 Housing Element Guiding Principle and policies (HE-2, HE-3 and HE-4) by increasing the types and availability of housing in the City. The Project will comply with smart growth principles by providing multi-family housing options (studio, one-, two-, and three-bedroom residential apartment units) in a mixed- use environment, it will be located adjacent to various commercial and retail businesses within walking distance, and will provide residents with nearby access to various transportation options.

The Project provides for enhanced residential architecture and aesthetically coherent design elements that are compatible and complimentary with the existing surrounding residential built environment in terms of colors and materials and landscaping.

The Project will provide appropriate site design, landscaping, and building design in order to comply with the GP 2025 Land Use and Urban Design Elements. The proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to change the existing General Plan Land Use Designation of the project site from C - Commercial to MU-U - Mixed Use-Urban, to allow residential land use.

As outlined in Section 3.0 Project Description, the proposed Project would comply with the City’s Site Development Standards (Table 3.0- 3 Building Development Standards). Upon approval of the Project, including the proposed GPA, the proposed development would comply with the new applicable land use designation.

Section 6.0 City of Riverside
Other CEQA Topics Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

6.0-2
The Zoning Code Amendment request would change the on- site zoning designation from CR – Commercial Retail – to MU-U – Mixed-use Urban. Mixed Use-Urban zoning has been selected for this site to bring together medium - to high- density residential and retail development in a mixed-use environment. The Mixed Use-Urban zone will allow the proposed apartment project to be introduced into the existing retail environment and will create a framework for integration of uses with features such as pedestrian connectivity, walkability, and shared elements including parking. The proposed Project is consistent with the development standards of the proposed zone.

As outlined further in Section 5.11 Land Use and Planning, the project will meet all applicable standards in the RMC Title 7 Noise Control, Title 16 Buildings and Construction, Title 17 Grading Code, and Title 20 Cultural Resources. The proposed Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) to revise the Mission Grove Specific Plan. The proposed revisions to the Mission Grove Specific Plan include adding the Mixed-Use – Urban classification for 9.92 acres, with density of 40 dwelling units per acre, and number of Mixed-Use – Urban units of 396.80, and reducing the Non-Residential, Retail Business & Office classification to 59.84 acres. The Project includes 604 parking spaces in t otal. Of these, 513 parking spaces will be dedicated for the Proposed apartment project, and 91 will be shared between the Proposed apartment project and the existing adjacent retail site. The shared parking will be memorialized in a new covenant and restriction agreement between the residential developer and Mission Grove Plaza. A 15% parking reduction request has been outlined for the Project site as noted in the Project’s Specific Plan Amendment, per City of Riverside M unicipal Code 19.580.060.C.2.b. Upon approval of the Project, including the proposed SPA , the proposed development would comply with the new applicable zoning regulations.

As discussed above, the Project would be consistent with all applicable GP 2025 objectives and policies except for Policies CCM-11.1, LU-22.3, LU-22.5, and LU-69.1 related to the MARB/IPA LUCP, in which the Project would be partially consistent and partially inconsistent. As the Project’s projected residential density would exceed and be partially inconsistent with Policies CCM-11.1, LU-22.3, LU-22.5, and LU -69.1 related to the MARB/IPA LUCP, the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact . There are no feasible mitigation measures that would make the Project completely consistent with GP 2025 Policies CCM-11.1, LU-22.3, LU-22.5, and LU-69.1 related to the MARB/IPA LUCP.

March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan For a more detailed analysis of the Project’s consistency with the MARB/IPA LUCP refer to Section 5.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ( Subsection 5.9.6 , Environmental Impacts ) or Section 5.11 Land Use and Planning (Subsection 5.9.6, Environmental Impacts). The Project site is located within the March Air Reserve Base (MARB) airport influence area, within Compatibility Zone C2 of the March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (MARB/IPA LUCP). The Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) prepared a Staff Report (dated September 14, 2023) analyzing the Project’s consistency with applicable airport land use compatibility criteria as outlined in further detail below. In summary, the Riverside County City of Riverside Section 6.0
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Other CEQA Topics

6.0-3
ALUC Staff Report for the project concluded that the project was inconsistent with the MARB/IPA ALUCP based on the following:
• It exceeds the Zone C2 residential density criteria maximum of 6.0 du/ac.

The Riverside County ALUC Staff Report for the project concluded that the project was consistent with the following MARB/IPA ALUCP criteria:
• Non-residential average intensity (calculating with two different methods); • Non-residential single-acre intensity.

The Project would be consistent with Compatibility Zone C2’s non -residential density, height of structures, glare, el ectrical interference and there would be no safety issues related to these topics. However, the Project would be inconsistent with the allowable maximum residential density criteria for the Compatibility Zone C2. Due to the inconsistency of the maximum res idential density, the project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact. There are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce impacts related to inconsistency with the residential density criteria.

The City Council of the City of Riverside, by a two-thirds vote (per RMC Title 19), has the authority to overrule the Riverside County ALUC decision based on specific findings that the proposed Project is consistent with the purposes of ALUC law to protect public health, safety and welfare ensuring (1) the orderly expansion of airports, and (2) the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses. The Project is consistent with the purpose and intent of ALUC law and the MARB/IPA LUCP based on the following:
1) The Project is consistent with the residential development surrounding MARB/IPA, specifically in Zone C2 and will not result in the encroachment of incompatible residential densities affecting current or future March ARB/IPA operations. The Project involves the redevelopment of an underutilized commercial parcel with a multi -family residential development. The Project’s proposed General Plan designation and zoning of Mixed Use- Urban, is consistent with surrounding development, and would assist in transitioning between commercial and single-family residential uses.

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

Section 6.0 City of Riverside
Other CEQA Topics Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

6.0-4
Several multi-family residential uses are located in Zone C2, near the Project site. There is a condominium complex, Mission Villas, located at 200 E. Alessandro Boulevard, adjacent to the Project site, across from Alessandro Boulevard. The Mission Grove Park apartments, located at 7450 Northrop Drive, are located closer to the end of Runway 14- 32 than the Project. Mission Grove Park consists of 432 units and has a density of 16 dwelling units per acre. Estancia, located at 7871 Mission Grove Parkway South, consists of 208 units and has a density of 1.3 du/ac. The Project is consistent with other multi - family residential developments in the C2 Zone. Additionally, the Project consist of infill development of a commercial site. The vast majority of Zone C2 in the City of Riverside has been built out, largely by single family residences. Few infill sites, such as the Project are available for development. As such, the Project would not encourage other developments to exceed Zone C2 density standards or encroach upon MARB/IPA operations.

Therefore, the Project will not affect the orderly expansion of the MARB/IPA. 2) The Project is consistent with the aircraft noise standards of the ALUCP and the requirements of Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21670. The MARB/IPA ALUCP provides the CNEL considered normally acceptable for new residential uses in the vicinity of MARB/IPA, which is 65 dBA. The Project site is approximately 3.3 miles from the end of Runway 14-32. The MARB/IPA ALUCP depicts the site as being below the 60 CNEL range from aircraft noise. Therefore, ALUC found no special measures were required to mitigate aircraft -generated noise. Because the Project is consistent with the noise standards in the March MARB/IPA ALUCP, the Project also complies with noise standards in the City of Riverside General Plan (General Plan Noise Element, Figure N -10). While multi-family or mixed uses are not defined in the City’s General Plan Noise Element, the “normally acceptable” noise level for an infill single family residential use is between 55 and 65 dBA CNEL. The General Plan Noise Element Figure N-9 shows the Project site as being just outside the 60-65 dB CNEL noise contour projected for MARB/IPA operations.

Accordingly, noise exposure from MARB/IPA would not exceed normally acceptable levels for the Project site.

The Project will comply with the Riverside Municipal Code requirements regarding construction noise and will not compound noise related to MARB/IPA operations. All construction would take place between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm on weekdays, 8:00 am and 5:00 pm on Saturdays, and would not take place at any time on Sundays or federal holidays.

Consistent with MARB/IPA ALUCP, the Project will utilize standard construc tion techniques to ensure interior noise levels from aviation-related sources are no more than CNEL 40 dB.

The Project will comply with ALUC noticing conditions and will provide a “Notice of Airport in Vicinity” to all prospective purchasers and occupants of the property.

The Project does not propose any uses specifically prohibited or discouraged in compatibility Zone C2 (highly noise-sensitive outdoor nonresidential uses), such as major spectator-oriented sports stadiums, amphitheaters, concert halls and drive -in theaters.

City of Riverside Section 6.0
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Other CEQA Topics

6.0-5
The Project also does not propose noise sensitive uses such as children’s schools, day care centers, libraries, hospitals, or nursing homes.

Therefore, the Project minimizes the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around MARB/IPA.

A City Council proposed overrule of an ALUC action must provide a copy of the proposed decision and findings to both ALUC and the California Division of Aeronautics, a minimum of 45 days prior to decision to overrule ALUC. These agencies have 30 days in which to provide comments to City Council.

Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)
Section 5. 3 Air Quality discusses consistency with the current Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). As discussed in Section 5.3 Air Quality, the Project’s consistency with the 2022 AQMP was determined using the project consistency criteria defined in Chapter 12, Section 12.2 and Section 12.3 of the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) CEQA Air Quality Handbook. As discussed in Section 5.3, the Project would not result in or cause National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) violations and construction and operational -source impacts would not exceed the applic able SCAQMD regional and localized thresholds. As such, the Project is therefore considered to be consistent with the AQMP.

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Consistency with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) is contained in Section 5.4 Biological Resources. As discussed in Section 5.4 Biological Resources, the Project site consists of an existing structure with associated paved surface parking within a developed commercial shopping center. The site is not located in a Criteria Cell. The Project is consistent with the applicable MSHCP requirements in Sections 6.1.2 (Protectio n of Species within Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools), 6.1.3 (Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species), 6.1.4 (Urban and Wildlands Interface), 6.3.2 (Additional Survey Needs and Procedures), Appendix C (Standard Best Management Practices), and Section 7.5.3 (Construction Guidelines). With compliance with all applicable requirements of the MSHCP and payment of the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee, the proposed Project will be fully consistent with the MSHCP.

City’s Restorative Growthprint-Climate Action Plan (RRG-CAP) Section 5. 8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions includes a discussion of the City’s Restorative Growthprint-Climate Action Plan (RRG -CAP). The Riverside Restorative Growthprint (RRG) combines two plans: the Economic Prosperity Action Plan (RRG -EPAP) and the Climate Action Plan (RRG-CAP), which work in conjunction to spur entrepreneurship and smart growth while advancing the City’s GHG emission reduction goals. The RRG includes actions to reduce GHG emissions that align with the City’s planning priorities and its vision of a future “green” economy based on sustainable businesses. The RRG-EPAP identifies the measures and strategies in the Section 6.0 City of Riverside
Other CEQA Topics Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

6.0-6
RRG-CAP with the greatest potential to drive local economic prosperity through clean- tech investment, entrepreneurship, and expansion of local green businesses.

In 2014, Riverside was one of 12 cities that collaborated with the Western Riverside Council of Governments on a Subregional Climate Action Plan (Subregional CAP) that included 36 measures to guide Riverside’s GHG reduction efforts through 2020. The RRG-CAP expands upon the Subregional CAP and provides a path for the City to achieve deep reductions in GHG emissions through 2035, while the RRG -EPAP provides a framework for smart growth and low - carbon economic development. The RRG -CAP prioritizes the implementation of policies that enable the City to fulfill the requirements of AB 32 and SB 375. The Project would be consistent with applicable RRG and CAP measures (refer to Section 5.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Table

5.8-7 – RRG CAP Project Consistency).

Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is an association of local governments and agencies that serves as a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), a Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) and a Council of Governments (COG). The SCAG region encompasses six (6) counties (Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura) and 191 cities. SCAG is responsible for developing long-range regional transportation plans, including the regional Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and associated growth forecasts, regional transportation improvement programs, and regional housing needs allocations.

SCAG’s Connect SoCal – The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) is a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental and public health goals. Connect SoCal embodies a collective vision for the region’s future and is developed with input from local governments, county transportation commissions (CTCs), tribal governments, non -profit organizations, businesses and local stakeholders within the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura.

The Project is consistent with RTP/SCS GHG emissions reduction strategies, including focusing on focusing growth near destinations & mobility options, leverage of technology innovations, and promoting a green region (refer to Section 5.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Table 5.8-8 –Project Consistency with Applicable RTP/SCS GHG Emissions Reduction Strategies). The Project would not conflict with the Connect SoCal – 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan
Section 5.19 Utilities and Service Systems discusses Project consistency with the Riverside Public Utilities, Water Division Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). As discussed in Section

5.19 Utilities and Service Systems, the Project would be subject to compliance with the City’s Water Conservation Ordinance and the California Green Buil ding Code. Further, based on the water supply and demand projections, projected water supplies would be sufficient to meet the City of Riverside Section 6.0
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Other CEQA Topics

6.0-7
projected water demand for the Project. Thus, the Project would not conflict with the provisions of the UWMP.

Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of a Project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve a project. The analysis contained in this EIR concludes the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact s related to inconsistency with applicable airport land use compatibility criteria of the March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (MARB/IPA LUCP) and applicable GP 2025 Policies CCM-11.1, LU-22.3, LU -22.5, and LU -69.1 related to the MARB/IPA LUCP . As the Project would be inconsistent with applicable MARB/IPA LUCP land use compatibility density criteria for Zone C2, and the Project’s projected residential density would exceed and be partially inconsistent with Policies CCM-11.1, LU-22.3, LU-22.5, and LU-69.1 of GP 2025 related to the MARB/IPA LUCP, the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact . Although implementation of the recommended conditions identified in the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Staff Report for the Project would not render the Project consistent with the MARB/IPA LUCP Compatibility Zone C2 density compatibility criteria, they would be implemented, in order to reduce the potential hazards from flight accidents to the greatest extent feasible.

As shown in Table 5.17-1 – Regional and Project VMT Per Capita, the Project’s calculated VMT per capita for baseline year 2018 is 24.8. A 17.7 percent reduction to the Project’s baseline VMT per capita results in a reduced Project VMT of 20.4. As previously discussed, a project would result in a significant project -generated VMT impact if the baseline or cumulative project - generated VMT per capita exceeds 15 percent below the current jurisdictional baseline VMT per capita. Table 5.17- 1 indicates that 85 percent of the jurisdictional baseline VMT per capita for future year 2045 is 13.6. Thus, even with the assumed maximum 17.7 percent VMT reduction as a result of implementing Project -applicable VMT reduction strategies, the Project’s baseline per capita VMT would still exceed 15 percent below the 2045 jurisdictional baseline VMT per capita, resulting in a significant project-generated VMT impact.

VMT mitigation measures and strategies aim to promote overall mobility with the goal of reducing VMT and GHG emissions. Implementation of the project design features and TDM measures outlined in Section 5.17 Transportation, may possibly reduce the p roposed Project’s VMT by approximately up to 17.7 percent. These TDM measures may help offset some of the VMT impacts of the proposed Project by up to 17.7 percent but will not reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, the p roposed P roject w ould have significant and unavoidable impacts related to transportation.

Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes
Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires EIRs to contain a discussion of significant irreversible environmental changes which would be caused by the proposed Project should it be implemented. This section addresses the use of non -renewable resources during initial and Section 6.0 City of Riverside
Other CEQA Topics Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

6.0-8
continued phases of the Project, the commitment of future generations to environmental changes or impacts because of the Project, and any irreversible damage from environmental accidents associated with the Project.

6.3.1 Use of Non-Renewable Resources
Construction of the Project would involve an irreversible commitment of construction materials and non-renewable energy resources. The Project would involve the use of building materials and energy resources, some of which are non -renewable, to construct the 347 apartment units .

Consumption of these resources would occur with any development of the Project site and are not unique to the Project.

Operation of the Project would irreversibly increase local demand for non- renewable energy resources, such as petroleum products and natural gas. Increasingly efficient building design, however, will offset this demand to some degree by reducing energy demands of the Project. The Project will be subject to the energy conservation requirements of the California Energy C ode 2022 (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings) and the California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11 of the California Code of Regulati ons). The California Green Building Standards Code functions to:
• Reduce GHG emissions from buildings;
• Promote environmentally responsible, cost-effective, healthy places to live and work; • Reduce energy and water consumption; and
• Respond to the environmental directives of the administration.

In addition the 2022 CALGreen standards will require the Project recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with either (CalGr een) Section 4.408.2, 4.408.3, or 4.408.4, or meet a more stringent local construction and demolition waste management ordinance (4.408.1).The California Energy Code provides energy conservation standards for all new and renovated commercial and residential buildings constructed in California, and the Green Building Standards Code requires solar access, natural ventilation, and stormwater capture. With adherence to these standards, the Project would not use unusual amounts of energy or construction materials, and impacts related to consumption of non-renewable and slowly renewable resources would be less than significant. Consumption of these resources would occur with any development of the Project site and would not be unique to the Project.

6.3.2 Commitment of Future Generations
Approval of the Project would result in environmental changes or impacts that commit future generations to new environmental circumstances. Primarily, the approval of the Project would change the underlying GP 2025 land use designations and zoning of the Project site and the Mission Grove Specific Plan land use and zoning, as detailed in Section 5.11, Land Use and Planning. The change in the underlying regulations would allow for a change from C - Commercial City of Riverside Section 6.0
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Other CEQA Topics

6.0-9
to MU -U - Mixed Use -Urban for a multi -family development. This would result, in turn, in an increase in population as compared to commercial development as envisioned in the City’s GP 2025. However, as outlined in Section 5.14 Population and Housing, the GP 2025 was designed to accommodate anticipated growth by providing adequate services, access and infrastructure.

The Project area is currently served by existing roads and other infrastructure and the Project would only require minor extensions or laterals from nearby roads and utiliti es to the site. Also, the Project would result in a very small incremental increase in population growth, 1. 4% of the anticipated GP 2025 anticipated growth . The Project’s 1.4% percent incremental increase is anticipated to be a less than significant increase. The Project would also require an irreversible commitment of law enforcement, fire protection, water supply, wastewater treatment, and solid waste disposal services. However, as discussed in Section 5.15 Public Services, Section 5.19 Utilities, and Section 5.20 Wildfire, impacts to these services and systems would not be significant and any impacts would be mitigated by the applicant’s payment of impact fees for services provided (schools, fire, and transportation).

Growth-Inducing Impacts
Section 15126.2( e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of a proposed project’s potential to foster economic or population growth, including ways in which a project could remove an obstacle to growth. Growth does not necessarily create signif icant physical changes to the environment. However, depending upon the type, magnitude, and location of growth, it can result in significant adverse environmental effects. The Project's growth inducing potential is therefore considered significant if project-induced growth could result in significant physical effects in one or more environmental issue areas.

6.4.1 Population Growth
The Project would involve the development of multi-family residences, which will directly increase the City’s population. The expected number of tenants is 829 persons, and therefore the estimated population growth from the Project is 829 persons. Per the 6th Cycle Housing Element Technical Background Report, the City of Riverside had an estimated population of 328,155 in 2020. This represents a growth of 58,445 people from 2020 to 2040. Therefore, the Project is anticipated to contribute approximately 1.4 percent of the anticipated population growth.

The General Plan 2025 was designed to accommodate anticipated growth under the typical development scenario by providing adequate services, access and infrastructure. The Project area is currently served by existing roads and other infrastructure and the Project would only require minor extensions or laterals from nearby roads and utilities to the site. Also, the Project would result in a very small incremental increase in population growth, approximately 1.4 percent, of what was anticipated. Thus, the Project is within the City’s anticipated 2025 growth projection.

The Project’s estimated 829 persons to the total population would be a minuscule incremental increase of the anticipated growth. Moreover, per the City’s General Plan EIR, the maximum population projection would be 444,308 persons, which would result in the Project’s generated residents of 829 person to be approximately 0.2 percent of the maximum population growth in 2025. The approximately 1. 4 percent incremental increase is anticipated to be a less than Section 6.0 City of Riverside
Other CEQA Topics Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

6.0-10
significant increase and would not exceed both the estimated projection and the maximum projection of the City’s General Plan 2025 EIR growth projections.

In regard to indirect population growth, the Project area is currently served by existing roads and other infrastructure and the Project would only require minor extensions or laterals from nearby roads and utilities to the site. Therefore, the Project is not anticipated to indirectly induce population growth by the extension of infrastructure into undeveloped areas.

6.4.2 Economic Growth
The Project would generate temporary employment opportunities during construction. Because workers would be expected to come from the existing regional work force, construction of the Project would not be growth-inducing from a temporary employment standpoint.

The operations (on- site leasing office) and maintenance of the development (cleaning and landscape maintenance of the on-site amenities) would generate new employment opportunities.

However, the proposed Project would not provide a substantial number of long- term jobs and workers would be expected to come from the existing regional work force.

The Project would not be expected to induce substantial economic expansion in the Project vicinity to the extent that direct physical environmental effects would result. Moreover, the environmental effects associated with any future development in or around Riverside would be addressed as part of the CEQA environmental review for each of those development projects.

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

GP 2025
City of Riverside, Riverside General Plan 2025 , November 2007, with subsequent amendments to various elements. (Available at https://riversideca.gov/cedd/planning/city-plans/general-plan-0, accessed September 2023)
RMC, Title 17
City of Riverside, Code of Ordinances, Title 17 Grading Code (Available at:
https://library.municode.com/ca/riverside/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTII COOR_TIT17GR , accessed September 2023)
RMC, Title 19
City of Riverside, Code of Ordinances, Title 19 Zoning (Available at https://library.municode.com/ca/riverside/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIIC OOR_TIT19ZO, accessed September 2023)
MSHCP
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. (Available at https://rctlma.org/Portals/0/mshcp/volume1/index.html, accessed June 2023).

City of Riverside Section 6.0
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Other CEQA Topics

6.0-11

RRG-CAP
City of Riverside, Riverside Restorative Growthprint – Climate Action Plan .

January 2016. (Available at: https://riversideca.gov/cedd/planning/city -plans/other- city-plans, accessed September 2023)
SCAG 2020
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) , Connect SoCal 2020 (2020- 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy). September 3, 2020. Available at https://scag.ca.gov/read -plan- adopted-final-connect-socal-2020, accessed September 2023.

City of Riverside Section 7.0
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project

7.0-1

7.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
The following discussion considers alternatives to implementation of the Project. The discussion examines the potential environmental impacts resulting from each alternative. Through comparisons of these alternatives to the Project, the relative advantage(s) of each can be weighed and analyzed.

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

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

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

The following alternatives are evaluated in this DEIR:
• Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
• Alternative 2: Lower Density ALUC Consistent Multi-Family Residential Project • Alternative 3: Retail Project Alternative
• Alternative 4: Off-Site Multi-Family Residential Project Section 7.0 City of Riverside
Alternatives to the Proposes Project Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

7.0-2
Detailed descriptions of the alternatives are outlined below.

7.0.2 Rationale for Alternative Selection
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) requires that an EIR “…describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and eval uate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” Each alternative must be capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the proposed project. According to this section of the State CEQA Guidelines, “…an EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision- making and public participation.” An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasi ble. The City, as lead agency, is responsible for selecting a range of Project alternatives to be discussed other than the “rule of reason” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)). Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to an alternative. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 (f)(1)).

The rationale for selecting the alternatives to be evaluated, and a discussion of the “No Project” alternative are also required (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(e)). The No P roject alternative is no redevelopment of the site. As the Project is not consistent with designated land use and zoning for the site, the “no project” alternative (Alternative 1) would be retaining the existing development of the site that remains in acco rd with the current land use and zoning designations and the Mission Grove Specific Plan. Under this alternative, the GP land use designation of C – Commercial and zoning of CR – SP - Commercial Retail as well as Specific Plan (Mission Grove) designation as Retail Business & Office and CR- SP Commercial Retail Overlay Zone would remain as is. Development under Alternative 2 would include lower density multi-family residential uses that would be consistent with the density criteria for the C2 Compatibility Zone of the March Air Reserve Base/ Inland Port ALUC Plan. Due to the Project site being an existing retail development , continued use of the site as permanent retail is considered for Alternative 3. Alternative 4 includes the proposed re- development Project at an off-site location within the City of Riverside.

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

Although there is no permanent tenant of the retail building, since vacated by K-Mart, it has had a temporary and seasonal tenant, the Spirit Halloween Costume Store. The No Project/ No Redevelopment Alternative would continue to be consistent with the existing General Plan land City of Riverside Section 7.0
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project

7.0-3
use designation of C Commercial, the existing zoning of CR-SP- Commercial Retail and Specific Plan (Mission Grove) Overlay Zones and with the Mission Grove Specific Plan and would not require a GPA, RZ, SPA, or TPM. The No Project alternative would not fulfill any of the Project’s objectives as the existing site would not provide high- quality housing in close proximity to many amenities and high quality transit corridors, assist the City of Riverside in meeting housing needs; use land resources more efficiently with infill redevelopment on an underutilized vacant site; or further the City’s Climate Action Plan by replacing aging building construction with green building practices and other sustainable development methods. Under this alternative, no improvements would be made to the Project site and the site would continue to be vacant with temporary/seasonal retail tenants. This alternative has no characteristics in common with the proposed Project nor any of the other alternatives as no proposed redevelopment would occur.

Impact Analysis for Alternative 1
Aesthetics
The Project site is currently developed and consists of a vacant retail building (formerly a K-Mart retail store) and associated surface parking lot. Since becoming vacant in 2020, the retail building hosts a Spirit Halloween Costume Store as a temporary and seasonal tenant.

The Project site is located within an existing shopping center consisting of various commercial and retail uses, such as grocery stores, fast food restaurants, and a gym/fitness center.

Additionally, the site’s surrounding uses consist of both single-family and multi-family residential uses.

Under Alternative 1, the vacant retail building would remain vacant aside from its temporary and seasonal tenant (Spirit Halloween) and no permanent aest hetic redevelopment changes or disturbances would occur to the building or its associated surface parking lot. The vacant retail building would only have the temporary and seasonal aesthetic change of a Spirit Halloween banner hung on the building’s frontage, which would be removed when the seasonal tenant vacates the space. Assuming the Project site retail building remains undeveloped, there would be no construction or redevelopment of structures that would alter site views, nor would there be any new sources of light and glare at the site associated with site construction or redevelopment.

Therefore, as Alternative 1 would not alter currently existing site views and would not introduce new or additional sources of light or glare, potential aesthetic impact s under Alternative 1 would be less than those associated with the proposed Project.

Agriculture and Forestry Resources
As discussed in DEIR Section 5.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, the Project site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farm land, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, nor is the Project site located adjacent to any of these farmland designation land uses. Additionally, the Project site is not currently zoned for agricultural use or adjacent to land zoned for agricultural use, nor is the site located within an area affected by a Williamson Act Preserve or under a Williamson Act Contract. As previously discussed, the Project site is currently developed and consists of a vacant retail building and associated surface parking lot and does not contain any farmland, forest land, or timberland, nor is the site located adjacent to any land containing these Section 7.0 City of Riverside
Alternatives to the Proposes Project Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

7.0-4
uses. As these uses are not located on or within the vicinity of the Project site, no impacts would occur to agricultural or forestry resources under development of the proposed Project or under Alternative 1. Therefore, potential impacts under the No Project/No Redevelopment Alternative would be similar to those of the proposed Project.

Air Quality
As analyzed in Section 5.3, Air Quality, the proposed Project would generate emissions through construction and operations, though emissions would not exceed regional localized significance thresholds (LSTs) for any criteria pollutant, nor would the proposed Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Under Alternative 1, the currently existing vacant retail building would remain vacant, except for the building’s temporary and seasonal Spirit Halloween Costume Store tenant. Thus, under Alternative 1, there would be no construction at or redevelopment of the site and accordingly, no emissions from construction activities would be generated and operational emissions would be intermittent (i.e., seasonal and temporary when the Spirit Halloween tenant occupies the building). Therefore, potential air quality impacts under Alternative 1 would be less than those associated with the proposed Project.

Biological Resources
As analyzed in Section 5.4, Biological Resources, 15 special -status plant species have been recorded in the USGS Riverside East quadrangle, in which the Project site is located. The Project site consists of an existing vacant retail building and associated surface parking lot, which are site conditions that have eliminated the Project site’s ability t o provide suitable habitat for special - status plant species. Additionally, 29 special -status wildlife species have reported occurrences within the USGS Riverside East quadrangle. A review of the habitat requirements of each of the special-status wildlife species indicates that the Project site does not contain nor would be able to provide potentially suitable habitat for any of these wildlife species. The site contains trees that could provide potentially suitable habitat for nesting birds; these trees would be left in place under the development of the proposed Project and under Alternative 1. In addition, as the site is paved/developed, it does not contain, nor would it be able to provide, suitable conditions or habitat for features such as wetlands, vernal pools, or riparian or riverine resources. As the site does not contain nor would it be able to support any sensitive biological resources, potential impacts to biological resources would be less than significant under both the proposed Project and the No Project/No Redevelopment Alternative. Therefore, potential impacts to biological resources under Alternative 1 would be similar to those associated with the proposed Project.

Cultural Resources
As discussed in DEIR Section 5.5, Cultural Resources, the City may consider the Project area to have a moderate to high sensitivity for potential impacts to cultural resources. Additionally, while the proposed Project’s Cultural Resources Assessment did not report the presence or discovery of human remains, construction and/or ground -disturbing activities could have the potential to disturb or destroy previously undiscovered human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Under the No Project/No Redevelopment Alternative, the previously developed Project site would remain vacant and undisturbed by construction or ground-disturbing City of Riverside Section 7.0
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project

7.0-5
activities. Therefore, potential impacts to cultural resources under Alternative 1 would be less than those associated with the proposed Project.

Energy
Under Alternative 1, No Project/Redevelopment, the existing retail building would remain vacant except for the times when it is occupied by its temporary and seasonal tenant, the Spirit Halloween Costume Store. There would be no construction or redevelopment of the site that would result in an increased use of electricity, natural gas, or petroleum associated with redevelopment construction and operation activities. As discussed in DEIR Section 5.6, Energy, the proposed Project would utilize electricity, natural gas, and petroleum during the construction and operation of the proposed Project residential development. Thus, potential impacts to energy resources under Alternative 1 would be less than those associated with the proposed Project.

Geology and Soils
Under Alternative 1, No Project/Development, the Project site would not be altered and there would be no ground disturbance on the site. As discussed, the Project site is previously developed and consists of a vacant retail building and associated surface parking lot. Under Alternative 1, the site would not undergo any construction or redevelopment disturbances, such as ground disturbance and grading, that could result in potential impacts to geological and soil resources.

Therefore, potential impacts to geology and soils under Alternative 1 would be less than those associated with the proposed Project.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
As discussed in DEIR Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, construction of the proposed Project would generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during the construction and operation of the Project, though emissions do not exceed any of the GHG significance thresholds. The No Project/Development alternative would not include on- site development and woul d thus not generate any construction or operational GHG emissions. Therefore, impacts associated with GHG emissions under Alternative 1 would be less than those of the proposed Project.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
As discussed in DEIR Section 5.9, Haz ards and Hazardous Materials, the proposed Project’s residential density would exceed and be inconsistent with the allowable maximum residential density criteria for MARB/IPA LUCP Compatibility Zone C2, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. While conditions of approval have been proposed, implementation of these conditions would not render the proposed Project consistent with the MARB/IPA LUCP Compatibility Zone C2 residential density criteria. Under Alternative 1, the site would not require any zoning, land use, or specific plan changes as the site would remain a vacant retail building within a commercial use area. The site would remain consistent with allowable uses and maximum residential densities under the No Project/Redevelopment Alternati ve. Therefore, potential impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials under Alternative 1 would be less than those associated with the proposed Project.

Section 7.0 City of Riverside
Alternatives to the Proposes Project Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

7.0-6
Hydrology and Water Quality
As discussed in DEIR Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, expected pollutant sources that could impact water quality resources from the proposed Project include interior drains, indoor/structural pesticide use, landscape/outdoor pesticide use, refuse areas, plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots. Under Alternative 1, the Project site would not undergo any construction or redevelopment activities that would generate pollutant sources associated with them. Rather, under Alternative 1, the Project site would remain under current site conditions, which consist of a vacant retail building and associated surface parking lot. While the proposed Project’s potential impacts to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant, because Alternative 1 would not include any on -site construction, redevelopment, or operational activities, potential impacts under Alternative 1 would be less than those associated with the proposed Project.

Land Use and Planning
As discussed in DEIR Section 5.11, Land Use and Planning, the proposed Project’s projected residential density of 35.0 dwelling units per acre would be inconsistent with the allowable 6.0 dwelling units per acre permitted by the MARB/IPA LUCP residential density criteria for Compatibility Zone C2, in which the Project site is located. Also, the proposed Project would be consistent with all applicable GP 2025 objectives and policies except for Policies CCM-11.1, LU-

22.3, LU-22.5, and LU-69.1 related to the MARB/IPA LUCP, in which the Project would be partially consistent and partially inconsistent. Thus, the proposed Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to land use and planning due to inconsistency with the allowable m aximum residential density of the MARB/IPA LUCP C2 Zone as well as being partially inconsistent with GP 2025 Policies CCM -11.1, LU-22.3, LU-22.5, and LU -69.1 related to the MARB/IPA LUCP .

Under Alternative 1, the site would not require any zoning, land use, or specific plan changes as the site would remain a vacant retail building within a commercial use area. The site would remain consistent with allowable uses and densities of Compatibility Zone C2 of the MARB/IPA LUCP, under the No Project/Redevelopment Alternative. Ther efore, potential impacts to land use and planning under Alternative 1 would be less than those associated with the proposed Project.

Mineral Resources
As discussed in DEIR Section 5.12, Mineral Resources, the Project site has been developed for commercial uses and is not located within or adjacent to areas of known mineral resources that would be of value to the region or State. Additionally, the City’s GP 2025 PEIR determined that there are no specific areas within the City boundary or proposed Sphere of I nfluence Area that have locally -important mineral resource recovery sites. As the Project site has already been developed with a retail building and associated surface parking lot, and as the site is not located within or adjacent to areas of known mineral resources, neither the development of the proposed Project nor implementation of Alternative 1 would result in impacts to mineral resources.

Therefore, potential impacts to mineral resources under Alternative 1 would be similar to those associated with the proposed Project.

City of Riverside Section 7.0
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project

7.0-7
Noise
Under the No Project/Redevelopment Alternative, the existing retail building would remain vacant except for when temporarily and seasonally occupied by the Spirit Halloween Costume Store tenant. There would be no redevelopment of the site or associated surface parking lot that would generate construction or operational noise as would occur under the proposed Project. While the proposed Project’s potential construction, vibration, and operational noise impacts would be less than significant, as Alternative 1 would not include any redevelopment construction noise or vibration and operational noise would be intermittent (i.e., seasonal and temporary), potential impacts under Alternative 1 would be less than those associated with the proposed Project.

Population and Housing
Under Alternative 1, no construction or redevelopment activities would occur on the Project site that would cause a substantial unplanned population growth, nor would Alternative 1 result in displacing substantial nu mbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. As discussed, the Project site currently consists of a vacant retail building and associated surface parking lot; additionally, the site is currently zoned for commercial uses. While the proposed Project’s potential impacts to population and housing would be less than significant, because Alternative 1 would not include any redevelopment involving residential uses and associated population growth, potential impacts to population and housing under Alternative 1 would be less than those associated with the proposed Project.

Public Services
Under the No Project/Redevelopment Alternative, the Project site would remain under its current site conditions, which consist of a vacant retail building and associated surface lot, with no redevelopment of the site for alternative uses. The retail building would only be temporarily and seasonally occupied by the Spirit Halloween Costume Store tenant. These intermittent commercial uses would not result in an increased demand in public services, such as fire protection, police protection, parks, or libraries, such that new/additional facilities would need to be constructed. While potential impacts to public services under the proposed Project would be less than significant, because Alternative 1 would not result in any redevelopment of the Project site, potential impacts to public services under Alternative 1 would be less than those of the proposed Project.

Recreation
Under the No Project/Redevelopment Alternative, the Project site would remain under its current site conditions, which consist of a vacant retail building and associated surface lot, with no redevelopment of the site for alternative uses. The retail building woul d only be temporarily and seasonally occupied by the Spirit Halloween Costume Store tenant. These intermittent commercial uses would not increase population or associated use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration would occur, nor would the intermittent commercial uses require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. While potential impacts regarding recreation under the proposed Project would be less than significant, because Alternative 1 would not result in any redevelopment of the Section 7.0 City of Riverside
Alternatives to the Proposes Project Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

7.0-8
Project site, potential impacts to recreation under Alternative 1 would be less than those of the proposed Project.

Transportation
As discussed in DEIR Section 5.17, Transportati on, the proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts regarding vehicle miles traveled (VMT). While mitigation measures are proposed, implementation of the measures would not decrease the proposed Project’s impacts to VMT to a less t han significant level. Under the No Project/Redevelopment Alternative, vehicular traffic and VMT levels associated with the Project site would remain relatively low in comparison to those generated by the proposed Project as the existing retail building would only be temporarily and seasonally occupied by the Spirit Halloween Costume Store tenant. Additionally, Alternative 1 would not include any construction related traffic associated with redevelopment of the site. Thus, potential impacts to transportation under Alternative 1 would be less than those of the proposed Project.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Construction of the proposed Project would involve ground-disturbing activities with the potential to unearth or adversely impact previously unidentified tribal cultural resources. The No Project Alternative would have no ground -disturbing activities and there would be no potential for adversely impacting tribal cultural resources. The No Project/Development alternative would have less potential impact than the proposed Project.

Utilities
Construction and operation of the proposed Project would result in an increased demand for utility services, such as water supply, wastewater treatment, and solid waste services. While potential impacts to utilities and service systems would be less than significant under the proposed Project, because Alternative 1 would not include any site redevelopment that could increase the demand of utility services, potential impacts to utilities and utility services under Alternative 1 would be less than those of the proposed Project.

Wildfire
As discussed in DEIR Section 5.20, Wildfire, the proposed Project site is not located within an area or land classified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). Additionally, under current site conditions and as would remain the case under Alternative 1, the site’s vacant retail building is only intermittently (i.e., seasonally and temporarily) occupied by the Spirit Halloween Costume Store tenant. U nder Alternative 1, the site and its current uses would not have an increased risk of exposing people or structures to significant risks, such as downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, or to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires due to being located in a VHFHSZ. As Alternative 1 was required to comply with the applicable California Building Standards Code (CBC) and California Fire Code (CFC) standards at the time it was constructed and the proposed Project would be required to comply with applicable CBC and CFC standards that ensure appropriate measures, including fire prevention and fuel modification features, are provided so that urban development does not expose project City of Riverside Section 7.0
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project

7.0-9
occupants to increased and uncontrolled fire hazards, the potential to expose people or structures to significant risks of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires are low. Potential wildfire impacts under Alternative 1 would be similar to those associated with the proposed Project.

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

Impact Analysis for Alternative 2
Aesthetics
Under Alternative 2, the Reduced Density Apartment Redevelopment, the proposed residential development would consist of 58 dwelling units in lieu of the proposed Project’s 347 dwelling units. As discussed in DEIR Se ction 5.1, Aesthetics, the Project site is located in a highly urbanized area, consisting of commercial and retail uses as well as single- and multi -family residential uses. The Project site is not a scenic vista, nor are there any State scenic highways or City designated Scenic or Special Boulevards or Parkways in the vicinity of the Project site.

Assuming the Reduced Density Apartment Redevelopment would be constructed with the same design elements of the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would include a contemporary Spanish architectural style with features such as decorative tiles at Project entries, foam trims, sills, corbels, and trellises at upper balconies. These design elements would simply be implemented on a smaller scale due to the reduced density development of Alternative 2. Additionally, the project design and landscaping of Alternative 2 would similarly be required to comply with the City’s Design Guidelines and Zoning Code. Moreover, as the higher density, larger proposed Project development would not result in substantial light or glare, it is anticipated that a smaller, reduced density development would result in even less potential light and glare impacts. While impacts to aesthetics would be less than significant under the proposed Project, because the Reduced Density Apartment Redevelopment would result in a smaller scale residential development, impacts under Alternative 2 would be less than those of the proposed Project.

Agriculture and Forestry
As discussed in DEIR Section 5.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, the Project site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, nor is the Project site located adjacent to any of these farmland designation land uses. Additionally, the Project site i s not currently zoned for agricultural use or adjacent to land zoned for agricultural use, nor is the site located within an area affected by a Williamson Act Preserve or under a Section 7.0 City of Riverside
Alternatives to the Proposes Project Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

7.0-10
Williamson Act Contract. As previously discussed, the Project site is current ly developed and consists of a vacant retail building and associated surface parking lot and does not contain any farmland, forest land, or timberland, nor is the site located adjacent to any land containing these uses. As these uses are not located on or within the vicinity of the Project site, no impacts would occur to agricultural or forestry resources under development of the proposed Project or under Alternative 2. Therefore, potential impacts under the Reduced Density Apartment Redevelopment would be similar to those of the proposed Project.

Air Quality
Under Alternative 2, Reduced Density Apartment Redevelopment, development of the Project site would result in construction and operational emissions that could potentially impact air quality.

However, as Alternative 2 would consist of a multi -family residential development with only 58 dwelling units instead of the proposed Project’s 347 dwelling units, it is assumed that construction of the project under Alternative 2 would accordingly consist of a shorter construction period, which would therefore result in less construction- related emissions. Additionally, a smaller scale residential development as proposed under Alternative 2 would correspondingly house fewer residents than could be accommodated under the proposed Project, resulting in fewer vehicles, and therefore, fewer vehicle emissions. As such, potential impacts to air quality under Alternative 2 would be less than those associated with the proposed Project.

Biological Resources
As analyzed in Sec tion 5.4, Biological Resources, 15 special -status plant species have been recorded in the USGS Riverside East quadrangle, in which the Project site is located. The Project site consists of an existing vacant retail building and associated surface parking lot, which are site conditions that have eliminated the Project site’s ability to provide suitable habitat for special - status plant species. Additionally, 29 special -status wildlife species have reported occurrences within the USGS Riverside East quadrangle. A review of the habitat requirements of each of the special-status wildlife species indicates that the Project site does not contain nor would be able to provide potentially suitable habitat for any of these wildlife species. While the site contains trees that could provide potentially suitable habitat for nesting birds, these trees would be left in place under the development of the proposed Project and, it is assumed, under the Reduced Density Apartment Redevelopment. In addition, as the site is paved/developed, it does not contain nor would it be able to provide suitable conditions or habitat for features such as wetlands, vernal pools, or riparian or riverine resources. As the site does not contain nor would it be able to support any sensitive biological resources, potential impacts to biological resources would be less than significant under either the proposed Project or the Reduced Density Apartment Redevelopment Alternative. Therefore, potential impacts to biological resources under Alternative 2 would be similar to those associated with the proposed Project.

City of Riverside Section 7.0
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project

7.0-11
Cultural Resources
Similar to the proposed Project, development of the Reduced Density Apartment Redevelopment Alternative would require site preparation and grading. However, as Alternative 2 would consist of a smaller scale residential project, it is assumed the grading li mits and development footprint of Alternative 2 would be less than those of the proposed Project. Ground-disturbing activities with the potential to unearth or adversely impact previously undiscovered archaeological resources and/or human remains would still occur under Alternative 2, as construction activities would occur within the same development footprint as the proposed Project, resulting in the same area of ground disturbance. Therefore, potential impacts to cultural resources under Alternative 2 would be the same as those associated with the proposed Project.

Energy
Under the Reduced Density Apartment Redevelopment Alternative, electricity and natural gas would still be supplied by Riverside Public Utilities (RPU) and Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), respectively. It is anticipated that construction fuel consumption under Alternative 2 would be less than that of the proposed Project for construction equipment, vendor trips, and worker trips as Alternative 2 would be a comparatively smaller scale development than the proposed Project. Similar to the proposed Project, the project under Alternative 2 would comply with applicable Title 24 Building Standards for multi -family residential developments, including incorporating solar panels and providing electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. It is additionally anticipated that similar to the proposed Project, the project under Alternative 2 would utilize all electric appliances and only utilize natural gas for project amenities/common spaces. As the Reduced Density Apartment Redevelopment would be a smaller scale residential development, with only 58 dwelling units instead of the 347 dwelling units, it is anticipated that the project under Alternative 2 would consume less energy resources during bot h construction and operations as compared to the proposed Project. Therefore, potential impacts to energy resources under Alternative 2 would be less than those associated with the proposed Project.

Geology and Soils
The existing geology and soils conditions of the site would remain the same for both the proposed Project and Alternative 2. As discussed, the Project site is previously developed and consists of a vacant retail building and associated surface parking lot. Ground-disturbing activities for construction would occur within the same development footprint as the proposed Project, resulting in the same area of ground disturbance and potential impacts on geology and soils resources.

Thus, potential impacts to geology and soils under Alternative 2 would be l the same as those of the proposed Project.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under Alternative 2, Reduced Density Apartment Redevelopment, development of the Project site would result in construction and operational greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, as Alternative 2 would consist of a multi -family residential development with only 58 dwelling units instead of the proposed Project’s 347 dwelling units, it is assumed that construction of the project under Alternative 2 would accordingly consist of a shorter construction period, which would Section 7.0 City of Riverside
Alternatives to the Proposes Project Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

7.0-12
therefore result in less construction- related emissions. Additionally, a smaller scale residential development as proposed under Alternative 2 would correspondingly house fewer residents than could be accommodated under the proposed Project, resulting in fewer vehicles, and therefore, fewer vehicle GHG emissions. As such, potential impacts regarding GHG emissions under Alternative 2 would be less than those associated with the proposed Project.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
As discussed in DEIR Section 5.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the proposed Project’s residential density would exceed and be inconsistent with the allowable maximum residential density criteria for MARB/IPA LUCP Compatibility Zone C2, resulting in a s ignificant and unavoidable impact. Alternative 2 proposes a reduced density apartment redevelopment that would consist of 58 dwelling units in comparison to the 347 dwelling units associated with the proposed Project. The reduced number of dwelling units proposed under Alternative 2 would allow the proposed residential development to be consistent with the Compatibility Zone C2 allowable residential density. Therefore, as Alternative 2 would allow for a residential development that would be consistent with Compatibility Zone C2 residential density requirements, potential impacts regarding hazards and hazardous materials would be less than those associated with the proposed Project.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Similar to the proposed Project, expected pollutant sources that could impact water quality resources under Alternative 2 would include interior drains, indoor/structural pesticide use, landscape/outdoor pesticide use, refuse areas, plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots. While the proposed Project’s potential impacts to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant, because Alternative 2 would consist of a smaller scale, reduced density residential development, potential impacts under Alternative 2 would be less than those associated with the proposed Project.

Land Use and Planning
As discussed in DEIR Section 5.11, Land Use and Planning, the proposed Project’s projected residential density of 35.0 du/ac would be inconsistent with the allowable 6.0 du/ac permitted by the MARB/IPA LUCP density criteria for Compatibility Zone C2, in which the Project site is located.

Thus, the proposed Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to land use and planning as a result of inconsistency with the maximum allowable residential density in the Compatibility Zone C2. Also, the proposed Project would be consistent with all applicable GP 2025 objectives and policies except for Policies CCM-11.1, LU-22.3, LU-22.5, and LU-69.1 related to the MARB/IPA LUCP, in which the Project would be partially consistent and partially inconsistent. Alternative 2 proposes a Reduced Density Apartment Redevelopment Alternative that would consist of 58 dwelling units rather than the proposed Project’s total of 347 dwelling units, which would allow the development under Alternative 2 to be consistent with the maximum residential density criteria for Compatibility Zone C2 and it would be completely consistent with all applicable GP 2025 objectives and policies including Policies CCM -11.1, LU-22.3, LU-22.5, City of Riverside Section 7.0
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project

7.0-13
and LU-69.1 related to the MARB/IPA LUCP. Therefore, potential impacts regarding land use and planning under Alternative 2 would be less than those associated with the proposed Project.

Mineral Resources
As discussed in DEIR Section 5.12, Mineral Resources, the Project site has been developed for commercial uses and is not located within or adjacent to areas of known mineral resources that would be of value to the region or State. Additionally, the City’s GP 2025 PEIR determined that there are no specific areas within the City’s boundary or proposed Sphere of Influence Area that have locally -important mineral resource recovery sites. As the Project site has already been developed with a retail building and associated surface parking lot, and as the site is not located within or adjacent to areas of known mineral resources, neither the development of the proposed Project nor implementation of Alternative 2 would result in impacts to mineral resources.

Therefore, potential impacts to mineral resources under Alternative 2 w ould be similar to those associated with the proposed Project.

Noise
Similar to the proposed Project, development of the Reduced Density Apartment Redevelopment would result in construction related noise and vibration as well as operational noise. It is anticipated that because Alternative 2 would consist of a smaller scale, reduced density development, the construction period for Alternative 2 would be correspondingly shorter than that of the proposed Project, resulting in less construction generated noise and vibration. While the proposed Project’s potential construction, vibration, and operational noise impacts would be less than significant, because Alternative 2 would consist of a smaller, reduced density residential development, potential noise impacts under Alternative 2 would be less than those of the proposed Project.

Population and Housing
As discussed in DEIR Section 5.14, Population and Housing, development of the proposed Project would not cause substantial unplanned population growth, nor would the proposed Project result in displacing any existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Similar to the proposed Project, the Reduced Density Apartment Redevelopment Alternative would consist of an infill r edevelopment project that would provide multi-family residential uses. Both the proposed Project and Alternative 2 are growth accommodating (as compared to growth inducing), as the region, and the state as a whole, are short on housing. The proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts related to population and housing, and Alternative 2 would also. Although Alternative 2 is less growth accommodating, than the proposed Project (as it provides less units), both projects would not induce substantial population growth and t herefore, potential impacts regarding population and housing under Alternative 2 would be the same as those of the proposed Project.

Public Services
As discussed in DEIR Section 5.15, Public Services, the proposed Project’s 347-unit multi-family residential development would not result in an increased demand in public services, such as fire Section 7.0 City of Riverside
Alternatives to the Proposes Project Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

7.0-14
protection, police protection, parks, or libraries, such that new/additional facilities would need to be constructed. In comparison to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 proposes a reduced density apartment redevelopment that would consist of only 58 dwelling units, which, accordingly, would result in a reduced number of residents who would utilize and be served by the Project site area’s public services. While potential impacts to public services under the proposed Project would be less than significant, because Alternative 2 would result in a reduced demand on public services as compared to the proposed Project, impacts to public services under Alternative 2 would be less than those of the proposed Project.

Recreation
As discussed in DEIR Section 5.16, Recreation, the proposed Project’s 347- unit multi -family residential development would not substantially increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration would occur. Additionally, the proposed Project would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. In comparison to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 proposes a reduced density apartment redevelopment that would consist of only 58 dwelling units, which, accordingly, would result in a reduced number of residents who would utilize existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. While potential impacts relating to recreation under the proposed Project would be less than significant, because Alternative 2 would result in a reduced demand on recreational facilities as compared to the proposed Project, impacts regarding recreation under Alternative 2 would be less than those of the proposed Project.

Transportation
As discussed in DEIR Section 5.17, Transportation, the proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts regarding VMT. While mitigation measures are proposed, implementation of the measures would not decrease the proposed Project’s impacts to VMT to a less than significant level. The proposed Project would consist of a 347- unit multi -family residential development; i n contrast, the Reduced Density Apartment Development Alternative would consist of 58 units. It is assumed that the reduced number of vehicles associated with the reduced number of residents who could be accommodated by Alternative 2 would accordingly result in fewer vehicle miles travelled. Therefore, potential impacts to transportation under Alternative 2 would be less than those of the proposed Project.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Similar to the proposed Project, development of the Reduced Density Apartment Redevelopment Alternative would require site preparation and grading. Although Alternative 2 would consist of a smaller scale residential project, it is assumed the grading limits and development footprint of Alternative 2 would be the same as that of the proposed Project. Thus, while ground- disturbing activities with the potential to unearth or adversely impact previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources would still occur under Alternative 2, it is anticipated that these construction activities would occur within the same development footprint as that of the proposed Project, resulting in the same area of ground disturbance. Therefore, potential impacts to tribal cultural resources under Alternative 2 would be the same as those associated with the proposed Project.

City of Riverside Section 7.0
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project

7.0-15
Utilities and Service Systems
As discussed in DEIR Section 5.19, Utilities and Service Systems, construction and operation of the proposed Project would result in an increased demand for utility services, such as water supply, wastewater treatment, and solid waste services. Although this would be a similar case for the construction and operation of Alternative 2, it is anticipated that the demand for utility services under Alternative 2 would be reduced as Alternative 2 consists of a reduced density apartment redevelopment that would be smaller in scale and number of residents than the proposed Project.

While potential impacts to utilities and service systems would be less than significant under the proposed Project, because Alternative 2 would consist of a reduced density apartment project, potential impacts to utilities and utility services under Alternative 2 would be less than those of the proposed Project.

Wildfire
As discussed in DEIR Section 5.20, Wildfire, the proposed Project site is not located within an area or land classified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) nor would the proposed Project expose people or structures to significant risks, such as downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, or to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Similar to the proposed Project, the Reduced Density Apartment Redevelopment Alternative would consist of an infill redevelopment project within a previously developed site that is not located within a VHFHSZ and that does not feature site conditions that would expose people or structures to the aforementioned significant risks. Therefore, potential impacts related to wildfire under Alternative 2 would be similar to those associated with the proposed Project.

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

Impact Analysis for Alternative 3
Aesthetics
Alternative 3, the Retail Development Alternative, would consist of the existing retail building and associated surface parking lot being retained, with only minor improvements to the inside of the building, the outside of the building, and/or associated surface parking lot and landscaping. The existing building would house a permanent retail tenant that would utilize the full square footage of the building for retail. The Project site currently exists within a previously developed shopping center with associated retail, commercial, and fast-food uses. As such, the existing retail building matches the existing aesthetic character of the Project area as the building was constructed for Section 7.0 City of Riverside
Alternatives to the Proposes Project Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

7.0-16
uses similar to that of the shopping center. Because Alternative 3 would only consist of minor improvements to the building interior, building exterior, and/or to the associated surface parking lot and landscaping, Alternative 3 is not anticipated to introduce any new/additional sources of light or glare that would result in significant impacts, nor would Alternative 3 result in structures that would further obstruct any views within the Pr oject area. Therefore, as Alternative 3 would not result in any redevelopment of the site other than minor improvements for a future retail tenant, potential impacts to aesthetics under Alternative 3 would be less than those of the proposed Project.

Agriculture and Forestry Resources
As discussed in DEIR Section 5.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, the Project site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, nor is the Project site located adjacent to any of these farmland designation land uses. Additionally, the Project site is not currently zoned for agricultural use or adjacent to land zoned for agricultural use, nor is the site located within an area affected by a Williamson Act Preserve or under a Williamson Act Contract. As previously discussed, the Project site is currently developed and consists of a vacant retail building and associated surface parking lot and does not contain any farmland, forest land, or timberland, nor is the site located adjacent to any land containing these uses. As these uses are not located on or within the vicinity of the Project site, no impacts would occur to agricultural or forestry resources under development of the proposed Project or under Alternative 3. Therefore, potential impacts under the Retail Development Alternative would be similar to those of the proposed Project.

Air Quality
Under Alterative 3, there would be significantly fewer emissions that would impact air quality during site preparation as Alternative 3 would only consist of minor improvements to the existing retail building interior, building exterior, and/or to the associated surface parking lot and landscaping, rather than the demolition and building construction associated with the proposed Project. However, it is anticipated that operational emissions that would impact air quality would be greater under Alternative 3 than under the proposed Project as the commercial retail use of Alternative 3 would have a higher trip generation rate (e.g., repeated cust omer vehicle trips to and from the retail business, truck trips to deliver/restock retail merchandise/products) than the proposed Project’s residential uses. The higher trip generation rate for the commercial retail use under Alternative 3 would in turn result in a higher generation of vehicle emissions during operations. Therefore, potential air quality impacts would be greater under Alternative 3 than the proposed Project.

Biological Resources
As analyzed in DEIR Section 5.4, Biological Resources, 15 special -status plant species have been recorded in the USGS Riverside East quadrangle, in which the Project site is located. The Project site consists of an existing vacant retail building and associated surface parking lot, which are site conditions that have eliminated the Project site’s ability to provide suitable habitat for special-status plant species. Additionally, 29 special -status wildlife species have reported City of Riverside Section 7.0
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project

7.0-17
occurrences within the USGS Riverside East quadrangle. A review of the habitat requirements of each of the special -status wildlife species indicates that the Project site does not contain nor would be able to provide potentially suitable habitat for any of these wildlife species. While the site contains trees that could provide potentially suitable habitat for nesting birds, these trees would be left in place under the development of the proposed Project and, it is assumed, under the Retail Development Alternative. In addition, as the site is paved/developed, it does not contain nor would it be able to provide suitable conditions or habitat for features such as wetlands, vernal pools, or riparian or riverine resources. As the site does not contain nor would it be able to support any sensitive biological resources, potential impacts to biological resources would be less than significant under either the proposed Project or the Retail Development Alternative. Therefore, potential impacts to biological resources under Alternative 3 would be similar to those associated with the proposed Project.

Cultural Resources
As discussed in DEIR Section 5.5, Cultural Resources, the City may consider the Project area to have a moderate to high sensitivity for potential impacts to cultural resources. Additionally, while the proposed Project’s Cultural Resources Assessment did not report the presence or discovery of human remains, construction and/or ground -disturbing activities could have the potential to disturb or dest roy previously undiscovered human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Under Alternative 3, the existing previously developed Project site would not undergo ground- disturbing construction activities. Rather, only minor improvemen ts would be made to interior of the existing retail building, exterior of the building, and/or to the associated surface parking lot and landscaping in preparation of hosting a long-term retail tenant. Therefore, potential impacts to cultural resources under Alternative 3 would be less than those associated with the proposed Project.

Energy
RPU would still supply electricity and SoCalGas would still supply natural gas under Alternative

3. Under Alternative 3, construction energy consumption is anticipated to be less than that of the proposed Project as only minor improvements would be made to interior of the existing retail building, exterior of the building, and/or to the associated surface parking lot and landscaping in preparation of hosting a long-term retail tenant. Additionally, the operational energy consumption of the Retail Development Alternative is anticipated to be less than the proposed Project.

Alternative 3 is anticipated to be mainly a locally serving retail use as the site is located within an area surrounded by residential uses. As outlined in the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment, local serving retail generally improves the convenience of shopping close to home and has the effect of reducing vehicle travel.

Additionally, it is assumed that the retail development proposed under Alternative 3 would not be a 24-hour retail business and the development would also be required to comply with all applicable energy conservation standards and therefore would have a lower operational energy demand than the proposed Project. Therefore, potential impacts to energy under Alternative 3 would be less than those of the proposed Project.

Geology and Soils
Section 7.0 City of Riverside
Alternatives to the Proposes Project Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

7.0-18
The existing geology and soils conditions of the site would remain the same for both the proposed Project and Alternative 3. As discussed, the Project site is previously developed and consists of a vacant retail building and associated surface parking lot. In contrast to the proposed Project, Alternative 3 would not require any ground- disturbing construction activities; rather, only minor improvements would be made to interior of the existing retail building, exterior of the building, and/or to the associated surface parking lot and landscaping in preparation of hosting a long-term retail tenant. Therefore, Alternative 3 results in fewer ground disturbances that could potentially impact geology and soils resources. Thus, potential impacts to geology and soils under Alternative 3 would be less than those of the proposed Project.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under Alterative 3, there would be significantly fewer GHG emissions during site preparation as Alternative 3 would only consist of minor improvements to the existing retail building interior, building exterior, and/or to the associated surface parking lot and landscaping, rather than the demolition and building construction associated with the proposed Project. However, it is anticipated that operational GHG emissions would be greater under Alternative 3 than under the proposed Project as the commercial retail use of Alternative 3 would have a higher trip generation rate (e.g., repeated customer vehicle trips to and from the retail business, truck trips to deliver/restock retail merchandise/products) than the proposed Project’s residential uses. The higher trip generation rate for the commercial retail use under Alternative 3 would in turn result in a higher generation of vehicle GHG emissions during operations. Therefore, potential air quality impacts would be greater under Alternative 3 than the proposed Project.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
As discussed in DEIR Section 5.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the proposed Project’s residential density would exceed and be inconsistent with the allowable maximum residential density criteria for MARB/IPA LUCP Compatibility Zone C2, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. Alternative 3, Retail Development would include retaining the existing development of the site that remains in accord with the current land use and zoning designations and the Mission Grove Specific Plan. The current retail use is consistent with the commercial density criteria (limits) in the MARB/IPA LUCP Compatibility Zone C2. Under this alternative, the land use designation and zoning would remain as is and the Project site would be under a CR – SP CR-SP Commercial Retail and Specific Plan (Mission Grove) Overlay Zones . Thus, under Alternative 3, there would not be a residential development in which the residential dwelling unit density could exceed and be inconsistent with the requirements of Compatibility Zone C2. As such, potential impacts regarding hazards and hazardous materials under Alternative 3 would be less than those of the proposed Project.

Hydrology and Water Quality
As discussed in DEIR Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, expected pollutant sources that could impact water quality resources from the proposed Project include interior drains, indoor/structural pesticide use, landscape/outdoor pesticide use, refuse areas, plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots. While the site preparation and operation of the retail development proposed City of Riverside Section 7.0
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project

7.0-19
under Alternative 3 may still include some of these sources (e.g., landscaping/outdoor pesticide use), it is anticipated that it would be to a lesser degree than the proposed Project. As discussed, under Alternative 3, the existing site and existing retail building would be retained, with only minor improvements anticipated for the interior o f the retail building, exterior of the building, and/or to the associated surface parking lot and landscaping. It is assumed the existing landscaping established during the development of the retail building/shopping center would be retained under Alternative 3. As it is anticipated that development under Alternative 3 would overall have fewer uses and sources that would impact hydrology and water quality than the residential development proposed under the proposed Project, impacts under Alternative 3 would be less than those of the proposed Project.

Land Use and Planning
As discussed in DEIR Section 5.11, Land Use and Planning, the proposed Project’s residential density would exceed and be inconsistent with the allowable maximum residential density criteria for MARB/IPA LUCP Compatibility Zone C2, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact.

Alternative 3, Retail Development, would include retaining the existing development of the site that remains in accord with the current land use and zoning designations and the Mission Grove Specific Plan. Under this alternative, the land use designation and zoning would remain as is and the Project site would be under a CR – SP CR-SP Commercial Retail and Specific Plan (Mission Grove) Overlay Zones. Alternative 3 is anticipated to be consistent with the commercial density criteria (limits) in the MARB/IPA LUCP Compatibility Zone C2 as well. Alternative 3 would also be consistent with all applicable GP 2025 objectives and policies including Policies CCM-11.1, LU-

22.3, LU-22.5, and LU-69.1 related to the MARB/IPA LUCP. Thus, , potential impacts regarding land use and planning under Alternative 3 would be less than those of the proposed Project.

Mineral Resources
As discussed in DEIR Section 5.12, Mineral Resources, the Project site has been developed for commercial uses and is not located within or adjacent to areas of known mineral resources that would be of value to the region or State. Additionally, the City’s GP 2025 PEIR determined that there are no specific areas within the City’s boundary or proposed Sphere of Influence Area that have locally important mineral resource recovery sites. As the Project site has already been developed with a retail building and associated surface parking lot, and as the site is not located within or adjacent to areas of known mineral resources, neither the development of the proposed Project nor implementation of Alternative 3 would result in impacts to mineral resources.

Therefore, potential impacts to mineral resources under Alternative 3 would be similar to those associated with the proposed Project.

Noise
Under Alternative 3, it is anticipated that noise and/or vibration generated during site preparation would be significantly less than construction noise and vibration generated during the development of the proposed Project. Under the Retail Development Al ternative, only minor changes to the existing retail building’s interior, exterior, and/or to the associated surface parking lot and/or landscaping would occur, rather than the building demolition and building construction Section 7.0 City of Riverside
Alternatives to the Proposes Project Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

7.0-20
that would occur under the propos ed Project. Additionally, the site is situated within an existing shopping center with various existing commercial, retail, and fast -food uses; therefore, it is anticipated that operational noise generated would be similar to the shopping center’s existing uses and would not result in a significant increase to existing noise levels in the Project area.

Therefore, potential noise impacts under Alternative 3 would be less than those associated with the proposed Project.

Population and Housing
The Retail Development Alternative would consist of retaining the existing retail building and associated surface parking lot within the existing shopping center and would include a permanent retail tenant using the existing building for retail uses. As Alternative 3 would utilize existing commercial retail structures, it would not include development that would cause substantial unplanned population growth. Alternative 3 would not result in displacing any existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of repl acement housing elsewhere. While potential impacts to population and housing would be less than significant under the proposed Project, because Alternative 3 would not consist of a residential development that would affect population and housing, potential impacts under Alternative 3 would be less than those of the proposed Project.

Public Services
The Retail Development Alternative would consist of retaining the existing retail building and associated surface parking lot within the existing shopping center and would include a permanent retail tenant using the existing building for retail uses. As Alternative 3 would operate within an area zoned for commercial retail uses, it is not anticipated that reinstating these uses via a permanent retail tenant at the existing retail building would result in an increased demand in public services, such as fire protection, police protection, parks, or libraries, such that new/additional facilities would need to be constructed. While potential impacts to public services under the proposed Project would be less than significant, because Alternative 3 would not introduce any new/additional uses to the Project site than the commercial retail uses the site was previously developed for, potential impacts to public services under Alternative 3 would be less than those of the proposed Project.

Recreation
Alternative 3 would consist of retaining the existing retail building and associated surface parking lot within the existing shopping center and would include a permanent retail tenant using the existing building for retail uses. As Alternative 3 includes a commercial retail use, it would not increase population or associated use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration would occur, nor would the commercial use require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. While potential impacts regarding recreation under the proposed Project would be less than significant, because Alternative 3 would not introduce any new residential use and associated population growth, potential impacts to recreation under Alternative 3 would be less than those of the proposed Project.

City of Riverside Section 7.0
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project

7.0-21
Transportation
As discussed in DEIR Section 5.17, Transportation, the proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts regarding VMT. While mitigation measures are proposed, implementation of the measures would not decrease the proposed Project’s impacts to VMT to a less than significant level. Alternative 3 is anticipated to be mainly a locally serving retail use as the site is located within an area surrounded by residential uses. As outlined in the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment, local serving retail generally improves the convenience of shopping close to home and has the effect of reducing vehicle travel. Therefore, it is anticipated that potential impacts to transportation under Alternative 3 would be less than those associated with the proposed Project.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Construction of the proposed Project would involve ground-disturbing activities with the potential to unearth or adversely impact previously unidentified tribal cultural resources. In contrast, Alternative 3 would include only minor improvements to the existing retail building’s interior, exterior, and/or associated surface parking lot and/or landscaping. Thus, under Alternative 3, there would be significantly reduced potential of adversely impacting unidentified tribal cultural resources. As such, potential impacts to tribal cultural resour ces under Alternative 3 would be less than those of the proposed Project.

Utilities and Service Systems
RPU would provide water service and the City’s Public Works Department would provide sewer service to the development under Alternative 3, as with the proposed Project. Therefore, the current and projected available water supplies would be the same under Alternative 3 as under the proposed Project. Based on the water demand projections in the City for the proposed Project, projected water supplies were de termined to be enough for the projected water demand of the proposed Project. It is anticipated that the commercial retail uses under Alternative 3 would have less water demand and generate less wastewater than the proposed Project as the proposed Project would require water and sewer service for numerous residential tenants rather than for the single retail tenant for the existing building under Alternative 3. Therefore, potential impacts to utilities and service systems under Alternative 3 would be less than those associated with the proposed Project.

Wildfire
As discussed in DEIR Section 5.20, Wildfire, the proposed Project site is not located within an area or land classified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). Additionally, under current site conditions, which would be retained under Alternativ e 3, the site and its proposed retail uses would not expose people or structures to significant risks, such as downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, or to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Alternative 3 would utilize the existing, currently vacant retail building and associated surface parking lot to host a permanent retail tenant, which would be a use similar to the surrounding shopping center. Alternative 3 would operate within a previously developed site that is not located within a VHFHSZ and that does not feature site conditions that would expose people or structures Section 7.0 City of Riverside
Alternatives to the Proposes Project Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

7.0-22
to the aforementioned significant risks. Therefore, potential impacts related to wildfire under Alternative 3 would be similar to those associated with the proposed Project.

7.0.6 Alternative 4 – Proposed Project at Off-Site Location This discussion analyzes the proposed 347 residential apartment project at an off -site location.

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

Impact Analysis for Alternative 4
Aesthetics
Under Alternative 4, the proposed Project’s 347 dwelling units would be constructed at another project site of similar size within the City of Riverside limits. As discussed in DEIR Section 5.1, Aesthetics, the Project site is located in a highly urbanized area, consisting of commercial and retail uses as well as single- and multi-family residential uses. The Project site is not a scenic vista, nor are there any State scenic highways or City designated Scenic or Special Boulevards or Parkways in the vicinity of the Project site. T he Proposed Project, at Off-Site Location would be constructed with the same design elements of the proposed Project , and the project design and landscaping of Alternative 4 would similarly be required to comply with the City’s Design Guidelines and Zoning Code. As with the proposed Project, Alternative 4 would not result in substantial light or glare. While impacts to aesthetics would be less than significant under the proposed Project, because Alternative 4 would result in similar scale and architectural style residential development, impacts under Alternative 4 would be similar to those of the proposed Project.

Agriculture and Forestry
As discussed in DEIR Section 5.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, the Project site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, nor is the Project site located adjacent to any of these farmland designation land uses. Additionally, the Project site is not currently zoned for agricultural use or adjacent to land zoned for agricultural use, nor is the site located within an area affected by a Williamson Act Preserve or under a Williamson Act Contract. As previously discussed, the Project site is currently developed and consists of a vacant retail building and associated surface parking lot and does not contain any farmland, forest land, or timberland, nor is the site located adjacent to any land containing these uses. Similarly, the Alternative 4 location would not be anticipated to be designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, zoned for agricultural use or adjacent to land zoned for agricultural use, or located within an area affected by a Williamson Act Preserve or under a Williamson Act Contract, as the City of Riverside does not have large areas City of Riverside Section 7.0
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project

7.0-23
designated or zoned as such. As these uses are not located on or within the vicinity of the Project site, no impacts would occur to agricultural or forestry resources under development of the proposed Project or under Alternative 4. Therefore, potential impacts under the Reduced Density Apartment Redevelopment would be similar to those of the proposed Project.

Air Quality
Under Alternative 4, Proposed Project at Off-Site Location, development of the Project site would result in construction and operational emissions that could potentially impact air quality.

Alternative 4 would consist of a multi -family residential development with the same number of dwelling units and would be expected to have the same or similar construction period. As such, potential impacts to air quality under Alternative 4 would be similar to those associated with the proposed Project.

Biological Resources
As analyzed in Section 5.4, Biological Resources, 15 special -status plant species have been recorded in the USGS Riverside East quadrangle, in which the Project site is located. The Project site consists of an existing vacant retail building and associated surface parking lot, which are site conditions that have eliminated the Project site’s ability to provide suitable habitat for special - status plant species. Additionally, 29 special -status wildlife species have reported occurrences within the USGS Riverside East quadrangle. A review of the habitat requirements of each of the special-status wildlife species indicates that the Project site does not contain nor would be able to provide potentially suitable habitat for any of these wildlife species. Similarly, the Alternative 4 location would already have been developed and is not anticipated to be a site that contains or is able to support any sensitive biological resources. Therefore, potential impacts to biological resources under Alternative 4 would be similar to those associated with the proposed Project.

Cultural Resources
Development of the Proposed Project at Off -Site Location Alternative would require site preparation and grading of a similar size, grading limits, and development footprint to the proposed Project. Thus, ground- disturbing activities with the potential to unearth or adversely impact previously undiscovered archaeological resources and/or human remains would still occur under Alternative 4. Therefore, potential impacts to cultural resources under Alternative 4 would be similar to those associated with the proposed Project.

Energy
Under the Proposed Project at Off-Site Location, electricity and natural gas would still be supplied by Riverside Public Utilities (RPU) and Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), respectively. It is anticipated that construction fuel consumption under Alternative 4 would be similar to that of the proposed Project for construction equipment, vendor trips, and worker trips.

Similar to the proposed Project, the project under Alternative 4 would comply with applicable Title 24 Building Standards for multi -family residential developmen ts, including incorporating solar panels and providing electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. It is additionally anticipated that similar to the proposed Project, the project under Alternative 4 would utilize all electric appliances Section 7.0 City of Riverside
Alternatives to the Proposes Project Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

7.0-24
and only utilize natural gas for project amenities/common spaces. As the Proposed Project at Off- Site Location would be a similar scale residential development, with the same number of dwelling units, it is anticipated that the project under Alternative 4 would consume similar energy resources during both construction and operations as the proposed Project. Therefore, potential impacts to energy resources under Alternative 4 would be similar to those associated with the proposed Project.

Geology and Soils
As geology and soils conditions are site specific, at the Proposed Project at Off-Site Location they could be similar to or differ from the proposed Project site. Alternative 4 would still include ground- disturbing and grading construction activities, with an anticipated simi lar overall construction period. As both the proposed Project and Alternative 4 would be required to comply with the CBC, RMC, and recommendations made by the geotechnical engineer, the potential impacts to geology and soils under Alternative 4 would be similar to those of the proposed Project.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under Alternative 4, Proposed Project at Off -Site Location, development would result in construction and operational greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As Alternative 4 would consist of a multi -family residential development with the same number of dwelling units and the construction period is expected to be the same, Alternative 4 would result in similar vehicle GHG and construction emissions. As such, potential impacts regarding GHG emissions under Alternative 4 would be similar to those associated with the proposed Project.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Proposed Project at Off-Site Location is not anticipated to be in a compatibility zone of an airport where density criteria would apply. Therefore, as Alternative 4 would allow for a residential development that would not be inconsistent with an airport land use plan, potential impacts regarding hazards and hazardous materials would be less than those associated with the proposed Project.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Similar to the proposed Project, expected pollutant sources that could impact water quality resources under Alternative 4 would include interior drains, indoor/structural pesticide use, landscape/outdoor pesticide use, refuse areas, plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots. While the proposed Project’s potential impacts to hydrology and water quality would be the same, and they would be required to comply with the same regulations protecting water quality, potential impacts under Alternative 4 would be similar to those associated with the proposed Project.

Land Use and Planning
Proposed Project at Off-Site Location is not anticipated to be in a compatibility zone of an airport where density criteria would apply. Therefore, Alternative 4 would allow for a residential development that would not be inconsistent with an airport land use plan. Therefore, potential City of Riverside Section 7.0
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project

7.0-25
impacts regarding land use and planning under Alternative 4 would be less than those associated with the proposed Project.

Mineral Resources
Proposed Project at Off-Site Location is not anticipated to be located within or adjacent to areas of known mineral resources that would be of value to the region or State. Additionally, the City’s GP 2025 PEIR determined that there are no specific areas within the City’s boundary or proposed Sphere of Influence Area that have locally important mineral resource recovery sit es. As the Project site has already been developed with a retail building and associated surface parking lot, and as the site is not located within or adjacent to areas of known mineral resources, neither the development of the proposed Project nor implementation of Alternative 4 would result in impacts to mineral resources. Therefore, potential impacts to mineral resources under Alternative 4 would be similar to those associated with the proposed Project.

Noise
Similar to the proposed Project, development of the Proposed Project at Off-Site Location would result in construction related noise and vibration as well as operational noise. It is anticipated that because Alternative 4 would consist of a similar scale and density development, the construction period for Alternative 4 would be correspondingly similar than that of the proposed Project, resulting in similar construction generated noise and vibration. The proposed Project’s potential construction, vibration, and operational noise impacts would be less than significant, and because Alternative 4 would consist of a similar residential development, potential noise impacts under Alternative 4 would be similar to those of the proposed Project.

Population and Housing
As discussed in DEIR Section 5.14, Populat ion and Housing, development of the proposed Project would not cause substantial unplanned population growth, nor would the proposed Project result in displacing any existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Similar to the proposed Project, the Proposed Project at Off -Site Location Alternative would consist of an infill redevelopment project that would provide multi -family residential uses. The proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts related to population and housing, and as Alternative 4 would provide the same number of dwelling units as the proposed Project, potential impacts regarding substantial unplanned population growth would be the same under Alternative 2. Therefore, potential impacts regarding population and housing under Alternative 2 would be similar to those of the proposed Project.

Public Services
As discussed in DEIR Section 5.15, Public Services, the proposed Project’s 347-unit multi-family residential development would not result in an increased demand in public services, such as fire protection, police protection, parks, or libraries, such that new/additional facilities would need to be constructed. Alternative 4 proposes the same density apartment redevelopment as the proposed Project. While potential impacts to public services under the proposed Project would be less than significant, Alternative 4 would also be less than significant on the demand for public Section 7.0 City of Riverside
Alternatives to the Proposes Project Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

7.0-26
services. Impacts to public services under Alternative 2 would be similar to those of the proposed Project.

Recreation
As discussed in DEIR Section 5.16, Recreation, the proposed Project’s 347- unit multi -family residential development would not substantially increase population that would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration would occur. Additionally, the proposed Project would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. In comparison to the proposed Project, Alternative 4 proposes the same density apartment redevelopment. While potential impacts relating to recreation under the proposed Project would be less than significant, Alternative 4 would also be less than significant. Impacts regardi ng recreation under Alternative 4 would be similar to those of the proposed Project.

Transportation
As discussed in DEIR Section 5.17, Transportation, the proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts regarding VMT. While mitigation measures are proposed, implementation of the measures would not decrease the proposed Project’s impacts to VMT to a less than significant level. The Proposed Project at Off -Site Location would consist of the same 347-unit multi -family residential development as the proposed Project. Alternative 4 would accordingly result in similar vehicle miles travelle d, resulting in significant and unavoidable impacts regarding VMT. Therefore, potential impacts to transportation under Alternative 4 would be similar to those of the proposed Project.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Similar to the proposed Project, development of the Proposed Project at Off -Site Location Alternative would require site preparation and grading. Alternative 4 would consist of a similar scale residential project, grading limits and development footprint as the proposed Project. Thus, while ground- disturbing activities with the potential to unearth or adversely impact previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources would still occur under Alternative 4, resulting in a similar area of ground disturbance. Therefore, potential impacts to tribal cultur al resources under Alternative 4 would be similar to those associated with the proposed Project.

Utilities and Service Systems
As discussed in DEIR Section 5.19, Utilities and Service Systems, construction and operation of the proposed Project would resul t in an increased demand for utility services, such as water supply, wastewater treatment, and solid waste services. This would be a similar case for the construction and operation of Alternative 4. As potential impacts to utilities and service systems would be less than significant under the proposed Project, they would also be for Alternative 4.

Potential impacts to utilities and utility services under Alternative 4 would be similar to those of the proposed Project.

Wildfire
City of Riverside Section 7.0
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project

7.0-27
As discussed in DEIR Section 5.20, Wildfire, the proposed Project site is not located within an area or land classified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) nor would the proposed Project expose people or structures to significant risks, such as downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, or to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Similar to the proposed Project, the Proposed Project at Off-Site Location Alternative would be expected to consist of an infill redevelopment project within a previously developed site that is not located within a VHFHSZ and that does not feature site conditions that would expose people or structures to the aforementioned significant risks. Therefore, potential impacts related to wildfire under Alternative 2 would be similar to those associated with the proposed Project.

7.0.7 Alternatives Rejected from Further Consideration
Section 15126.6(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines specify that an EIR should identify alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected during the scoping process and identify the reasons for eliminating the alternatives from further consideration. Section 15126.6(c) further indicates that a lead agency may eliminate an alternative from detailed consideration in an EIR if it fails t o meet the basic Project objectives, is infeasible, or does not avoid significant environmental impacts. The following alternatives were considered and rejected by the City.

There are two other former K-Mart retail stores and one former Sears retail store within the City of Riverside that have closed and remain vacant. They are located at the following:
• Former K-Mart retail store at the northwest corner of Iowa Avenue and 3 rd/Blaine Street.

The site is within a shopping center that also has a Stater Brothers grocery store and other smaller retail stores. A mixed -use student housing is proposed for this site, which is in close proximity to University of California, Riverside (UCR). • Former K-Mart retail store at th e southeast corner of Arlington Avenue and Van Buren Boulevard. This site is currently being redeveloped with commercial and retail uses and has a Stater Brothers grocery store as the anchor.
• Former Sears Department store at the northeast corner of Arlington Avenue and Streeter Avenue. A mixed use development is currently proposed with multi-family residential, an Aldi grocery store, and other commercial and retail spaces.

These alternative project locations are not feasible as they are currently owned by others that are pursuing entitlements with the City or have already obtained entitlements from the City for these proposed redevelopment projects. Therefore, these alternative off -site potential redevelopment locations were eliminated from further consideration.

City of Riverside Section 7.0
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project

7.0-28

7.0.8 Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA requires the identification of the environmentally superior alternative among the options studied. The environmentally superior alternative must be an alternative to the proposed project that reduces some o f the environmental impacts of the proposed project, regardless of the financial costs associated with that alternative. Identification of the environmentally superior alternative is an informational procedure and the alternative identified as environmentally superior may not be the one that best meets the goals or needs of the proposed project.

Table 7.0-1 - Comparison of Alternatives Matrix, indicates whether each alternative’s environmental impact is reduced, increased, or similar compared to that of the proposed Project for each of the issue areas studied. Based on the alternative’s analysis provided above, Alternative 1: No Project/Redevelopment Alternative, would be the environmentally superior alternative. The No Project/Redevelopment Alternative would either avoid or lessen the severity of all significant impacts of the proposed project, as nothing would be constructed. However, the No Project/ No Redevelopment Alternative would not fulfill the objectives of the proposed project.

When the “No Project /Development” alternative is determined to be environmentally superior, State CEQA Guidelines also requires identification of the environmentally superior alternative among the development options. Of the other alternatives evaluated in this EIR, Alternati ve 2:

Reduced Density Apartment Redevelopment and Alternative 3: Retail Development are determined to be the environmentally superior alternatives, however; they are not consistent with the proposed Project’s Objectives and Goals. Alternative 4: Proposed Project at Off-Site Location, assuming that it could be located on a site that was previously developed and is currently vacant and is also not located in a compatibility zone that restricts residential development, would also be an environmentally superior alternative. This alternative would be consistent with the proposed Project’s Objectives and Goals. However, it is unknown if such a property of similar size exists in the City and is currently available for purchase.

City of Riverside Section 7.0
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project

7.0-29

7.0.9 Comparison of Alternatives
Table 7.0-1 – Comparison of Alternatives Matrix , below, compares the potential environmental impacts of each alternative to the proposed Project.

Table 7.0-1 – Comparison of Alternatives Matrix
Environmental
Issue
Proposed
Project
Alternative 1
No Project/ No
Redevelopment
Alternative 2
Reduced
Density
Apartment
Redevelopment
Alternative 3
Retail
Development
Alternative 4
Proposed
Project at
Off-Site
Location
Aesthetics LTS Reduced Reduced Reduced Similar
Agriculture/
Forestry
Resources

NI

Similar

Similar

Similar

Similar
Air Quality LTS Reduced Reduced Increased Similar
Biological
Resources
LTSM Reduced Similar Similar Similar
Cultural
Resources
LTSM Reduced Similar Reduced Similar
Energy LTS Reduced Reduced Reduced Similar
Geology and
Soils
LTSM Reduced Similar Reduced Similar
Greenhouse
Gas Emissions
(GHG)
LTS Reduced Reduced Increased Similar
Hazards &
Hazardous
Materials
SU Reduced Reduced Reduced Reduced
Hydrology/
Water Quality
LTS Reduced Reduced Reduced Similar
Land Use and
Planning
SU Reduced Reduced Reduced Reduced
Mineral
Resources
NI Similar Similar Similar Similar
City of Riverside Section 7.0
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project

7.0-30

Environmental
Issue
Proposed
Project
Alternative 1
No Project/ No
Redevelopment
Alternative 2
Reduced
Density
Apartment
Redevelopment
Alternative 3
Retail
Development
Alternative 4
Proposed
Project at
Off-Site
Location
Noise LTS Reduced Reduced Reduced Similar
Population/
Housing
LTS Reduced Similar Reduced Similar
Public Services LTS Reduced Reduced Reduced Similar
Recreation LTS Reduced Reduced Reduced Similar
Transportation SU Reduced Reduced Reduced Similar
Tribal Cultural
Resources
LTSM Reduced Reduced Reduced Similar
Utilities and
Service
Systems
LTS Reduced Reduced Reduced Similar
Wildfire LTS Similar Similar Similar Similar

Meets Project
Objectives?
Alternative 1
does not meet
any or most of
the Project
objectives
Alternative 2
does not meet
all or most of
the Project
objectives
Alternative 3
does not meet
all or most of
the Project
objectives
Alternative 4
does meet all
of the Project
objectives
NI = No Impact
LTS = Less than Significant Impact
LTSM = Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation
SU = Significant and Unavoidable