Attachment 5a - Consistency Analysis & Appendices — Riverside City Council, April 22, 2025 (part 2 of 3)

Governments (WRCOG) subregional Climate Action Plan (Subregional CAP), RRG – Economic Prosperity Action Plan (RRG-EPAP), and RRG – Climate Action Plan (RRG-CAP).

The City has adopted 2020 and 2035 emissions reduction targets with a 2020 target of a 15% reduction and 2035 target of 49% reduction form the 2010 baseline. To achieve the proposed targets the City developed local reduction measures. The local reduction measures in the RRG- CAP are organized into four major sectors:

 Energy (including electricity and natural gas consumption).  Transportation and Land Use.
 Water.
 Solid Waste.

As discussed above, the GP PEIR concluded that buildout of the City under the General Plan would result in significant and unavoidable GHG impacts. The Proposed Project is consistent with the buildout assumptions of the General Plan, and thus the GP PEIR. Nevertheless, to determine whether Proposed Project -specific impacts may result, GHG emissions for the Proposed Project were estimated by using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) which is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies to quantify potential criteria pollutant emissions associated with both construction and operations emissions. CalEEMod is authorized for use to assess Proposed Project emissions by the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/Year was used to determine the impact of the Proposed Project’s GHG emissions. Construction and operation emissions are presented in Table 5.8- 1: Proposed Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and summarized in Table 5.8-2: Proposed Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary, the GHG emissions for both construction and operations of the Proposed Project are estimated to be below the 3,000 MTCO 2e/Year threshold. The Proposed Project’s emissions also are less than 900 MTCO 2e/Year, which is a bright -line screening threshold proposed by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) below which a project’s emissions would be considered de minimis.9
Table 5.8-1: Proposed Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Source
GHG Emissions MT/yr
N2O CO2 CH4 CO2e
Mobile Sources 0.03 549 0.03 559
Area < 0.005 0.84 < 0.005 0.85
Energy < 0.005 186 0.02 186
Water/Wastewater < 0.005 15.4 0.07 17.6
Solid Waste 0.000 4.00 0.40 14.0
Refrigerant 0.11
30-year Amortized Construction GHG 15.23
TOTAL Metric Tons per Year 792.79 SCAQMD Threshold Metric Tons per Year 3,000

9 https://www.ourair.org/wp-content/uploads/CAPCOA-CEQA-and-Climate-Change.pdf, as accessed 2/13/25.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.8: Greenhouse Gas

Page 109 ends

Exceed Threshold? NO
Source: CalEEMod 2022.1.1.19 Datasheets. (Appendix A).

Table 5.8-2: Proposed Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary GHG Emissions
Source
Annual Emissions
Metric Tons
Annual Threshold
Tons/Metric Tons
Exceeds
Threshold?
Construction 2024 246 3,000 NO
Construction 2025 211 3,000 NO
Operations 777.56 3,000 NO

The Proposed Project would comply with the City’s General Plan policies and State Building Code provisions designed to reduce GHG emissions. In addition, the Proposed Project would comply with all SCAQMD applicable rules and regulations during construction and as demonstrated in this analysis, will not interfere with the State’s goals of reducing GHG emission to 1990 levels by the year 2020 as stated in AB 32 and an 80 percent reduction in GHG emissions below 1990 levels by 2050 as stated in Executive Order S-3-05.

The City’s Economic Prosperity Action Plan and Climate Action Plan (CAP), prioritizes the implementation of policies that enable the City to fulfill the requirements of State initiatives, Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 375. The CAP includes a baseline GHG inventory for local government operations and the community as a whole and establishes emission reduction targets consistent with State law. Strategies in the CAP to reduce GHG emissions include increasing energy efficiency in buildings and facilities, utilizing renewable energy sources, increasing vehicle fuel efficiency, supporting alternative modes of transportation, reducing waste generation, and reducing water consumption.

If a project is consistent with the CAP, it is also considered to be consistent with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted to reduce emissions. The City of Riverside utilizes a number of policies throughout its general plan that also serve to reduce GHG emissions. The consistency with these policies are discussed in Section 3.0, Proposed Project Description, 5.3, Air Quality, Section 5.6, Energy, and Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Proposed Project:

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.8: Greenhouse Gas

Page 110 ends

5.8.2 Cumulative Impacts Analysis
The GP PEIR evaluated the potential impacts associated with the General Plan Project, a citywide plan for buildout and design of the City. To that end, because it evaluates planned buildout (multiple projects at the programmatic level), the GP PEIR inherently considers cumulative impacts associated with population growth and increased development.

With respect to GHGs, the GP PEIR acknowledged that buildout of the General Plan at the “Typical” scenario densities would increase traffic approximately 50% and increase energy demand/use.

Those increases would commensurately increase GHG emissions, and the GP PEIR concluded that the General Plan would result in a cumulatively considerable increase in GHG emissions.

The Proposed Project is within the scope of the development assumed in the General Plan, as it is consistent with the density and population growth assumptions. Thus, it is within the scope of the GP PEIR’s analysis with respect to GHGs. However, as discussed above, the Proposed Project would not itself exceed applicable project-level GHG thresholds. And, the Proposed Project must comply with the CBC Title 24 standards that are applicable at the time of the Proposed Project’s construction and as adopted by the City of Riverside which have dramatically increased in efficiency since the GP PEIR was certified. The Proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in GHG emissions.

5.8.3 Uniformly Applied Development Standards and GP PEIR Mitigation Measures The development standards that would apply to this specific Proposed Project include but are not limited to the following:

California Regulations and Building Codes
Title 20 Appliance Efficiency Standards
CCR, Title 20: Division 2, Chapter 4, Article 4, Sections 1601 -1608: Appliance Efficiency Regulations regulates the sale of appliances in California. The Appliance Efficiency Regulations include standards for both federally regulated appliances and non- federally regulated appliances. 23 categories of appliances are included in the scope of these regulations. The standards within these regulations apply to appliances that are sold or offered for sale in California, except those sold wholesale in California for final retail sale outside the State and those designed and sold exclusively for use in recreational vehicles or other mobile equipment.

Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards and California Green Building Standards CCR Title 24 Part 6: California’s Energy Efficiency Standards (Energy Code) for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficient technologies and methods.

Energy efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases GHG emissions.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.8: Greenhouse Gas

Page 111 ends

The CEC adopted the 2022 Energy Code on August 11, 2021. The 2022 Energy Code includes encouraging efficient electric heat pumps, establishing electric-ready requirements for new homes, expanding solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards, and strengthening ventilation standards. Buildings whose permit applications are applied for on or after January 1, 2023, must comply with the 2022 Energy Code.

CCR, Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) is a comprehensive and uniform regulatory code for all residential, commercial, and school buildings that went in effect on January 1, 2011, and is administered by the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC). CALGreen is updated on a regular basis, with the most recently approved update consisting of the 2022 California Green Building Code Standards that became effective Jan uary 1, 2023. The State Building Code provides the minimum standard that buildings must meet in order to be certified for occupancy, which is generally enforced by the local building official. 2022 CALGreen standards are applicable to the Proposed Project and require:
• EV Charging: New One - and Two -Family Dwellings and Townhouses Attached or detached private garages, carports, or any other on -site parking. For each dwelling unit with onsite parking, install a listed raceway and associated conductors to accommodate a dedicated branch circuit for a future EV charger. [CGSBS 4.106.4.1] • Construction waste management: Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with either (CalGreen) Section 4.408.2, 4.408.3, or 4.408.4, or meet a more stringent local construction and demolition waste management ordinance (4.408.1). • Water Efficiency and Conservation: Plumbing fixtures (water closets and urinals) and fittings (faucets and showerheads) shall comply with the following:
o Water Closets. The effective flush volume of all water closets shall not exceed

1.28 gallons per flush (4.303.1.1)
o Urinals. The effective flush volume of wall -mounted urinals shall not exceed

0.125 gallons per flush The eff ective flush volume of all other urinals shall not exceed 0.5 gallons per flush (4.303.1.2
o Showerheads. Single showerheads shall have a maximum flow rate of not more than 1.8 gallons per minute and 80 psi (4.303.1.3). When a shower is served by more than o ne showerhead, the combined flow rate of all showerheads and/or other shower outlets controlled by a single valve shall not exceed 1.8 gallons per minute at 80 psi (4.303.1.3.2).
o Faucets. The maximum flow rate of residential lavatory faucets shall not exceed

1.2 gallons per minute at 60 psi. The minimum flow rate of residential lavatory faucets shall not be less than 0.8 gallons per minute at 20 psi (4.303.1.4.1). The maximum flow rate of lavatory faucets installed in common and public use CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.8: Greenhouse Gas

Page 112 ends

areas(outside of dwellings or sleeping units) in residential buildings shall not exceed 0.5 gallons per minute at 60 psi.
• Outdoor Water Use: Outdoor potable water use in landscape areas. New resid ential developments with an aggregate landscape area equal to or greater than 500 square feet shall comply with one of the following: [CGBSC 4.304.1] o Current California Department of Water Resources’ Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO).
o Projects with aggregate landscape areas less than 2,500 square feet may comply with the MWELO’s Appendix D Prescriptive Compliance Option Restorative Growthprint Plan
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.

In 2014, Riverside was one of 12 cities that collaborated with the Wester n 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 following measures from the RRG-CAP are applicable to the Proposed Project.

Measure SR‐2: 2013 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6).

Meet mandatory energy efficiency standards for buildings.

Measure SR ‐13: Construction & Demolition Waste Diversion . Meet the mandatory requirement to divert 50% of C&D waste from landfills by 2020 and exceed the requirement by diverting 90% of C&D waste from landfills by 2035.

Measure E‐2: Shade Trees. Strategically plant trees at new residential developments to reduce the urban heat island effect.

Measure T ‐1: Bicycle Infrastructure Improvements. Expand on- street and off -street bicycle infrastructure, including bicycle lanes and bicycle trails.

Measure T ‐6: Density. Improve jobs -housing balance and reduce vehicle miles traveled by increasing household and employment densities.

Measure W‐1: Water Conservation and Efficiency . Reduce per capita water use by 20% by 2020. Additionally, as the project meets the current interim emissions targets/thresholds established by SCAQMD (as described in Section V, Air Quality CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.8: Greenhouse Gas

Page 113 ends

Standards), the Proposed Project would also be on track to meet the reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 mandated by SB‐ 32. Furthermore, all of the post-2020 reductions in GHG emissions are addressed via regulatory requirements at the State level and the project will be required to comply with these regulations as they come into effect.

Applicable General Plan Policies
• Policy AQ-5.1: Utilize source reduction, recycling, and other appropriate measures to reduce the amount of solid waste disposed of in landfills. • Policy AQ-5.6: Support the use of automated equipment for conditional facilities to control heating and air conditioning.
• Policy AQ-5.8: Require residential building construction to meet or exceed energy use guidelines in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code.

Applicable General Plan Mitigation Measures
There are no applicable General Plan Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures MM Air-8 through MM Air-10, which are focused on Greenhouse Gas emission reduction, are general in nature and developed for implementation by the City, not specific projects.

5.8.4 Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Greenhouse Gas, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the Proposed Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no impacts that were not analyzed as significant effects in the GP PEIR, with which the Proposed Project is consistent.

3. There are no potentially significant off- site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP PEIR.

4. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GP PEIR.

5. No mitigation measures contained within the GP PEIR would be required because Proposed Project specific impacts would be less than significant, and no GP PEIR mitigation measures are related to project-level compliance.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.9: Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Page 114 ends

5.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact

GP PEIR
Impact
Determination
Effect Peculiar
to Proposed
Project or
Site?
New or
Substantially
more Severe
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-Site or
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information/M
ore Severe
Impact?
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
Less Than
Significant No No No No
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
Less Than
Significant No No No No
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one- quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
Less Than
Significant No No No No
d) Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government
Code section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
Less Than
Significant No No No No
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the project area?
Less Than
Significant No No No No
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
Less Than
Significant No No No No
g) Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires?
Less Than
Significant No No No No
CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.9: Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Page 115 ends

5.9.1 Discussion
The following study was performed to determine potential Proposed Project-specific impacts:
• Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Limited Soil Investigation Report, TTM 37764 prepared by EFI Global, December 19, 2019 (Appendix E)
The GP EIR assessed the topics, a through g above. While compliance with existing regulations and proposed General plan policies would result in less than significant hazards impacts, mitigation measures were evaluated for their ability to eliminate or further reduce the less than significant adverse impacts related to hazardous materials, airport hazards, wildland fire hazards, and emergency responses. The following mitigation measures were identified to further reduce the significance of potential risks from new development such as the remediation in the case of disturbance of contaminated soils.

MM Haz 1: To reduce project-related adverse impacts to sites containing hazardous materials and/or sites where known hazardous materials contamination may have existed that may be inadvertently discovered during construction of projects soils testing shall be conducted by a qualified soils engineer and submitted to the City for the evaluation of hazardous chemical levels in the soil. The report submitted to the City should indicate if remediation of the soils is necessary to achieve less than significant levels of hazardous chemical in the soils. Proper investigation, and remedial actions, if necessary, including a workplan should be conducted under the oversight of and approved by a government agency at the site prior to construction of the project.

MM Haz 2: All sites where the last known use was agriculture or related activities, including where weed abatement occurred, might contain pesticides, herbicides, agricultural chemical, organic waste or other related residue in onsite soil. Soils testing shall be conducted by a qualified soils engineer and submitted to the City for the evaluation of hazardous chemical levels in the soil. The report submitted to the City should indicate if remediation of the soils is necessary to achieve less than significant levels of hazardous chemical in the soils. Proper investigation, and remedial actions, if necessary, should be conducted under the oversight of and approved by a government agency at the site prior to construction of the project.

MM Haz 3: Within six months of adoption of the General Plan 2025 Program, the City shall include a notification on the demolition application form to inform the applicant of the potential applicability of the EPA's Universal Waste Rule and the California Code of Regulations, and that it is the applicant's responsibility to comply with any applicable regulations.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.9: Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Page 116 ends

a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
GP PEIR Impact - Less than Significant
The GP PEIR analyzes this threshold on pages 5.7-30 through 5.7-31. The GP PEIR concluded that the General Plan has identified a variety of policies to reduce the potential exposure of people and the environment to hazardous materials. Oversight by the appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, compliance by new development with applicable regulations related to the handling and storage or hazardous materials, and with implementation of the General Plan policies, the risk of the public’s potential exposure to hazardous substances is considered less than significant.

Although the overall quantity of hazardous materials and waste generated in the City could increase as a result of implementation of the proposed General Plan Program, all new developments that handle or use hazardous materials would be required to comply with the regulations, standards, and guidelines established by the EPA, the State, and the City of Riverside related to storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. In addition, the Public Safety Element of the proposed General Plan has identified a variety of policies to reduce the potential exposure of people and the environment to hazardous materials. Oversight by the appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, compliance by new development with applicable regulations related to the handling and storage or hazardous materials, and with implementation of the General Plan policies, the risk of the public’s potential exposure to hazardous substances is considered less than significant.

Proposed Project
Construction of the Proposed Project could require the use of limited hazardous materials, such as diesel and other fuel sources. The use of such materials is regulated by federal, state, and local requirements that ensure the proper storage, use, and disposal of such materials. Construction of the Proposed Project does not have any unique features that cause it to handle or store hazardous materials that are not already commonly associated with construction, and for which regulations ensure that impacts would remain less than significant.

Operationally, the Proposed Project does not involve the transport, use, or disposal of any hazardous material because as a residential it does not involve the transportation of hazardous materials in significant quantities. The future occupancy or operational use of the site would typically include the isolated storage and use of small amounts of commercial hazardous materials such as fuels, oils, solvents, pesticides, electronic waste, and other materials. These materials would be stored in small quantities in individual residences and, therefore, would not pose a significant threat to the public.

Page 117 ends

or is there new information that would result in a more severe impact than identified within the GP PEIR.
b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident con ditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
GP PEIR Impact – Less Than Significant
The GP PEIR analyzes this threshold on pages 5.7 -31 through 5.7-32. The GP PEIR concluded that compliance with existing regulations and proposed General Plan policies would ensure that the public would not be exposed to any unusual or excessive risks related to hazardous materials. As such, impacts associated with the upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be considered less than significant.

Compliance with all applicable Federal and State laws related to the transportation of hazardous materials would reduce the likelihood and severity of accidents during transit, thereby impacts would be less than significant. Hazardous materials are required to be stored in designated areas designed to prevent accidental release to the environment. The California Building Code (CBC) requirements prescribe safe accommodations for materials that pre sent a moderate explosion hazard, high fire or physical hazard, or health hazards. Compliance with all applicable Federal and State laws related to the storage of hazardous materials would maximize containment and provide for prompt and effective clean-up if an accidental release occurs, and therefore, impacts are less than significant. In summary, compliance with existing regulations and proposed General Plan policies would ensure that the public would not be exposed to any unusual or excessive risks related to hazardous materials. As such, impacts associated with the upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be considered less than significant.

While compliance with existing regulations and proposed General P lan policies would result in less than significant hazards impacts, mitigation measure were evaluated for their ability to eliminate or further reduce the less than significant adverse impacts related to hazardous materials. Mitigation measures Haz 1 – Haz 3 were nevertheless incorporated to further reduce potential risks from new development such as the remediation in the case of disturbance of contaminated soils.

Proposed Project
Citrus production had occurred on the site from at least the mid- 1920’s to approximately 1990, and the site currently contains a grove of citrus trees that are no longer in active production. In the past citrus growing involved the use of arsenic and organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) as herbicides and to control a variety of pests during citrus production.

In fulfillment of Mitigation Measures MM Haz -1 and MM Haz 2 above, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and Limited Soil Investigation Study was conducted on the Proposed Project site in 2019. (Appendix F).

This assessment made the following conclusions:

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.9: Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Page 118 ends

 Recognized Environmental Condition (REC: No RECs were identified during the course of this assessment.
 Historical Recognized Environmental Condition (HREC:) No HRECs were identified during this assessment.
 Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition (CREC) : No CRECs were identified during the course of this assessment.
 De Minimis Condition: The low levels of OCPs and arsenic detected in near-surface soils as part of the Limited Soil Investigation are considered to be a de minimis condition for the subject property. However, based on the subject property's historical agricultural use, it is possible that buried/concealed/hidde n agricultural by -products, both above and below ground may have existed or exists on the subject property. Any buried trash/debris or other waste encountered during future subject property development should be evaluated by an experienced environmental co nsultant prior to removal. If stained or suspicious soil is encountered during future grading operations, the material should be evaluated and if deemed necessary, characterized for property disposal.

Based on the foregoing, no additional investigation is recommended at this time. The reports recommendation would be implemented as required by MM Haz 2.

Additionally, the Proposed Project may involve the limited use of hazardous materials by contractors and residences who are expected to comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations about the transport, use, disposal, handling, and storage of hazardous waste, including but not limited to Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations implemented by Title 13 of the CCR, which describes strict regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials. With compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws related to the transportation, use, and storage of hazardous materials, the potential and severity of accidents involving hazardous materials will be reduced to less than significant levels on a direct, indirect, or cumulative basis. No mitigation is required.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.9: Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Page 119 ends

c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? GP PEIR Impact - Less than Significant
The GP PEIR analyzes this threshold on pages 5.7-32 through 5.7-33. The GP PEIR concluded that the compliance with existing Federal and State regulations, impacts associated with the exposure of schools to hazardous materials are considered less than significant.

Although hazardous materials and waste generated from future development may pose a health risk to nearby schools, all businesses that handle or have on-site transportation of hazardous materials would be required to comply with the provisions of the City’s Fire Code and any additional element as required in the California Health and Safety Code Article 1 Chap ter 6.95 for the Business Emergency Plan. Both the Federal and State governments require all businesses that handle more than specified amount of hazardous materials to submit a business plan to a regulating agency.

Additionally, individual school districts are responsible for siting schools away from hazardous sites.

Therefore, with compliance to existing Federal and State regulations and because school districts are responsible for siting school locations away from hazardous waste/generators, impacts associated with the exposure of schools to hazardous materials are considered less than significant.

Proposed Project
The closest school to the Proposed Project site is the Arizona Middle School located at 11045 Arizona Avenue. At its closest point, the school is 0.28 mile north of the Proposed Project site. It should be noted the Proposed Project is residential so the amount and type of hazardous materials and or waste generated from the site will be limited and would be subject to all applicable safety regulations and would not pose a health risk to nearby existing schools. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a less than significant impact on schools regarding the risk of hazardous materials. No mitigation is required.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.9: Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Page 120 ends

d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled according to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
GP PEIR Impact – Less than Significant
The GP PEIR analyzes this threshold on pages 5. 7-33. The GP PEIR concluded that given that there already are regulations in place, which would be the framework in which environmentally hazardous sites would be dealt with to reduce impacts to the public and environment, impacts are considered less than significant.

The Department of Toxic Substance Control maintains a Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List for site cleanup. This list is commonly referred to as the Cortese List. The List is a planning document used by the state, local agencies, and developers to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act requirements and provide information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. Government Code section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to develop at least annually an updated Cortese List. DTSC is responsible for a portion of the information contained in the Cortese List. Other state and local government agencies are required to provide additional information on hazardous material release for the Cortese List.

There are numerous Federal, State and local regulations that would dictate how a contaminated site would be identified and remediated. Therefore, given that there already are regulat ions in place, which would be the framework in which environmentally hazardous sites would be dealt with to reduce impacts to the public and environment, impacts are considered less than significant.

Proposed Project
The Phase I ESA indicated that a review of hazardous materials site lists compiled according to Government Code Section 65962.5 found that the Proposed Project site is not included on any such lists. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on creating any significant hazard to the public or environment on a direct, indirect, or cumulative basis. No mitigation is required.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.9: Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Page 121 ends

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? GP PEIR Impact – Less than Significant
The GP PEIR analyzes this threshold on pages 5.7-34 through 5.7-35. The GP PEIR concluded that with compliance with General Plan policies, and since individual development projects will be required to comply with existing County and City Airport Plans, impacts related to hazards from airports at the General Plan level are less than significant.

Individual development projects within or near the safety and/or compatibility zones depicted on Figure 5.7-2 will be required to ensure consistency from the Airport Land Use Commission to comply, and be compati ble with, the land use standards in the applicable airport compatibility plan. The Land Use and Urban Design Element of the General Plan has been developed to avoid allowing intensive new uses within the airport -influence areas of these three airports. Pol icies include development controls limiting development within areas subject to height noise levels and limiting the intensity and height of development within aircraft hazard zones. With compliance with General Plan policies, and since individual development projects will be required to comply with existing County and City Airport Plans, impacts related to hazards from airports at the General Plan level are less than significant.

Proposed Project
According to Map My County, the Proposed Project site is not within an Airport Compatibility Area or an Airport Influence Area. The closest airport to the Proposed Project site is the Riverside Municipal Airport located 4.1 miles northeast of the site. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have no impact resulting in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Proposed Project area on a direct, indirect, or cumulative basis. No mitigation is required.

f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
GP PEIR Impact – Less than Significant
The GP PEIR analyzes this threshold on page 5.7-35. The GP PEIR concluded that with continued use of the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) and implementation of the general CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.9: Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Page 122 ends

plan policies enforcing compliance with the Emergency Operations Plan, impacts to emergency response plans will be less than significant.

The City of Riverside has developed an extensive Emergency Operations Plan, created by the Emergency Management Office. The City’s Fire Department promotes a high level of multijurisdictional cooperation and communication for emergency planning and response management through activation of the SEMS. The General Plan also provides policies to identify methods of implementing the emergency plan. With continued use of the SEMS and implementation of the General Plan policies enforcing compliance with the Emergency Operations Plan, impacts to emergency response plans will be less than significant.

Proposed Project
The proposed construction activities, including equipment and supply staging and storage, would largely occur within the Proposed Project site and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the Proposed Project site or adjacent areas. During construction of sidewalks and infrastructure connections, traffic on La Sierra Avenue and Victoria Avenue would be temporarily diverted around the construction activity but access would not be blocked. Thus, impacts related to interference with an adopted emergency response of evacuation plan during construction activities would be less than significant.

Operation of the Proposed Project would also not result in a physical interference with an emergency response evacuation. Direct access to the Proposed Project site would be provided from La Sierra Avenue, which is adjacent to the Proposed Project site. As such, the Proposed Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on a direct, indirect, or cumulative basis on an emergency response or evacuation plan. No mitigation is required.

The Proposed Project complies with applicable standards and regulations, including General Plan Policies, General Plan Implementing Programs, and Riverside Municipal Code requirements. The Proposed Project’s implementation of those regulations, policies, and standards, including the General Plan designation and zoning, which permit the Proposed Project, ensures that the project would not result in significant impacts. As such, the Proposed Project does not have peculiar effects, new substantially more severe significant effects, new off-site or cumulative effects, or is there new information that would result in a more severe impact than identified within the GP PEIR.

g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
GP PEIR Impact – Less than Significant
The GP PEIR analyzes this threshold on pages 5.7-35 through 5.7-37. The GP PEIR concluded that with implementation of General Plan policies, compliance with existing codes and standards, and with continuation of current City and Fire Station practices, impacts from wildland fires are considered less than significant.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.9: Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Page 123 ends

Although the GP PEIR notes that no part of the City is immune from fire danger, the City take s proactive and preventative measures to reduce fire risk. For instance, communities are classified with respect to their fire defenses and physical characteristics, and standards are required to be implemented to ensure risks to wildfire are minimized. The City also maintains a Fire Department that utilizes a highly trained work force, progressive technology, and responsible fiscal management to provide its services to the community. In summary, with implementation of applicable General Plan policies, compliance with existing codes and standards, and with continuation of current City and Fire Station practices, impacts from wildland fires are considered less than significant.

Through implementation of the General Plan Policies, the City will continue to reduce the potential for damage by dangerous fires by providing adequate firefighting services, by protecting hillsides and urban -wildland interface areas, by encouraging residents to plant and maintain drought - resistant, fire-retardant plant species on slopes to reduce the risk of brush fire and soil erosion and by working with the Fire Department to control hazardous vegetation.

Proposed Project
The Proposed Project is not located in an area of dense, dry vegetation, particularly in canyon areas and on hillsides, which poses the greatest potential for wildfire risks. Additionally, according to the General Plan Safety Element, the Proposed Project site is not located in a Very -High Fire Hazard Safety Zone. With adherence to the City of Riverside building and fire safety code requirements, the Proposed Project will have a less than significant impact regarding wildland fires on a direct, indirect, or cumulative basis from this Proposed Project will occur. No mitigation is required.

5.9.2 Cumulative Impacts Analysis
The GP PEIR evaluated the potential impacts associated with the General Plan Project, a citywide plan for buildout and design of the City. To that end, because it evaluates planned buildout (multiple projects at the programmatic level), the GP PEIR inherently considers cumulative impacts associated with population growth and increased development.

With respect to hazards, the GP PEIR concluded that implementation of General Plan safety standards and policies, mitigation from the GP PEIR, a nd compliance with applicable regulations would provide a level of protection to current safety standards. With those, the GP PEIR concluded that the General Plan project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.9: Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Page 124 ends

As discussed above, the Prop osed Project would not result in a project -level hazard impact. It is a residential project that does not propose the use or disposal of hazardous materials aside from common household materials. The Proposed Project ’s construction would occur consistent w ith similar projects, and any handling or storage of hazardous materials would be consistent with applicable regulations. Finally, the Proposed Project is within the scope of the buildout assumed for the General Plan, including with the project site’s designation and zoning (which assume residential uses). The Proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable significant impact.

5.9.3 Uniformly Applied Development Standards and GP PEIR Mitigation Measures The development standards that would apply to this specific Proposed Project include but are not limited to the following:

Codes in Effect:

The Proposed Project shall fully comply with the 2022 version of Title 24, the California Building Standards Code, as adopted and amended by the City of Riverside, or the version of these codes in effect at the time a new permit application is filed. These include but are not limited to:
• Automatic Fire Sprinkler System : An automatic residential fire sprinkler system is required by City Ordinance 16.32.335.
• Section 9.48 of the Riverside Municipal Code requires that any person who uses or handles hazardous materials or mixtures containing hazardous materials in an amount equal to, or greater than: (i) five hundred pounds, (ii) fifty -five gallons, (iii) two hundred cubic feet at standard room temperature and pressure for compressed gas, (iv) ten pounds for organic peroxides, or (v) any known or suspected carcinogen, radioactive material, Class A poison, Class A or Class B explosive, shall, during the month of January prepare and submit a completed inventory form and file a hazardous materials business plan with the City Fire Department. It is not anticipated that the proposed apartments Proposed Project would use or handle hazardous materials that meet the requirement to file a hazardous materials business plan with the City Fire Department in accordance with Section 9.48 of the RMC. • Title 16 of the Riverside Municipal Code – Buildings and Construction provides minimum standards to safeguard life or limb, health, property and public welfare by regulating the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location and maintenance of buildings, equipment, structures and grading within the City. The proposed apa rtment buildings shall be constructed in accordance with Title 16 or the RMC. A permit may be withheld or denied if the Building Official finds there are existing on- site violations of the provisions of Chapter 16.04 through 16.20 or any other ordinance of the City. • Title 17 of the Riverside Municipal Code sets forth rules and regulations which will further implement the goals, and objectives of the GP 2025 in order to control evacuation, grading, and earthwork construction. In addition, Title 17 establishes the administrative procedures for grading plan approval, issuance of permits, inspections, and penalties for unauthorized grading activity.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.9: Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Page 125 ends

Applicable General Plan Policies
• Policy PS-6.4: Evaluate all new development to be located in or adjacent to wildland areas to assess its vulnerability to fire and its potential as a source of fire. • Policy PS-9.8 : Reduce the risk to the community from hazards related to geologic conditions, seismic activity, flooding and structural and wildland fires by requiring feasible mitigation of such impacts on discretionary development projects. • Policy PS-6.7: Continue to involve the City Fire Department in the development review process.

Applicable General Plan Mitigation Measures
MM Haz 1: To reduce project-related adverse impacts to sites containing hazardous materials and/or sites where known hazardous materials contamination may have existed that may be inadvertently discovered during construction of projects soils testing shall be conducted by a qualified soils engineer and submitted to the City for the evaluation of hazardous chemical levels in the soil. The report submitted to the City should indicate if remediation of the soils is necessary to achieve less than significant levels of hazardous chemical in the soils. Proper investigation, and remedial actions, if necessary, including a workplan should be conducted under the oversight of and approved by a government agency at the site prior to construction of the project.

Proper investigation, and remedial actions, if necessary, should be conducted under the oversight of and approved by a government agency at the site prior to construction of the project.

5.9.4 Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the Proposed Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no impacts that were not analyzed as significant effects in the GP PEIR, with which the Proposed Project is consistent.

3. There are no potentially significant off- site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP PEIR.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.9: Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Page 126 ends

4. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GP PEIR.

5. The Proposed Project would comply with the mitigation measures contained within the GP PEIR which is designed to reduce any potential Proposed Project impacts to less than significant, and no further mitigation measures are required because the Proposed Project specific impacts would be less than significant.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.10: Hydrology and Water Quality

Page 127 ends

5.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact

Less Than
Significant No No No No
i) result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-
site;
Less Than
Significant No No No No
ii) substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on-
or offsite;
Less Than
Significant No No No No
iii) create or contribute
runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of
existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial
additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
Less Than
Significant No No No No
iv) impede or redirect flood
flows?
Less Than
Significant No No No No
CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.10: Hydrology and Water Quality

Page 128 ends

d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or
seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project
inundation?
Less Than
Significant
Significant and
Unavoidable for
Dam Inundation

No No No No
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management
plan?
Less Than
Significant for
Groundwater;
Significant and
Unavoidable for
Water Quality
No No No No

5.10.1 Discussion
The following studies were performed to determine potential Proposed Project-specific impacts:
• Hydrology Report for TR 38921 in the City of Riverside (Hydro Study), prepared by Adkan Engineers, February 26, 2024 (Appendix F)
• Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for TTM 38921 prepared by Adkan Engineers, February 22, 2024 (Appendix G)
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? GP PEIR Impact – Significant and Unavoidable
The GP PEIR analyzes this threshold on pages 5.8-16 through 5.8-18. The GP PEIR concluded that the impacts related to exceeding water quality standards or waste discharge requirements related to implementation of the General Plan are considered significant and unavoidable.

Future development consistent with the proposed General Plan will significantly increase the amount of impervious surface area in the City and Sphere Areas. This impervious area includes paved parking areas, sidewalks, roadways, and rooftops. All sources of runoff may carry pollutants and therefore have the potential to degrade water quality and not meet standards.

The City requires that each individual development project comply with existing State Water Quality Control Board and City stormwater regulations, including compliance with NPDES requirements related to construction and operation measures to prevent erosion, siltation and transport of urban pollutants. The Santa Ana Drainage Area Management Plan pr ovides a selection of Best Management Practices (BMPs), as required by NPDES. All new developments will undergo individual City review and will be required to comply with the applicable RWQCB NPDES Permit, which sets forth BMPs for new development and redevelopment projects. Prior to making land use decisions, the City will require project applicants to utilize available methods to estimate increases in pollutant loads and flows resulting from future development through preparation of a SWPPP and a WQMP. In addition, project applicants shall demonstrate accomplishment of the following NPDES objectives:
• Use of structural and non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to mitigate projected increases in pollutant loads and flows.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.10: Hydrology and Water Quality

Page 129 ends

• Minimized pollutant loading flow velocity during and after construction. • Minimized amounts of impervious surfaces and directly connected impervious surfaces. • Maximized on-site infiltration and runoff and temporary on-site retention areas. • Limited disturbance of natural water bodies and natural drainage systems Pollution prevention methods, source controls and treatment using small collection strategies located at or as close as possible to the source.

Although storm water management measures reduce impacts of storm water pollut ants and discharges, the NPDES permit and WQMP do not prevent all discharges of storm and non- storm waters. New and existing developments may add small amounts of pollutants to runoff into the Santa Ana River and San Jacinto River (Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore), which are impaired receiving waters. Therefore, impacts related to exceeding water quality standards or waste discharge requirements related to implementation of the General Plan are considered significant and unavoidable cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level.

Proposed Project
The Federal Clean Water Act Section 303(d) requires that States assess the quality of their waters every two years and publish a list of those waters not meeting the water quality standards established for them. Water quality standards include beneficial uses, water quality objectives necessary to protect these uses and the antidegradation policy, and are found in the Basin Plan. For water bodies placed on the 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments, states are required to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for the pollutant(s) that are causing standards impairment 10.

According to Table A.1 Identification of Receiving Waters Receiving Waters, contained in the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP) prepared for the Proposed Project (Appendix G), the Proposed Project discharges to the Arizona Channel, Arlington Channel, Temescal Creek, Reach 1, and the Prado Creek Basin. Temescal Creek, Reach 1 is identified on the EPA Approved 303 (d) List Impairments, for the potential of hydrogen (pH ) and the Prado Creek Basin is on the List for Nutrients, Pathogens, and Total Suspended Solids (TSS).11 The PWQMP indicates that onsite drainage will be conveyed to a proposed infiltration basin at the northeast corner of the site via surface drainage and a storm drain system. Natural infiltration capacity was preserved with the implementation of an onsite infiltration basin and landscaping is being incorporated into the site in all feasible areas.

As such, operational runoff from the site will not contribute to the degradation of Temescal Creek, Reach 1 and the Prado Creek Basin.

Likewise, before any construction associated with the Proposed Project, the applicant must prepare a SWPPP that incorporates BMPs, consistent with NPDES regulations. These BMPs, which are standard

11 Santa Ana Region - 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments. Available at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d.html. Accessed January 2, 2025.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.10: Hydrology and Water Quality

Page 130 ends

construction practice, limit erosion, siltation, and transport of pollutants off- site. There is no unique aspect of construction that makes it more likely than standard construction to result in discharge of pollutants, and BMPs can and will be implemented consistent with regulatory requirements.

Given compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal laws regulating surface water quality and the fact that the Proposed Pro ject will result in a net increase of surface water runoff but will have onsite filtration, the Proposed Project as designed is anticipated to result in a less than significant impact on a direct, indirect, or cumulative basis to any water quality standards or waste discharge.

b) Would the p roject substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
GP PEIR Impact- Less than Significant
The GP PEIR analyzes this threshold on pages 5.8-18 through 5.8-19. The GP PEIR concluded that the because safe yield will be maintained in the groundwater basins and none of the basins are overdrafted (nor are they projected to become so), other forms of conservation such as recycled water will be developed, and because the project has no direct impacts to groundwater recharge, implementation of the General Plan will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level and impacts are considered less than significant.

The Riverside Public Utility (RPU) provides the majority of domestic water for the City, with other utilities providing service in other areas of the City and the City’s sphere of influence. RPU’s domestic water is mainly supplied from local groundwater. Approximately 97% of the water supplied by RPU is supplied from Bunker Hill, Riverside North and South, and the Gage Exchange groundwater basins.

The Urban Water Management Planning Act (Water Code §§ 10610 et seq.) requires urban water suppliers to describe and analyze sources of water supply, water use and effi ciency, demand management measures, implementation strategy and schedule, and other relevant information and programs. Supply reliability must be analyzed for normal, dry and multiple dry water years.

UWMPs are often foundational documents for Water Supply Assessments and Water Supply Verifications and are sources of water supply information for cities and counties as they prepare their General Plans. As noted above, the primary source of RPU’s water supply is groundwater from the CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.10: Hydrology and Water Quality

Page 131 ends

Bunker Hill, Colton, Riverside North, and Riverside South groundwater basins. The Bunker Hill basin is adjudicated, and its safe-yield and export rights from the basin are well defined.

As noted, Table 5.16-E of the Utilities section of the GP PEIR, RPU’s 2025 water supply would in clude up to 32,138 acre -feet of supply from planned sources. These sources include additional groundwater pumping and treatment, additional exchange with the Gage Canal Company, additional potable water made available through increased recycled water use, additional supply made available through the Seven Oaks Dam Conservation storage project and increased imported water from Western Municipal Water District. These increased supplies will largely be made possible through the expansion of existing facilities and programs, and expanded use of recycled water, and are therefore considered reliable due to historic use of those sources. Adverse environmental impacts are not expected from the use of those sources, because groundwater extraction would be within the safe yield of the subject groundwater basins.

Therefore, the impacts were considered less than significant.

Proposed Project
The Proposed Project will no t directly pump or use well water, nor will it affect a groundwater recharge area and will therefore not directly or indirectly deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. None of the proposed physical alterations to the Proposed Project site (i.e. grading, ground disturbance, structures, or paving) would interfere with the ability of RPU to extract groundwater. Also, the Riverside Citywide Water Efficient Landscaping and Irrigation Design Guidelines encourage the use of stormwater infiltration measures such as infiltration beds, swales, basins, and permeable paving. These features would be implemented on future development under the Proposed Project, where feasible, and would allow runoff to infiltrate the soil media and percolate into the ground. Landscape features would allow groundwater recharge and increase recharge potential within individual areas throughout the Proposed Project site. Therefore, there will be no impact on groundwater supplies and recharge either directly, indirectly, or cumulatively. No mitigation is required. Moreover, even though groundwater is used to supply water to the City, water management policies adopted by the RPU, and reflected in its UWMP, demonstrate that RPU has sufficient supplies necessary to serve the Proposed Project . See Section

5.20, Utilities, and Service Systems, regarding the Proposed Project ’s water demand versus the available water supply.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.10: Hydrology and Water Quality

Page 132 ends

c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv. impede or redirect flood flows?

The GP PEIR analyzes this threshold on pages 5.8-19 through 5.8-23. The GP PEIR analysis concluded that the General Plan Project would, in general, have a less than significant impact, or less than significant with mitigation incorporated, except in the category of dam inundation, which was determined to have a significant and unavoidable impact. The analyses for each of these thresholds are discussed below.
c(i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? GP PEIR Impact-Less Than Significant
The GP PEIR noted that in undeveloped areas of the City, new development could create changes to drainage patters and cause flooding, erosion and siltation. However, such impacts would be less than significant through compliance with applicable development standards. For instance, all new development will be subject to NPDES requirements; areas of one acre or more of disturbance in the Planning Area are subject to preparing and implementing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The purpose of a SWPPP is to prevent runoff from construction sites to degrade water quality during storm events through erosion, siltation, and other contamination. Erosion, siltation, and other possible pollutants associated with long -term implementation of projects are addressed as part of the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and grading permit process.

Importantly, the GP PEIR also noted that, with respect to runoff, future developed conditions must be studied and required to be attenuated on-site. This requirement ensure that drainage would not be significantly altered by development projects, nor would future projects result in on- or off-site flooding impacts. The City also maintains a five-year Capital Improvement Program which includes a storm drain program to include improvement projects ne cessary to ensure adequate drainage during future General Plan buildout. Impacts were determined to be less than significant.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.10: Hydrology and Water Quality

Page 133 ends

Proposed Project
As discussed above in Section 5.10.a, development of the Proposed Project is required to adhere to specific standards to minimize any potential for increased erosion or siltation. The preparation of a SWPPP and WQMP would ensure BMPs are implemented to reduce transport of soils off- site. For instance, the PWQMP indicates that onsite drainage will be conveyed to a proposed infiltration basin at the northeast corner of the site via surface drainage and a storm drain system. Also, with incorporation of design features, the Proposed Project would not substantially alter the drainage pattern of the site. Based on requir ements of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD), the site is required to treat the 2-year, 24-hour storm event through the use of an infiltration basin with an additional gravel layer beneath it. Natural infiltration capacity was preserved with the implementation of an onsite infiltration basin and landscaping is being incorporated into the site in all feasible areas.

c(ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
GP EIR Impact-Less Than Significant
The GP PEIR disclosed that future development consistent with the General Plan will significantly increase the amount of runoff into the existing storm drains. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD) and the City have identified facilities that are currently undersized. Most are located in the older portions of the City such as downtown. RCFCWCD and/or the City have no plans for improvement for these facilities at this time. As result of this, facilities will need to be expanded and/or new facilities will need to be constructed to accommodate both existing and planned development. The City of Riverside has developed a five -year Capital Improvement Program (CIP), wh ich includes a Strom Drain Program. This particular program will include improvement projects that eliminate flooding during major storm events. Construction of these improvements will be in coordination with RCFCWCD projects, and in support of economic development projects.

The General Plan Policy PF-4.1 reinforces the City’s CIP program. Although this CIP addresses current existing undersized drainage issues, it does not address anticipated increase in runoff due to the General Plan implementation. General Plan Policy PF- 4.3 requires the City to routinely monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the storm drain system and make adjustments as needed. In addition, to avoid flooding and/or placing new development within flood areas, the City requires development pads to be elevated above flood levels.

Underground storm drains and streets are designed to accommodate the 10 -year storm from curb to curb, while 100-year storms are accommodated within street rights of way. Therefore, even though some older storm drain facilities may be undersized, impacts related to exceeding capacity to storm drains are considered less than significant because flooding of structures will not result.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.10: Hydrology and Water Quality

Page 134 ends

Proposed Project
The Proposed Project will directly result in physical alterations to the site and immediate surrounding area through tree removal, grading, ground disturbance, and building new structures and paving.

However, the Hydrology Study and WQMP indicate the Proposed Project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site in a manner that would increase flooding.

No alterations to a natural stream or river or increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff that would result in flooding on- or off-site is proposed. The Proposed Project consists of the construction of 49 new single -family residences and supporting internal streets and utility infrastructure. The Proposed Project design incorporates surface water drainage patterns that collect storm water runoff to storm drains that channel the water to a proposed infiltration basin in the northeast corner of the site.

The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD) requires improvements to comply with its standards for flood control . Based on requirements of the RCFCWCD, the site is required to treat the 2-year, 24-hour storm event through the use of an infiltration basin with an additional gravel layer beneath it. The Hydro Study indicates the infiltration basin is designed with a total capacity of 17,472 cubic feet (cf). At present (i.e., pre- development), the 2- year, 24 -hour storm volume of the site is 8,223 cf but this will increase to 26,528 cf in the post - development condition by the addition of impervious surfaces. The onsite drainage system will have a total flood volume storage of 17,472 cf while the proposed 2-year, 24-hour storm volume (reduced to 110% of the existing volume) is 9,056 cf as shown in Table 5.10-1: Proposed Infiltration Basin Characteristics.

Table 5.10-1: Proposed Infiltration Basin Characteristics Drainage or Basin Characteristic Cubic Feet (cf)
Existing 2-Year 24-Hour Storm Volume 8,233
Allowable 2-Year 24-Hour Storm Volume (mitigated to
110% of existing volume) 9,056
Post Development 2-Year 24-Hour Storm Volume 26,528
Minus Total Flood Volume of Basin Stored -17,472
Remaining Storm Volume of Basin 9,056
Remaining Basin Volume meets or exceeds 110% of
existing volume? Yes
With the implementation of the proposed flood control and water quality improvements, the Proposed Project site will not result in a significant increase in offsite downstream runoff, as shown in Table 5.10-1. All applicable Best Management Practices will be employed to prevent onsite flooding in the event of a storm event. Therefore, no flooding on or off-site as a result of the Proposed Project will occur and there will be less than significant impact on a direct, indirect, or cumulative basis that would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site. No mitigation is required.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.10: Hydrology and Water Quality

Page 135 ends

c(iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? GP PEIR Impact-Less Than Significant
In regard to exceeding capacity, future development consistent with the General Plan will significantly increase the amount of runoff into the existing storm drains. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD) and the City have identified facilities that are currently undersized. Most are located in the older portions of the City such as downtown. The GP PEIR noted that RCFCWCD and/or the City had no plans for improvement for these facilities at that time. As result of this, the GP PEIR recognized that those facilities will need to be expanded and/or new facilities will need to be constructed to accommodate both existing and planned development.

The City of Riverside has developed a five-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP), which includes a Strom Drain Program. This particular program will include improvement projects that eliminate flooding during major storm events. Construction of these improvements will be in coordination with RCFCWCD projects, and in support of economic development projects. The General Plan policy PF-

4.1 reinforces the City’s CIP program. The GP PEIR concluded that, a lthough this CIP addresses current existing undersized drainage issues, it does not address anticipated increase in runoff due to the General Plan implementation. General Plan Policy PF- 4.3 requires the City to routinely monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the storm drain system and make adjustments as needed. In addition, to avoid flooding and/or placing new development within flood are as, the City requires development pads to be elevated above flood levels. Underground storm drains and streets are designed to accommodate the 10 -year storm from curb to curb, while 100 -year storms are accommodated within street rights of way. Therefore, even though some older storm drain facilities may be undersized, impacts related to exceeding capacity to storm drains were considered less than significant because flooding of structures will not result.

Proposed Project
Within the scope of the Proposed Project is the installation of a storm water drainage system, specifically as described within the Proposed Project description portion of this Proposed Project. As the storm water drainage system will be installed concurrently with the construction of this Proposed Project, the Hydo Report indicates the storm water drainage system will be adequately sized to accommodate the drainage created by this Proposed Project (see Table 5.10-1 in threshold 10.c.ii above). Onsite flows will be directed toward the northeast via a series of gutters throughout the Proposed Project site. Surface flows in these proposed gutters will be captured via drop inlets and conveyed via an onsite storm drain system to an infiltration basin located in the northeast corner of the site. The infiltration basin will have an additional gravel layer beneath to mitigate the 2-year, 24- hour storm flow as described in Threshold 10.c.ii above.

As a residential development, the Proposed Project is expected to generate the following pollutants:
sediment/turbidity, nutrients, trash and debris, oxygen-demanding substances, bacteria and viruses, oil & grease, and pesticides. These expected pollutants will be treated through the incorporation of the site design, source control, and treatment control measures (i.e., infiltration basin) specified in the CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.10: Hydrology and Water Quality

Page 136 ends

Proposed Project -specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Table D.3 of the WQMP indicates the site will have a design capture volume of 8,812.8 cubic feet while the treatment volume of the proposed onsite basin is 9,177.5 cubic feet (+4.1%). Therefore, pollutants will be adequately addressed through the Proposed Project site design, source control, and treatment controls already integrated into the Proposed Project design, and the Proposed Project will not create or contribute runoff water exceeding the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Proposed Project impacts regarding polluted runoff will be less than significant on a direct, indirect, or cumulative basis. No mitigation is required. c(iv). Impede or redirect flood flows?
GP EIR Impact-Less Than Significant
The 100-year flood zone is primarily located along channels, creeks, streams, and watercourses such as the Santa Ana River and several portions near dams, including Sycamore Canyon Dam, Box Springs Dam, Alessandro Dam, Prada Dam, Woodcrest Dam, Mockingbird Canyon Dam, and Harrison Dam. Additionally, several arroyos are also located within or near the 100-year flood zone, which includes the Springbrook Wash, Tequesquite, Alessandro, Prenda, Woodcrest, and Mockingbird Canyon Arroyos, as shown on GP PEIR Figure 5.8-2, Flood Hazard Areas.

There are not many areas of residential development under the proposed General Plan that lie within the 100-year flood zone. Much of the 100-year zone is concentrated along the river and arroyos. The General Plan discourages development of sensitive facilities in these areas. Policy PS-2.1 encourages reduction of flood risk to residents and business when feasible. Policy LU-2.2 minimizes development in and in close proximity to any of the City’s arroyos. In general, flood prone areas are designated for open space and recreational uses rather than sensitive facilities.

The GP PEIR noted that the City will review all development proposals to assess if a project is proposed in a flood hazard area. The City Municipal Code, Title 16 Buildings & Construction, Chapter

16.18 Flood Hazard Area & Implementation of Nationa l Flood Insurance Program, Sec.16.8.050 requires new construction located within a 100 -year flood zone to mitigate flood hazards by including onsite drainage, anchoring methods to prevent floating structures, elevating buildings above flood levels, and flood proofing, which requires the building to be inspected and certified by a professional engineer, surveyor or building inspector. With implementation of local and state requirements, the GP PEIR concluded that the General Plan project would result in less than significant impacts to impeding or redirecting flood flows.

Proposed Project
The Proposed Project Site is not located within or near a 100-year flood hazard area as depicted on General Plan 2025 Program FPEIR Figure 5.8-2 – Flood Hazard Areas and the National Flood Insurance Rate Map (Map Number 06065C0745G Effective Date August 28, 2008). The FIRM map shows the site in Zone X which is an “area of minimal flood hazard”. Therefore, the Proposed Project will not place a structure within a 100-year flood hazard area that would impede or redirect flood flows, and no impact will occur on a direct, indirect, or cumulative basis.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.10: Hydrology and Water Quality

Page 137 ends

d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
GP PEIR Impact – Significant and Unavoidable, Less Than Significant, or No Impact The GP PEIR analyzes this threshold on pages 5. 8-23 through 5.8-24. The GP PEIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan would have less than significant impacts for development in a flood hazard zone, no impact with respect to tsunami or seiche zones, but would have a significant and unavoidable impact resulting from dam inundation.

Flood Hazard Zone – Less Than Significant
Refer to the response under Issue c(ii) above.

Tsunami or Seiche Zones –No Impact and Less Than Significant Tsunamis are tidal waves that occur in coastal areas; therefore, since the Proposed Project area is not located in a coastal area, no impacts due to tsunamis will occur.

A seiche is a to -and-fro vibration of a waterbody that is similar to the slopping of water in a basin.

Once initiated, oscillation within the waterbody can continue independently. Seiches are often triggered by earthquakes. The most likely area that could be subject to seiche in the Proposed Project Area is Lake Mathews and Lake Evans in Fairmont Park. The land uses proposed in the General Plan for the areas surrounding Lake Mathews are predominately open space/conservation. Because Lake Evans is surrounded by park area and directly outlets into the Santa Ana River, the damage related to a seiche in Lake Evans and Lake Mathews is considered less than significant.

Dam Inundation – Significant and Unavoidable
GP PEIR Figure 5.8 -2, Flood Hazard Areas , depicts the dam inundation areas of the City, mainly connected to the City’s arroyos/drainage courses, and the 100 - and 500-year floodplain. Flooding issues related to the 100-year floodplain are discussed in the previous threshold. There are nine dams, failure of which could impact portions of the City. I mplementation of the General Plan Proposed Project may place housing or other structures in a dam inundation area. In general, flood -prone areas are designated for open space and recreational uses rather than sensitive facilities, however, CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.10: Hydrology and Water Quality

Page 138 ends

as shown on Figure 5.8 -2, dam failure would inundate already developed areas of the City. The residents of the City who currently live within a dam inundation area could be expose d to a significant risk involving flooding if a dam failed.

Even though new development is required to be designed to avoid standard 100-year flood areas, new development within a dam inundation area could not be built to avoid flooding that would result from dam failure. The “instantaneous failure of the dam,” as assumed for purposes of mapping on Figure 5.8-2, is unlikely; therefore, repairs could be made to a leaking or damaged dam to avoid significant damage to life and/or property. Division 3 of the California Water Code places supervision of non-federal dams the responsibility of the State Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD).

The DSOD routinely inspects operating dams to ensure that they are adequately maintained, and to direct the dam owner to correct any deficiencies. Implementation of DSOD recommendations will mitigate this impact to the degree feasible but will not completely eliminate the risk of dam failure.

No other feasible mitigation measures have been identified to reduce this impact to a less than significant degree. Thus, the potential to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding as a result of dam failure remains significant and unavoidable.

Compliance with State Civil Code Section 1103 through 1103.4 simply serves to notify those potentially affected of the risk involved in locating within a flood hazard or dam inundation area, but does not reduce or eliminate the potential impact.

With regard to dam inundation, as stated above, implementation of DSOD recommendations will mitigate this impact to the degree feasible but will not completely eliminate the risk of seismically induced catastrophic dam failure. No other feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce this impact to a less than significant degree; especially since most of the inundation areas are already within the developed part of the City. Thus, the GP PEIR concluded that the potential to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding as a result of dam failure remains significant and unavoidable. Compliance with State Civil Code Section 1103 through 1103.4 will serve to notify those potentially affected of the risk involved in locating within a flood hazard or dam inundation area but does not reduce or eliminate the potential impact.

Proposed Project
Flood Hazard Zone
The Proposed Project Site is not located within or near a flood hazard area as depicted on General Plan 2025 Program FPEIR Figure 5.8 -2 – Flood Hazard Areas and the National Flood Insurance Rate Map (Map Number 06065C0715G Effective Date August 27, 2008).

Tsunami or Seiche Zones
The City is not in a coastal area and is not prone to inundation due to tsunamis. Seiche occurs in an enclosed or partially enclosed body of water, such as a lake or reservoir. Lake Evans in Fairmont Park may be subject to seiche. However, Lake Evans, which is surrounded by a park area, outlets directly to the Santa Ana River; the risk of inundation related to a seiche in Lake Evans is considered minimal.

In the event of a flood hazard, to reduce the risk of a pollutant release, individual projects facilitated by the Proposed Project would comply with the requirements of local water quality programs and CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.10: Hydrology and Water Quality

Page 139 ends

associated municipal stormwater-related NPDES permits (e.g., MS4 permit, DAMP, project -specific WQMP) as well as GP 2025 policies and the Public Safety Element Update to manage flood risk and water quality. Compliance with these requirements would minimize risks related to a release of pollutants due to any potential inundation in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone.

Updates to the Public Safety Element would reduce flood risks and any associated release of pollutants. The Public Safety Element Update indicates where existing flood hazard areas are located and were building construction, including associated storage areas for pollutants, should be avoided. Public Safety Element policies require measures to minimize risks associated with the storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials as well as associated impacts on surface and groundwater. The Proposed Project would not release pollutants because of inundation by flood, tsunami, or seiche. Impacts would be less than significant.

Dam Inundation
The 2018 update to the CEQA Guidelines eliminated the following threshold question:
“Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?” In support of the 2018 CEQA Guidelines change related to Dam Inundation (and other revisions), the California Natural Resources agenc y issued “ Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines
12 as follows:

This change was to specifically address the California Supreme Court’s decision in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Qua lity Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369. In that case, the Court held that “agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project’s future users or residents” but they must analyze hazards the project might risk exacerbating the condition.

The change clarifies that the focus of a CEQA analysis EIR must analyze not just impacts that a project might cause, but also existing hazards that the project might make worse. This clarification implements the Supreme Court’s holding in the CBIA case. (62 Cal. 4th at 377 (“when a proposed project risks exacerbating those environmental hazards or conditions that already exist, an agency must analyze the potential impact of such hazards on future residents or users”).) In this context, an effect that a proj ect “risks exacerbating” is similar to an “indirect” effect. Describing “indirect effects,” the CEQA Guidelines state: “If a direct physical change in the environment in turn causes another change in the environment, then the other change is an indirect physical change in the environment.” (State CEQA Guidelines § 15064(d)(2).) Just as with indirect effects, a lead agency should confine its analysis of exacerbating effects to those that are reasonably foreseeable. (Id. at subd. (d)(3).) Notably, by stating that EIRs should analyze effects that a project might “cause or risk

12 https://lci.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/updates.html, as accessed 1/29/25 CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.10: Hydrology and Water Quality

Page 140 ends

exacerbating,” this clarification also makes clear that EIRs need not analyze effects that the project does not cause directly or indirectly.

According to the California Department of Wa ter Resources, California Inundation Map Resources website, the Proposed Project Site is located within the dam inundation area for Lake Matthews.

Notwithstanding, the 2007 GP P EIR identified that the State Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) routinely inspects the dam to ensure that it is adequately maintained and to direct the dam owner to correct any deficiencies —implementation of DSOD recommendations. The GP P EIR indicated that this would mitigate potential impact from dam inundation to the degree feasible but will not completely eliminate the risk of dam failure. According to the GP PEIR, no other feasible mitigation measures were identified to reduce this impact to a less than significant degree. Thus, the City chose to override the significant and unavoidable impact related to the potential to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding as a result of dam failure when adopting the GP PEIR, including the residential land use designation on the Proposed Project Site. Compliance with State Civil Code Section 1103 through 1103.4 simply serves to notify those potentially affected of the risk involved in locating within a flood hazard or dam inundation area. It does not reduce or eliminate the potential impac t. No other feasible mitigation measures have been identified to reduce this impact to a less than significant degree. Thus, the potential to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding as a result of dam failure remains significant and unavoidable. (Draft PEIR, at p. 5.8-23; 6-11.)

The most recent inspection of the Lake Matthews Dam found sound to be “Satisfactory,” meaning that “No existing or potential dam safety deficiencies are recognized. Acceptable performance is expected under all loading conditions (static, hydrologic, seismic) in accordance with the minimum applicable state or federal regulatory criteria or tolerable risk guidelines. Typical Circumstances: No existing deficiencies or potentially u nsafe conditions are recognized, with the exception of minor operational and maintenance items that require attention; Safe performance is expected under all loading conditions, including the design earthquake and design flood; Permanent risk reduction measures (reservoir restrictions, spillway modifications, operating procedures, etc .) have been implemented to eliminate identified deficiencies.13
The Proposed Project would not alter or exacerbate the existing risk of inundation from dam failure.

The Proposed Project is designed to meet all City safety codes to allow buildings to be more resilient during atypical events. Further, as a residential project, inundation would not result in the release of hazardous materials that could damage the environment.

The fact that the Proposed Project site is in a dam inundation area does not result in a new, significant impact and no new mitigation is required.

13 https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/All-Programs/Division-of-Safety-of-Dams/Files/Publications/Annual-Data- Release/DAMS-WITHIN-JURISDICTION-OF-THE-STATE-OF-CALIFORNIA-LISTED-ALPHABETICALLY-BY-COUNTY-SEPTEMBER-2024.pdf CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.10: Hydrology and Water Quality

Page 141 ends

document. The Proposed Project’s implementation of those regulations, policie s, and standards, including the General Plan designation and zoning, which permit the Proposed Project, ensures that the project would not result in significant impacts. As such, the Proposed Project does not have peculiar effects, new substantially more severe significant effects, new off-site or cumulative effects, or is there new information that would result in a more severe impact than identified within the GP PEIR.
e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
GP PEIR Impact – Significant and Unavoidable for Water Quality; Less than Significant for Groundwater The GP PEIR did not specifically analyze this individual threshold as worded in this checklist because, subsequent to the GP PEIR adoption, the thresholds identified in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines were significantly revised. However, the concepts of this topic were addressed on GP PEIR pages

5.8-16 through 5.8-19 and 5.8-21. The analysis in this document relies on the information in threshold

5.10(a) (above) relating to exceeding water quality standards as well as the analysis contained on PEIR pages 5.8-16 through 5.8-19 and 5.8-21. . Regarding water quality, the GP PEIR stated that point sources, such as direct discharges, and nonpoint sources of water pollution, such as urban runoff, are usually discharged into separate storm drains and then into the identified receiving waters, which are ultimately regulated by the CWA. The City of Riverside must comply with the CWA, and rules and standards promulgated by the Santa Ana RWQCB. The City requires that each individual development project comply with existing State Water Quality Control Board and City stormwater regulations, including compliance with NPDES requirements related to construction and operation measures to prevent erosion, siltation and transport of urban pollutants. The Santa Ana Drainage Area Management Plan provides a selection of Best Management Practices (BMPs), as required by NPDES. All new developments anticipated by the General Plan Project will undergo individual City review and will be required to comply with the RWQCB NPDES Permit No. CAG998001, which sets forth BMPs for new development and redevelopment projects. These regulations and permits were designed to protect the beneficial uses of receiving waters identified in the Basin Plan.

The GP PEIR concluded that adherence to and implementation of General Plan policies, as well as adherence to standard Federal, State and local regulations, will mitigate potential water quality impacts at the General Plan level to the degree feasible. Nevertheless, despite the implementation of BMPs and other measures, small amounts of pollutants from existing and proposed development may impact impaired water bodies. For this reason, the GP PEIR concluded that impacts to water quality would be significant and unavoidable.

Regarding groundwater, the GP PEIR stated that the primary source of the City’s Public Utilities’ (RPU’s) water supply is groundwater from the Bunker Hill, Colton, Riverside North, and Riverside South groundwater basins. The Bunker Hill basin is adjudicated, and its safe-yield and export rights from the basin are well defined. While not adjudicated, the Colton, Riverside North, and Riverside South basins are subject to management under a 1969 judgment. None of these basins are overdrafted, nor are they projected to become so. According to the GP PEIR, RPU’s 2025 water supply would include up to 32,138 acre-feet of supply from planned sources, including additional groundwater pumping and CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.10: Hydrology and Water Quality

Page 142 ends

treatment, additional exchange with the Gage Canal Company, additional potable water made available through increased recycled water use, additional supply made available through the Seven Oaks Dam C onservation storage project, and increased imported water from WMWD.

Adverse environmental impacts are not expected from the use of those sources, because groundwater extraction would be within the safe yield of the subject groundwater basins. Recharge areas for the primary groundwater aquifer that RPU uses for its domestic supply are located in other jurisdictions, meaning that recharge would be affected by what happens in San Bernardino County, for example, with respect to the Bunker Hill basin. Therefore, the General Plan Project would have no effect on the Bunker Hill basin recharge capabilities. B ecause safe yield will be maintained in the groundwater basins and none of the basins are overdrafted (nor are they projected to become so), other forms of con servation such as recycled water will be developed, and because the General Plan P roject has no direct impacts to groundwater recharge, the GP PEIR concluded that the General Plan Project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level, resulting in less-than-significant impacts.

Proposed Project
Water Quality Control Plan. The Proposed Project is located within the Santa River Watershed. The Proposed Project will not directly or indirectly result in physical alterations to the Proposed Project site (i.e. tree removal, grading, ground disturbance, structure, or paving) that would affect water quality or be affected by water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The Proposed Project involves the construction of 49 new single-family residential units located on a vacant parcel of land with no known water resource features located onsite. Before grading, a final approved WQMP will be required for the Proposed Project , as well as coverage under the State’s General Permit for Construction Activities, administered by the Santa Ana RWQCB consistent with the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan).

The Basin Plan, updated in June 2019, establishes water quality standards for groundwater and surface water in the basin and standards for both beneficial uses of specific water bodies and the water quality levels that must be maintained to protect those uses. The Basin Plan includes an implementation plan describing actions by the Santa Ana RWQCB and others needed to achieve and maintain the water quality standards. The Santa Ana RWQCB regulates waste discharges to minimize and control their effects on the quality of the region’s groundwater and surface waters.

The Basin Plan lists water quality problems for the region along with their causes where they are known. Plans for improving water quality are included for water bodies with quality below the levels needed to enable all the beneficial uses of the water.

Storm water management measures will be required to be implemented to effectively control erosion sedimentation and other construction-related pollutants during construction. Given compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal laws regulating surface water quality and the fact that the Proposed Project will result in a net increase of surface water runoff but will have onsite filtration, the Proposed Project as designed is anticipated to result in a less than significant impact on the implementation of a water quality control plan on a direct, indirect, or cumulative basis.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.10: Hydrology and Water Quality

Page 143 ends

Groundwater. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) was passed into law in 2014 and requires that medium and high -priority groundwater basins designated by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) be managed by Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs). Regarding a sustainable groundwater management plan, the Proposed Project site is in the far eastern portion of the San Bernardino – Riverside Basin Area South which was adjudicated in 1992 and is managed by the Riverside Basin Area Watermaster. However, groundwater is collected and supplied to the Proposed Project area by the Riverside Public Utilities (RPU) in coordination with the Western Municipal Water District (WMWD). The City’s RPU Urban Water Management Plan was last updated in 2020.

In addition, the previous analysis in Threshold 5. 10. b, above, concluded that the Proposed Project site would not have a significant impact on groundwater quantity or quality. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have less than significant impacts related to ongoing groundwater management planning efforts for this area, and no mitigation is required.

For these reasons, the Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan or planning effort. Therefore, any impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

5.10.2 Cumulative Impacts Analysis
The GP PEIR evaluated the potential impacts associated with the General Plan Project, a citywide plan for buildout and design of the City. To that end, because it evaluates planned buildout (multiple projects at the programmatic level), the GP PEIR inherently considers cumulative impacts associated with population growth and increased development.

With respect to hydrology and water quality, the GP PEIR concluded that compliance with applicable local, state and federal regulations would ensure that project would not result in water quality or hydrology issues. Nevertheless, the GP PEIR concluded that cumulative buildout of the General Plan and additional runoff could result in cumulatively considera ble impacts to specific impaired watersheds (Santa Ana River and San Jacinto River).

The Proposed Project is required to adhere to local, state, and federal regulations related to water quality, including preparing a SWPPP and WQMP, and to implement BMPs during each project phase (construction and operation) that will ensure protection of water quality. Also, as discussed above, although the Proposed Project increases the impervious surfaces of the Proposed Project site and, CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.10: Hydrology and Water Quality

Page 144 ends

thus, runoff, the Proposed Proje ct incorporates design features to ensure that runoff complies with applicable standards. For those reasons, the Proposed Project would not result in project -level impacts, nor would it make a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulativ e impacts.

5.10.3 Uniformly Applied Development Standards and GP PEIR Mitigation Measures City of Riverside Municipal Code
Title 14, Chapter 14.12 regulates the discharge of wastes to the public sewer and pollutants into the storm drain systems. Section 14.12.315 prohibits the discharge of pollutants to the storm drainage system or any waterway, whether carrying water or not. Section 14.12.316 requires the preparation of a WQMP and installation of BMPs for new development and redevelopment projects in the City, and Section

14.12.319 outlines inspection and enforcement for post - construction requirements detailed in the project’s WQMP.

Title 16, Chapter 18 contains regulations pertaining to flood hazard areas in the City and implements the National Flood Insurance Program. Specifically, the ordinance outlines the process for development permit review by the Floodplain Administrator or designee as well as floodplain construction materials and standards.

Title 17 describes regulations pertaining to grading, including those intended to minimize erosion and runoff. Section 17.16.010 outlines grading permit application requirements, including noticing requirements to the SWRCB for coverage under the Statewide Construction General Permit and preparation of a SWPPP.

Applicable General Plan Policies

• 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 PS-9.8: Reduce the risk to the community from hazards related to geologic conditions, seismic activity, flooding and structural and wildland fires by requiring feasible mitigation of such impacts on discretionary development projects. • Policy PS-2.1: Reduce flood risks for residents and businesses within urbanized areas, as feasible.
• Policy PS-2.2: Encourage flood control infrastructure that does not reduce the natural character or limit the use of the site.
• Policy PS-2.6: Create and maintain evacuation routes for areas that could be affected by flooding or dam failure, with special emphasis on critical and emergency facilities.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.10: Hydrology and Water Quality

Page 145 ends

Applicable General Plan Mitigation Measures
There are no applicable General Plan Mitigation Measures.

5.10.4 Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Hydrology and Water Quality, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the Proposed Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no impacts that were not analyzed as significant effects in the GP PEIR, with which the Proposed Project is consistent.

3. There are no potentially significant off- site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP PEIR.

4. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GP PEIR.

5. No mitigation measures contained within the GP PEIR would be required because Proposed Project specific impacts would be less than significant.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.11: Land Use and Planning

Page 146 ends

5.11 Land Use and Planning
Impact

GP PEIR
Impact
Determination
Effect Peculiar
to Proposed
Project or
Site?
New or
Substantially
more Severe
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-Site or
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information/
More Severe
Impact?
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an
established community?
Less Than
Significant No No No No
b) Cause a significant
environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental
effect?
Less Than
Significant No No No No

5.11.1 Discussion
a) Would the project physically divide an established community? GP PEIR Impact - Less than Significant
The GP PEIR analyzes this threshold on pages 5.9-30 through 5.9-33. The GP PEIR concluded that there are no new proposed land uses in the General Plan that would physically divide an existing community. Therefore, impacts related to the physical division of an established community are considered less than significant.

The physical division of an established community could occur if a major road (expressway or freeway, for example) were built through an existing community or neighborhood, or if a major development was built which was inconsistent with the land uses in the community such that it divided the community. The majority of the growth that will occur in the City of Riverside as a result of the updated General Plan Land Use and Urban Design Element will occur within infill areas in the existing City limits, with additional low intensity development in the Southern Sphere area (see Figure

5.9-7, Conceptual Land Use Plan). Some development will occur on sparse, developa ble land left vacant within the City and sphere areas. However, to provide for the increase in dwelling units needed to accommodate population growth, the General Plan proposes more intense land uses within key areas and along key corridors in the City. Infill development will take three forms:
construction on undeveloped land, intensification of current land uses, and through the conversion of economically under performing and obsolete development to more appropriate land uses.

Many neighborhoods will experience little change during the planning period, while some are planned to experience change and growth. The neighborhoods with the potential for the most change/improvement include: Arlanza, Arlington, Arlington South, Casa Blanca, Downtown, Eastside, Hawarden Hills, Hunter Industrial Park, La Sierra, La Sierra Acres, La Sierra South, Magnolia CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.11: Land Use and Planning

Page 147 ends

Center, Northside, Sycamore Canyon Business Park – Canyon Springs, and University. General Plan policies for these areas aim at strengthening the community within each neighborhood, not dividing it. The General Plan establishes the “L” Corridor, which encourages intensification of land uses along Magnolia Avenue/Market Street and University Avenue, both existing major transportation and commercial corridors through the City. As these are the existing major development corridors, no new division of communities will occur through providing advanced public transportation, or more intense development. No substantial demolition of existing residential uses is proposed unde r the General Plan. There are no new proposed land uses in the General Plan that would physically divide an existing community. Therefore, impacts related to the physical division of an established community are considered less than significant.

Proposed Project
The Proposed Project site contains a grove or orange trees and bordered by Victoria Avenue to the northwest followed by single -family residences, by Millsweet Place to the northeast followed by single-family residences, by single-family residences to the southeast, and by La Sierra Avenue to the southwest followed by single-family residences. The development of the site will provide additional sidewalks and multi-use trail connections along Victoria Avenue for existing surrounding residents as well as the new residents of the Proposed Project. Once completed, the Proposed Project will provide improved pedestrian connections throughout the entire neighborhood. Therefore, the Proposed Project will ultimately not divide an established community. Impacts will be less than significant in this regard. No mitigation is required.

b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
GP PEIR Impact –Less Than Significant
The GP PEIR analyzes this threshold on pages 5.9 -33 through 5.9-42. The GP PEIR concluded that impacts, both direct and cumulative, are less than significant.

Several regionally and locally adopted land use plans, policies, and regulations would be applicable to development under the proposed General Plan, including the California Water Code Sections 10910-10915; SCAG’s Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide; South Coast Air Qualit y Management Plan; Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan; City of Riverside Zoning Code; City of Riverside Subdivision Code; and the Riverside Redevelopment Agency. All potential CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.11: Land Use and Planning

Page 148 ends

environmental impacts of the proposed General Plan were addressed throughout the GP P EIR.

Moreover, as discussed in Section 5.9 of the GP PEIR, the General Plan would not result in conflicts with applicable plans that could result in a significant environmental effect. The General Plan’s focus on in-fill development, preservation of open spaces, and incorporation of landscape requirements, for instance, was found to ensure consistency with SCAG’s RTP/SCS. Likewise, the General Plan’s promotion of compact, in -fill and pe destrian oriented development (transit friendly) would further the air quality goals in SCAQMD’s AQMP. With respect to those plans, and other applicable regional plans, the GP PEIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan would not result in any significant impacts.

The GP PEIR identified that potential environmental impacts of the proposed General Plan have been addressed throughout the GP PEIR. The changes described in the GP PEIR will affect the land use designations within several existing specific plans, including the University Avenue Specific Plan, the La Sierra University Specific Plan, and the Market Place Specific Plan. Additionally, as explained in the Land Use and Urban Design Element, the Neighborhood Plans in the proposed General Plan would replace the previously adopted Community Plans from the 1994 General Plan. Further, rescinding the Community Plans and amending the Specific Plans above for consistency with the proposed General Plan will ensure land use consistency throughout the re levant plans and areas.

Thus, impacts related to land use planning will be less than significant.

Proposed Project
Table 5.11-1: Authorization and Compliance Summary, below, generally identifies applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations that may be applicable to the Proposed Project and discusses the Proposed Project’s consistency with such plans. As discussed below, the Proposed Project would not result in any conflict with a plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. A less than significant impact would result.

Table 5.11-1: Authorization and Compliance Summary
Regulatory Document Consistency Justification
General Plan 2025

The Proposed Project is consistent with the General
Plan Land Use Designation of LDR – Low Density
Residential, which provides for the development of
single-family homes up to a density of 4.1 dwelling
units per acre (Exhibit 4). Additionally, the Proposed
Project is utilizing the State Density Bonus Law,
which permits an additional 20 percent density
bonus with the inclusion of 5 percent of affordable
residences. With the affordable residences the
Proposed Project is permitted to have a density of

4.95 dwelling units per acre, consistent with State
Density Bonus Law [Government Code § 65915].

The Proposed Project is consistent with the buildout
assumptions of the General Plan, which were
analyzed in the GP PEIR.

Zoning Code Land Use Consistency (Title 19) The Proposed Project site is zoned R-1-1/2 Acre, which is consistent with the General Plan Land Use
designation (Exhibit 4).

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.11: Land Use and Planning

Page 149 ends

Regulatory Document Consistency Justification
. The Proposed Project is providing three affordable
residences for Very Low-Income households; thus,
State Law allows the applicant waivers to reduce
or modify Zoning Code development standards in
accordance with the State Density Bonus Law,
discussed in detail below. With the granting of the
waivers, the Proposed Project meets the
development standards set forth in the Zoning
Code for the R-1-1/2 Acre Zone that may be
relevant to avoiding an environmental impact.

Note that the Proposed Project is consistent with
the General Plan’s buildout assumptions related to
population and minor deviations in development
standards do not result in an environmental impact,
as analyzed in the remainder of this CEQA
Guidelines Section 15183 analysis.

Grading Code Consistency (Title 17)

The Proposed Project has been reviewed against
the standards of the Grading Code. The Proposed
Project complies with the standards and provisions
of Title 17 of the Riverside Municipal Code.

Subdivision Code (Title 18)

The proposed Tract Map complies with the
development standards of the Subdivision Code
(Title 18).

Victoria Avenue Policy

The Proposed Project complies with the policy
guidelines for preservation, design and
development including a proposed 10-foot-wide
trail along Victoria Avenue and protection of the
existing orange groves to a depth of 100-feet from
the edge of Victoria Avenue.

Source: City of Riverside, Planning Commission Memorandum, November 7, 2024, Agenda Item No.3.

State Density Bonus Law [Government Code § 65915] and Waivers The State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) is a state mandate that allows developers with qualifying projects to utilize various tools to maximize density for the purpose of developing affordable housing. The Proposed Project is providing three residential lots for very low-income households; therefore, the Proposed Project is eligible to receive a density bonus, one concession or incentive, unlimited waivers or deviations from development standards, and state parking standards under the SDBL.

Under the SDBL, the applicant is allowed to develop the site based on the greatest number of units allowed under the LDR – Low Density Residential designation of the General Plan, which is 4.1 du/ac or, 41 residences (9.91 acres x 4.1 du/ac). Additionally, the applicant is allowed a 20 percent density bonus because it is, by restricting five percent (3 residences) of the Proposed Project’s base density to very low-income households. The Proposed Project would include an additional 8 residences, which is within the 20 percent bonus allowed, for a total of 49 residences.

Because five percent of residences permitted under the base density would be sold at prices affordable to very low -income households, the Proposed Project is eligible for a concession or CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.11: Land Use and Planning

Page 150 ends

incentive and waivers to achieve the permitted density. A waiver is a reduction or modification of any development standard that would physically preclude the construction of the Proposed Project as designed at the permitted density under the General Plan Land Use designation. The applicant requests 8 waivers to reduce or modify development standards in order to achieve the proposed density.

The applicant is requesting a density bonus which includes a request to waive the following development standards of the Zoning Code (Title 19) in order to facilitate the proposed subdivision at a density of 4.94 dwelling units per acre:

1. Decrease in minimum Lot Area
The Proposed Project is requesting a waiver from the R -1-1/2-Acre zone’s minimum lot area of 21,780 square feet. In order to accommodate the density of 4.95 du/ac allowed by the SDBL, the lots needed to be reduced to a minimum of 3,690 square feet. The map proposes residential lots ranging in size from 3,690 square feet to 7,437 square feet.

2. Reduction in Lot Width
The Proposed Project is requesting a waiver from the R -1-1/2-Acre zone’s minimum lot width of 120- feet. The Proposed Project proposes lot widths of a minimum of 41-feet-wide.

3. Reduction in Lot Depth
The Proposed Project is requesting a waiver from the R -1-1/2-Acre zone’s minimum lot depth of 150- feet. The Proposed Project proposes lot depths of a minimum of 90-feet.

4. Increase in Lot Coverage
The Proposed Project is requesting a waiver from the R-1-1/2-Acre zone’s maximum lot coverage of 30 percent. The Proposed Project proposes a maximum lot coverage of 55 percent.

5. Reduction in Front Yard Setback
The Proposed Project is requesting a waiver from the R -1-1/2-Acre zone’s minimum front yard setback of 30 -feet. The Proposed Project proposes a front setback of 10 -feet to the residence and a minimum 18-feet to the face of the garage.

6. Reduction in Side Yard Setback
The Proposed Project is requesting a waiver from the R -1-1/2-Acre zone’s minimum side yard setback of 20-feet. The Proposed Project proposes a minimum side yard setback of 4-feet.

7. Reduction in Rear Yard Setback
The Proposed Project is requesting a waiver from the R -1-1/2-Acre zone’s minimum rear yard setback of 35-feet. The Proposed Project proposes a minimum rear yard setback of 15-feet.

Table 5 .11-2: Compliance with Applicable Development Standards provides a summary of the waivers.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.11: Land Use and Planning

Page 151 ends

Table 5.11-2: Compliance With Applicable Development Standards Chapter 19.100.040
Residential Development Standards R-1-1/2 Acre Lots 1-49 Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent Waiver
Lot Area 21,780 square feet 3,690 square feet ☐ ☐ 
Lot Width 125 feet 41-feet ☐ ☐ 
Lot Depth 150 feet 90-feet ☐ ☐ 

Building Setbacks
Front – 30-feet
10-feet to the
house/18-feet to
garage face ☐ ☐ 
Side – 20-feet 4-feet
Rear – 35-feet 15-feet
Lot Coverage 30% 55% ☐ ☐ 
Source: City of Riverside, Planning Commission Memorandum, November 7, 2024, Agenda Item No.3.

As demonstrated throughout this Checklist document, the requested waivers will not result in adverse public health, safety, or be contrary to state or federal law. The waivers will not have an adverse impact on any real property listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. Additionally, granting the waiver results in a Proposed Project with three residences affordable to very low-income households.

Strategic Plan Alignment
This Proposed Project contributes to the Envision Riverside 2025 City Council Strategic Priority 2 – Community Well -Being (Goal 2.1 – Facilitate the development of a quality and diverse housing supply that is available and affordable to a wide range of income).14 This item aligns with the following Cross-Cutting Threads:

1. Community Trust : The proposed residential subdivision requires public hearings by the Planning Commission and City Council. Additionally, public comment is encouraged through the environmental review process and the 20-day public noticing period.

2. E quity : The proposed residential subdivision provides housing opportunities that benefits all residences in the community and region.

3. F iscal Responsibility: All project costs are borne by the applicant.

4. Innovation: The proposed residential subdivision meets the growing community’s needs for increased housing opportunities.

5. S ustainability and Resiliency: All new construction will meet the most up-to-date Building Codes. The proposed residential subdivision is designed to meet the current and future needs of the community.

14 City of Riverside, Planning Commission Memorandum, November 7, 2024, Agenda Item No.3.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.11: Land Use and Planning

Page 152 ends

With respect to other land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect, the analysis in this Checklist, included, but was not limited to, the following:
• City of Riverside General Plan 2025 Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR) • Title 7 - Noise Control.
• Title 16 - Building and Construction.
• Title 17 – Grading.
• Title 18 – Subdivision.
• Title 19 – Zoning.
• Title 20 - Cultural Resources.
• Citywide Design Guidelines and Sign Guidelines.
• City of Riverside 2020 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). • City of Riverside Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.
• City of Riverside Economic Prosperity Action Plan and Climate Action Plan (CAP). • Western Riverside County of Riverside, Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP).
• Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin.
• Southern California Association of Governments, Connect SoCal (RTP/SCS). • Victoria Avenue Policy.

The Proposed Project’s consistency with each of those plans is evaluated in various, applicable sections of this Checklist analysis. Based on this analysis, the Proposed Project will not conflict with any local or regional land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, the Proposed Project impacts will be less than significant on a direct, indirect, or cumulative basis. No mitigation is required.

5.11.2 Cumulative Impacts Analysis
The GP PEIR evaluated the potential impacts associated with the General Plan Proposed Project, a citywide plan for buildout and design of the City. To that end, because it evaluates planned buildout CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.11: Land Use and Planning

Page 153 ends

(multiple projects at the programmatic level), the GP PEIR inherently considers cumulative impacts associated with population growth and increased development.

With respect to land use, the GP PEIR concluded that the General Plan was consistent with SCAG’s goals and policies by proposing a mix of land uses that will improve the jobs/housing ratio, reduce the number and length of work trips, and provide opportunities for affordable housing. Additionally, the General Plan contains policies that will ensure new development is compatible with existing regional development plans such as the SCAQMP and SCAG regional plans. For those reasons, the General Plan Proposed Project ’s cumulative land use impacts were determined to be less than significant.

The Proposed Project is consistent with the assumed buildout under the General Plan, and implements the residential vision for the site. The Proposed Project proposes development in an in-fill nature, providing housing within proximity to transit and other uses. The Proposed Project itself is consistent with applicable regional plans and will not obstruct their attainment. Therefore, the Proposed Project does not result in a cumulatively considerable impact.

5.11.3 Uniformly Applied Development Standards and GP PEIR Mitigation Measures City of Riverside Municipal Code
Title 19 – Zoning Code: RMC Title 19 Zoning states:
“The purpose of the Zoning Code is to encourage, classify, designate, regulate, restrict and segregate the highest and best location and use of buildings, structures and land for agriculture, residence, commerce, trade, industry, water conservation or other purposes in appropriate places; to regulate and limit the height, number of stories and size of buildings and other structures hereafter erected or altered; to regulate and determine the size of yards and other open spaces; and, to regulate and limit the density of population and for such purpose to di vide the City into zones of such number, shape and area as may be deemed best suited to carry out these regulations and provide for their enforcement.”
Furthermore, Chapter 19.100.010 .D in part describes the purpose of the R-1 ½ zone as “to provide areas for large lot single -family residences.” Title 16-Building and Construction : Provides minimum standards to safeguard life or limb, health, property and public welfare by regulating the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location and maintenance of buildings, equipment, structures and grading within the City; the electrical, plumbing, heating, comfort cooling and certain other equipment specifically regulated in the City.

Title 7-Noise: In order to control unnecessary, excessive and/or annoying noise in the City, it is declared to be the policy of the City to prohibit such noise generated by the sources specified in this CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.11: Land Use and Planning

Page 154 ends

title. It shall be the goal of the City to minimize noise levels and mitigate the effects of noise to provide a safe and healthy living environment.

Title 17. Grading: This title sets forth rules and regulations intended to further implement the goals and objectives of the General Plan, to control evacuation, grading and earthwork construction, including fills and embankments. It also establishes the administrative procedures for grading plan approval, issuance of permits, inspections, and establishes penalties for unauthorized grading activity. The purpose of this title is to protect life, limb, property, the public welfare and the physical environment by regulating grading on private property.

Title 18: Subdivision: The purpose of this Subdivision Code is to regulate and control the design and improvement of subdivisions.

Title 20: Cultural Re sources: Promotes the public health, safety and general welfare by providing for the identification, protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of improvements, buildings, structures, signs, objects, features, sites, places, areas, districts, neighborhoods, streets, works of art, natural features and significant permanent landscaping having special historical, archaeological, cultural, architectural, community, aesthetic or artistic value in the City.

Citywide Design Guidelines: The Citywide Design Guid elines work to reinforce this physical image of Riverside. The Guidelines are intended to promote quality, well -designed development throughout Riverside that enhances existing neighborhoods, creates identity, and improves the overall quality of life within the City. The guidelines are intended to promote a desired level of future development in Riverside.

Victoria Avenue Policy: Policies for the Preservation, Design and Development on Victoria Avenue between La Sierra Avenue and Myrtle Avenue.

Applicable General Plan Policies
• Policy LU-8.2: Avoid density increases or intrusion of non- residential uses that are incompatible with existing neighborhoods.
• Policy CCM-2.9: Design all street improvement projects in a comprehensive fashion to include consideration of street trees, pedestrian walkways, bicycle lanes, equestrian pathways, signing, lighting, noise and air quality wherever any of these factors are applicable.
• Policy CCM-2.14: Ensure that intersection improvements on Victoria Avenue are limited to areas where Level of Service is below the City standard of D. Allow only the minimum necessary improvements in recognition of Victoria Avenue’s historic character. • Policy CCM-8.2: Promote walking and biking as a safe mode of travel for children attending local schools.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.11: Land Use and Planning

Page 155 ends

Applicable General Plan Mitigation Measures
There are no applicable General Plan Mitigation Measures.

5.11.4 Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Land Use and Planning, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the Proposed Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no impacts that were not analyzed as significant effects in the GP PEIR, with which the Proposed Project is consistent.

3. There are no potentially significant off- site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP PEIR.

4. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GP PEIR.

5. No mitigation measures contained within the GP PEIR would be required because no mitigation measures for individual projects were identified in the GP PEIR to be required, and Proposed Project specific impacts would be less than significant.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.12: Mineral Resources

Page 156 ends

5.12 Mineral Resources
Impact

GP PEIR
Impact
Determination
Effect Peculiar
to Proposed
Project or
Site?
New or
Substantially
more Severe
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-Site or
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information/
More Severe
Impact?
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability
of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state?
Less Than
Significant No No No No
b) Result in the loss of availability
of a locally important mineral
resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific
plan, or other land use plan?
Less Than
Significant No No No No

5.12.1 Discussion
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) W ould the p roject result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? GP PEIR Impact – Less than Significant
The GP PEIR analyzes this threshold on pages 5.10-5 through 5.10-6. The GP PEIR concluded that the mineral deposits in the MRZ-2 and MRZ-4 areas, but the General Plan policies do not preclude mining activities, and therefore, impacts were considered less than significant.

State-classified mineral resource zones MRZ-2 and MRZ -4 areas in the Planning Area are shown in Figure 5.10-1, Mineral Resource, of the GP PEIR. The proposed General Plan Land Use Policy Map provides for the preservation of the majority of MRZ-2 land as either open space or parks/recreation, both of which do not preclude mining activities. The six General Plan Land Use designations for the MRZ-2 land are Open Space/Natural Resources, Public Parks, Public Facilities/Institutional, Medium Density Residential, Office and Private Recreation. The Open Space/Natural Resource designation assists in the protection of natural resources while maintaining open space for the protection of public health and safety. The Public Parks designation is assigned to parks that provide passive and active recreational opportunities. A small portion of the MRZ-2 area lies in Public Facilities/Institutional designation, which allows for schools, hospitals, libraries, utilities, and government institutions. Both the Open Space/Natural Resource and Public Parks designations are fully compatible with the MRZ- 2 area. There are two zones consistent with the Public Facilities and Institutional Uses General Plan land use designation. These two zones are the Public Facilities (PF) Zone and the Airport (AIR) Zone.

Neither of these Zones permits mining or mineral extraction. The Office and Private Recreation CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.12: Mineral Resources

Page 157 ends

General Plan land use designation also does not allow mining or mineral extraction in that zone. For mining or mineral extraction to occur at this location a General Plan amendment, change of Zone and a conditional use permit would be required. Although these land use designations are incompatible with the MRZ -2 area according to the City’s Municipal Code, specific sites for any public/semipublic uses on MRZ-2 areas (see GP PEIR Figure 5.10-1, Mineral Resources) will be subject to separate discretionary approval by the Planning Department. In any event, the GP PEIR noted that the MRZ-2 area has been highly urbanized for nearly a century, and mining in this area is not considered reasonably foreseeable. Based on Figure 5.10 -1, Mineral Resources, the majority of the Planning Area is designated MRZ-4, which means there is insufficient data to make a determination if there are significant mineral resources in the area. Therefore, the Land Use Plan has taken the MRZ- 2 designated area in the City into consideration, and the land use designations do not preclude the mining of the underlain resources. Additionally, it is unknown and therefore unlikely that there are areas of significant mineral deposits in the MRZ -4 areas that would be affected by the implementation of the General Plan, therefore, the GP PEIR concluded that impacts are considered less than significant.

Proposed Project
The Proposed Project does not involve the extraction of mineral resources. The Proposed Project site is located in Mineral Resource Zone MRZ-3 which indicates that the area contains known or inferred mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource significance. However, no mineral resources have been identified or found to be associated with the Proposed Project site, and there is no historical use of the site or surrounding area for mineral extraction purposes. The closest area with identified mineral resources is the Santa Ana River channel to the north which contains significant sand and gravel (aggregate) resources, but which is not extensively mined due to its important flood control function. The Proposed Project site is not, nor is it adjacent to, a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated in the General Plan 2025, specific plan, o r other land use plan.

Also, the site’s current General Plan designation and zoning do not permit mineral extraction.

Therefore, the Proposed Project will have no impact on mineral resources on a direct, indirect, or cumulative basis.

The GP PEIR determined that there are no specific areas within the City or the City Sphere Area that have locally important mineral resource recovery sites and that the implementation of the General Plan 2025 would not significantly preclude the ability to extract state -designated resources. The Proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan 2025. Therefore, there is no impact on a direct, indirect, or cumulative basis and no mitigation is required.

Page 158 ends

or is there new information that would result in a more severe impact than identified within the GP PEIR.

5.12.2 Cumulative Impacts Analysis
The GP PEIR evaluated the potential impacts associated with the General Plan Proposed Project, a citywide plan for buildout and design of the City. To that end, because it evaluates planned buildout (multiple projects at the programmatic level), the GP PEIR inherently considers cumulative impacts associated with population growth and increased development.

With respect to mineral resources, the GP PEIR concluded that the General Plan would not result in the loss of availa bility of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. The General Plan’s land use designations were compatible with the MRZ -2 zone, according to the Riverside Municipal Code. The General Plan would not result in any cumulative mineral resources impacts.

For the reasons discussed above, the Proposed Project would not impact mineral resources. There are no known mineral resources on the site and there is no known historical use of the site or surrounding area for mineral extraction purposes. Also, the site’s current General Plan designation and zoning do not permit mineral extraction. The Proposed Project will not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to mineral resources.

5.12.3 Uniformly Applied Development Standards and GP PEIR Mitigation Measures There are no development standards that would apply to this specific Proposed Project.

Applicable General Plan Policies
There are no General Plan Policies that would apply to this specific Proposed Project.

Applicable General Plan Mitigation Measures
There are no applicable General Plan Mitigation Measures.

5.12.4 Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Land Use and Planning, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the Proposed Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no impacts that were not analyzed as significant effects in the GP PEIR, with which the Proposed Project is consistent.

3. There are no potentially significant off- site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP PEIR.

4. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GP PEIR.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.12: Mineral Resources

Page 159 ends

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.13: Noise

Page 160 ends

5.13 Noise
Impact

GP PEIR
Impact
Determination
Effect Peculiar
to Proposed
Project or
Site?
New or
Substantially
more Severe
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-Site or
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information/
More Severe
Impact?
Would the project:
a) Generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in
the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
Significant and
Unavoidable No No No No
b) Generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No No
c) For a project located within
the vicinity of a private airstrip or
an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise
levels?
Less Than
Significant No No No No

5.13.1 Discussion
The following studies were performed to determine potential Proposed Project-specific impacts:
 La Sierra & Victoria Residential Project – Noise Assessment, prepared by KPC EHS Consultants, LLC, February 4, 2025 (Appendix H).

a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the p roject in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.13: Noise

Page 161 ends

GP PEIR Impact - Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated for temporary increases in ambient noise and Significant and Unavoidable for permanent increases in ambient noise The GP PEIR analyzes this threshold on pages 5.11-21 through 5.11-23. The GP PEIR found that existing noise levels exceeded standards in some locations around the City and the General Plan build out will increase noise levels through population growth and additional traffic. As stated in the GP PEIR, “The term “substantial,” as used in this threshold, is not defined in most environmental compliance guidelines. Noise analysis methodology is accurate only to the nearest w hole decibel and most people only notice a change in the noise environment when the difference in noise levels are around 3 dB CNEL. An increase or decrease in noise level of at least 5 dBA is required before any noticeable change in community response wou ld be expected. Therefore, a clearly perceptible increase (+5 dB) in noise exposure of sensitive receptors could be considered significant.” The primary noise sources in the City are freeways/highways, and existing sensitive receptors near such sources experience substantial noise. Existing sensitive land uses will continue to be exposed to noise levels in excess of established standards set forth in the General Plan Noise Element. Therefore, even with implementation of the General Plan policies and implementation tools, including avoiding locating noise sensitive land uses in existing and anticipated impact areas and ensuring new development is compatible with the noise environment (General Plan Policies N-1.5 and 2.1), existing land uses will be exposed to noise levels in excess of the General Plan Noise Element standards, which will result in a significant impact.

By requiring new development proposals to adhere to the noise standards and compatibility matrix in the Noise Element, and to provide noise mitigation as necessary, the City will ensure that new developments are compatible with the noise environment. General Plan Tool N -1, for instance, requires the City to review development proposals to ensure that noise standards and compatibility set forth in the Noise Element are met to the maximum extent practicable. The Implementation Tool N-1 requires acoustical analyses for all proposed development within the 60 dB CNEL contour as shown in the Noise Element and for all proposed residential projects within the vicinity of existing and proposed commercial and industrial areas. Nevertheless, the GP PEIR incorporated mitigation measures MM Noise 1 and MM Noise 2 to ensure that noise from future uses would not result in impacts.

The Noise Code amendment proposed by the General Plan Project will bring the Noise Code into consistency with the proposed Noise Element of the General Plan and State regulations, and to facilitate development of mixed-use and in-fill uses. By increasing the noise levels which are allowed, both interior at night and exterior, these existing receptors will have less protection from nuisance noise. Impacts are considered to be significant to existing receptors. The General Plan Project’s noise impact is considered significant and unavoidable.

To reduce the potential impact of noise caused by new development, the General Plan identified the need to implement Mitigation Measures MM Noise 1, MM Noise 2, MM Noise 3, and MM Noise 4 (identified on GP PEIR page 5.11-42) for new development. However, while these measures would reduce impacts, they would not reduce them to less than significant. (For GP PEIR mitigation measures relevant to the Proposed Project, refer to Section 5.13.2 of this document).

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.13: Noise

Page 162 ends

The GP PEIR acknowledged that construction related activities, although short term, are the most common source of noise that could affect occupants of neighboring uses. It notes that construction activity, although temporary, can be substantially disruptive to adjac ent uses and that future development will result in construction noise. General Plan policies and tools such as those that enforce and limit noise from construction activities, as required under General Plan Policies and Implementation Plan Tools, such as Implementation Plan Tool N-1, will reduce most project -related impacts below a level of significance. Individual development projects will continue to comply with existing City standards and practices regarding noise/land use compatibility review and the control of stationary noise sources. The City’s Municipal Code exempts construction noise from applicable noise standards, and instead restricts construction to specific hours of the day and certain days of the week, unless a variance is granted. Variances are only granted to emergencies and u nusual circumstances. To mitigate temporary noise when a variance is granted, the GP PEIR required incorporation of MM Noise 4 to help reduce impacts to existing sensitive receptors.

Implementation Tool N-2 requires the implementation of CEQA to assess noise land use compatibility, construction-related noise, on -site stationary noise sources, and vehicular -related noise. Impacts related to construction vibration are location -specific and are not expected to be citywide.

Construction activities are temporary and limited. As the General Plan does not propose any specific construction project, and with implementation of the City Municipal Code and Implementation Plan Tool N -2, impacts related to excessive groundborne vibration due to construction activities ar e considered less than significant at the General Plan programmatic level.

Considering the short-term nature of construction, the fact that construction is a common aspect of urban development, and the provisions of the City’s Noise Ordinance’s limitations with respect to construction hours, the GP PEIR concluded that the temporary and periodic increase in noise levels related to noise was a less than significant impact.

Ambient Noise Levels. Traffic along La Sierra Avenue and Victoria Avenue is the primary source of noise affecting the Proposed Project Site and surrounding area (Appendix H). Table 5-13-2: Ambient Noise Levels indicates the average ambient sound levels (Leq) in the Proposed Project area range from 54 to 68 dBA while the estimated CNEL ranges from 54 to 70 dBA. The highest noise levels were measured near the La Sierra Avenue/Victoria Avenue intersection (northwest corner) closest to the highest amount of vehicular traffic, while the lowest levels were measured at the southeast corner furthest away from the two roadways.

The Noise Measurement Data (Appendix H) determined that the closest sensitive receptors to the Proposed Project site in all directions around the site ranged from 67 to 176 feet although the closest receptors were approximately 67 feet from the eastern boundary of the site along Millsweet Place (Exhibit 5.13:-1 Closest Sensitive Receptors Near the Proposed Project Site).

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.13: Noise

Page 163 ends

Exhibit 5.13:-1 Closest Sensitive Receptors Near the Proposed Project Site

The GP PEIR, Figure 5.11-6 Roadway Noise identifies that 60 CNEL exists along La Sierra Avenue, from the City limits on the north, to north of the intersection of La Sierra Avenue and Victoria Avenue. The Proposed Project site is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of La Sierra Avenue and Victoria Avenue; therefore, while the Proposed Project Site is not within the identified 60 CNEL zone, it may receive some sound influence from the 60 CNEL zone at the Proposed Project Site’s northwest corner.

Receptor Distance from Project Site
Boundary (feet)
Distance from Project
Construction Center (feet)
Residencial Receptor R-1 67 360
Residencial Receptor R-2 74 460

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.13: Noise

Page 164 ends

Construction Noise
Sensitive Receptors (Noise Sensitive Land Uses)
Noise-sensitive land uses are locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could adversely affect the use of the land. Sensitive receptor locations are generally identified as facilities where it is possible that an individual could remain for 24 hours. Commercial and industrial facilities are not included in the definition of sensitive receptor because employees typically are present for shorter periods of time, such as eight hours.

Residences, schools, hospitals, guest lodging, libraries, churches, nursing homes, auditoriums, concert halls, amphitheaters, playgrounds, and parks are considered noise sensitive. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site are residences located adjacent to the south and east boundary of the Proposed Project Site. The closest residence is designated as R-1 and is approximately 67 feet from the northeastern boundary of the site and 360 feet from the center of the site.

The next closet residential receptor is designated R -2 and is approximately 74 feet from the northeastern boundary of the site and 360 feet from the center of the site.

Exhibit 5.1-1: Closest Sensitive Receptors Near the Proposed Project Site, located at the end of this section, shows the location of all of the sensitive receptors. Table 5.13-3: Closest Sensitive Receptor Locations identifies the attributes of the closest receptors.

Table 5.13-1: Closet Sensitive Receptors Locations
Receptor Distance from Project Site
Boundary (feet)
Distance from Project
Construction Center (feet)
Residencial Receptor R-1 67 360
Residencial Receptor R-2 74 460
Source: KPC EHS Consultants, LLC, Noise Assessment Table 3-1 Sensitive Receiver Locations, (Appendix H)

As noted above, Tool N -2 assesses future development projects’ potential for noise and ground - borne vibration impacts related to noise land use compatibility, construction- related noise, on-site stationary noise sources, and vehicular-related noise, and it is applicable to the Proposed Project.

However, Tool N-2 did not establish numeric maximum acceptable construction source noise levels at potentially affected receivers. Therefore, consistent with past CEQA documents, the City has consistently and uniformly applied a numerical construction threshold based on the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual is used for analysis of daytime construction impacts. According to the FTA, local noise ordinances are typically not very useful in evaluating construction noise. They usually relate to nuisance and hours of allowed activity, and sometimes specify limits in terms of maximum levels, but are generally not practical for assessing the impact of a construction project. Project construction noise criteria should account for the existing noise environment, the absolute noise levels during construction activities, the duration of the construction, and the adjacent land use. Due to the lack of standardized construction noise thresholds, the FTA provides guidelines that can be considered reasonable criteria for construction CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.13: Noise

Page 165 ends

noise assessment. The FTA considers a daytime exterior construction noise level of 80 dBA Leq as a reasonable threshold for noise sensitive residential land use.

Construction activ ities that would create noise include site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Noise levels associated with the construction will vary with the different types of construction equipment , the duration of the activity, and distance from the source. Construction noise will have a temporary or periodic increase in the ambient noise level above the existing levels within the Project vicinity. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site are residences located adjacent to the northeastern boundary of the Project site.

To estimate the potential impact of construction noise at the nearest sensitive receptors, equipment that is expected to be used during construction was input into the Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) version 1.1 to generate anticipated noise levels. The RCNM generates the maximum noise levels (Lmax) and the equivalent continuous sound level (Leq).

The Leq is a calculation of the anticipated steady sound pressure level which, over a given time period (day, evening, night) has the same total energy as the actual fluctuating noise. The RCNM also uses an acoustical use factor in the noise calculations. The acoustical use factor is the percentage of time each piece of construction equipment is assumed to be operating at the full power level and is used to estimate the Leq values from the Lmax values. For example, t ypical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Noise levels will be loudest during the site preparation and grading phases. Table 3-3, Worst-Case Construction Noise Levels R-1 @ Property Boundary (Site Preparation & Grading), Table 3 -4, Worst-Case Construction Noise Levels R-1 @ Center of Site (Site Preparation & Grading). Table 3 -5, Worst-Case Construction Noise Levels R -2 @ Property Boundary (Site Preparation & Grading), and Table 3 -6, Worst -Case Construction Noise Levels R-2 @ Center of Site (Site Preparation & Grading) , identifies the level of noise generated by construction equipment typically associated with the site preparation and grading phases.

To control noise impacts associated with the construction of the Project, the City has established limits to the hours of operation. Section 7.35.020 (G) of the General Noise Regulations indicates that noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property; provided a permit has been obtained from the City as required; and provided said activities do not take place between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on Saturdays, or at any time on Sunday or a Federal holiday.

With implementation of the above standard conditions of approval, construction noise impacts would be less than significant.

While the City establishes limits to the hours during which construction activity may take place, it does not identify specific noise level limits for construction noise levels. Therefore, to evaluate whether the Project will generate a substantial increase in the short -term noise levels at the offsite sensitive receptors (residences), the construction-related noise level threshold used in this assessment is based on the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) criteria 80 dBA Leq construction noise criterion at noise sensitive receptor property line.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.13: Noise

Page 166 ends

The Worst-Case scenario places each piece of equipment operating at the same time in the same location for a full 8- hour period was calculated with results provided in Table 5.13-4 , Worst-Case Construction Noise Levels R-1 @ Property Boundary (Site Preparation & Grading), Table 5.13-5, Worst- Case Construction Noise Levels R-1 @ Center of Site (Site Preparation & Grading). Table 5.13-6, Worst- Case Construction Noise Levels R -2 @ Property Boundary (Site Preparation & Grading), and Table

5.13-7, Worst-Case Construction Noise Levels R-2 @ Center of Site (Site Preparation & Grading). The Center of the site was chosen for analysis in this assessment as it provides an assessment of heavy construction equipment noise as it moves across the site during site preparation and grading phases.

The Center of Site analysis provides the most accurate assessment as equipment during an 8-hour period will be continually moving closer and further away from any receptors.

Table 5.13-4 Worst-Case Construction Noise Levels R-1 @ Property Boundary (Site Preparation & Grading)
Phase Equipment Type Leq dBA
Total
Site Preparation Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 71.0
Site Preparation Excavator 74.5
Site Preparation Total Noise Level 76.1
Grading Grader 78.5
Grading Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 71.0
Grading Total Noise Level 79.2

Table 5.13-5 Worst-Case Construction Noise Levels R-1 @ Center of Site (Site Preparation & Grading) Phase Equipment Type Leq
dBA/Total
Site Preparation Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 56.4
Site Preparation Excavator 59.6
Site Preparation Total Noise Level 61.3
Grading Grader 63.9
Grading Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 56.4
Grading Total Noise Level 64.6

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.13: Noise

Page 167 ends

Table 5.13-6 Worst-Case Construction Noise Levels R-2 @ Property Boundary (Site Preparation & Grading)
Phase Equipment Type Leq dBA
Total
Site Preparation Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 70.2
Site Preparation Excavator 73.3
Site Preparation Total Noise Level 75.0
Grading Grader 77.6
Grading Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 70.2
Grading Total Noise Level 78.3

Table 5.13-7 Worst-Case Construction Noise Levels R-2 @ Center of Site (Site Preparation & Grading) Phase Equipment Type Leq
dBA/Total
Site Preparation Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 54.3
Site Preparation Excavator 57.5
Site Preparation Total Noise Level 59.2
Grading Grader 61.7
Grading Rubber Tired Dozer 54.3
Grading Total Noise Level 62.4

During the construction phase the noise levels will be the highest during site preparation and grading as heavy equipment pass along the Project site boundaries. During the site preparation and grading phases, which produce the highest noise levels, equipment will not be stationary, rather equipment will be moving throughout the site at varying speeds and power levels and as a result not operating at the maximum noise level for the entire workday. If multiple pieces of construction equipment were to operate simultaneously and next to each other on the property closest to the residential uses the construction noise impacts would be 76.1 Leq dBA during site preparation and 79.2 Leq dBA during grading operations. The same equipment operating from the center of the site to the nearest residential uses construction noise impacts would be 61.3 Leq dBA during site preparation and 64.6 Leq dBA during grading operations.

The levels of noise from multiple pieces of heavy equipment operating simultaneously 67 -feet from the closest receptor (R-1) as indicated in Table 5.13-4 and 5.13-5 are all below the FTA of 80 dBA Leq and would be less than significant. Construction noise is of short -term duration and will not present CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.13: Noise

Page 168 ends

any long -term impacts on the project site or the su rrounding area. The Proposed Project would comply with the Municipal Code limitations on hours of construction and would not see a variance to those limitations.

The Project’s construction noise impacts are considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Operational Noise – Offsite Traffic Noise Impact
Once constructed, the Proposed Project would generate noise from vehicular traffic on surrounding roadways. The computer model used in the Noise Study estimated how the noise environment would change due to Proposed Project traffic once the Proposed Project was occupied. Vehicle noise is a combination of the noises produced by the engine, exhaust, and tires. The primary source of noise generated by the Proposed Project will be the vehicle traffic generated by the vehicle ingress and egress to the Proposed Project site. Under existing conditions, the site does not generate any traffic noise that impacts the surrounding area. According to the Federal Highway Administration, Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance, the level of roadway traffic noise depends on three things: (1) the volume of the traffic, (2) the speed of the traffic, and (3) the number of trucks in the flow of the traffic. Generally, the loudness of traffic noise is increased by heavier traffic volumes, higher speeds, and greater numbers of trucks. These factors are discussed below. • The Volume of the Traffic. Upon buildout, the P roposed Project is expected to generate approximately 490 average daily vehicle trips (ADT) during the weekdays (see Section 17. a).

Traffic counts were obtained by the Riverside Transportation Department which showed an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of 25,457 vehicles on La Sierra Avenue and 5,857 ADT on Victoria Avenue. According to Caltrans, the human ear can begin to detect sound level increases of 3 decibels (dB) in typical noisy environments. 8 A doubling of sound energy (e.g.,
doubling the volume of traffic on a highway) that would result in a 3-dBA increase in sound, would generally be barely detectable. Implementation of the Proposed Project will increase traffic volumes in the area occurring along area roadways but not to the extent that traffic volumes will be doubled creating a +3dBA noise increase or result in a perceivable noise increase. The Proposed Project is also within the development levels assumed in the GP PEIR, including the roadway capacity assumpt ions. Therefore, operational noise impacts would be less than significant.
• T he Speed of Traffic. La Sierra Avenue is a 4-lane divided road and has a posted speed limit of 45-mph. Victoria Avenue is a 2-lane divided road and has a posted speed limit of 45-mph.

According to the Center for Environmental Excellence by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) traffic moving at a speed of 60 mph will sound twice as loud as traffic at 30 mph. Lower speed limits such as the 45-mph speed limit on La Sierra and Victoria Avenues produce a lower noise level due to decreases in engine and tire generated noise.
15 15 AASHTO https://environment.transportation.org/education/environmental-topics/traffic-noise/traffic-noise-overview/ accessed February 2025 CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.13: Noise

Page 169 ends

• The Number of Trucks in the Flow of the Traffic. The Proposed Project is a residential development in a residential area. Residential land use will not routinely generate noise from large trucks. The Noise Study prepared for the Proposed Project (Appendix H), determined that the anticipated traffic flow resulting from the Proposed Project would be unlikely to cause significant noise impacts relative to the ambient noise levels in neighboring areas. A barely perceptible change will need an increment of at least 3 dBA and such a change in sound level will require doubling the volume of traffic in the area. Since the Proposed Project would only result in a daily traffic volume of 490 vehicles, the Proposed Project noise impacts from vehicular traffic would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Operational Noise – Onsite Residential Activity
In addition to the offsite traffic noise impacts, the Noise Study predicted mechanical equipment noise levels at the nearest sensitive receiver would be 42 dBA. Typical operational sound levels generated by single- family residential activities include normal outdoor convers ations, air conditioner units, and lawn care equipment with levels as indicated below:
• Normal conversation, air conditioner - 60 dB.
• Gas-powered lawnmowers and leaf blowers – 80 to 85 dBA.16 The noise generated from air conditioners and lawn care equipment is not at constant and consistent levels throughout the day. Lawn care is performed during daylight hours for short durations and although air conditioners are operating both day and night they are cycling on/off with windows closed conditions. Stationary noise levels would be attenuated as with mobile noise sources with standard building construction and windows closed by approximately 25 dBA.

The USEPA identifies noise levels affecting health and welfare as exposure levels over 70 dBA over 24 hours. Noise levels for various levels are identified according to the use of the area. Levels of 45 dbA are associated with indoor residential areas, hospitals, and schools, whereas 55 dBA is identified for outdoor areas where typical residential human activity takes place. According to the USEPA levels of 55 dbA outdoors and 45 dbA indoors are identified as levels of noise considered to permit spoken conversation and other activities such as sleeping, working, and recreation, which are part of the daily human condition.
17 Levels exceeding 55 dbA in a residential setting are normally short and not significant in affecting the health and welfare of residents.

These levels comply with Riverside’s Noise Standards for day and nighttime hours. Therefore, this impact is less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Based on the results above, neither the Proposed Project’s construction or operation would expose persons to or generate noise levels above standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable agency standards with the implementation of the City’s regulations and policies.

16 Center for Disease Control, “Loud Noised Can Cause Hearing Loss”. , https://www.cdc.gov/hearing- loss/about/?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/hearing_loss/default.html, accessed on February 4, 2025 17 USEPA “EPA Identifies Noise Levels Affecting Health and Welfare” https://archive.epa.gov/epa/aboutepa/epa-identifies-noise-levels- affecting-health-and-welfare.html a ccessed February 4, 2025.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.13: Noise

Page 170 ends

Overall, t he Proposed Project has been designed consistent City’s General Plan Policies and mitigation measures identified in the GP PEIR. The GP PEIR identified that with mitigation, impacts to noise during General Plan implementation would be significant and unavoidable. Based on the analysis above, the Proposed Project would not exceed impacts as identified by the GP PEIR.

b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
GP PEIR Impact - Less Than Significant Most Places; Significant and Unavoidable for Development Near Train Tracks
The GP PEIR analyzes this threshold on pag es 5.11-23 through 5.11-25. The GP PEIR concluded that overall, impacts would be less than significant. However, for development adjacent to train tracks, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Construction related activities, although short term, are the most common source of groundborne noise that could affect occupants of neighboring uses throughout the City. The City Municipal Code Section 7.35.210 restricts construction to specific hours of the day and certain days of the week, unless a variance is obtained. Variances are only granted for emergencies and unusual circumstances. The General Plan Implementation Plan (Appendix A to the General Plan) contains a list of implementation measures called “tools.” Tool N-2 states, “Assess future development projects’ potential for noise and ground-borne vibration impacts related to noise-land use compatibility, construction-related noise, on-site stationary noise sources, and vehicular-related noise.” Tool N-2 will allow the City to determine the necessar y project -specific measures needed to ensure future projects anticipated by the General Plan Project comply with City noise and vibration requirements.

With implementation of the City Municipal Code and Implementation Plan Tool N-2, impacts related to excessive groundborne vibration due to construction activities are considered less than significant.

Proposed Project Impact
According to the Proposed Project’s Noise Study, construction equipment associated with building the Proposed Project would be the only vibration- generating source introduced by the Proposed Project, as there are no vibration sources from operations that will introduce vibration into the environment. Vibration generated by construction equipment, unless specified otherwise through permitting, would only occur during approved work hours per the City of Riverside, 7:00 am – 7:00 pm, six days a week, excluding holidays.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.13: Noise

Page 171 ends

According to Federal Transit Administration guidelines, a vibration criterion of 0.20 inch per second should be considered as the significant impact level for non- engineered timber and masonry buildings. Furthermore, structures or buildings constructed of reinforced -concrete, steel, or timber, have vibration damage criteria of 0.50 inch per second pursuant to the FTA guidelines.

Vibration levels of typical construction equipment at 25 feet, according to the FTA, Guidelines is identified in Table 5 .13-7: Vibration Levels of Typical Construction Equipment at 25 ft . T he nearest sensitive receptor is approximately 60 feet from the Proposed Project Site.

Table 5.13-2: Vibration Levels of Typical Construction Equipment at 25 ft Equipment PPV (in/sec) at 25 feet RMS (in/sec) at 25 feet Small bulldozer 0.003 0.002
Jackhammer 0.035 0.025
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.054
Large bulldozer 0.089 0.063
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, September 2018.

The closest sensitive receptor to the Project property line is minimally 67 feet from the property line.

The estimated construction vibration level from a large bulldozer (worst case scenario) measured at 25-feet would create a vibration level of 0.089 in/sec PPV which does not exceed t he 0.2 in/sec threshold and is below the Caltrans Guideline Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria Strongly perceptible human response of 0.10 PPV in/sec continuous/frequent intermittent sources. 18 Therefore, the vibrations at the nearest sensitive receptor will remain well below the strongly perceptible annoyance criteria and potential residential vibration damage criteria thresholds listed in the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Induced Vibration Guidance Manual at or beyond the lot line.

During operations of the Project following construction the primary source of vibration would be from vehicle traffic. Traffic vibration levels are dependent on vehicle characteristics, load, speed, and pavement conditions. Typical vibration levels from heavy truck activity at normal traffic speeds are in the order of 0.004 in/sec PPV at 25 feet based on the FTA’s Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Assessment (2018). As the proposed Project is a Worship Center truck traffic which would create the largest vibration impact will be limited. Traffic once on site will be travelling at very low speeds and it is expected that traffic and any truck vibration impacts off site would not exceed the 0.2 in/sec PPV threshold.

Based on the preceding analysis, the Proposed Project will have a less than significant impact on the exposure of persons to the generation of excessive ground -borne vibration or ground -borne noise levels on a direct, indirect, or cumulative basis, and no mitigation is required.

The Proposed Project is also not located near a railroad track; therefore, no additional noise factors would apply.

18 CalTrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, April 2020.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.13: Noise

Page 172 ends

The Proposed Project complies with applicable standards and regulations, including General Plan Policies, General Plan Implementing Programs, Riverside Municipal Code requirements, and any applicable GP PEIR mitigation measures as identified above and listed in Section 5.1 3.3 of this document. The Proposed Project’s implementation of those regulations, policies, and standards, including the General Plan designation and zoning, which permit the Proposed Project, ensures that the project would not result in significant impacts. As such, the Proposed Project does not have peculiar effects, new substantially more severe significant effects, new off-site or cumulative effects, or is there new information that would result in a more severe impact than identified within the GP PEIR.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? GP PEIR Impact - Less than Significant
The GP PEIR analyzes this threshold on pages 5.11-38 through 5.11-39.

The General Plan Planning Area is located within or near three Airport Land Use Plans: Riverside Municipal Airport, Flabob Airport and March Air Reserve Base/March Inland Port. According to the Noise Contour Maps (see Figures 5.11-9 and 10) for the three airports located in the Planning Area, only Riverside Municipal Airport and March Air Reserve Base/March Inland Port will affect the General Plan Planning Area. Flabob Airport is adjacent to the General Plan Planning Area; however, none of its noise contours affect the project area.

General Plan Policies N-1.5, CCM-11.7, N-2.1, N-2.2, N-2.5, N-3.2 through 3.4, LU-22.3 through 22.5, aim to ensure that future residential or sensitive land uses would be restricted from developing within any existing airport influence areas. The General Plan also establishes the noise/land use compatibility guidelines for outdoor noise, which includes airport noise, to ensure new development is not subject to excessive noise, including from airports . The GP PEIR concluded tha t because the General Plan land uses respect the documented noise contours for nearby airports and future development near the City’s two airports are subject to A irport Land Use Commission (ALUC) conditions, as well as by implementing the General Plan policies and the City’s Municipal Code, exposure of people residing or working in an airport land use plan area to excessive noise is considered less than significant.

Proposed Project
According to Map My County and the Noise Study, the P roposed Project is not located within two miles of a public airport or public-use airport. Therefore, there is no impact.

Page 173 ends

or is there new information that would result in a more severe impact than identified within the GP PEIR.

5.13.2 Cumulative
The GP PEIR evaluated the potential impacts associated with the General Plan Project, a citywide plan for buildout and design of the City. To that end, because it evaluates planned buildout (multiple projects at the programmatic level), the GP PEIR inherently considers cumulative impacts associated with population growth and increased development.

With respect to noise, the GP PEIR concluded that anticipated development within the City would generate short-term construction noise. Also, additional development would increase traffic volumes and long -term noise levels. However, implementation of noise codes and constructing buildings according to state acoustical standards would reduce cumulative impacts on residences, schools, hospitals, and other noise-sensitive uses. The GP PEIR did conclude that increased traffic associated with the General Plan could continue to expose residential receptors along specific traffic corridors to noise that exceeds standards. For that reason, the GP PEIR concluded the General Plan would have a cumulatively considerable noise impact.

The Proposed Project includes both construction and opera tion of residential uses. The Proposed Project’s construction would be short -term and would proceed consistent with RMC requirements that limit construction to specific hours. During those hours, construction is a common occurrence within the City, and the Proposed Project would not create unusual forms of construction noise or vibration. Operationally, the Proposed Project does not propose uses that will generate significant noise. Residential uses are not considered significant noise generators, and the traffic associated with the Proposed Project is minimal. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a cumulative noise impact.

5.13.3 Uniformly Applied Development Standards and GP PEIR Mitigation Measures The City of Riverside Municipal Code (RMC):

Section 7.25.010 (B) the Riverside Municipal Code indicates that if the existing ambient noise level already exceeds any of the exterior noise level limit categories, then the standard shall be increased in five decibel increments in each category as appropriate to encompass the ambient noise level.

Section 7.35.020 (G) of the General Noise Regulations indicates that noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property; provided a permit has been obtained from the City as required; and provided said activities do not take place between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on Saturdays, or at any time on Sunday or a Federal holiday.

Applicable General Plan Policies
• Policy N-1.1: Continue to enforce noise abatement and control measures particularly within residential neighborhoods.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.13: Noise

Page 174 ends

• Policy N-1.2: Require the inclusion of noise-reducing design features in development consistent with standards in (Table 5.11-D, Noise/Land Use Compatibility Criteria), Title 24 California Code of Regulations and Title 7 of the Municipal Code. • Policy N-1.3: Enforce the City of Riverside Noise Control Code to ensure that stationary noise and noise emanating from construction activities, private developments/residences and special events are minimized. • Policy N-1.8: Continue to consider noise concerns in evaluating all proposed development decisions and roadway projects.
• Policy N-2.1: Ensure that new development can be made compatible with the noise environment by using noise/land use compatibility standards (Table 5.11 -D, Noise/Land Use Noise Compatibility Criteria) and the airport noise contour maps (found in the Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans) as guides to future planning and development decisions.
• Tool N -1: Review development proposals to ensure that the noise standards and compatibility set forth in the Noise Element are met to the maximum extent practicable.

Require acoustical analyses for all proposed development within the 60 dB CNEL contour as shown in the Noise Element and for all proposed residential projects within the vicinity of existing and proposed commercial and industrial areas. Require mitigation, where necessary, to reduce noise levels to meet standards and construction methods. • Tool N-2: Implement CEQA during the development review process for new projects.

Assess future development projects’ potential for noise and ground- borne vibration impacts related to noise land use compatibility, c onstruction-related noise, on -site stationary noise sources, and vehicular-related noise.

Applicable General Plan Mitigation Measures
MM NOISE 1: To minimize impacts resulting from or to proposed projects such that noise levels exceed General Plan Noise Element standards, projects shall be reviewed against the noise compatibility matrix in the Noise Element of the General Plan (Table 5.11 -D, herein ) and Figures 5.11-6, 5.11-7, 5.11-8, 5.11-9, and 5.11-10 of this EIR to determine suitability of the use in relation to adjacent land uses and noise sources such as roadways, freeways, and airports.

To the extent required by the compatibility matrix or one of the figures, a noise study shall be required to evaluate noise levels against standards and to recommend suitable mitigation consistent with Title 24 regulations and the City’s Noise Code. Mitigation may include but not be limited to: walls, berms, interior noise insulation, double paned windows, or other noise mitigation measures as appropriate, in the design of new residential or other noise sensitive land uses.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.13: Noise

Page 175 ends

5.13.4 Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Noise, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the Proposed Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no impacts that were not analyzed as significant effects in the GP PEIR, with which the Proposed Project is consistent.

3. There are no potentially significant off- site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP PEIR.

4. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GP PEIR.

5. The Proposed Project would comply with the mitigation measures contained within the GP PEIR as they are designed to reduce any potential Proposed Project impact to less than significant; further, no additional mitigation would be req uired because Proposed Project specific impacts would be less than significant.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.13: Noise

Page 176 ends

Exhibit 5.13: Sensitive Receptors Near the Proposed Project Site

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.14: Population and Housing

Page 177 ends

5.14 Population and Housing
Impact

GP PEIR
Impact
Determination
Effect Peculiar
to Proposed
Project or
Site?
New or
Substantially
more Severe
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-Site or
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information/
More Severe
Impact?
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of
road or other infrastructure)?
Less Than
Significant No No No No
b) Displace substantial numbers
of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Less Than
Significant No No No No

5.14.1 Discussion
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure)?
GP PEIR Impact- Significant and Unavoidable
The GP PEIR analyzes this threshold on pages 5.12-14 through 5.12-15.

Based on the General Plan, and population projections within, the GP PEIR evaluated two levels of development intensity. Projections ranged from the “Typical” densities that the City expects t o be built by 2025 to the absolute maximum allowable densities throughout the entire Planning Area; “maximum with planned residential development (Max. w/PRD).” The Typical build -out assumed average residential densities for future areas of development wit h most existing built -out areas generally staying the same as today. The GP PEIR concluded this is a likely scenario for how Riverside will grow in the future, and would result in a population of approximately 383,077 people in the General Plan Planning Ar ea and 346,867 people in the City by 2025, which is slightly higher than SCAG projections.

This population increase would equate to approximately 115,622 households within the City limits, and approximately 127,692 households.

The City also analyzed impacts of development under the Max w/ PRD scenario to provide a “worst- case” analysis. Under that scenario, the projected population at buildout in 2025 within the City limits is 528,429, and the population including the Sphere of Influence is 585,926. The projected maximum CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.14: Population and Housing

Page 178 ends

number of households under the Max. w/PRD scenario within the City’s limits at buildout is 176,143, and the number of households including the Sphere of Influence is 195,309. The GP PEIR stated that the Max w/PRD growth scenario was not reasonably foreseeable due to existing development, and limitations on additional development.

The GP PEIR concluded that although anticipated by SCAG in its population projections and regional planning efforts, adoption of the General Plan will directly and indirectly induce population growth.

This impact is considered significant and unavoidable.

Proposed Project
The Proposed Project’s growth is within the assumptions of City growth as used to evaluate the potential impacts associated with the General Plan. The Proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan designation, with minor deviations pursuant to the Density Bonus Law. However, even with those minor deviations, the Proposed Project does not result in unplanned growth that could result in an environmental impact. Please refer to the entirety of this Checklist analysis, which evaluates the Proposed Project’s potential to result in significant environmental impacts. None were identified.

At present, the State Department of Finance estimates the City had a population of 314,818 persons and 94,540 households as of January 2022. The General Plan’s base growth assumptions assumed a 2025 population of 346,867, which is greater than the 2022 population and in- line with projections.

The Proposed Project represents a potential difference of +0.01% of the 2022 population and +0.01% increase in the 2022 number of households, but is within the scope of the General Plan’s projections Also, that amount of change or increase is considered incremental and would not represent a significant difference relative to the City’s current population and housing stock (households). These small changes would also not represent a significant portion of the future population and housing projected by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) in its Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) program which is now referred to as “Connect SoCal”. Table 5-14.1: Population, H ousing, and Employment Projections shows the population, housing, and employment projections from SCAG for the City of Riverside from 2020 to 2040.

Table 5.14-1: Population, Housing, and Employment Projections Description 2020 2035 2040 Growth1
Population 336,300 384,100 386,600 +15.0%
Housing 101,200 117,700 118,600 +17.2%
Employment 157,900 195,900 200.500 +27.0%
Source: SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Final Growth Forecast by Jurisdiction 1 percent increase from 2020 to 2040
Based on the analysis above, the change in City housing and population projections if the Proposed Project was built would not change the SCAG projections by any demonstrable amount for 2035 or 2040. Therefore, the direct increases in population as a result of the Proposed Project would be within CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.14: Population and Housing

Page 179 ends

the general magnitude of the growth assumptions estimated by SCAG in its regional planning program (i.e., Connect SoCal) and the City of Riverside General Plan.

In addition, the GP PEIR determined that Citywide, future development anticipated under the General Plan 2025 Typical Growth scenario would not have significant population growth impacts.

Because the Proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan 2025 Typical Growth scenario and population growth impacts were previously evaluated in the GP 2025 FPEIR, the Proposed Project does not result in new impacts beyond those previously evaluated in the GP PEIR. Therefore, the impacts will be less than significant on a direct, indirect, or cumulative basis.

b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
GP PEIR Impact - Less than Significant
The GP PEIR analyzes this threshold on page 5.12-15.

General Plan Policy LU-8.3 encourages a mix of both residential and nonresidential uses as a means of revitalizing many underutilized parcels through the implementation of three new Mixed-Use land use designations to implement this policy. An additional way the General Plan discourages the displacement of residents is through policies that keep existing neighborhoods vital and well maintained; thus, they become less desirable for demolition and replacement. Housing Element Policies 1.1 and 1.2 promote repair, improvement, rehabilitation, and maintenance of both owner - occupied and rental housing. The implementation of the General Plan will not directly displace housing, or create a need for replacement housing, and instead plans for population growth, including housing . Therefore, the General Plan Project’s displacement impacts will be less than significant.

Proposed Project
Source: CADME Land Use 2003 Layer, photos from site visit, aerial imaging) The Proposed Project will not displace existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere because the Proposed Project site is vacant land that has no existing housing that will be removed or affected by the Proposed Project. Therefore, there will be no impact on existing housing on a direct, indirect, or cumulative basis. No mitigation is required.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.14: Population and Housing

Page 180 ends

5.14.2 Cumulative Impacts Analysis
The GP PEIR evaluated the potential impacts associated with the General Plan Project, a citywide plan for buildout and design of the City. To that end, because it evaluates planned buildout (multiple projects at the programmatic level), the GP PEIR inherently considers cumulative impacts associated with population growth and increased development.

With respect to population and housing, the GP PEIR concluded that the General Plan’s population and housing capacity is generally consistent with SCAG’s long -range forecasts. Also, the Geneal Plan emphasizes smart growth, infill, and revitalization of vacant and under -utilized parcels served by existing infrastructure. The General Plan project would not result in a cumulative population and housing impact due to the General Plan’s consistency with regional plan for growth, transportation options, and mixed land uses.

The Proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan’s buildout assumptions, and is consistent with the SCAG growth assumptions for the City. It would not displace existing housing, or trigger the need for more housing. The Proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact.

5.14.3 Uniformly Applied Development Standards and GP PEIR Mitigation Measures Applicable General Plan Policies
• Policy LU-8.1: Ensure well -planned infill development Citywide, allow for increased density in selected areas along established transportation corridors. • Policy LU-9.3: Designate areas for urban land uses where adequate urban levels of public facilities and services exist or are planned, in accordance with the public facilities and service provisions policies of this General Plan.
• Policy LU-10.1: Discourage the premature development of non- urbanized areas and encourage growth through such programs as the Residential infill Incentive Program, first in undeveloped and under-developed areas within, adjacent to or in close proximity to existing urbanized neighborhoods.
• Policy LU-10.4: Require development projects to be timed and phased so that projects are not occupied prior to the provision of necessary urban services.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.14: Population and Housing

Page 181 ends

• Policy LU-25.4: Identify opportunities to redevelop older, underutilized properties. • Policy H-2.1: Provide adequate sites and supporting infrastructure to accommodate housing through land use, zoning, specific plan designations and infill programs to encourage a broad range of housing opportunities.
• Policy H-2.3: Facilitate and encourage the production of quality ownership and rental housing uses through appropriate development standards, design and compatibility review and regulatory and financial incentives.

Applicable General Plan Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures with regard to Population and Housing were included within the GP PEIR.

5.14.4 Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Population and Housing, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the Proposed Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no impacts that were not analyzed as significant effects in the GP PEIR, with which the Proposed Project is consistent.

3. There are no potentially significant off- site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP PEIR.

4. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GP PEIR.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.15: Public Services

Page 182 ends

5.15 Public Services
Impact

GP PEIR
Impact
Determination
Effect Peculiar
to Proposed
Project
Site? Effect
Peculiar to
Proposed
Project or
Site?
New or
Substantially
more Severe
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-Site or
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information/
More Severe
Impact?
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection? Less Than
Significant No No No No
ii) Police protection?
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No No
iii) Schools? Less Than
Significant No No No No
iii) Parks? Less Than
Significant No No No No
iv) Other public facilities? Less Than
Significant No No No No

5.15.1 Discussion
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
(a)(i): Fire Protection – Less Than Significant
The GP Project impacts on police prot ection were analyzed on GP PEIR Page 5.13 -31. The GP PEIR acknowledged that General Plan growth would increase service demands, and estimated growth would require four additional stations citywide along with additional personnel and equipment.

However, neither the General Plan or the GP PEIR identified locations for new facilities or the specific equipment required. With respect to demand, the GP PEIR explained that the RFD will continually analyzes and monitor its service standards and adjust facilities, personnel and equipment as necessary. Also, it will continually assess the need for additional fire and emergency service resources and facilities as buildout continues under the General Plan. The GP PEIR explains that future development is required to pay development impact fees that can go toward purchasing land and construction of new fire facilities, and that coupled with General Plan policies that require the RFD CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.15: Public Services

Page 183 ends

to maintain a 5 minute response time, the impacts of General Plan buildout would be less th an significant with respect to fire facilities.
(a)(ii) Police Protection – Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated The GP Project impacts on police protection were analyzed on GP PEIR pages 5.13-29 – 5.13-30. Like fire protection, the GP PEIR recognized that General Plan buildout would increase demand for police services. However, also like fire protection, the GP PEIR concluded that existing General Plan policies providing a level of service standard, the payment of impact fees, and the fact t hat development itself is often a natural deterrent to crime, would reduce the potential for impacts. Nevertheless, the GP PEIR required implementation of MM PS 1 that requires a Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) during a project Site P lan Review, to ensure impacts related to the need for new police facilities would be less than significant.
(a)(iii) Schools – Less Than Significant
The GP Project impacts on schools were analyzed on GP PEIR pages 5.13-32 – 34. Implementation of the GP wo uld increase population citywide, and commensurately students. The GP PEIR acknowledges that school site planning and CEQA compliance for schools is within the purview of school districts, but that the City of Riverside would work proactively with school d istricts to identify potential sites should expansion be needed. The GP PEIR also explained that SB 50, which authorizes school districts to exact fees from developments, serves as mitigation under CEQA and ensures impacts will be less than significant.
(a)(iv) Libraries- Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated The GP Project impacts on libraries were analyzed on GP PEIR pages 5.13-34 – 5.13-37. The GP PEIR noted that adopted library standards were not being met at the time the GPU was considered.

However, it also acknowledged that the then-applicable standards may not accurately reflect the public’s need for library services given advances in technology. Nevertheless, the GP PEIR concluded that demand associated with the General Plan would continue to pressure library services that would need to be addressed through General Plan policies that mandate specific levels of service and taxes that fund library construction. The GP PEIR concluded that General Plan buildout would result in a less than significant impact through General Plan policies and implementation tools and MM PS 2 which ensures the funding for libraries through Measure C will be continued to be supported through renewals and Council approval.

Other Public Facilities
The GP PEIR evaluated whether the General Plan could result in impacts associated with the need to construct other public facilities, such as community centers and parks.

The GP PEIR analyzed the potential impacts to community centers on page 5.13-37, and the impact of the GP Project analysis on park impacts is addressed in GP PEIR Section 5.14, Recreation.

The GP PEIR identified that future development facilitated by the GP Project would increase demand for public services over time. Potential impacts would include gr eater demands for fire protection, police protection, schools, and library facilities potentially resulting in the need to provide for new or expanded public facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.15: Public Services

Page 184 ends

performance ob jectives. Additionally, future development facilitated by the GP Project would increase the use of existing public facilities, which could cause physical deterioration of the facilities.

Overall, impacts were less than significant , and mitigation was identified for Police Services and Library Services as described above
Proposed Project
Fire Protection
The Proposed Project area is served by the City of Riverside Fire Department (RFD). The Proposed Project is residential and located in an urbanized area designated for residential uses. No industrial uses or hazardous material storage are proposed on the Proposed Project site that would require additional fire capabilities beyond those already available to the Proposed Project area. The Proposed Project would introduce new residences and population to the Proposed Project site, but the increase is negligible in the overall context of the City. Also, new development would be required to adhere to California Building Code standards related to fire safety, w hich standards are considered robust. GP 2025 Public Safety Element, Policy PS -6.1 ensures that sufficient fire stations, personnel, and equipment are provided to meet the needs of the community as it grows in size and population. City of Riverside Fire St ation #12, La Sierra South, is located at 10692 Indiana Avenue approximately 1.36 miles northeast of the Proposed Project site (via streets). The response time from this station to the Proposed Project site is approximately 2.3 minutes assuming an average speed of 35 miles per hour. This station provides fire services for the southeastern portion of the City of Riverside.

With the implementation of fire suppression equipment and adherence to fire code standards, as well as the payment of development impact fees, the Proposed Project would not result in the need for a new fire station or facilities. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a less than significant impact on the demand for additional fire facilities on a direct, indirect, or cumulative basis.

Police Protection
The Proposed Project site is served by the City of Riverside Police Department (RPD) which maintains approximately 130 sworn officers, 24 Sergeants, 6 Lieutenant Watch Commanders, 1 Executive Lieutenant, 1 Traffic Lieutenant, and a civilian support staff (RPD 2024). Officers are assigned to one of three Neighborhood Policing Centers (NPC) and are accountable for their assigned area.

Adequate police facilities and services are provided by the Magnolia Neighborhood Policing Center (MNPC) to serve the Proposed Project area. The MNPC is located 2.15 miles north of the Proposed Project site. Response times to the Proposed Project site would vary depending on the location of patrol units rather than the location of the local NPC but the RPD goal is to maintain an emergency call response time of three minutes or less. In addition, through the payment of Development Impact Fees, the City can ensure that adequate facilities are provided for police protection. Additionally, as part of the Proposed Project’s Site Plan review process, the Police Department did not indicate that new facilities would be needed to service the Proposed Project site. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.15: Public Services

Page 185 ends

Schools
School facilities and services to the eastern end of the City of Riverside are provided by the Alvord Unified School District (AUSD) for Kindergarten through the 12th grade. The Proposed Project consists of residential uses that would generate students who could create additional demands on local schools.

The Proposed Project Site would be served by the schools shown in Table 5.15-1: Local Schools. The Proposed Project Site is currently in the following school attendance areas; Lake Hills Elementary School (grades K-5);Arizona Middle School (grades 6-8), and Hillcrest High School (grades 9-12).

Table 5.15-1: Local Schools
School (grades) Address
Distance/Direction
from Proposed
Project Site
2022-2023
Enrollment
Lake Hills Elementary (K-5) 16346 Village Meadows Drive, Arlington Mountain

4.1 miles southwest 637
Arizona Middle School (6-8) 3754 Harvill Lane, Riverside 2.5 miles west 1,262 Hillcrest High (9-12) 11800 Indiana Avenue, Riverside 1.7 mile west 1,824 Proposed Project Area Total (K-12) -- -- 3,723
Source: Alvord Unified School District Website, California Department of Education Website The Proposed Project is residential so each unit may generate new students are various grade levels that will attend the local schools shown in Table 5.15-2: Proposed Project Student Generation, based on current attendance boundary maps from the two districts. According to demographic data from the AUSD, the 49 single -family units of the Proposed Project would be expected to generate approximately 13 elementary, 3 middle school, and 4 high school students (20 students total) at full occupancy.

Table 5.15-2: Proposed Project Student Generation
Grade Levels Elementary (K-5) Middle School (6-8) High School (9-12) Total (K-12) Rate1 0.26 0.06 0.08 0.40
Students2 13 3 4 20
Sources: AUSD website and developer fee report
1 Developer Fee Justification Report, 2022
2 Single-family Residential Unit Rates x 49 single-family units A project that is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations for its site is only subject to payment of school impact fees legally established by the serving school facilities according to Senate Bill 50. The current AUSD fee for new residential development is $4.79 per square foot, so the Proposed Project could generate more than $500,000 in developer fees to the AUSD based on a total of 49 new single-family units with a total building coverage of 22.4% on a 9.91-acre site. Payment of established school impact fees is a standard condition and is not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. With the implementation of General Plan 2025 policies, compliance with existing codes and standards, and payment of AUSD impact fees used to offset the impact of new development, there will be a less than significant impact on the demand for school facilities or services on a direct, indirect, or cumulative basis. No mitigation is required.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.15: Public Services

Page 186 ends

Parks
This analysis to determine the potential impacts from the Proposed Project relative to parks is derived from GP PEIR page 5.14 -20 through 5.14- 24. The Proposed Project is residential and would add 49 single-family housing units. That would increase the City population and incrementally increase the demand for park facilities and services. The parks closest to the Proposed Project Site are shown in Table 5.15-3: Local Parks.

Table 5.15-3: Local Parks
Park Name/Address (Location) Acreage – Facilities
Distance/Direction
from Proposed Project
Site
Victoria-Cross Park
10881 Victoria Avenue (City) 8 acres – undeveloped at present 0.1-mile northeast Harrison Park
2851 Harrison Street (City)
7 acres – volleyball court, playground, picnic
tables, BBQs 1.5 miles northeast
Arlington Height Sports Park 9401
Cleveland Avenue (City)
35 acres – walking trails, ballfields, multi-use
fields, basketball court, playground,
horseshoes, picnic tables, BBQs, restrooms

2.0 miles northeast
Lake Hills Reserve Park (County) 16310
Village Meadow Drive

2.8 acres – pool, grass fields, playground, picnic
tables, BBQs 1.5 miles southwest
Sunlake Park (County) Lakepointe
Drive

0.7-acre – basketball court, grass fields,
volleyball court, picnic tables, BBQs 1.4 miles south
Lakepointe Park (County) 17784
Morning Rock Circle

1.0 acre – playground, grass field, picnic tables,
BBQs 1.7 miles south
Greenleaf Park (County) 16325 Green
Leaf Court

0.6-acre – playground, grass field, picnic
tables, BBQ 1.6 miles west
California Citrus State Historic Park 9400
Dufferin Avenue (State)
+250 acres – historic orange grove and
museum of citrus production history in Riverside 2.0 miles northeast The Proposed Project proposes to conserve 1.4 acres of the site along Victoria Avenue as part of its historic landscaped parkway and is consistent with the Victoria Avenue Policy requirements.

Therefore, the Proposed Project will pay the pay applicable Local, Regional, Aquatic, and Trails Park Development Impact Fees to the City of Riverside Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department established by the City for new residential development. In this regard, the Proposed Project will have less than significant impact on the demand for additional park facilities or services on a direct, indirect, or cumulative basis. No mitigation is required.

Other Public Facilities
The Proposed Project is in an urbanized area that proposes 49 new residences. The Proposed Project would create an incremental increase in demand for public facilities such as libraries and community centers. Development of the Proposed Project site with new homes is generally consistent with the growth projected by the General Plan 2025 and its PEIR. GP 2025 provides adequate public facilities for the growth anticipated throughout the Proposed Project area. Therefore, this Proposed Project will not result in a marginal demand for increased services, General Plan policies, applicable standards, including the payment of fees, will ensure a less than significant impact on the demand for additional public facilities services on a direct, indirect, or cumulative basis. Also, with respect to libraries and MM CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.15: Public Services

Page 187 ends

PS 2, the City’s residents passed Measure I in 2011, which continued the library parcel tax through June 2022. As a result of that tax, the City opened additional library space. No mitigation is required.

Overall, the Proposed Project complies with applicable standards and regulations, including General Plan Policies, General Plan Implementing Programs, Riverside Municipal Code requirements, and any applicable GP PEIR mitigation measures as identified above and listed in Section 5.1 5.3 of this document. The Proposed Project’s implementation of those regulations, policies, and standards, including the General Plan designation and zoning, which permit the Proposed Project, ensures that the project would not result in significant impacts. As such, the Proposed Project does not have peculiar effects, new substantially more severe significant effects, new off-site or cumulative effects, or is there new information that would result in a more severe impact than identified within the GP PEIR.

5.15.2 Cumulative Impacts Analysis
The GP PEIR evaluated the potential impacts associated with the General Plan Project, a citywide plan for buildout and design of the City. To that end, because it evaluates planned buildout (multiple projects at the programmatic level), the GP PEIR inherently considers cumulative impacts associated with population growth and increased development.

With respect to public services, the GP PEIR concluded that although future regional growth will result in increased demand for police protection, fire protection and emergency services, schools, libraries and other public facilities, sound local planning to accommodate future growth, along with the implementation of policies identified in this EIR will reduce potential cumulative impacts associated with the provision of police services, fire prevention and firefighting services, emergency services, libraries, and community centers. Therefore, the GP PEIR concluded that the General Plan would not result in any cumulative impacts.

As discussed above, the Proposed Project would not result in project-level impacts associated with public services. And, as discussed in the GP PEIR, the City has adopted standards and mechanisms (such as fees) to ensure that public services are provided commensurate with demand resulting from buildout of the General Plan. The Proposed Project would not result in a cumulative impact.

5.15.3 Uniformly Applied Development Standards and GP PEIR Mitigation Measures California Codes:

California Code of Regulations Title 24, Parts 2 and 9 – Fire Codes. California Code of Regulations (CCR) Part 2 of Title 24 refers to the California Building Code (CBC), which contains complete regulations and general construction building standards of state adopting agencies, including administrative, fire and life safety, and field inspection provisions. Part 2 was updated in 20082022 to reflect changes in the base document from the Uniform Building Code to the International Building Code. CBC Part 9 refers to the California Fire Code (CFC), which contains other fire safety -related building standards. In particular, the 2022 CBC Chapter 7A, Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure, addresses fire safety standards for new construction. The 2022 CBC, Title 24 went into effect January 1, 2023.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.15: Public Services

Page 188 ends

Leroy F. Green School Facilities Act. California Government Code Section 65995 (The Leroy F.

Green School Facilities Act of 1998) set base limits and additional provisions for school districts to levy development impact fees and to help fund expanded facilities to house new pupils that may be generated by the development project . Sections 65996(a) and (b) state that such fees collected by school districts provide full and complete school facilities mitigation under CEQA. These fees may be adjusted by the district over time as conditions change.

Applicable General Plan Policies
• Policy LU-26.1 Develop and enforce standards for community facilities (such as fire and police stations, libraries and parks) based upon population densities and proximity of existing facilities.
• Policy PS-8.1: Maximize natural surveillance through physical design features in all new development through physical design feature that promote visibility. • Policy PS-6.3: Integrate fire safety considerations in the planning process. • Policy PS-10.4: Continue to ensure that each development or neighborhood in the City has adequate emergency ingress and egress, and review neighborhood access needs to solve problems, if possible.

Applicable General Plan Mitigation Measures
MM PS 1: Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) will be applied to development projects requiring a Site Plan Review Permit and any other large development project proposed under the General Plan and MASP that the Zoni ng Administrator deems would benefit from such a review. The project will be required to be reviewed by RPD and Planning Division against CPTED principles. As long as these new development projects adhere to the needed principles in the CPTED, then impacts related to increased demand for police services will be reduced.

5.15.4 Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Public Services, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the Proposed Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no impacts that were not analyzed as significant effects in the GP PEIR, with which the Proposed Project is consistent.

3. There are no potentially significant off- site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP PEIR.

4. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GP PEIR.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.15: Public Services

Page 189 ends

5. The Proposed Project would comply with the mitigation measure contained within the GP PEIR which is designed to reduce any potential Proposed Project specific impact to less than significant, however, the Proposed Project specific impacts would be less than significant , and no further mitigation is required.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.16: Recreation

Page 190 ends

5.16 Recreation
Impact

GP PEIR
Impact
Determination
Effect Peculiar
to Proposed
Project or
Site?
New or
Substantially
more Severe
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-Site or
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information/
More Severe
Impact?
Would the project:
a) Would the project increase
the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration
of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
Significant and
Unavoidable
(cumulative
impact)
No No No No
b) Does the project include
recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which have
an
adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Less Than
Significant No No No No

5.16.1 Discussion
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) I nclude recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? GP PEIR Impact – Less Than Significant/Significant and Unavoidable The GP PEIR analyzes these thresholds on pages 5.14-20 through 5.14-24. The GP PEIR acknowledged that General Plan buildout would add new residents in the City, which would increase demand for recreation opportunities, including parks. However, the GP PEIR explained that the General Plan itself provides goals and policies to address demand and potential deterioration of such facilities. The General Plan identified an overall deficit in park services throughout the City that could be exacerbated by development. The GP PEIR identified the need to implement Mitigation Measure MM Rec 1 , which requires future developments to provide parks as part of their project, and Mitigation Measure MM Rec 2 which requires the City to re- assess developer impact fees on an annual bases. The GP PEIR concluded that with implementation of these measures, the General Plan Policies, the Park and Recreation Master Plan, the Riverside Renaissance Strategic Investment Plan (SIP), and the collection of appropriate Park Development Impact Fees , the General Plan implementation impacts related to recreational facilities are decreased. However, the actual CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.16: Recreation

Page 191 ends

construction of park and recreational facilities to meet City requirements could not be determined with certainty. Thus, the GP PEIR acknowledged that it was possible that the required improvements to park and recreational facilities will not be constructed in time to mitigate the General Plan’s cumulative impacts to below the level of significance. Therefore, after mitigation, the General Plan’s cumulative impacts will remain significant.

Proposed Project
The Proposed Project proposes 1.4 acres of the site along Victoria Avenue as part of its historic landscaped parkway and consi stent with the Victoria Avenue Policy requirements. The Proposed Project does not propose any other onsite park or open space improvements. Therefore, the Proposed Project will be required to pay applicable Local, Regional, Aquatic, and Trails Park Development Impact Fees to the City of Riverside Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department to provide for the maintenance and increase in City parks and recreational facilities .

Therefore, this Proposed Project will have a less than significant impact on parks and recreational facilities and will not lead to the physical deterioration of such places. No mitigation is required.

It should also be noted that the City’s has an existing parkland-to-resident ratio of approximately 7.91 acres per 1,000 residents, as explained in the Riverside Housing and Public Safety Element Updates and Environmental Justice Policies Proposed Project EIR. The Proposed Project ’s contribution of 49 residential units would not cause the City’s parkland -to-resident ratio to drop b elow applicable standards of 3 acres per 1,000 residents. Thus, the Proposed Project will not lead to the need to construct new parks.

Section 13.18 of the RMC requires that recreational trails within the City be developed according to approved standards and design elements as outlined in the Trails Master Plan. Trails in the City are designated to accommodate equestrian, bike, and pedestrian users. The Proposed Project will construct a trail along the Victoria Avenue frontage. As evaluated in Threshold 15.15(a)(iii) above, the Proposed Project proposes 1.4 acres of the site along Victoria Avenue consistent with the Victoria Avenue Policy requirements. The Proposed Project will construct a trail along the Victoria Avenue frontage. The Proposed Project does not propose any other onsite park or open space improvements, but is required to pay applicable Local, Regional, Aquatic, and Trails Park Development Impact Fees to the City of Riverside Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department. Therefore, the Proposed Project will have a less than significant impact on recreational facilities. No mitigation is required.

Overall, the Proposed Project complies with applicable standards and regulations, including General Plan Policies, General Plan Implementing Programs, Riverside Municipal Code requirements, and any applicable GP PEIR mitigation measures as identified above and listed in Section 5.1 6.3 of this document. The Proposed Project’s implementation of those regulations, policies, and standards, including the General Plan designation and zoning, which permit the Proposed Project, ensures that the project would not result in significant impacts. As such, the Proposed Project does not have peculiar effects, new substantially more severe significant effects, new off-site or cumulative effects, or is there new information that would result in a more severe impact than identified within the GP PEIR.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.16: Recreation

Page 192 ends

5.16.2 Cumulative Impacts Analysis
The GP PEIR evaluated the potential impacts associated with the General Plan Project, a citywide plan for buildout and design of the City. To that end, because it evaluates planned buildout (multiple projects at the programmatic level), the GP PEIR inherently considers cumulative impacts associated with population growth and increased development.

With respect to recreation, the GP PEIR concluded that without provision of new park and recreational facilities and c enters to serve projected new residents, the population increase anticipated over time has the potential to cause increased demand for existing park and recreation facilities and centers, such that substantial physical deterioration of existing facilities may occur or be accelerated. The implementation of MM Rec 1 and 2 will reduce impacts, but would not eliminate such impacts. The GP was identified as having a cumulatively considerable impact.

The Proposed Project is consistent with assumed development of the General Plan. It also preserves

1.4 acres of open space along Victoria Avenue, which would also be developed with a trail and other public access consistent with applicable plans/policies. The Proposed Project is also required to pay applicable fees, which will be used for the future provision of additional parklands or recreation facilities and/or maintenance of such facilities. The Proposed Project would marginally increase use of parklands, but such use is not considered to result in a cumulatively considerable impact.

5.16.3 Uniformly Applied Development Standards and GP PEIR Mitigation Measures Riverside Municipal Code:

Section 16.44, which established development fees for the acquisition and development of regional parks and reserve parks. Fees are established by City Council resolution and required of all development not exempt under Subsection 16.44.060.

Section 16.60 designates the Local Park Development Fee that enables the acquisition, development, and/or improvement of neighborhood and communit y parks in order to provide adequate passive and active recreational opportunities to City residents. The fee is not used solely for the acquisition and development of new parks, but also to improve existing parks. RMC Section 16.76 establishes the Trails Development Fee for the acquisition and development of trails. The trail fees are only to be used for the purpose for which they are collected.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.16: Recreation

Page 193 ends

Applicable General Plan Policies
• Policy PR-2.3: Improve and create more connections and increase the safety of t he bicycling, equestrian, and pedestrian trail system within the City.

Applicable General Plan Mitigation Measures
MM Rec 1: All future development shall provide developed parks as part of their project approvals at the discretion of the City Parks, Recre ation and Community Services Department, or pay applicable Park Development Impact Fees to the City of Riverside Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department prior to issuance of building permits.

MM Rec 2: Park Development Impact Fees shall be re-evaluated on an annual basis to insure that the fees collected from new development appropriately pay for the development of the required park acreage.

5.16.4 Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Recreation, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the Proposed Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no impacts that were not analyzed as significant effects in the GP PEIR, with which the Proposed Project is consistent.

3. There are no potentially significant off- site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP PEIR.

4. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GP PEIR.

5. The Proposed Project would comply with the mitigation measures contained within the GP PEIR which are designed to reduce any potential Proposed Project impacts to less than significant, although Proposed Project specific impacts would be less than significant, and no further mitigation would be required.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.17: Transportation

Page 194 ends

5.17 Transportation
Impact

GP PEIR
Impact
Determination
Effect Peculiar
to Proposed
Project or
Site?
New or
Substantially
more Severe
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-Site or
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information/
More Severe
Impact?
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan,
ordinance, or policy addressing
the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities?
Less Than
Significant No No No No
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Significant and
Unavoidable No No No No
c) Substantially increase hazards
due to a geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
Less Than
Significant No No No No
d) Result in inadequate
emergency access?
Less Than
Significant No No No No

5.17.1 Discussion
a) Would the Project conflict with program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? GP PEIR Impact – Less than Significant
The GP PEIR analyzed whether the General Plan Project would conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation on pages 5.15 -39 to 5.15- 40. The GP PEIR found that major principles underlying the General Plan include focusing future development near existing transportation corridors, ensuring land uses are supported by an efficient local roadway network, and supporting alternative modes of transportation such as walking, biking and transit. To facilitate and encourage bicycle trips, for example, the City will implement a Bicycle Master Plan that designates Class I and Class II bicycle facilities throughout the City as part of the General Plan Program. Similarly, new development projects will be required to include safe and attractive sidewalks, walkways and bike lanes; developers of residential and nonresidential projects will be encouraged to construct links adjacent to areas and communities where appropriate.

As a result of the focus of the General Plan described above, the GP PEIR conclude d that impacts to alternative modes of transportation are less than significant without mitigation.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.17: Transportation

Page 195 ends

Level of Service (LOS) Impact Analysis
Senate Bill (SB) 743 was adopted in 2013, after the certification of the GP EIR, which identified that for CEQA purposes, Level of Service LOS is no longer considered an environmental effect and is not required to be evaluated in CEQA documents. LOS impact s are included under this threshold for informational purposes.

The GP PEIR EIR posed the following threshold questions:
• Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system.?
• Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways.

The GP PEIR analyzes these thresholds on pages 5.15-24 through 5.15-36. The GP PEIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan has the potential to exceed the level of service standard (LOS D) established and impacts are significant without mitigation related to the listed roadway segments in Table 5.15-J of the GP PEIR. In addition, although not foreseeable, under the Maximum scenarios, nearly every roadway in the City and Sphere areas would also operate at below LOS D.

However, if the capacity of these and all other roadways throughout the Planning Area is adequate to accommodate the projected traffic volumes, then impacts would be less than significant.

However, not all roadway segments will operate at acceptable levels in the futur e according to Figure 5.15-4, Volume to Capacity (V/C) Ratio and Level of Service (LOS) (Typical 2025) at Typical build-out of the Project , and ADT would be even higher under the Maximum w/PRD scenario. As such, the Mitigation Measure MM Trans-1 was required.

MM Trans 1 : To reduce potential significant impacts to intersection LOS, a project -specific traffic study shall be required for projects that generate 50 or more trips at an intersection at the PM peak hour, and for projects that affect intersections which currently, or as a result of a proposed development project, will operate at LOS E or F, to determine appropri ate and feasible mitigation that shall be required by the City to reach LOS D, if possible consider existing conditions, site characteristics, economic feasibility, and other related factors.

Even with the implementation of MM Trans 1, not all roadway segments will operate at acceptable levels in the futur e because roadway improvements to increase capacity may not be feasible because of the inability to acquire additional right-of-way dedications or other physical constraints.

Therefore, these substantial increases are significant and unavoidable.

Conflict with Program Plan, Ordinance or Policy Addressing the Circulation System The GP PEIR analyzed whether the General Plan Project would conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternat ive transportation on pages 5.15 -39 to 5.15- 40. The GP PEIR found that major principles underlying the General Plan include focusing future development near existing transportation corridors, ensuring land uses are supported by an efficient local roadway network, and supporting alternative modes of transportation such as walking, biking and transit. To facilitate and encourage bicycle trips, for example, the City will implement a Bicycle Master Plan that designates Class I and Class II bicycle facilities th roughout the City as part of the General Plan CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.17: Transportation

Page 196 ends

Program. Similarly, new development projects will be required to include safe and attractive sidewalks, walkways and bike lanes; developers of residential and nonresidential projects will be encouraged to construct links adjacent to areas and communities where appropriate.

As a result of the focus of the General Plan described above, the GP PEIR concluded that impacts to alternative modes of transportation are less than significant without mitigation.

Proposed Project
There are sidewalks on both sides of La Sierra Avenue and Victoria Avenue. There are also Class II bike lanes on La Sierra Avenue and Victoria Avenue in both directions of travel. The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) operates several bus routes in the region but the closest routes to the Proposed Project site are Routes 15 and 200 along Indiana Avenue which directly connect to the “Riverside-La Sierra” Metrolink Station at 10901 Indiana Avenue approximately 0.9-mile north of the Proposed Project site.

In addition, RTA Route 15 travels along La Sierra Avenue north of Indiana to serve other areas of the City. The Proposed Project would construct a trail adjacent to Victoria Avenue but otherwise would not construct roadway improvements that woul d conflict with the transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities described above.

Level of Service (LOS) Impact Analysis
As noted above, with the adoption of Senate Bill (SB) 743, for CEQA purposes, Level of Service LOS is no longer considered an environmental effect and is not required to be evaluated in CEQA documents. LOS impacts are discussed under this threshold for informational purposes.

The Proposed Project proposes 49 single-family detached residential units which would generate 462 daily vehicle trips (34 AM Peak Hour and 46 PM Peak Hour). 19 Per the City of Riverside Traffic Impact
Analysis Guidelines (July 2020), any project generating less than 100 peak-hour trips is not expected to significantly affect traffic.

Conflict with Program Plan, Ordinance or Policy Addressing the Circulation System The Proposed Project will construct the following street improvements:

Victoria Avenue: The existing improvements will remain. The Proposed Project will construct a new 10-foot-wide trail per the Trails Master Plan and Trails Standards from the Victoria Avenue Policy for the trail segment adjacent to the Proposed Project Site.

La Sierra Avenue: T he Proposed Project will construct a new 46 -foot-wide private street for access from La Sierra Avenue and a six-foot high block wall along the property line.

Millsweet Place: I mprove 30-foot half-width right-of-way adjacent to the Proposed Project Site with curb, gutter, paved travel lanes, and a landscaped berm.

These improvements would facilitate pedestrian and bicycle activity and improve access to transit services. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

19 ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. Land Use Code 210-Single-family Detached Housing.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.17: Transportation

Page 197 ends

b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? GP PEIR Impact – Not Applicable
This threshold was not in effect when the GP PEIR was certified in 2007. As discussed above, Senate Bill (SB) 743 was adopted in 2013, after the certification of the GP EIR . SB 743 required that a new CEQA threshold be developed that would focus on methodologies using VMT that would evaluate transportation impacts in relationship to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and traffic -related air pollution, promoting the development of a multimodal transportation system, and providing clean, efficient access to destinations. These changes include the elimination of auto delay, LOS, and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant environmental impacts. The State’s mandate requiring lead agencies to use VMT as a threshold for evaluating traffic impacts was adopted in 2018.

The effects of VMT on GHG emissions were known at the time the GP PEIR was certified in 2007 and were analyzed under Section 5.3. Air Quality of the GP PEIR on pages 5.3- 18 through 5.4-19, pages

5.3-43 through 5.3-48, and discussed in this document, Section 5.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Proposed Project Impact
Consistent with the State’s mandate to adopt VMT methods and thresholds, in June 2020, the City of Riverside City Council adopted analytical procedures, screening tools, and impact thresholds for VMT, which are documented in the City of Riverside Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment (May 2020) (City Guidelines). City Guidelines identifies thresholds to reduce the number of VMT, thereby lowering transportation- related greenhouse gas emissions.

However, the adoption of the new CEQA Guidelines threshold to assess projects for consistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) , does not constitute “new information” for the purpose of this analysis because the effects of VMT on GHG emissions were known at the time the GP PEIR was certified in 2007, and VMT was part of the analysis for GHG impacts. Therefore, the requirement to quantify the amount of VMT generated by the Proposed Project in accordance with the City Guidelines and analyze the impacts under for consistency with the GP PEIR is not mandated by CEQA
20 for assessing transportation impacts.

20 Concerned Dublin Citizens v City of Dublin (2013) 214 CA4th 1301.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.17: Transportation

Page 198 ends

And though analyzing the Proposed Project’s impacts for consistency with VMT as identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) threshold is not applicable, the Proposed Project’s consistent consistency with the VMT threshold is provided for information al purposes only. T he Proposed Project is consistent with the City’s Guidelines and the following VMT reduction measures recommended by California Air Pollution Control Officers Association ( CAPCOA), which are acceptable reduction measures by the City:
 T-1 – Increase Residential Density: The project proposes a density of 6.2 dwelling units per acre and the General Plan land use designation of 1-½ acre Single Dwelling is up to 2 dwelling units per acre.
 T-3 -Provide Transit-Oriented Development: Although the project is further than a 10- minute walk and 0.5 mile from a high-frequency transit station, SR-91 is highly congested and provides further incentive for users of the Proposed Project to ut ilize a transit station, which is the Metrolink station approximately 1 mile from the Proposed Project Site . The Metrolink station also provides access to Los Angeles and Orange County, two major employment centers.  T-4 – Integrate Affordable Housing: The project proposes 3 out of 49 units at affordable and below market rates.
 T-15 Limited Residential Parking Supply: Limiting the amount of available parking, thus disincentivizing driving as a mode of transportation. The VMT reduction resulting from a project that limits the amount of available parking spaces is calculated using the following equation: A=(-(B-C)/B)D*E*F, where A is the percent reduction in VMT, B is the residential parking demand (constant of 2.6 spaces/unit for single family homes, multiplie d by the number of units proposed), C is the proposed number of parking spaces on the site (2 garage spaces per unit, plus 12 spaces along the project’s private streets)2 , D is the percentage of project VMT generated by residents (100% for the proposed residential projects), E is the percent of household VMT that is commute based (constant of 37%), and F is the percent reduction in commute mode share by driving among households in areas with scarce parking (also constant of 37%). The resulting reduction in VMT is determined to be 1.93%.  T-18 – Pedestrian Network Improvement: There are approximately 1,288 linear feet of existing sidewalk along the eastern side of La Sierra Avenue between Cleveland Avenue and Victoria Avenue and the project would construct an additional 2,295 linear feet.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.17: Transportation

Page 199 ends

c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? GP PEIR Impact - Less than Significant
The GP PEIR analyzes this threshold on page 5.15-37.

There were no site-specific project plans to consider as part of the General Plan, so project layouts, driveway locations, land use types, or intensities are unknown. Without such detail, the GP PEIR did not analyze potential impacts associated with future projects. However, the GP PEIR acknowledged that the circulation improvements identified in the General Plan Circulation Element could be implemented. The GP PEIR found that n one of those improvements would introduce new safety hazards at intersections or along roadway segments, as most would increase capacity and flow. In addition, Policies within the Circulation Elements ( Policies 1.1-1.4, 7.1) provide for maintaining and enhancing existing roadways, increasing safety of roadways, and balancing safety, quality of life and efficiency in the design of circulation and access. These policies were found to help reduce hazards due to design features. Therefore, the GP PEIR concluded that potential significant adverse impacts would be less than significant.

However, it should be noted that Victoria Avenue has a center median with extensive landscaping and historic trees planted so sight distances along Victoria Avenue can be limited depending on the location of the viewer. The Proposed Project site will take access from La Sierra Avenue in the southern portion of the site to maintain an adequate distance from the Victoria Avenue intersection for its safe operation. South of the Proposed Project site La Sierra Avenue begins to curve east as it moves into the Temecula Hills to the south. However, there is sufficient distance with a linear alignment to the south so that sight distances would not be obstructed from the new Proposed Project entrance.

The Proposed Project plans show a 36 -foot-wide roadway (Street A, curb -to-curb within a 46 -foot right-of-way) providing access into the site from La Sierra Avenue with internal 36 -wide streets and 26-foot-wide alleys that provide access to each residential lot. Consistent with the Victoria Avenue Policy requirements, the Proposed Project has a 100 -foot setback along its north side to provide enhanced landscaping along this portion of Victoria Avenue. The Proposed Project call for as many of the existing citrus trees as possible to be preserved within this setback area, and a 10 -foot-wide decomposed granite (DG) multi-purpose trail to be created along the south side of Victoria Avenue within the Proposed Project boundaries.

The Proposed Project has been designed in accordance with applicable circulation, safety plans, and design guidelines. The Proposed Project’s residential uses also are compatible with the surrounding uses, which are primarily residential. Therefore, this Proposed Project will have a less than significant impact on increasing hazards through design or incompatible uses on a direct, indirect, or cumulative basis. No mitigation is required.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.17: Transportation

Page 200 ends

d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? GP EIR Impact - Less than Significant
The GP PEIR analyzes this threshold on pages 5.15-37 through 5.15-39. The GP PEIR indicated that the City will continue to implement its adopted road standards, the State of California Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual, Municipal Code, and Fire Code. As a result, new and improved roadways will be designed to avoid unsafe design and to provide adequate emergency access.

The City of Riverside has developed an e xtensive Emergency Operations Plan, created by the Emergency Management Office. The City’s Fire Department promotes a high level of multijurisdictional cooperation and communication for emergency planning and response management through activation of the SEMS. The General Plan also provides policies to identify methods of implementing the emergency plan. Consequently, the project would provide adequate emergency access to the City. Impacts were determined to be less than significant.

Proposed Project
The Proposed Project site is located at the southeast corner of La Sierra Avenue and Victoria Avenue in the far west end of the City of Riverside (La Sierra South neighborhood). The Proposed Project site will take access from La Sierra Avenue in the southern p ortion of the site to maintain an adequate distance from the Victoria Avenue intersection for its safe operation. The Proposed Project plans show a 36-foot-wide roadway (Street A, curb-to-curb within a 46-foot right-of-way) providing access into the site from La Sierra Avenue with internal 36-wide streets and 26-foot-wide alleys that provide access to each residential lot. As a condition of approval, the Proposed Project will adhere to all applicable circulation, safety plans, and design guidelines.

The Proposed Project has been developed in compliance with Title 18, Section 18.210.030 (Streets) of the Subdivision Code, the City’s Fire Code RMC Title 16, and Section 503 of the California Fire Code (2007). In addition, the Proposed Project site will include internal roadway widths and access that would be reviewed by the City of Riverside emergency service providers to ensure emergency access is adequately provided. Emergency access vehicles will not be restricted in mobility by the site design of the P roposed Project in terms of blocking access ways, restricting access to the Proposed Project site, or indirectly by providing a use on the Proposed Project site that would restrict CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.17: Transportation

Page 201 ends

emergency access to adjacent uses. Therefore, there will be no impact on a direct , indirect, or cumulative basis to emergency access. No mitigation is required.

5.17.2 Cumulative Impacts Analysis
The GP PEIR evaluated the potential impacts associated with the General Plan Project, a citywide plan for buildout and design of the City. To that end, because it evaluates planned buildout (multiple projects at the programmatic level), the GP PEIR inherently considers cumulative impacts associated with population growth and increased development.

With respect to transportation, the GP PEIR concluded the General Plan will facilitate new growth in the Planning Area that will generate additional roadway traffic within the Planning Area and the region. This analysis, an LOS analysis, may no longer be the basis for a significant impact under CEQA.

Nevertheless, as discussed below, the Proposed Project is within the scope of the GP PEIR’s analysis and would contribute a minor amount of trips during the AM/PM peak hours. Also, even though the General Plan promotes infill development, the scope of buildout was determined to result in increases in VMT that was a cumulatively considerable contribution.

As discussed above, the Proposed Project would not result in project -level transportation impacts.

With respect to VMT, the Proposed Project, as designed, would be less than currently applicable thresholds. Thus, it would contribute to a reduction a VMT within the region and City, on an average basis. That reduction is consistent with regional plans for reductions of VMTs and associated GHG emissions, including the SCAG RTP/SCS. Also, the Proposed Project would be designed consistent with all applicable roadway and hazard standards, which would ensure no impacts from such design. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable transportation impact.

5.17.3 Uniformly Applied Development Standards and GP PEIR Mitigation Measures Applicable General Plan Policies
• Policy CCM-9.6: Enhance and encourage the provision of attractive and appropriate transit amenities, including shaded bus stops, to facilitate use of public transportation. • Policy CCM-9.8: Preserve options for future transit use where appropriate when designing improvements for roadways.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.17: Transportation

Page 202 ends

• Policy CCM-8.2: Promote walking and biking as a safe mode of travel for children attending local schools.
• Policy CCM-8.4: Give priority to sidewalk and curb construction to areas near schools with pedestrian traffic.

Applicable General Plan Mitigation Measures
There are no mitigation measures applicable to this Proposed Project that were identified in the GP PEIR.

5.17.4 Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Transportation, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the Proposed Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no impacts that were not analyzed as significant effects in the GP PEIR, with which the Proposed Project is consistent.

3. There are no potentially significant off- site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP PEIR.

4. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GP PEIR.

5. No mitigation measures contained within the GP PEIR would be required because Proposed Project specific impacts would be less than significant.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.18: Tribal Cultural Resources

Page 203 ends

5.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact

GP PEIR
Impact
Determination
Effect Peculiar
to Proposed
Project or
Site?
New or
Substantially
more Severe
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-Site or
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information/
More Severe
Impact?
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in
the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as
defined in Public Resources
Code section 5020.1(k)?
Less Than
Significant No No No No
b) A resource determined by the
lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1.

In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource
Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe?
Significant and
Unavoidable No No No No

5.18.1 Discussion
Note: When the 2025 General Plan EIR was certified in 2007, Tribal Cultural Resources was not a standalone topic in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and was analyzed under Section 5.4 of the EIR. To be consistent with the current version of Appendix G, Tribal Cultural Resources is now addressed under this section.
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.18: Tribal Cultural Resources

Page 204 ends

GP PEIR Impact– Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated The GP PEIR did not separately analyze pote ntial impacts to tribal cultural resources, but included an analysis of potential impacts within Section 5.3, Cultural Resources. The GP PEIR’s analysis included contacting tribes with potential interest in the General Plan. The GP PEIR acknowledged that buildout of the project could result in impacts to tribal resources. of the GP also includes General Plan Policy HP-4.3 which states:
“The City shall work with the appropriate tribe to identify and address, in a culturally appropriate manner, cultural resou rces and tribal sacred sites through the development review process. Numerous archaeological studies within the Planning Area have revealed the presence of Native American human remains. Although most have been associated with former residential village lo cations, isolated burials and cremations have also been found. If development projects are proposed in currently undeveloped areas, disturbance could have the potential to disturb or destroy buried Native American human remains or human remains in general, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Consistent with State laws protecting these remains (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 for all human remains and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 for Native American human remains), sites containing human remains must be identified and treated in a sensitive manner. “
To ensure that potential impacts to tribal resources were lessened to the extent possible, the GP PEIR included Mitigation Measures MM Cultural 1 through 4, which will reduce impacts to archaeological resources (including Native American resources) to a less than significant level. GP PEIR Mitigation Measure MM Cultural 4, for instance, provides that requires tribal monitoring during ground disturbing activities for areas of high archaeological sensitivity. Additionally, the GP PEIR found that while already reduced to a less-than-significant level, MM Cultural 5 and 6, requested by a tribe during the GP PEIR review process, will further reduce the less-than-significant impacts. MM Cultural 1 through MM Cultural 6 are located in Section 5.5, Cultural Resources, of this Checklist.

Proposed Project
As discussed in Section 5.3, Cultural Resources, of this Checklist, a standard Phase I cultural resources survey for a proposed residential development Proposed Project was conducted on the same parcel by McKenna in 2014. As a result of that study, a site of historical age was recorded that coincided with the entire Proposed Project site. The resource was designated 33 -023901 (CA-RIV- 11736H) in the California Historical Resources Inventory and consisted of an orange grove that had been cultivated on the property since 1902 along with associated irrigation features an d a wind machine. The 2014 study concluded that Site 33 -023901 did not meet any of the established significance criteria and thus did not qualify as a “historical resource” under CEQA.

A part of the Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for Proposed Project, on May 16, 2024, the City sent Assembly Bill (AB) 52 consultation notices to the following tribes to inquire if they wanted to initiate consultation: Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians , Cahuilla Band of Indians, Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, Rincon Band of CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.18: Tribal Cultural Resources

Page 205 ends

Luiseño Indians, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, and San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians. The 30-day time period for tribes to request consultation ended on June 15, 2024. The Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, and Cahuilla Band of Indians requested a consultation according to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1. No other tribes requested consultation within the required period.

The tribes requested archeological and tribal monitoring, a monitoring report, and protocols for the discovery of cultural material and human remains. That monitoring was agreed to as an implementation measure for AB 52. The monitoring requested is similar to that already required within GP PEIR Mitigation Measures, MM Cultural 1 – 4, which the Proposed Project would comply with as applicable. Additionally the City would include Conditions of Approval that would reflect the tribe’s specific requirements, which strengthen the existing GP PEIR Mitigation Measures, MM Cultural 1 – 4.

5.18.2 Cumulative
The GP PEIR evaluated the potential impacts associated with the General Plan Proposed Project, a citywide plan for buildout and design of the City. To that end, because it evaluates planned buildout (multiple projects at the programmatic level), the GP PEIR inherently considers cumulative impacts associated with population growth and increased development.

With respect to archaeological resources, and tribal resources specifically, the GP PEIR concluded the General Plan could result in potentially significant impacts to archaeological resources. In addition, future development could result in disturbance of previously unknown human remains. The GP PEIR also explained the state and federal consultation requirements and regulations that govern potential discovery of tribal resources. With those processes, along the implementation of the GP PEIR’s mitigation measures directly applicable to tribal resources, the General Plan would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to tribal resources.

The Proposed Project would implement GP PEIR MM Cultural 4, which requires specific measures to reduce project-related adverse impacts to archaeological resources and sites containing Native American resources. With compliance with MM Cultural 4, monitoring as agreed to pursu ant to AB 52 consultant, and other applicable regulations, the Proposed Project would not result in a cumulative impact to tribal resources.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.18: Tribal Cultural Resources

Page 206 ends

5.18.3 Uniformly Applied Development Standards and GP PEIR Mitigation Measures Refer to Section 5.5.2 under “Cultural Resources.” All standards apply to Tribal Cultural Resources

5.18.4 Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Tribal Cultural Resources, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the Proposed Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no impacts that were not analyzed as significant effects in the GP PEIR, with which the Proposed Project is consistent.

3. There are no potentially significant off- site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP PEIR.

4. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GP PEIR.

5. No mitigation measures contained within the GP PEIR would be required because Proposed Project specific impacts would be less than significant.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.19: Utilities and Service Systems

Page 207 ends

5.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Impact

GP PEIR
Impact
Determination
Effect Peculiar
to Proposed
Project or
Site?
New or
Substantially
more Severe
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-Site or
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information/
More Severe
Impact?
Would the project:
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?

Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No No
b) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project
and reasonably foreseeable
future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
Less Than
Significant No No No No
c) Result in a determination by
the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
Less Than
Significant No No No No
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?
Less Than
Significant No No No No
e) Comply with federal, state,
and local management and
reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid
waste?
Less Than
Significant No No No No
CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.19: Utilities and Service Systems

Page 208 ends

5.19.1 Discussion
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?
GP PEIR Impact – Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated The GP PEIR analyzes this threshold on pages 5.16-32 through 5.16-46 and 5.16-48 through 5.16-52 The GP PEIR concluded the following:

Storm Water Drainage
The GP PEIR found that increased development within the General Plan Project area will result in an increase of impervious surface areas. Increased impervious surface area will generate increased stormwater flows with potential to impact drainage facilities and require the provision of additional facilities. However, the Subdivision Code (Title 18, Section 18.48.020) requires drainage fees to be paid to the City for new construction. Fees are transferred into a drainage facilities fund which is maintained by Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Also, the GP PEIR noted that all new development related to the General Plan will be required to comply with all provisions of the NPDES program, as enforced by the RWQCB. Therefore, implementation of the proposed General Plan would not exceed applicable wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB with respect to discharges to the sewer system or stormwater system within the City. Future development would be required to adhere to existing regulations, which would ensure less than significant impacts. Nevertheless, the General Plan includes policies and programs that will minimize the environmental effects of the development of such facilities, as described throughout the GP PEIR. Therefore, the GP PEIR concluded that impacts related to construction are less than significant.

Water Facilities
The GP PEIR acknowledged that development consistent with the General Plan would result in the increase of residential and nonresidential water users over existing conditions, requiring the extension or maintenance of, or new wa ter filtration, treatment, and/or distribution facilities. However, RPU’s long range plans call for new water infrastructure in the City to meet projected demand. Still, the GP PEIR explained that RPU was preparing a draft Water System Master Plan, which d escribed improvements necessary to continue to provide adequate water service. The GP PEIR did identify a potential water pressure deficiency. However, although implementation of the General Plan does not cause the existing deficiencies, the Draft WSMP proposes improvements to address the existing deficiencies, and once adopted and implemented, will address the significant impact identified above. Because that plan was not finalized, however, the GP PEIR concluded that impacts related to water facilities was significant and unavoidable. The GP PEIR concluded that impacts associated with the construction of water facilities would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures identified in the GP PEIR.

CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.19: Utilities and Service Systems

Page 209 ends

Dry Utilities
The GP PEIR analyzed the potential to need new dry utilities in separate thresholds. However, for each threshold the GP PEIR concluded that although the General Plan would increase the need for such dry utilities (electricity, gas, and telecommunication facilities), the relevant regulatory/provider authorities had an adequate supply/capacity to provide the services needed for General Plan buildout. Therefore, at the programmatic level, impacts associated with providing dry utilities were considered less than significant.

Proposed Project
The site currently drains to the northeast and the water quality management plan proposes a detention/infiltration basin in the northeast portion of the site along with a new onsite storm drainage system to collect surface runoff and channel it to the new basin. The Proposed Project will connect existing utility lines and services (water, sewer, electric power, etc.) in La Sierra Avenue and/or Victoria Avenue as appropriate. The Proposed Project does not require upsizing of any of the existing lines to which it will connect. There is existing capacity in the facilities that will serve the Proposed Project and to which the Proposed Project utilities would connect . The installation of utilities and service systems as proposed by the Proposed Project would result in physical environmental impacts.

However, the Proposed Project’s construction phase is evaluated throughout this Checklist. The Proposed Project would be constructed in accordance with all federal, State and local regulations, therefore, any construction related impacts would be less than significant.

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? GP PEIR Impact – Less than Significant
The GP PEIR analyzes this threshold on pages 5.2-18 through 5.2-20. For the GP PEIR, analysis of future population for the City of Riverside and its Sphere Area (th e General Plan Planning Area) were evaluated at different levels of development ranging from typical growth to the most extreme, maximum with planned residential development. These scenarios were analyzed at three levels:

Typical, Maximum, and Maximum with PRD. Using these scenarios, the GP PEIR analyzed the projected water use for residential and non -residential customers for RPU. Compared to RPU’s projections for supply and demand, RPU will have sufficient supply for the Typical scenario. If growth CEQA Sections 15168 and 15183 Analysis
City of Riverside Case No. PR-2024-001656
February 2025 Section 5.19: Utilities and Service Systems

Page 210 ends

Riverside City CouncilApril 22, 2025

Riverside City Council
April 22, 2025