RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Tentative Tract Map No. 38921 - SEC La Sierra and Victoria Avenue PLANNING CASE PR-2024-001656 (TM)
SCH NO. 2024100611
November 6, 2024
Introduction
This document contains responses to comments received on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) during the public review period, which began on October 11, 2024, and ended on October 30, 2024. The comments are listed below. Letter from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, October 24, 2024. Email received from Bob Buster, October 31, 2024.
Email received from Friends of Riverside’s Hills, October 31, 2024. Letter from DeLano & Delano, November 6, 2024.
CEQA Requirements Regarding Comments and Responses
15074. CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
(b) Prior to approving a project, the decision-making body of the lead agency shall consider the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process. The decision-making body shall adopt the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration onl y if it finds on the basis of the whole record before it (including the initial study and any comments received), that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis.
Although State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 does not require a Lead Agency to prepare written responses to comments received, the City of Riverside has elected to prepare the following written responses with the intent of providing a comprehensive and meaningful evaluation of the proposed Project.
Conclusions
None of the comments provide substantial evidence that the Project will have significant environmental effects, which would require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Further, none of the information in the comments constitutes the type of significant new information that requires recirculation of the MND for further public review under Stat e CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 Recirculation of a Negative Declaration Prior to Adoption.
None of this new material indicates that the Project will result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the MND. Additionally, none of this information indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5.
DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL (DTSC) COMMENT LETTER
Judy Eguez
October 24, 2024
requiring further analysis are dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane, toxaphene, and dieldrin.
Additionally, any level of arsenic present would require further analysis and sampling and must meet HHRA NOTE NUMBER 3, DTSC-SLs approved thresholds. If they are not, remedial action must take place to mitigate them below those thresholds.
Additional COCs may be found in mixing/loading/storage areas, drainage ditches, farmhouses, or any other outbuildings and should be sampled and analyzed. If smudge pots had been routinely utilized, additional sampling for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and/or Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons may be required.
2. In the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment De Minimis Conditions Section states: “The low levels of OCPs and arsenic detected in near-surface soils as part of our Limited Soil Investigation are considered to be a de minimis condition for the subject property. However, EFI Global notes that based on the subject property's historical agricultural use, it is possible that buried/concealed/hidden 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 consultant 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.” DTSC recommends the City of Riverside enter into a voluntary agreement to address contamination at brownfields and other types of properties or receive oversight from a self- certified local agency, DTSC or Regional Water Quality Control Board. If entering into one of DTSC’s voluntary agreements, please note that DTSC uses a single standard Request for Lead Agency Oversight Application for all agreement types. Please apply for DTSC oversight using this link:
Request for Agency Oversight Application. Submittal of the online application includes an agreement to pay costs incurred during agreement preparation. If you
Judy Eguez
October 24, 2024
have any questions about the application portal, please contact your Regional Brownfield Coordinator.
3. DTSC recommends that all imported soil and fill material should be tested to assess any contaminants of concern meet screening levels as outlined in DTSC's Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) Guidance Manual. Additionally, DTSC advises referencing the DTSC Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material Fact Sheet if importing fill is necessary. To minimize the possibility of introducing contaminated soil and fill material there should be documentation of the origins of the soil or fill material and, if applicable, sampling be conducted to ensure that the imported soil and fill material are suitable for the intended land use. The soil sampling should include analysis based on the source of the fill and knowledge of prior land use. Additional information can be found by visiting DTSC’s Human and Ecological Risk Office (HERO) webpage.
DTSC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the MND for the Tentative Tract Map No. 38921 - Sec La Sierra and Victoria Avenue project. Thank you for your assistance in protecting California’s people and environment from the harmful effects of toxic substances. If you have any questions or would like clarification on DTSC’s comments, please respond to this letter or via email for additional guidance.
Sincerely,
Tamara Purvis
Associate Environmental Planner
HWMP - Permitting Division – CEQA Unit Department of
Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
Judy Eguez
October 24, 2024
cc: (via email)
Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation
State Clearinghouse [email protected]
Dave Kereazis
Associate Environmental Planner HWMP-
Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
Scott Wiley
Associate Governmental Program Analyst
HWMP - Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and Limited Soil Investigation Study was conducted on the project site in 2019. The ESA indicated citrus production had occurred on the site from at least the mid-1920s to approximately 1990, and the site curre ntly contains hundreds 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 to control a variety of pests during citrus production. To determine if or to what degree the site may be contaminated with these materials, the ESA included a limited soil investigation, including soil sampling and laboratory testing. The ESA concluded that the level of both arsenic and OCPs in the onsite soil was at or below appropriate health standards for these materials and did not recommend additional testing or remediation of these materials during grading. The ESA also determined that the potential for finding other kinds of contaminants on the site, such as asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) or lead-based paint (LBP), was low.
However, based on the subject property's historical agricultural use, it is possible that buried/concealed/hidden agricultural by -products, both above and below ground , may have existed or existed on the property. Any discovery of these types of hazardous materials found during construction is regulated by state and federal laws that the Project is required to adhere to strictly. As a result, the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during construction activities of the proposed Project would be less than significant.
COMMENT A-1
The comment describes background information on the history of the citrus industry in the area and on the history of the approval of Proposition R and Measure C and how they serve to protect the citrus industry in the City of Riverside.
Response to Comment A-1
The comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the MND. The McKenna study 2014 is a cultural resources assessment and discussed water supply from the Gage Canal in the context of evaluating if the Project met the criteria of a historic resource under CEQA. The water supply, as it applies to the viability of the land to be used for citrus, was not used in the MND analysis. Additionally, the City concurs that the Project Site contains “rich soils’ that contribute to its classification as Prime Farmland. Here again, the type of soil was not used in the MND analysis,
MND is adequate as provided and no further response is required or provided.
COMMENT A-2
The MND fails to mention Prop R and Measure C, even though they are historically significant.
These measures and Victoria’s national listing are also recognized and described in more detail on the City’s own neighborhoods web page [web link omitted]. The project’s main historic/cultural consultant fails to cite this too.
Response to Comment A-2.
The Project site is not located in the area regulated by Proposition R and Measure C.
Additionally, based on the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment prepared for the Project, it does not meet any of the established significance criteria and thus did not qualify as a “historical resource” under CEQA. For these reasons, the MND d id not need to discuss Proposition R and Measure C as a historic resource under CEQA. Victoria Avenue between Arlington Avenue and Boundary Lane is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (Property ID: 00001267) .1 However, the Project site is located approximately one -half mile away from the historic segment of Victoria Avenue and, therefore, has no im pact on this resource.
The comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the MND. MND is adequate as provided, and no further response is required or provided.
COMMENT A-3
Aesthetics – X in LTSI box Wrong, has much greater adverse impact. Having the lovely sight of a green grove at this prominent intersection benefits the thousands who walk or drive by.
Jagged, crammed rooftops are not soothing or beautiful.
1 https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9-b808 -4ff8-a2f9-a99909164466
Response to Comment A-3
The City appreciates that aesthetic determinations may seem subjective. To avoid subjectivity in a CEQA document, CEQA focuses the analysis on certain issues, such as whether the project would have an adverse impact on an identified scenic vista or conflic t with regulations adopted to govern scenic quality.
The project would not adversely impact an identified scenic vista. As detailed in Section 1b of the MND, Figure CCM-4, Master Plan of Roadways, in the City General Plan, designates La Sierra Avenue and Victoria Avenue as a S cenic Parkway. The Victoria Avenue Policy for Preservation, Design, and Development, November 2019
2, requires that any existing, healthy
trees and their roots, trunks, and canopies located along Victoria Avenue or within 100 feet of Victoria Avenue’s edge of roadway shall be protected from any construction activity. In fulfillment of this policy, the project proposes to preserve 1.24 acres (54,110 square feet) of the northern portion of the site to become part of the Victoria Avenue historic landscaped parkway consistent with the Victoria Avenue Policy. This treatment along Victoria Avenue will have a 10-foot-wide decomposed granite (DG) multi-use trail through a grove of citrus trees that will remain from the existing onsite orchard , although it is no longer commercially harvested. The site will have extensive new landscaping consistent with the Victoria Avenue Policy.
The MND is adequate as provided, and no further response is required or provided.
COMMENT A-4
Agriculture Resources – X in LTSI box . Absolutely wrong with clearly token, insufficient mitigation. This is irrigated Prime Farmland, just as mine is 4.5 miles away in the Greenbelt. It is ranked highest for protection by State policies. Developing this site sets a precedent for more such proposals ringing the Greenbelt and Victoria Avenue. R & C requires protecting it. At minimum, any reduction here of such quality ag land must be mitigated on at least a 1-acre lost to 2-acres saved nearby.
Response to Comment A-4
The commenter is correct that the property is classified as “Prime Farmland” by the Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. However, the commenter incorrectly states that the property is subject to Proposition R and Measure C and requires mitigation. The Project site has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Low-Density Residential (LDR, 4.1 du/ac) La Sierra South Neighborhood and a Zoning classification of R-1- 1/2 – Single Family Residential Zon e. Both the G eneral Plan and zoning code identified the Project site as providing areas for single -family residences with a variety of lot sizes and housing choices , and not the RA -5 zone , which is intended to preserve agricultural areas regulated by Proposition R and Measure C.
Regarding the loss of Prime Farmland, the 2007 General Plan EIR stated that “… Particularly within the City limits, it should be noted that those areas identified as important farmland are in fact largely developed or planned for other uses. Riverside is becoming an increasingly
2 https://riversideca.gov/cedd/sites/riversideca.gov.cedd/files/pdf/planning/2021/Victoria%20Avenue%20Policy.pdf
urban city, and the pressures of this transition have made farmland impractical to perpetuate. Farming practices are often in conflict with urban development, and it would not be desirable in most cases to reintroduce agriculture into these areas. The exception is the Arlington Heights Greenbelt where it is the City’s policy to promote continued agricultural uses. “
The General Plan EIR considered mitigation measures to compensate for the loss of farmland on a Citywide and cumulative basis; These measures consisted of implementing a program that would establish a fee for the purchase of agricultural replacement land or a program that would establish agricultural easements. The EIR found that thi s measure would not (1) avoid the loss of farmland, (2) minimize the sco pe of the project, (3) repair, rehabilitate , or restore the affected farmland, (4) or replace the affected farmland with substitute farmland.
Thus, such a program would not actually mitigate the significant impact caused by the Project. (State CEQA Guidel ines, § 15370.) Further, funding off- site agricultural preservation outside of the City lacks the essential nexus to the effects of the Project. While preserving agricultural land in other parts of the state may bestow a benefit on other regions, no such benefit is possible for the area affected by the Project The Project’s impacts with regarding the loss of Prime Farmland are within the scope of the General Plan EIR per State CEQA Guidelines §15168.
The Project is consistent with the General Plan. In ad dition, since the 2007 General Plan EIR, the area has become more developed. As noted in the MND, the project site does not currently support agricultural resources or operations. There are no agricultural operations or farmlands within proximity of the site although there is a commercial nursery northeast of the site. The site is surrounded by “Urban and Built Up” land. Based on these conditions, the Project will have a less than significant impact on Prime Farmland.
The MND is adequate as provided, and no further response is required or provided.
COMMENT A-5
Air Quality – X in same box Erroneous, does not measure the net loss of good air filtered and emitted by tree leafs to crowded housing and here. vehicle exhausts. Fails to consider toxic pollution compounding effect of hotter weather and fire smoke.
Response to Comment A-5
The commenter assert s that the loss of the citrus trees on the project site will increase the impact of air quality on the area due to the loss of the trees and reductions in photosynthesis and sequestration. Photosynthesis is a biological process where plants , through their leaves, use sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water into glucose and oxygen. The process whereby the trees store carbon in the woody portions (trunk and stems) as well as the roots and ground is called sequestration.
The effectiveness of agricultural use in reducing carbon emissions is dependent on many factors not mentioned by the commenter, such as the use of chemical fertilizers, the health
of the existing trees, the age of the trees, tilling and/or aeration of soils around the trees, and the use of tree residues.
Chemical fertilizers release chemicals such as nitrogen. The health and age of exi sting trees impact their ability to conduct photosynthesis and sequestration. Tilling and/or aeration processes release carbon that has been sequestered in the ground. Pruning or removing trees also releases the sequestered carbon.
The commentator fails to state that the Project is proposing to maintain over 130 of the existing citrus trees and plant an additional 129 trees, including 10 Coastal live oak, 41 crape myrtle, 19 golden rain trees, 34 fern pines, 7 California sycamore, and 18 “Wurtz” avocado t rees. In addition, various accent shrubs, screening shrubs, groundcovers, and vines will be planted to offset the loss of the remaining trees currently on the site.
No evidence has been presented that substantiates that the Project’s removal of existing trees would have a potentially significant impact or require mitigation.
The Project utilized the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1.1.22, 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 by the SCAQMD to assess project emissions. As addressed in the MND , the results of the Air Qua lity and Greenhouse Gas emissions modeling indicate that the Project would not have impacts that exceed the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance. Therefore, the Project’s emissions would not be cumulatively considerable, and impacts would be less than significant.
No substantial evidence has been presented that the Projects would create a cumulative impact on climate change or increase fire hazards. The MND is adequate as provided, and no further response is required or provided.
COMMENT A-6
Cultural Resources. Fails to consider Prop R and Measure C history, two city wide votes affirmed by State Supreme Court. Obviously, after 45 years this history is critical to consideration of this site and area today, meriting recognition of the farm and a rea under Federal, State and City criteria.
Response to Comment A-6
See Response A-2 above. The MND is adequate as provided , and no further response is required or provided.
COMMENT A-7
Greenhouse Gas Emissions – X same box. Not up to date with hotter weather and scores of gas-powered vehicles starting up and many more delivery trucks coming in.
Response to Comment A-7
The commentor uses ambiguous terms such as “not up to date”, “scores”, and “many more” which cannot be qualified or quantified. The Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact analysis used the most up -to-date version of CalEEMod that was available at the time of modeling. The Project utilized the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1.1.22, 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 project emissions by the SCAQMD. As addressed in the MND the results of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas emissions modeling indicate that the Project would not result in impacts that exceed the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance. Therefore, the Project’s emissions would not be cumulatively considerable, and impacts would be less than significant.
The CalEEMod analysis utilizes the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation codes and data for the project’s land use to estimate vehicle emissions and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) that are associate with the Project. The modeling takes into account a vehicle mix that would include cars, light trucks, medium trucks, heavy trucks , motorcycles, buses, and motorhomes., thus accounting for delivery trucks. The Project being a residential land use would not have significant numbers of medium and/or heavy duty-trucks (delivery trucks) and as such the estimates for vehicle emissions generated by CalEEMod and used to analyze the Projects impacts are valid.
No evidence has been presented that substantiates that the Project used out of date data and would create a significant or cumulative impact associated with traffic emissions . No substantial evidence has been presented that the Projects would create a cumulativ e impact on climate change or increase fire hazards. The MND is adequate as provided, and no further response is required or provided.
COMMENT A-8
“Hydrology and Water Quality - Potential huge hazard failed to be recognized, i.e., earthquake or other Lake Mathews dam/dike breach causing sudden inundation of project site. State Water Dept web site shows three emergency flood scenarios (screen shots enclosed), one which doesn’t affect the site, but two that do. Project MND Sect. 10d, bottom of p 51, claims “…Project site is not located within the dam inundation area of Lake Matthews.” If inundation potential confirmed, site should remain in agriculture.” Response to Comment A-8.
The commenter is correct that the Project site is within the dam inundation area of Lake Matthews. Notwithstanding, the 2007 General Plan 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 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 General Plan EIR, no other feasible mitigation measures have been 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 2007 General Plan EIR, including the residential land use designation on the Project site . Compliance with State Civil Code Sect ion 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.
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 unsafe 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.3
The Project would not alter or exacerbate the existing risk of inundation from dam failure. The 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 project is in a dam inundation area does not result in a new, significant impact and no new mitigation is required.
COMMENT A-9
“Land Use and Planning – X same box as to subsection b. This will cause a significant impact because it directly conflicts with Prop R and Measure C requirements to protect citrus and farmlands in annexed areas, especially projects on sites like this directly bordering Victoria and next to Greenbelt. This too is an adverse precedent in many other areas around the Greenbelt”.
Response to Comment A-9
The Project site is not subject to Proposition R and Measure C. See the Response to Comment A-1. The MND is adequate as provided , and no further response is required or provided.
3 https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Al l-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
COMMENT A-10
“Population and Housing – X in same box as to subsection a.Again, this is glaring precedent, a ‘block buster’, that will obviously induce unplanned (which this project is) spot high density housing incompatible with agr iculture at many other sites around the Greenbelt and throughout the City.”
Response to Comment A-10
The Project site has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Low-Density Residential (LDR,
4.1 du/ac) La Sierra South Neighborhood and a Zoning classification of R-1-1/2—Single - Family Residential Zone. Both the General Plan and zoning code identify the Project site as providing areas for single-family residences with a variety of lot sizes and housing choices.
The project is consistent with the g rowth planned by the General Plan and will not result in unplanned growth. The MND is adequate as provided, and no further response is required or provided.
COMMENT A-11
Transportation – X same box as to subsection a
“Such a dense development, without adequate parking and no bus service, forcing many residents to walk long distances, is completely unsuitable – even hazardous – in hot or rainy weather for children, the aged and infirm, and for disabled future residents. This cries out for necessary accommodations and improvements, both on and off site, such as bus, taxi or van service (which project proponents do not control).”
Response to Comment A-11.
Under CEQA, Transportation impacts are evaluated in terms of Vehicle Miles Traveled 9VMT), The Project site has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Low -Density Residential (LDR, 4.1 du/ac) La Sierra South Neighborhood and a Zoning classification of R-1-1/2 – Single Family Residential Zone. Both identify the Project site to provide areas for single -family residences with a variety of lot sizes and housing choices. There are approximately 1,288 linear feet of existing sidewalk along La Sierra Avenue between Cleveland Avenue and Victoria Avenue . The Project would construct 2,295 linear feet within the P roject site . In addition, the Project must implement measures designed to reduce vehicular travel (transportation demand management (TDM) measures), which are listed on page 66 of the MND. The project also provides adequate parking, consisting of 2 garage spaces per unit, plus 12 spaces along the P roject’s private streets for guests ). The MND is adequate as provided, and no further response is required or provided.
COMMENT A-12
This comment is a copy of an email to the County of Riverside Flood Control and Water Conservation District requesting information on Lake Matthews's dam inundation area. The District provided the requested information, which the commenter attached to the email sent to the City of Riverside.
Response to Comment A-12
The comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the MND. See response to comment A-8 addressing the fact that the project is in a dam inundation area.
COMMENT B-1
This comment states that although the Project site is not located in the area regulated by Proposition R and Measure M , it should be preserved because it is close and a natural extension of the protected area.
Response to Comment B-1
The commenter is expressing their opinion that the Project site should be subject to Proposition R and Measure M, even though the Project site is not within the area regulated by them. This is a land use policy decision that is not within the scope of the MND.
The comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the MND. The MND is adequate as provided, and no further response is required or provided.
COMMENT B-2
Citing the MND, on p. 20-21, the commenter asserts that because the Project site is classified as Prime Farmland by the California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping, and Monitoring Program, it should be restricted for agricultural use.
Response to Comment B-2
Refer to Response A-4 in Email A-Bob Buster.
COMMENT B-3
Citing MND p.2, the commenter asserts that because the Project is required to comply with the Victoria Avenue Policy for Preservation, Design, and Development, this “shows that the existing onsite orchard consists of healthy trees which could thus be restored to production or be replanted with new young citrus trees, and thus its loss would be a loss to state agriculture as specified by the State Department of Conservation.”
Response to Comment B-3
The Victoria Avenue Policy states that “Any existing, healthy trees and their roots, trunks, and canopies, located along Victoria Avenue, or within 100 feet of Victoria Avenue’s edge of the roadway, shall be protected from any construction activity.” This policy does not require trees beyond 100 feet from the edge of Victoria Avenue’s roadway to be preserved.
The comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the MND. The MND is adequate as provided, and no further response is required or provided.
COMMENT B-4
Citing MND p.53, the commenter asserts that by not preserving the Project site for agricultural use, the Project will conflict with any local or regional land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The commenter provides a link to the Department of Conservation webpage that recommends lead
agencies (i.e., the City) use the California LESA Model, which is a tool used to give lead agencies an optional methodology to analyze the impact of the environmental impacts of agricultural land conversions to non-agricultural use.
Response to Comment B-4
The LESA Model is an optional methodology to analyze impacts; it does not mandate that Prime Farmland be preserved or mitigated. The City chose to ex amine the environmental effects by tiering from the analysis in the 2007 General Plan EIR. Please refer to Response A-4, Email-Bob Buster, or the analysis and conclusion regarding the loss of Prime Farmland.
COMMENT B-5
On the MPD’s p. 20, part of the answer to question 2a states, “In addition, there are properties supporting citrus orchards 0.4 -mile northeast of the site south of Victoria Avenue , but the extent to which they are actively producing citrus is not currently known.” The commenter further states that: “However, as the promulgators of the MND could and should have easily determined and, as seen on Google Maps, there is a very large area there (many times the area of the subject site) of healthy -looking citrus orchards. That area is part of the City’s designated Greenbelt controlled by voter -passed Prop R and Measure C and zoned RA -5 (minimum 5 acre lots) and is clearly actively producing citrus (personal observation and information from local Greenbelt citrus growers). That nearby area is also connected to the project site by the Victoria Ave parkway citrus trees.
Response to Comment B-5
The MND's reference to whether or not the area to the northeast is actively producing citrus fruit was intended to provide context on the current and future agricultural operations in the vicinity. As noted in the MND, the Project site is adjacent to larger citrus groves that provide support infrastructure such as processing facilities, etc. Additionally, the Project site is part of a single -family area and is located in a zone that does not allow larger-scale citrus production.
The MND is adequate as provided, and no further response is required or provided.
COMMENT B-6
The commenter states that “ Regarding impacts other than to agriculture, the MND’s p.2 states: “The project will be built in one phase and grading will require 6,252 cubic yards (CY) of cut and 29,04 [sic] CY of fill so overall earthwork will require the import of 22,788 CY of fill (Figure 7, Grading Plan).” At an average of 11 CY of fill per 15 CY dump truck, that is over 2,000 such dump trucks going in and out from the site (even with an overly optimistic amount per dump truck load of 15 CY, that would be nearly 1,500 loads). The MND fails to provide needed information as to the time period for such grading, and the traffic/noise/dust impacts of such grading.”
Response to Comment B-6
The grading phase of the Project was estimated to occur over 20 days. As shown in Table
3.1, Short-Term (Construction) Air Quality Impacts , of the MND, using the CalEEMod Mitigated Construction Emissions, which incorporates Rule 403 dust control measures, the localized construction emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD LSTs for emissions for construction activities with Rule 403 measures applied to the Project, including watering site 2 times per day, reducing speed on-site, and street sweeping.
Additionally, the Project is subject to standard Conditions of Approval #10 and #11 required by the City as part of PLANNING CASE PR-2024-001656 (TM) described below.
10. To reduce diesel emissions associated with construction, construction contractors shall provide temporary electricity to the site to eliminate the need for diesel -powered electric generators, or provide evidence that electrical hook ups at construction sites are not cost effective or feasible.
11. To reduce construction- related particulate matter air quality impacts of projects , the following measures shall be required: a. The generation of dust shall be controlled as required by the AQMD; b. Trucks hauling soil, dirt or ot her emissive materials shall have their loads covered with a tarp or other protective cover as determined by the City Engineer c. The project contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained muffle rs consistent with manufacturers’ standards; d. Sweep streets at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved public roads; e. Trucks and other equipment leaving the site shall be washed off; f. Disturbed/loose soil shall be k ept moist at all times; g. All grading activities shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour; and h. A 15 mile per hour speed limit shall be enforced on unpaved portions of the construction site.
The MND is adequate as provided, and no further response is required or provided.
COMMENT B-7
As cited from MND p. 7: “… the MND fails in particular to provide any information as to where the large amount, 22,788 CY, of imported fill will come from, and the impacts there, and the impacts of its transport to the site. How much of that dump truck traffic will go via Millsweet Place on the project’s northeast edge (see Exhibit 4, p. 9), and thus via Victoria Ave, where trucks over 5 tons are prohibited by City Code? The estimated total construction time is stated in the MND as 300 days, but the writer could find no breakdown as to how much of that was for grading. If 20 days of that is for grading, that is an average of over 100 dump trucks in and 100 out, per day, so in an 8-hour = 480 minute workday, a dump truck in or a dump truck out on average every less than 2 ½ minutes. Th at will cause a substantial impact on the neighborhood, especially on adjacent and across the street neighboring residents (and on the Hello Baby Child Care Agency a couple of hundred feet southeast and the Arizona Middle School a couple of blocks northwest), as well as impacts on local traffic, all of which the MND fails to consider.”
Response to Comment B-7
As described in Section 3b of the MND and Appendix A, construction emissions for the Project were estimated by using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod)version 2022.1.1.22, 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. The construction emissions were based on a 20 -day grading period using default settings for haul trucks. The peak emissions for grading activities, including haul trucks, were found to be below the emission thresholds established by the SCSAQMD.
Additionally, as required by the City, any person proposing to disturb more than 50 cubic yards of soil is subject to obtaining a grading permit from the Public Works Department. As a part of the grading permit review process, the estimated volumes, in cubic yards, of cut and fill and the area of the site are to be shown on the plan. The ultimate disposition of any excess dirt is to be stated in the plan. Excess dirt moved outside the city limits shall comply with the applicable standards of the area it is moved to. Any location within the city limits used for the disposal of excess dirt will require a separate Grading Plan Review and issuance of a separate grading permit for that site.4
The MND is adequate as provided, and no further response is required or provided.
COMMENT B-8
“Another issue: Per the project plans, the sole vehicle ingress/egress (Exhibit 4, p. 9) to/from the project’s 49 homes will be by a single outlet to heavily trafficked La Sierra Ave, creating emergency (especially fire) access problems, as well as a problem for any vehicle seeking a left turn to or from La Sierra Ave, which would be prevented by the land scaped median on that street. So, per the MND, an estimated 490 trips a day to or from the 49 homes, with about half having to start out or end up going the opposite direction from that intended.” Response to Comment B-8
Section 3c of the MND discussed the construction impacts on the nearby sensitive receptors. The South Coast Air Quality Management District has established Localized Significance Thresholds (LST), which are used to determine whether a project may generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts for both construction and on-site operations. For a CEQA analysis, the SCAQMD considers a sensitive receptor to be a receptor such as a residential, hospital, or convalescent facility where it is possible that an individual could remain for 24 hours If the calculated emissions for the proposed construction or operational activities are below the LST emission thresholds then the proposed construction or operation activity is not significant for air quality. (SCAQMD) The nearest sensitive receptors are residential homes located approximately 60 feet from the Project site boundary and 370 feet from the center of the site to the north of the project site. The Project site is located in Source Receptor Area (SRA) #23 – Metropolitan Riverside County. The total daily
4 https://riversideca.gov/publicworks/engineering/land- development/grading
disturbed acreage used for the Project is approximately 5 acres (this is the maximum acreage to be graded/disturbed per day), with the closest receptor at 25 meters ( 82 feet).
The MND is adequate as provided, and no further response is required or provided.
COMMENT B-9
The commenter states “ For all of the above reasons, the MND is inadequate and an EIR is needed for this project if it proceeds, or better, it should be scrapped entirely. Others will also present FRH discussion of other problems with the project and its MND.” Response to Comment B-9
As noted in the responses to the comments above, the MND is adequate as provided, and no further response is required or provided.
DeLANO & DeLANO COMMENT LETTETR
Response
The commenter states that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required because the Project “is likely to lead to several significant impacts .” Following this statement, the commenter describes their reasons for this position.
The commenter states that developing single -family residential homes at a density of 4.95 dwellings per acre is “inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood” and that allowing development “at greater intensity than currently allowed or the minimum lot area, maximum lot coverage and rear, front, and side yard setbacks.”
The City of Riverside Planning Department reviewed the Project for consistency with the General Plan and zoning regulations as described in the Staff Report for the Project. Based on this review, the Planning Department made the following conclusions:
The 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 un its per acre. Additionally, the 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 project is permitted to have a density of 4.95 dwelling units per acre, consistent with State Density Bonus Law [Government Code § 65915].
The Project site is zoned R-1-1/2 Acre, which is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation.
The 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.
This comment does not provide evidence that the analysis is inadequate, that there would be any new significant impacts not addressed in the MND, or that impacts would be substantially more severe than those identified in the MND.
Response
Although the Project site is classified as “Prime Farmland” by the Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping, and Monitoring Program (FMMP), the MND’s discussion of the adjacent land’s classification as “Urban and Built Up Land” by the FMMP as being a contributing factor to the land not being actively in citrus production and no longer viable as Prime Farmland.
This is consistent wi th the 2007 General Plan EIR which states: “… Particularly within the City limits, it should be noted that those areas identified as important farmland are in fact largely developed or planned for other uses. Riverside is becomingly an increasingly urban city and the pressures of this transition have made farmland impractical to perpetuate. Farming practices are often in conflict with urban development, and it would not be desirable in most cases to reintroduce agriculture into these areas. The exception is the Arlington Heights Greenbelt where it is the City’s policy to promote continued agricultural uses. “ The EIR considered mitigation measures to compensate for the loss of farmland on a Citywide and cumulative basis; These measures consisted of impleme nting a program that would establish a fee for the purchase of agricultural replacement land or a program that would establish agricultural easements. The EIR found that this measure would not (1) avoid the loss of farmland, (2) minimize the scope of the p roject, (3) repair, rehabilitate, or restore the affected farmland, (4) or replace the affected farmland with substitute farmland. Thus, such a program would not actually mitigate the significant impact caused by the Project. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15370.) Further, funding off -site agricultural preservation outside of the Planning Area lacks the essential nexus to the effects of the Project. While preserving agricultural land in other parts of the state may bestow a benefit on other regions, no such benefit is possible for the area affected by the Project. Therefore, the MND does not require mitigation for the loss of Prime Farmland.
(Also refer to Response to Comment A-5.)
This comment does not provide evidence that the analysis is inadequate, that ther e would be any new significant impacts not addressed in the MND, or that impacts would be substantially more severe than those identified in the MND.
emissions.
Response
The MMD utilized the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1.1.22, which is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies to quantify potential criteria polluta nt emissions associated with both construction and operations emissions. CalEEMod is authorized by the SCAQMD to assess project emissions. The results of the CalEEMod indicate the following:
All construction emissions are below the SCAQMD thresholds.
All operations emissions are below the SCAQMD thresholds.
The GHG emissions for both construction and operations (792.79 Metric Tons/year of the Project are estimated to be below the 3,000M TCO2e/Year threshold.
Localized Significance Thresholds are not exceeded for the surrounding land uses and would not adversely impact sensitive receptors during construction or operations.
Due to the P roject's small size, there will be no overlap between grading operations (which generate the highest number of emissions) and home occupancy.
GHG emissions are required to be modeled annually because the GHG significance threshold is based on metric tons per year. Construction emissions are amortized over 30 years as required by CalEEMod.
This comment does not provide ev idence that the analysis is inadequate, that there would be any new significant impacts not addressed in the MND, or that impacts would be substantially more severe than those identified in the MND.
The analysis in the MND is based on technical reports, noise monitoring, and noise prediction modeling.5 The analysis found that:
The MND relied upon the Health (NIOSH) standard of 80 dBA for construction activities.
Table 13-1 of the MND indicates the construction noise level will range between 69 to 83 dBA at the nearest receptors. Although a 3 dBA increase is barely perceptible t o the human ear, to ensure construction noise impacts remain at less than significant levels for all sensitive receptors, especially those along the east side of the site, the Project will implement Mitigation Measure NOI-1 containing measures to reduce noise during the operation of construction equipment.
The assertion that the existing ambient noise level exceeds applicable levels is incorrect. Section 7.25.010 (B) the Riverside Municipal Code indicates that if the existing ambient noise level already ex ceeds 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. Based on the results of the noise study, Project construction or operation will not 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 Mitigation Measure NOI-1. With mitigation, impacts are considered to be less than significant on a direct, indirect, or cumulative basis.
This comment does not provide evidence that the analysis is inadequate, that there would be any new significant impacts not addressed in the MND, or that impacts would be substantially more severe than those identified in the MND.
5 Appendix H –Noise Assessment – Veneklasen Associates – May 3, 2024.
The comment states that the MND “provides a faulty VMT analysis” and that “the VMT reduction measures are not appropriate “… “and it is uncertain whether the claimed reductions could be achieved.”
To mitigate the Project’s VMT impacts and per the City guidelines, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equality (December 2021) was considered. The CAPCOA manual includes various measures to reduce VMT. The calculations used to quantify the VMT reduction measures are described in detail in Appendix J- Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis, TJW Engineering, July 16, 2024, included in the MND. The City of Riverside Public Works Department verified the results.
This comment does not provide evidence that the analysis is inadequate, that th ere would be any new significant impacts not addressed in the MND, or that impacts would be substantially more severe than those identified in the MND.
For purposes of CEQA, the analysis in the MND focuses on the following threshold:
Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect? The analysis in this MND, included, but was not limited to, the following:
City of Riverside General Plan 2025City of Riverside General Plan 2025 Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR)
City of Riverside Municipal Code, Title 19, Zoning Code City of Riverside Municipal Code, Title 20, Cultural Resources 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) County of Riverside General Plan 2015, various elements 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)
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, Project imp acts will be less than significant on a direct, indirect, or cumulative basis. No mitigation is required.
This comment does not provide evidence that the analysis is inadequate, that there would be any new significant impacts not addressed in the MND, or that impacts would be substantially more severe than those identified in the MND.
The comment states that: “ State law provides that a city must deny a tentative map where the project is inconsistent with the general plan, where the site is not physically suited for the proposed type of development, and/or where the proposed improvements are likely to cause environmental or health impacts. Gov. Code § 66474 .In this instance, as these comments explain, all three factors apply.”
Response
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1. DETERMINE that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment based on the findings set forth in the case record and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), pursuant to Sections 15074 and 21081.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and
2. APPROVE Planning Cases PR -2024-001656 (Tentative Tract Map), based on the findings outlined in the staff report and summarized in the attached findings and subject to the recommended conditions.
PLANNING CASE: PR-2024-001656 (Tentative Tract Map) Waiver or reduction to development standards Pursuant to Chapter 19.545.070.A, as outlined in the Staff Report
1. The waivers or reduction of development standards would not have a specific adverse impact upon public health or safety for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact.
2. The waivers or reduction of development standards would not have an adverse impact on any real property listed in the California Register of Historical Resources.
3. The waivers or reduction of development standards would not be contrary to State or Federal law.
This comment does not provide evidence that the analysis is inadequate, that there would be any new significant impacts not addressed in the MND, or that impacts would be substantially more severe than those identified in the MND.