Appendix J1
Martha McLean Anza Narrows Park Traffic Assessment
March 3, 2023
Ms. Alisa Sramala
City of Riverside
Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department
6927 Magnolia Avenue
Riverside, California 92506
SUBJECT: RIVERSIDE GATEWAY PARKS MARTHA MCLEAN-ANZA NARROWS PARK
TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT, RIVERSIDE, CA
(RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY JOB NUMBER 19405-AT)
Dear Ms. Sramala:
The following traffic assessment evaluates the anticipated trip generation, site access, internal circulation and parking of the proposed improvements and amenities within the existing Martha McLean -Anza Narrows Park within the Riverside Gateway parks system in the City of Riverside, California. In addition, level of service (LOS) and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) screening evaluations and an active transportation and public transit evaluation are included in this traffic assessment. The existing park is bounded by Jurupa Avenue to the south, the Santa Ana River to the north and east, and Union Pacific Railroad lines to the west. This study was prepared in accordance with the City of Riverside Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment (July 2020 ) and discussion with City of Riverside Public Works staff . Attachment A contains the City of Riverside’s Traffic Analysis Scoping Form, which was reviewed and accepted by City of Riverside Traffic Engineering staff. Exhibit 1 shows a map of the regional project vicinity.
Project Description
Martha McLean-Anza Narrows Park is an existing 39.5-acre developed park with picnic areas and an 18- hole disc golf course. The Santa Ana River Trail extends through the park near the eastern boundary. A total of 167 parking stalls are currently provided at Martha McLean-Anza Narrows Park, and the proposed project would provide a net increase of 17 additional parking stalls.
The project proposes to develop approximately 3.3 acres of programmable park amenities within the existing park, which include the following:
• Two community meadows/gathering spaces
• Band shell
• Water play arroyo and nature play area
• Realignment of the drive aisle and parking area at the northwest corner of the park, which would remove nine (9) parking stalls
• Proposed new 26-stall parking lot at southeast corner of park
Exhibit 2 shows the project site plan.
RICK
ENGINEERING COMPANY
Traffic Division
5620 Friars Road • San Diego, Californi a 92110 -2596 • (6 19} 291 -0707 • www .ri cken gineer ing.com
SAN DIEGO RIVERSIDE ORANGE SACRAMENTO SAN LUIS OBISPO LAS VEGAS DENVER PHOENIX TUCSON Ms. Alisa Sramala
March 3, 2023
Existing Transportation Conditions
The following is a description of the existing roadways in the vicinity of Martha McLean-Anza Narrows Park:
Jurupa Avenue is currently built as a four-lane divided roadway within the project vicinity. Jurupa Avenue is oriented in a general east -west direction and extends from Pachappa Drive near SR -91 to Tyler Street.
Jurupa Avenue runs for a total distance of approximately 5.5 miles.
Jurupa Avenue is classified in the City of Riverside’s General Plan Circulation and Community Mobility Element (February 2018) as a four-lane, 88-foot Arterial in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Jurupa Avenue has a pavement width of approximately 76 feet along the existing park frontage. A raised median with intermittent turn lanes is currently provided west of the existing park access, and a two-way left-turn lane is currently provided east of the existing park access. On-street parking is prohibited on Jurupa Avenue in the vicinity of the existing park.
Class II bike lanes are provided on Jurupa Avenue in each direction of travel for a majority of the roadway length. Several sections of the roadway also provide a two -foot buffer for bicyclists on both sides of the roadway. The posted speed limit on Jurupa Avenue is 45 MPH in the vicinity of the existing park.
Project Trip Generation
Based on input from City of Riverside staff, the trip generation for the proposed project was calculated using custom trip rates that were developed from vehicular traffic counts that were collected at the three (3) driveways serving Ryan Bonaminio Park located at 5000 Tequesquite Avenue in the City of Riverside. The traffic counts at the park driveways were collected on Thursday, September 15, 2022 and on Saturday, September 17, 2022 over a 24-hour period on each day.
Based on the acreage of the existing Ryan Bonaminio Park (43.65 acres) and the number of daily and AM/PM peak hour trips on each day, daily and AM/PM peak hour trip generation rates were calculated for a “local Riverside park” on a typical weekday and a typical Saturday. These customized local park trip rates were applied to the programmable acreage of the proposed developed park areas, which are shown below in Table 1.
Table 1
Local Riverside Park Trip Rates from Driveway Counts
Unit
Daily
Trip
Rate
(per unit)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Trip
Rate
(per unit)
Inbound Outbound Trip
Rate
(per unit)
Inbound Outbound
(%) (% AM) (% PM) (% PM)
Weekday Trip Rates
acres 41.28 3.09 50% 50% 3.83 54% 46%
Saturday Trip Rates
acres 39.27 4.22 49% 51% N/A N/A N/A
Source: Vehicular traffic counts were collected at Ryan Bonaminio Park driveways by Veracity Traffic Group on Thursday, September 15, 2022 and on Saturday, September 17, 2022.
N/A = Not applicable, as the highest peak hour on a Saturday occurs during the morning hours.
Ms. Alisa Sramala
March 3, 2023
Based on direction from City of Riverside staff, the trip generation rates for a developed Regional/County Park from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Not So Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region (April 2002) were used to calculate the trip generation of the existing developed park.
Table 2 shows the trip generation calculations for the proposed project using the custom trip rates shown above in Table 1 and the SANDAG Regional/County Park trip rates as described above. Attachment B contains the Ryan Bonaminio Park driveway counts and the SANDAG trip generation rates.
Table 2 shows that the proposed programmable project area and remaining existing developed Martha McLean-Anza Narrows Park would generate a combined total of 860 trips per day on a typical weekday, and a combined total of 853 trips per day on a typical Saturday. The proposed programmable project area and remaining existing developed park would generate a combined total of 39 trips during the weekday AM peak hour (20 inbound/19 outbound), 71 trips during the weekday PM peak hour (36 inbound/35 outbound), and 92 trips during the highest Saturday peak hour (46 inbound/46 outbound).
Table 2 also shows that development of the proposed programmable project area would result in a net increase of 70 trips per day on a typical weekday and a net increase of 63 trips per day on a typical Saturday.
The proposed programmable project area would generate a net increase of 7 trips during the weekday AM peak hour (4 inbound/3 outbound), a net increase of 8 trips during the weekday PM peak hour (4 inbound/4 outbound), and a net increase of 7 trips during the highest Saturday peak hour (4 inbound/3 outbound).
The project’s trip distribution was estimated based on the surrounding land uses and the existing r oadway network. Exhibit 3 illustrates the trip distribution of the proposed Martha McLean -Anza Narrows Park project.
Project Access, Circulation and Parking
Vehicular access to the existing Martha McLean-Anza Narrows Park is currently taken from Jurupa Avenue just east of the Union Pacific Railroad overpass. An internal road currently meanders through the park and provides access to several parking areas. The existing park access intersection on Jurupa Avenue is one- way stop-controlled and full access is currently provided.
A total of 167 parking spaces are currently provided in Martha McLean-Anza Narrows Park. The proposed realignment of the drive aisle and parking in the northwest corner of the park would result in the removal of nine (9) parking spaces, and a proposed new parking lot in the southeast corner of the park would provide 26 additional parking spaces. The proposed project would provide a net increase of 17 parking stalls, which would provide a total of 184 parking spaces for the entire park.
A minimum of 18 parking spaces are required for the 3.3-acre project programmable area and a minimum of 36 parking spaces are required for the remaining 36.2 -acre park use based on the following parking requirements for park uses per Chapter 17.188 of the Riverside County Municipal Code:
• 1 space per 8,000 sq. ft. of active recreational area within a park or playground • 1 space per acre of passive recreational area within a park or playground
Chapter 17.188 of the Riverside County Municipal Code was utilized to determine the parking requirements of the proposed park because Chapter 19.580 (P arking and Loading) of the City of Riverside Municipal Code does not provide off-street parking requirements for park uses.
Ms. Alisa Sramala
March 3, 2023
TABLE 2
PROPOSED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Trip Generation Rates
Land Use Unit
Weekday Trips Weekend (Saturday) Trips
Daily
Trip
Rate
(per unit)
AM Peak Hour
(8:00 AM - 9:00 AM)
PM Peak Hour
(5:00 PM - 6:00 PM) Daily
Trip
Rate
(per unit)
Highest Peak Hour
(9:15 AM - 10:15 AM)
Trip
Rate
(per unit)
In Out Trip
Rate
(per unit)
In Out Trip
Rate
(per unit)
In Out
(% AM) (% AM) (% PM) (% PM) (% AM) (% AM)
Developed Regional/County Park (SANDAG) acres 20 4% 50% 50% 8% 50% 50% 5 11% 49% 51% Local City of Riverside Park (Driveway Counts):
Proposed Developed Park Amenities acres 41.28 3.09 50% 50% 3.83 54% 46% 39.27 4.22 49% 51% Forecast Project Generated Trips
Land Use Size Unit
Weekday Trips Weekend (Saturday) Trips
Daily
Trips
AM Peak Hour
(8:00 AM - 9:00 AM)
PM Peak Hour
(5:00 PM - 6:00 PM) Daily
Trips
Highest Peak Hour
(9:15 AM - 10:15 AM)
Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out
Existing Park Trip Generation1
Existing Developed Park 39.5 acres 790 32 16 16 63 32 31 790 85 42 43 Proposed Project Trip Generation2
Developed Park Renovations/ Amenities 3.3 acres 136 10 5 5 13 7 6 129 14 7 7 Total Park Trips (Remaining Undeveloped Acreage Plus Programmable Developed Acreage)3 Existing Developed Park 36.2 acres 724 29 15 14 58 29 29 724 78 39 39 Developed Park Renovations/ Amenities 3.3 acres 136 10 5 5 13 7 6 129 14 7 7 Total Park Trips 860 39 20 19 71 36 35 853 92 46 46
Net Change in Trips (Total - Existing Trips)
Net Project Trips 70 7 4 3 8 4 4 63 7 4 3
Source: Traffic counts conducted by Veracity Traffic Group at Ryan Bonaminio Park driveways on Thursday, September 15, 2022 and on Saturday, September 17, 2022. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Not So Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region (April 2002). 1Existing trip generation is calculated based on total existing park acreage. 2Proposed project trip generation is calculated based on programmable acreage to be developed. 3The total park trips include the existing park acreage plus the programmable acreage of the area to be developed.
Ms. Alisa Sramala
March 3, 2023
Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Facilities Evaluation
Pedestrian access to the existing Martha McLean -Anza Narrows Park is currently provided from the existing sidewalk along the north side of Jurupa Avenue. Existing paved paths meander from Jurupa Avenue through Martha McLean-Anza Narrows Park to provide pedestrian access to the amenities that are currently provided in the park. All of the existing pedestrian paths will remain in place with the proposed project, and the project will provide new pedestrian paths to access the proposed water play arroyo/nature play area, community meadows, and access to the Santa Ana River Trail and river in the northwest corner of the park. The proposed pedestrian and trail improvements are consistent with the City of Riverside PACT Trails Master Plan (August 17, 2021), and development of the proposed project would not conflict with the existing or future pedestrian or trail network in the immediate vicinity of the project site.
Bicycle access to Martha McLean-Anza Narrows Park is currently provided from the existing Class II bike lanes along Jurupa Avenue and the existing Santa Ana River Trail, which is built as a Class I bike path that passes through the park along the eastern boundary. The Santa Ana River Trail is approximately 10 feet in width and is divided by a dashed line to separate the direction of travel. An existing park service road just north of the main park entrance provides bicyclists a direct connection to the Santa Ana River Trail from Jurupa Avenue. The proposed 26-stall parking lot at the southeast corner of the park is intended to function as a trailhead staging area for the Santa Ana River Trail. Development of the proposed project would not conflict with the existing or future bicycle network in the immediate vicinity of the project site.
There are currently no bus transit stops within ¼ mile of the existing Martha McLean-Anza Narrows Park.
The Riverside Metrolink Rail Line runs adjacent to the western boundary of the park, but the nearest rail station is several miles away. No additional future transit facilities near the project site are planned per the City of Riverside’s General Plan Circulation and Community Mobility Element (February 2018).
Development of the proposed project would not conflict with any existing or future planned transit facilities.
Level of Service (LOS) Analysis Screening Assessment
The Level of Service Screening Assessment was conducted per the City of Riverside Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment (July 2020). Per these guidelines, there are various conditions that can exempt a project from a Level of Service (LOS) analysis. Of the conditions listed in the guidelines, the following are the most relevant to the project:
• Projects that generate less than 100 peak hour trips , as projects that generate 100 or less trips typically do not affect LOS significantly once distributed to the local network • Local serving churches, lodges, community centers, neighborhood parks and community parks
As previously shown in Table 2, the proposed project is estimated to generate a net increase of 7 trips during the weekday AM peak hour, a net increase of 8 trips during the weekday PM peak hour, and a net increase of 7 trips during the highest Saturday pe ak hour. The calculated project traffic falls below the “100 peak hour trips” threshold and is anticipated to have a minimal impact on the local roadway network.
Additionally, the proposed land use is a park that will be serving the nearby communities. This characteristic further indicates that most of the project traffic will be local . Based on these criteria, the project is determined to be exempt from an LOS analysis.
Ms. Alisa Sramala
March 3, 2023
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Screening Assessment
As required by CEQA, a Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis screening assessment was conducted for the proposed project. This VMT analysis screening assessment was conducted in accordance with the City of Riverside Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment (July 2020), which includes the following screening criteria for projects:
• Projects located in a Transit Priority Area (TPA)
• Projects located in a low VMT-generating area (15% or more below City average VMT) • Local-serving land use types
• Affordable housing projects
• Projects generating less than 110 daily vehicle trips
The Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) VMT tool, which utilizes the Riverside County Transportation Model (RIVCOM), shows that the VMT per service population within the Travel Analysis Zone (TAZ) in which the project site is located (TAZ 1937) is below the screening threshold for a low VMT-generating area (15% or more below the City of Riverside average VMT per service population).
Therefore, the proposed project is screened out from further VMT analysis due to the site’s location in a low VMT -generating area , and is presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact.
Attachment C contains WRCOG VMT tool outputs for the TAZ in which the project site is located (TAZ 1937), which show that the VMT per service population in the project site TAZ is below the City’s screening threshold for a low VMT-generating area.
In addition, the City of Riverside’s VMT screening criteria lists local parks as a land use type that is presumed to have a less than significant impact and is screened out from further VMT analysis. The proposed project is a local-serving park use and therefore is screened out from further VMT analysis and is presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact.
In addition, the project is estimated to generate fewer than 110 trips per day as previously shown in Table
2. Vehicular trips generated by the proposed project would not exceed the City’s screening threshold of 110 trips per day for Small Projects, and therefore the project is screened out from further VMT analysis and is presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact.
Conclusions/Recommendations
The findings of this traffic assessment showed that the proposed project is anticipated to generate a net increase of 70 trips per day on a typical weekday and a net increase of 63 trips per day on a typical Saturday.
The proposed programmable project area would generate a net increase of 7 trips during the weekday AM peak hour (4 inbound/3 outbound), a net increase of 8 trips during the weekday PM peak hour (4 inbound/4 outbound), and a net increase of 7 trips during the highest Saturday peak hour (4 inbound/3 outbound). It is anticipated that the project-generated traffic would have minimal impacts on intersections and roadways in the vicinity of the project.
Ms. Alisa Sramala
March 3, 2023
A total of 167 parking spaces are currently provided in Martha McLean-Anza Narrows Park. The proposed project would provide a net increase of 17 parking stalls, which would provide a total of 184 parking spaces for the entire park. A minimum of 18 parking spaces are required for the 3 .3-acre project programmable area and a minimum of36 parking spaces are required for the remaining 36.2-acre park use (minimum of 54 parking spaces required for entire park). Therefore , sufficient parking would be provided for the proposed project.
The proposed pedestrian and trail improvements within Martha McLean-Anza Narrows Park are consistent with the City of Riverside PACT Trails Master Plan (August 17, 2021 ). Development of the proposed project would not conflict with the existing or future pedestrian, bicycle and transit network in the immediate vicinity of the park.
Shou ld you have any questions, please contact either David Mizell or me at (619) 291-0707.
Sincerely ,
RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY
&K-F ~
Brian Stephenson, P.E., T.E., P.T.O.E.
Assoc iate Principal
K :\Files\ 19405\text\ 19405-A T .007 .MarthaMcLeanTrafficAssessment_2023-0303 .docx Attachments
TM
RICK
ENGINEERING COMPANY
EXHIBIT 1
PROJECT VICINITY MAP
MARTHA MCLEAN - ANZA NARROWS PARK TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT
=RIVERSIDE GATEWAY PARK SYSTEM
=MARTHA MCLEAN - ANZA NARROWS PARK
c 2023 Rick Engineering Company
01-FEB-2023 15•50
MARTHA MCLEAN ANZA NARROWS PARK: MASTERPLAN
• 26 parking spots
* EXISTING RIVER ACCESS
• • • ADA PATH TO RIVER ACCESS
VEHICULAR ACCESS GATE/
SART SAFETY CHECK POINT
© PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
@ EMERGENCY ACCESS
@ VEHICULARACCESS
• DISC GOLF COURSE HOLE
-- DISC GOLF COURSE PATH
TM
RICK
ENGINEERING COMPANY
EXHIBIT 2
PROJECT SITE PLAN
MARTHA MCLEAN - ANZA NARROWS PARK TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT
VEHICULAR BARRIER
ALONG PEDESTRIAN WALK
VEHICULAR ACCESS GATE
/ SART SAFETY CHECK
POINT
NOT TO SCALE
c 2023 Rick Engineering Company
02-MAR-2023 11•06
TM
RICK
ENGINEERING COMPANY
EXHIBIT 3
PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
MARTHA MCLEAN - ANZA NARROWS PARK TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT
= DISTRIBUTION PERCENT AGE
= PROJECT SITE
c 2023 Rick Engineering Company
01-FEB-2023 17•13
ATTACHMENT A
Rick Engineering Company
5620 Friars Road
San Diego, CA 92110
619-291-0707
[email protected]
City of Riverside
Parks & Recreation Dept.
6927 Magnolia Avenue
Riverside, CA 92506
Riverside Gateway: Martha McLean Anza Narrows Park
Existing 39.5 acre developed park with picnic areas and 18-hole disc golf course; project consists of realigning parking areas, providing two community meadows, a band shell and water play/nature play areas.
Not Available
Not Available
5759 Jurupa Street
Public Works Department
11; ,/ . lrt1 &_ lnnr,nJllon
Traffic Analysis Scoping Form
This scoping form shall be submitted to the City of Riverside Traffic Engineering Division Project Identification :
Case Number:
Related Cases:
SP No.
EIR No.
GPA No.
CZ No.
Project Name:
Project Address:
Project Opening
Year:
Project
Description:
Consultant: Developer:
Name:
Address:
Telephone:
Fax/Email:
Scoping & Study Fees:
Fees to be made payabl e to "City of Riverside" and delivered to Land Development.
City Hall 3rd Floor, 3900 Main Street, Riverside, CA 92522 1) Scoping Agreement Fee (For all projects not screened from analysis): $271.00 2) TIA Review (For projects with both LOS & VMT analysis of any scale , or standa lone LOS analyses with over 100 vehicle trips per hour): $2671.02 3) TIA Review (For standalone VMT analysis, or standalone LOS analyses with under 100 vehicle trips per hour): $1288.20
.3
3900 Main Street, Riverside, CA 92522 I Phone: (951) 826-53661 RiversideCA.gov Rick Engineering Company
5620 Friars Road
San Diego, CA 92110
619-291-0707
[email protected]
City of Riverside
Parks & Recreation Dept.
6927 Magnolia Avenue
Riverside, CA 92506
Riverside Gateway: Martha McLean Anza Narrows Park
Existing 39.5 acre developed park with picnic areas and 18-hole disc golf course; project consists of realigning parking areas, providing two community meadows, a band shell and water play/nature play areas.
Not Available
Not Available
5759 Jurupa Street
Major Open Space/Parks
Major Open Space/Parks
PF PF
X
X
X
(See attached table)
(Net Change in Trips)
16 16 32
32 31 63
20 (4)
19 (3)
39 (7)
36 (4)
35 (4)
71 (8)
Total Park Trips
Existing Park: SANDAG (Developed Park)
Proposed Amenities: Custom rates developed from driveway counts Public Works Department
Cit) •I. lrn ~ / 11 11 m·, 11 ,on
Trip Generation Information:
Trip Generation Data Source: _ ___ _
Current General Plan Land Use: Proposed General Plan Land Use:
Current Zoning:
Existing Trip Generation
In
AM Trips
PM Trips
Trip Internalization :
Pass-By Allowance:
Out
D Yes
D Yes
Proposed Zoning :
Total
0 No
0 No
.r
Proposed Tr~ eneration
In Out
, __ % Trip Discount)
, __ % Trip Discount)
Potential Screening Checks
Total
Is your project screened from specific analyses in accordance with City Guidelines? /s the project screened from LOS assessment? D Yes
3900 Main Street , Riverside , CA 92522 I Phone: (951) 826- 53661 RiversideCA.gov I
Major Open Space/Parks
Major Open Space/Parks
PF
PF
X
X
X
(See attached table)
(Net Change in Trips)
16 16
32 32
31 63
20 (4)
19 (3)
39 (7)
36 (4)
35 (4)
71 (8)
Total Park Trips
Existing Park: SANDAG (Developed Park)
Proposed Amenities: Custom rates developed from driveway counts X
Project would
generate fewer than 100 peak hour trips and would be a local serving neighborhood or community park.
Project would
be screened out from VMT analysis based on the following three (3) criteria: 1) Project is located in a low-VMT generating area (>15% below Ryan Bonaminio Park 9/15/22 and 9/17/22
20 10 30 40
City average VMT per service population); 2) Project would be a local- serving park/public facility; and 3) Project would generate less than 110ADT.
Public Works Department
lil) •/,Ires&. lnnun111<,n
LOS screening justification (see Page 6 of the guidel ines): ____ ____ _ Is the project screened from VMT assessment? O Yes
VMT screeni ng justificatio n (see Pages 23-25 of the guide lines): ____ __ _ Leve l of Service Scoping
• Proposed Trip Distribution (Attach Graphic for Detai led Distribution):
North South East West
% % % %
• Attach list of Approved and Pending Projects that need to be considered (provided by the lead agency and adjacent agencies)
• Attach list of stud y intersections/roadway segments
• Attac h legible site plan
• Note othe r specifi c items to be addressed :
o Site a ccess
o On-site circulation
o Parking
o Consistency with Plans supporting Bikes/Peds/Transit
o Othe r ______ __ _
• Date of Traffic Counts _ ______ _
• Attach prop osed analysis scenar ios (years plus proposed forecasting approach) • Attach proposed phasing approach (if the project is phased) 3900 Main Street. Riverside, CA 92522 I Phone: (951) 826-53661 RiversideCA .gov X
Project would
generate fewer than 100 peak hour trips and would be a local serving neighborhood or community park.
Project would
be screened out from VMT analysis based on the following three (3) criteria: 1) Project is located in a low-VMT generating area (>15% below Ryan Bonaminio Park 9/15/22 and 9/17/22
20 10
30 40
City average VMT per service population); 2) Project would be a local- serving park/public facility; and 3) Project would generate less than 110 ADT.
Public Works Department
( IIJ ,,t. Ir,, ,x I 11ncwe1w1n
VMT Scop ing
For projects that are not screened . identify the following:
• Travel Demand Forecasting Model ____ ____ _
• Attach WRCOG Screening VMT Assessment outpu t or describe why it is not appro priate for use
• Attach proposed Model Land Use Inputs and Assumed Conversion Factors (attach)
Specific Issues to be addressed in the Study (in addition to the standard analysis described in the Guidelines) (To be filled out by the Public Works Traffic Engineering Division) 7 3900 Main Street, Riverside, CA 92522 I Phone : (951) 826-5366 1 RiversideCA.gov Table A
Riverside Gateway Parks Trip Generation: Martha McLean Anza Narrows Park In Out In Out In Out
(% AM) (% AM) (% PM) (% PM) (% AM) (% AM)
acres 20 4% 50% 50% 8% 50% 50% 20 11% 49% 51%
acres 41.28 3.09 50% 50% 3.83 54% 46% 39.27 4.22 49% 51% Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out
Existing Developed Park 39.5 acres 790 32 16 16 63 32 31 790 85 42 43 Developed Park Renovations/ Amenities 3.3 acres 136 10 5 5 13 7 6 129 14 7 7 Existing Developed Park 36.2 acres 724 29 15 14 58 29 29 724 78 39 39 Developed Park Renovations/ Amenities 3.3 acres 136 10 5 5 13 7 6 129 14 7 7 860 39 20 19 71 36 35 853 92 46 46
7 0 7 43 8 446 3 7 4 3
Source: Traffic counts conducted by Veracity Traffic Group at Ryan Bonaminio Park driveways on Thursday, September 15, 2022 and on Saturday, September 17, 2022.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Not So Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region (April 2002). 1Existing trip generation is calculated based on total existing park acreage. 2Proposed project trip generation is calculated based on programmable acreage to be developed. 3The total park trips include the existing park acreage plus the programmable acreage of the area to be developed.
Trip
Rate
(per unit)
Trip
Rate
(per unit)
Trip
Rate
(per unit)
Developed Regional/County Park (SANDAG)
Daily
Trip
Rate
(per unit)
Weekday Trips
Weekday Trips Weekend (Saturday) Trips
AM Peak Hour
(8:00 AM - 9:00 AM)
PM Peak Hour
(5:00 PM - 6:00 PM)
Size UnitLand Use
Proposed Project Trip Generation2
Total Park Trips (Remaining Undeveloped Acreage Plus Programmable Developed Acreage)3 Net Change in Trips (Total - Existing Trips)
Net Project Trips
Total Park Trips
Daily
Trips
AM Peak Hour
(8:00 AM - 9:00 AM)
PM Peak Hour
(5:00 PM - 6:00 PM)
Highest Peak Hour
(9:15 AM - 10:15 AM)
Trip Generation Rates
Forecast Project Generated Trips
Land Use Unit
Existing Park Trip Generation1
Weekend (Saturday) Trips
Daily
Trip
Rate
(per unit)
Highest Peak Hour
(9:15 AM - 10:15 AM)
Local City of Riverside Park (Driveway Counts):
Proposed Developed Park Amenities
Daily
Trips
TM
RICK
ENGINEERING COMPANY
EXHIBIT 1
PROJECT VICINITY MAP
MARTHA MCLEAN - ANZA NARROWS PARK TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT
=RIVERSIDE GATEWAY PARK SYSTEM
=MARTHA MCLEAN - ANZA NARROWS PARK
c 2023 Rick Engineering Company
01-FEB-2023 15•50
MARTHA MCLEAN ANZA NARROWS PARK: MASTERPLAN
• 26 parking spots
* EXISTING RIVER ACCESS
• • • ADA PATH TO RIVER ACCESS
VEHICULAR ACCESS GATE/
SART SAFETY CHECK POINT
© PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
@ EMERGENCY ACCESS
@ VEHICULARACCESS
• DISC GOLF COURSE HOLE
-- DISC GOLF COURSE PATH
TM
RICK
ENGINEERING COMPANY
EXHIBIT 2
PROJECT SITE PLAN
MARTHA MCLEAN - ANZA NARROWS PARK TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT
VEHICULAR BARRIER
ALONG PEDESTRIAN WALK
VEHICULAR ACCESS GATE
/ SART SAFETY CHECK
POINT
NOT TO SCALE
c 2023 Rick Engineering Company
02-MAR-2023 11•06
TM
RICK
ENGINEERING COMPANY
EXHIBIT 3
PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
MARTHA MCLEAN - ANZA NARROWS PARK TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT
= DISTRIBUTION PERCENT AGE
= PROJECT SITE
c 2023 Rick Engineering Company
01-FEB-2023 17•13
ATTACHMENT B
Thursday, September 15, 2022 Counts
City: Riverside Project #:
Location: Ryan Bonamino Park Western Driveway
AM Period NB SB EB WB PM Period NB SB EB WB
00:00 0 0 12:00 0 3
00:15 0 0 12:15 1 1
00:30 0 1 12:30 1 0
00:45 00 0 1 1 12:45 02 48 1 0
01:00 0 0 13:00 1 2
01:15 0 0 13:15 1 1
01:30 1 0 13:30 2 1
01:45 01 0 0 1 13:45 37 59 1 6
02:00 0 0 14:00 1 2
02:15 0 0 14:15 2 2
02:30 0 0 14:30 1 3
02:45 00 0 0 14:45 15 07 1 2
03:00 0 0 15:00 1 1
03:15 1 1 15:15 1 2
03:30 0 0 15:30 0 2
03:45 01 0 1 2 15:45 13 38 1 1
04:00 0 0 16:00 1 1
04:15 0 0 16:15 0 1
04:30 0 0 16:30 0 1
04:45 00 0 0 16:45 01 14 5
05:00 0 0 17:00 4 4
05:15 0 1 17:15 2 4
05:30 1 0 17:30 1 3
05:45 01 1 2 3 17:45 3 10 8 19 29
06:00 0 1 18:00 5 3
06:15 0 3 18:15 3 4
06:30 1 4 18:30 4 7
06:45 01 5 1 3 1 4 18:45 2 14 5 19 33
07:00 1 3 19:00 4 6
07:15 3 5 19:15 6 6
07:30 1 3 19:30 5 5
07:45 27 5 1 6 2 3 19:45 4 19 3 20 39
08:00 3 1 20:00 4 6
08:15 1 3 20:15 3 1
08:30 3 2 20:30 1 2
08:45 31 0 17 1 7 20:45 3 11 4 13 24
09:00 1 2 21:00 1 3
09:15 1 3 21:15 0 2
09:30 1 1 21:30 2 1
09:45 36 3 9 1 5 21:45 14 17 1 1
10:00 1 1 22:00 1 1
10:15 1 1 22:15 1 0
10:30 1 2 22:30 1 1
10:45 14 4 8 1 2 22:45 03 02 5
11:00 1 1 23:00 0 0
11:15 2 1 23:15 0 0
11:30 2 1 23:30 1 0
11:45 05 2 5 1 0 23:45 12 00 2
Total Vol. 36 62 98 81 116 197
GPS Coordinates:
NB SB EB WB Combined
117 178 295
Split % 36.7% 63.3% 33.2% 41.1% 58.9% 66.8%
Peak Hour 08:00 06:30 07:00 19:00 18:30 18:30
Volume 10 17 23 19 24 40
P.H.F. 0.83 0.85 0.72 0.79 0.86 0.83
Prepared by: Field Data Services of Arizona/Veracity Traffic Group (520) 316-6745 PMAM
Daily Totals
Thursday, September 15, 2022Volumes for: 22-1548-001
33.976215, -117.395528
City: Riverside Project #:
Location: Ryan Bonamino Park Middle Driveway
AM Period NB SB EB WB PM Period NB SB EB WB
00:00 0 1 12:00 4 3
00:15 0 0 12:15 2 3
00:30 0 0 12:30 1 3
00:45 00 12 2 12:45 5 12 3 12 24
01:00 0 0 13:00 5 7
01:15 0 0 13:15 1 6
01:30 0 0 13:30 2 4
01:45 00 00 13:45 5 13 2 19 32
02:00 0 0 14:00 1 7
02:15 1 0 14:15 2 5
02:30 1 0 14:30 4 2
02:45 02 00 2 14:45 29 4 1 8 2 7
03:00 0 1 15:00 4 1
03:15 0 0 15:15 1 4
03:30 0 0 15:30 5 1
03:45 00 01 1 15:45 41 4 2 8 2 2
04:00 0 0 16:00 3 3
04:15 0 0 16:15 3 2
04:30 0 1 16:30 9 1
04:45 00 12 2 16:45 41 9 3 9 2 8
05:00 1 0 17:00 5 4
05:15 1 1 17:15 9 1 2
05:30 2 0 17:30 2 5
05:45 15 01 6 17:45 15 31 13 34 65
06:00 0 1 18:00 18 1 2
06:15 2 2 18:15 9 7
06:30 3 1 18:30 17 1 3
06:45 38 26 1 4 18:45 11 55 8 40 95
07:00 5 3 19:00 11 1 2
07:15 1 4 19:15 14 1 8
07:30 2 2 19:30 7 1 2
07:45 4 12 5 14 26 19:45 33 51 6 5 8 9 3
08:00 6 2 20:00 4 1 5
08:15 7 5 20:15 3 5
08:30 6 5 20:30 5 1 1
08:45 6 25 9 21 46 20:45 2 14 8 39 53
09:00 11 7 21:00 1 4
09:15 2 7 21:15 2 2
09:30 3 13 21:30 0 3
09:45 62 21 0 3 7 5 9 21:45 03 2 1 1 1 4
10:00 6 8 22:00 2 1
10:15 4 6 22:15 1 0
10:30 5 6 22:30 0 1
10:45 52 01 2 3 2 5 2 22:45 25 24 9
11:00 3 5 23:00 1 0
11:15 3 5 23:15 0 0
11:30 4 1 1 23:30 0 0
11:45 5 15 6 27 42 23:45 01 11 2
Total Vol. 109 143 252 211 253 464
GPS Coordinates:
NB SB EB WB Combined
320 396 716
Split % 43.3% 56.7% 35.2% 45.5% 54.5% 64.8%
Peak Hour 08:15 09:15 09:00 17:45 19:15 17:45
Volume 30 38 59 59 61 104
P.H.F. 0.68 0.73 0.82 0.82 0.85 0.87
Prepared by: Field Data Services of Arizona/Veracity Traffic Group (520) 316-6745 PMAM
Daily Totals
Thursday, September 15, 2022Volumes for: 22-1548-002
33.976515, -117.394337
City: Riverside Project #:
Location: Ryan Bonamino Park Eastern Driveway
AM Period NB SB EB WB PM Period NB SB EB WB
00:00 1 0 12:00 6 2
00:15 0 0 12:15 4 4
00:30 0 0 12:30 5 2
00:45 01 00 1 12:45 7 22 2 10 32
01:00 0 0 13:00 5 1
01:15 0 1 13:15 5 1
01:30 0 0 13:30 6 3
01:45 00 01 1 13:45 42 0 2 7 2 7
02:00 0 0 14:00 8 2
02:15 0 0 14:15 4 1
02:30 1 0 14:30 3 2
02:45 01 00 1 14:45 41 9 0 5 2 4
03:00 0 0 15:00 3 1
03:15 1 0 15:15 4 2
03:30 0 0 15:30 4 0
03:45 01 00 1 15:45 41 5 0 3 1 8
04:00 0 0 16:00 5 3
04:15 0 0 16:15 6 5
04:30 1 1 16:30 2 3
04:45 12 01 3 16:45 7 20 6 17 37
05:00 1 3 17:00 4 5
05:15 2 2 17:15 7 8
05:30 4 2 17:30 12 1 0
05:45 4 11 4 11 22 17:45 13 36 14 37 73
06:00 4 4 18:00 7 1 3
06:15 8 5 18:15 9 1 6
06:30 4 5 18:30 9 7
06:45 10 26 4 18 44 18:45 83 31 2 4 8 8 1
07:00 6 3 19:00 7 1 3
07:15 6 4 19:15 10 9
07:30 5 4 19:30 15 8
07:45 10 27 7 18 45 19:45 11 43 8 38 81
08:00 8 7 20:00 12 3
08:15 10 1 2 20:15 9 4
08:30 6 1 3 20:30 8 2
08:45 9 33 7 39 72 20:45 4 33 1 10 43
09:00 13 6 21:00 5 2
09:15 10 3 21:15 4 3
09:30 11 6 21:30 8 2
09:45 14 48 5 20 68 21:45 21 9 0 7 2 6
10:00 10 4 22:00 1 0
10:15 8 3 22:15 2 1
10:30 5 5 22:30 1 0
10:45 10 33 3 15 48 22:45 15 23 8
11:00 1 2 23:00 1 1
11:15 5 4 23:15 1 1
11:30 8 2 23:30 0 1
11:45 5 19 3 11 30 23:45 02 03 5
Total Vol. 202 134 336 267 188 455
GPS Coordinates:
NB SB EB WB Combined
469 322 791
Split % 60.1% 39.9% 42.5% 58.7% 41.3% 57.5%
Peak Hour 09:00 07:45 08:15 19:15 17:30 17:30
Volume 48 39 76 48 53 94
P.H.F. 0.86 0.75 0.86 0.80 0.83 0.87
Prepared by: Field Data Services of Arizona/Veracity Traffic Group (520) 316-6745 PMAM
Daily Totals
Thursday, September 15, 2022Volumes for: 22-1548-003
33.976813, -117.393149
Saturday, September 17, 2022 Counts
City: Riverside Project #:
Location: Ryan Bonamino Park Western Driveway
AM Period NB SB EB WB PM Period NB SB EB WB
00:00 0 0 12:00 3 3
00:15 0 0 12:15 3 2
00:30 0 0 12:30 0 1
00:45 00 11 1 12:45 17 39 1 6
01:00 0 0 13:00 1 2
01:15 0 0 13:15 3 2
01:30 0 0 13:30 0 0
01:45 00 00 13:45 04 04 8
02:00 0 0 14:00 1 0
02:15 0 0 14:15 0 1
02:30 0 0 14:30 0 2
02:45 11 00 1 14:45 01 36 7
03:00 0 0 15:00 1 1
03:15 0 0 15:15 3 1
03:30 0 0 15:30 0 1
03:45 00 00 15:45 26 03 9
04:00 0 0 16:00 0 2
04:15 1 0 16:15 0 1
04:30 0 1 16:30 1 2
04:45 01 01 2 16:45 01 05 6
05:00 0 0 17:00 4 0
05:15 0 1 17:15 0 0
05:30 0 0 17:30 1 4
05:45 11 12 3 17:45 05 15 1 0
06:00 0 0 18:00 0 3
06:15 0 3 18:15 1 2
06:30 2 0 18:30 2 4
06:45 13 25 8 18:45 25 7 1 6 2 1
07:00 0 3 19:00 5 5
07:15 2 4 19:15 6 2
07:30 1 6 19:30 0 2
07:45 47 5 1 8 2 5 19:45 2 13 1 10 23
08:00 3 6 20:00 4 1
08:15 3 6 20:15 0 1
08:30 5 7 20:30 2 0
08:45 3 14 4 23 37 20:45 06 02 8
09:00 7 2 21:00 2 2
09:15 3 5 21:15 1 2
09:30 5 4 21:30 1 0
09:45 4 19 2 13 32 21:45 04 04 8
10:00 6 5 22:00 2 1
10:15 3 2 22:15 0 2
10:30 4 6 22:30 1 2
10:45 4 17 1 14 31 22:45 14 05 9
11:00 3 4 23:00 3 2
11:15 2 1 23:15 0 1
11:30 4 3 23:30 2 1
11:45 41 3 08 2 1 23:45 05 04 9
Total Vol. 76 85 161 61 73 134
GPS Coordinates:
NB SB EB WB Combined
137 158 295
Split % 47.2% 52.8% 54.6% 45.5% 54.5% 45.4%
Peak Hour 09:00 07:45 07:45 18:30 18:15 18:30
Volume 19 24 39 15 18 33
P.H.F. 0.68 0.86 0.81 0.63 0.64 0.83
Prepared by: Field Data Services of Arizona/Veracity Traffic Group (520) 316-6745 PMAM
Daily Totals
Saturday, September 17, 2022Volumes for: 22-1548-001
33.976215, -117.395528
City: Riverside Project #:
Location: Ryan Bonamino Park Middle Driveway
AM Period NB SB EB WB PM Period NB SB EB WB
00:00 0 0 12:00 2 7
00:15 0 0 12:15 3 5
00:30 0 0 12:30 1 7
00:45 00 00 12:45 17 5 2 4 3 1
01:00 0 0 13:00 1 8
01:15 1 0 13:15 1 4
01:30 0 0 13:30 4 3
01:45 01 00 1 13:45 28 5 2 0 2 8
02:00 0 0 14:00 3 2
02:15 2 0 14:15 0 5
02:30 0 1 14:30 0 5
02:45 02 01 3 14:45 47 6 1 8 2 5
03:00 0 0 15:00 1 7
03:15 0 0 15:15 4 2
03:30 0 0 15:30 4 2
03:45 00 22 2 15:45 3 12 1 12 24
04:00 0 0 16:00 3 5
04:15 0 0 16:15 4 6
04:30 0 0 16:30 6 6
04:45 11 11 2 16:45 2 15 5 22 37
05:00 0 0 17:00 4 3
05:15 0 1 17:15 6 3
05:30 0 1 17:30 2 4
05:45 33 13 6 17:45 7 19 5 15 34
06:00 3 1 18:00 11 6
06:15 11 4 18:15 3 9
06:30 7 1 18:30 4 1 1
06:45 14 35 4 10 45 18:45 6 24 4 30 54
07:00 6 1 19:00 5 8
07:15 9 5 19:15 7 6
07:30 8 7 19:30 7 8
07:45 9 32 6 19 51 19:45 3 22 7 29 51
08:00 11 6 20:00 6 5
08:15 7 1 0 20:15 1 4
08:30 12 5 20:30 3 4
08:45 43 41 4 3 5 6 9 20:45 6 16 2 15 31
09:00 9 5 21:00 2 2
09:15 9 9 21:15 3 3
09:30 7 13 21:30 3 1
09:45 3 28 5 32 60 21:45 21 0 0 6 1 6
10:00 11 1 2 22:00 0 1
10:15 13 7 22:15 1 0
10:30 7 9 22:30 2 0
10:45 83 91 0 3 8 7 7 22:45 03 01 4
11:00 4 6 23:00 0 1
11:15 2 1 0 23:15 1 0
11:30 2 3 23:30 2 1
11:45 31 11 4 3 3 4 4 23:45 14 02 6
Total Vol. 186 174 360 147 194 341
GPS Coordinates:
NB SB EB WB Combined
333 368 701
Split % 51.7% 48.3% 51.4% 43.1% 56.9% 48.6%
Peak Hour 07:45 08:45 10:00 17:15 18:15 17:45
Volume 39 41 77 26 32 56
P.H.F. 0.81 0.73 0.84 0.59 0.73 0.82
Prepared by: Field Data Services of Arizona/Veracity Traffic Group (520) 316-6745 PMAM
Daily Totals
Saturday, September 17, 2022Volumes for: 22-1548-002
33.976515, -117.394337
City: Riverside Project #:
Location: Ryan Bonamino Park Eastern Driveway
AM Period NB SB EB WB PM Period NB SB EB WB
00:00 0 0 12:00 9 3
00:15 0 0 12:15 7 3
00:30 0 1 12:30 7 4
00:45 00 01 1 12:45 6 29 4 14 43
01:00 1 0 13:00 9 1
01:15 0 0 13:15 4 5
01:30 0 0 13:30 6 1
01:45 01 00 1 13:45 5 24 5 12 36
02:00 1 0 14:00 7 2
02:15 0 0 14:15 2 2
02:30 0 0 14:30 6 3
02:45 01 00 1 14:45 41 9 1 8 2 7
03:00 0 0 15:00 9 1
03:15 0 0 15:15 6 1
03:30 0 0 15:30 6 5
03:45 00 00 15:45 6 27 3 10 37
04:00 0 0 16:00 5 4
04:15 1 0 16:15 4 4
04:30 0 1 16:30 5 4
04:45 12 12 4 16:45 6 20 4 16 36
05:00 0 2 17:00 4 5
05:15 2 1 17:15 3 4
05:30 4 4 17:30 0 4
05:45 4 10 5 12 22 17:45 18 6 1 9 2 7
06:00 3 6 18:00 3 6
06:15 2 8 18:15 3 6
06:30 4 6 18:30 2 5
06:45 5 14 6 26 40 18:45 4 12 3 20 32
07:00 6 6 19:00 11 5
07:15 9 6 19:15 3 9
07:30 8 1 1 19:30 6 4
07:45 73 01 2 3 5 6 5 19:45 7 27 2 20 47
08:00 11 8 20:00 3 2
08:15 9 8 20:15 1 2
08:30 10 7 20:30 2 4
08:45 9 39 8 31 70 20:45 17 19 1 6
09:00 11 9 21:00 0 2
09:15 11 1 0 21:15 0 1
09:30 11 9 21:30 0 3
09:45 10 43 8 36 79 21:45 00 06 6
10:00 13 9 22:00 2 1
10:15 9 6 22:15 1 2
10:30 7 7 22:30 0 1
10:45 9 38 7 29 67 22:45 14 04 8
11:00 10 4 23:00 0 1
11:15 7 3 23:15 1 1
11:30 13 3 23:30 0 0
11:45 7 37 3 13 50 23:45 01 02 3
Total Vol. 215 185 400 178 140 318
GPS Coordinates:
NB SB EB WB Combined
393 325 718
Split % 53.8% 46.3% 55.7% 56.0% 44.0% 44.3%
Peak Hour 09:15 07:30 09:15 12:00 17:45 19:00
Volume 45 39 81 29 23 47
P.H.F. 0.87 0.81 0.92 0.81 0.96 0.73
Prepared by: Field Data Services of Arizona/Veracity Traffic Group (520) 316-6745 PMAM
Daily Totals
Saturday, September 17, 2022Volumes for: 22-1548-003
33.976813, -117.393149
SANDAG Trip Generation Rates
ATTACHMENT C
--------- ----
l_ j
o;
; .,
..: ~
u "' ..
Complete ly
within a TPA?
o ( ail)
With n a low Yes (Pass)
VMT genereing
TAZ?
Note Screen inc results are
ased o - locet io of parcel
centro·ds. I' res s are
desired cons ·de r"ng the ful l
parcel, please refe r to the
asso cieted me p I ayers to
vis ally relliew parcel an
TAZ bo u dary relat ions ·p.
Community 0
Reg·ons have
differem
thresholds
(1 =Yes, O=No)
Zoom to
o; .,
" C
" 0
ii:
@.
3 ~
Jurupa Ave
r
oenney Pl
....
/
/
'l~ o~~~ ~~~
l ·~" /A__
' '-✓ ,.___
Industrial /we
Traffic Analysis
Zone (TAZJ
Community
Reg-on
Ins de e Transit
Prio(ty Area
(TPA)
TAZVMT
Ju(sd ction
VMT
% Difference
VMTMe·(c
Threshold
187210008
1937
IVE SIDE
0 -27.42%
OD VM Per Service
opulafon
32 ---~
---------------------------------------
Appendix J2
Jurupa Avenue Trailhead Traffic Assessment
April 27, 2023
Ms. Alisa Sramala
City of Riverside
Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department
6927 Magnolia Avenue
Riverside, California 92506
SUBJECT: RIVERSIDE GATEWAY PARKS JURUPA AVENUE TRAILHEAD PARK
TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT, RIVERSIDE, CA
(RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY JOB NUMBER 19405-AT)
Dear Ms. Sramala:
The following traffic assessment evaluates the anticipated trip generation, site access, internal circulation and parking of the proposed Jurupa Avenue Trailhead Park within the Riverside Gateway parks system. In addition, level of service (LOS) and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) screening evaluations and an active transportation and public transit evaluation are included in this traffic assessment. The project site is located adjacent to the Santa Ana River Trail along the north side of the Jurupa Avenue approximately 600 feet west of Van Buren Boulevard in the City of Riverside, California. This study was prepared in accordance with the City of Riverside Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment (July 2020) and discussion with City of Riverside Public Works staff. Attachment A contains the City of Riverside’s Traffic Analysis Scoping Form, which was reviewed and accepted by City of Riverside Traffic Engineering staff. Exhibit 1 shows a map of the regional project vicinity.
Project Description
The project site currently consists of 7.7 acres of undeveloped open space . The existing Santa Ana River Bike Trail, a Class I bicycle facility, runs through the project site from the northwest corner of the site to the southeast corner and continues east of the site along the north side of Jurupa Avenue. There are currently no existing amenities other than a few undesignated, unpaved trails within the site.
The project proposes to develop approximately 1.5 acres of programmable park amenities, which include the following:
• Community lawn/meadow
• Demonstration garden
• Arroyo plaza/play area
• Music and nature play areas
• Bike hub with restrooms
• Outlook with benches
• Realigned Santa Ana River Trail
• Paved and unpaved (decomposed granite) walking paths
The project site is proposed as a trailhead/staging area for the Santa Ana River Trail. T he project would provide a total of 31 parking spaces for both trail and park users. Exhibit 2 shows the project site plan.
RICK
ENGINEERING COMPANY
Traffic Division
5620 Friars Road • San Diego, Californi a 92110 -2596 • (6 19} 291 -0707 • www .ri cken gineer ing.com
SAN DIEGO RIVERSIDE ORANGE SACRAMENTO SAN LUIS OBISPO LAS VEGAS DENVER PHOENIX TUCSON Ms. Alisa Sramala
April 27, 2023
Existing Transportation Conditions
The following is a description of the existing roadways in the vicinity of the project site:
Jurupa Avenue is currently built as a four-lane divided roadway within the project vicinity. Jurupa Avenue is oriented in a general east -west direction and extends from Pachappa Drive near SR-91 to Tyler Street.
Jurupa Avenue runs for a total distance of approximately 5.5 miles.
Jurupa Avenue is classified in the City of Riverside’s General Plan Circulation and Community Mobility Element (February 2018) as a four-lane, 110-foot Arterial in the vicinity of the project site. Jurupa Avenue has a pavement width of approximately 86 feet within the vicinity of the project site. A raised median with intermittent turn lanes is currently provided west of Van Buren Boulevard. On-street parking is prohibited on Jurupa Avenue in the vicinity of the project site.
Class II bike lanes are provided on Jurupa Avenue in each direction of travel for a majority of the roadway length. Several sections of the roadway also provide a two -foot buffer for bicyclists on both sides of the roadway. The Santa Ana River Bike Trail currently runs along the north side of the roadway fronting the project site. The posted speed limit on Jurupa Avenue is 40 MPH in the immediate vicinity of the project site.
Project Trip Generation
Based on input from City of Riverside staff, the trip generation for the proposed project was calculated using custom trip rates that were developed from vehicular traffic counts that were collected at the three (3) driveways serving Ryan Bonaminio Park located at 5000 Tequesquite Avenue in the City of Riverside. The traffic counts at the park driveways were collected on Thursday, September 15, 2022 and on Saturday, September 17, 2022 over a 24-hour period on each day.
Based on the acreage of the existing Ryan Bonaminio Park (43.65 acres) and the number of daily and AM/PM peak hour trips on each day, daily and AM/PM peak hour trip generation rates were calculated for a “local Riverside park” on a typical weekday and a typical Saturday. These customized local park trip rates were applied to the programmable acreage of the proposed developed park areas, which are shown below in Table 1.
Table 1
Local Riverside Park Trip Rates from Driveway Counts
Unit
Daily
Trip
Rate
(per unit)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Trip
Rate
(per unit)
Inbound Outbound Trip
Rate
(per unit)
Inbound Outbound
(%AM) (% AM) (% PM) (% PM)
Weekday Trip Rates
acres 41.28 3.09 50% 50% 3.83 54% 46%
Saturday Trip Rates
acres 39.27 4.22 49% 51% N/A N/A N/A
Source: Vehicular traffic counts were collected at Ryan Bonaminio Park driveways by Veracity Traffic Group on Thursday, September 15, 2022 and on Saturday, September 17, 2022.
N/A = Not applicable, as the highest peak hour on a Saturday occurs during the morning hours.
Ms. Alisa Sramala
April 27, 2023
Due to the lack of existing park amenities or parking, it was assumed that the existing 7.7 acres of open space on the project site currently do not generate any vehicular trips. Bicyclists along the Santa Ana River Trail currently pass through the project site but do not generate any site-specific trips, and pedestrians from the adjacent neighborhood may also use the Santa Ana River Trail and the existing trails within the project site.
Based on direction from City of Riverside staff, the trip generation rates for an undeveloped Neighborhood/County Park from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Not So Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region (April 2002) were used to calculate the trip generation of the remai ning park area that would remain undeveloped after development of the project’s programmable acreage.
Table 2 shows the trip generation calculations for the proposed project using the custom trip rates shown above in Table 1 and the SANDAG Neighborhood/County Park trip rates as described above. Attachment B contains the Ryan Bonaminio Park driveway counts and the SANDAG trip generation rates.
Table 2 shows that the proposed project, including both the programmable developed area and remaining undeveloped area, is estimated to generate a total of 93 trips per day on a typical weekday, with a total of 7 trips during the weekday AM peak hour (3 inbound/4 outbound) and a total of 8 trips during the weekday PM peak hour (4 inbound/4 outbound).
Table 2 also shows that the project is estimated to generate a total of 90 trips per day on a typical Saturday, with a total of 9 trips during the highest Saturday peak hour (4 inbound/5 outbound).
The project’s trip distribution was estimated based on the surrounding land uses and the existing roadway network. Exhibit 3 illustrates the trip distribution of the proposed Jurupa Trailhead project.
Project Access, Circulation and Parking
Vehicular access is proposed to be taken from one driveway on the north side of Jurupa Avenue approximately 320 feet east of Bradford Street. The project driveway would be one -way stop-controlled with right-in/right-out access.
The project would provide a total of 31 parking spaces, which would serve the proposed project site and users of the Santa Ana River Trail. A minimum of four (4) parking spaces are required for the project site, based on the following parking requirements for park uses per Chapter 17.188 of the Riverside County Municipal Code:
• 1 space per 8,000 sq. ft. of active recreational area within a park or playground • 1 space per acre of passive recreational area within a park or playground
Chapter 17.188 of the Riverside County Municipal Code was utilized to determine the parking requirements of the proposed park because Chapter 19.580 (Parking and Loading) of the City of Riverside Municipal Code does not provide off -street parking requirements for park uses. Parking requirements for park uses in the City of Riverside are determined by the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department, who have approved using the Riverside County off-street parking requirements for a park use.
The minimum parking requirements are based on the size of the proposed developed amenities within the park, and the additional parking spaces provided for the project would function as a trailhead/staging area for bicyclists and pedestrians using the Santa Ana River Trail.
Ms. Alisa Sramala
April 27, 2023
TABLE 2
PROPOSED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Trip Generation Rates
Land Use Unit
Weekday Trips Weekend (Saturday) Trips
Daily
Trip
Rate
(per unit)
AM Peak Hour
(8:00 AM - 9:00 AM)
PM Peak Hour
(5:00 PM - 6:00 PM) Daily
Trip
Rate
(per unit)
Highest Peak Hour
(9:15 AM - 10:15 AM)
Trip
Rate
(per unit)
In Out Trip
Rate
(per unit)
In Out Trip
Rate
(per unit)
In Out
(% AM) (% AM) (% PM) (% PM) (% AM) (% AM)
Undeveloped Neighborhood/County Park
(SANDAG) acres 5 4% 50% 50% 8% 50% 50% 5 11% 49% 51%
Local City of Riverside Park (Driveway Counts):
Proposed Developed Park Amenities acres 41.28 3.09 50% 50% 3.83 54% 46% 39.27 4.22 49% 51% Forecast Project Generated Trips
Land Use Size Unit
Weekday Trips Weekend (Saturday) Trips
Daily
Trips
AM Peak Hour
(8:00 AM - 9:00 AM)
PM Peak Hour
(5:00 PM - 6:00 PM) Daily
Trips
Highest Peak Hour
(9:15 AM - 10:15 AM)
Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out
Existing Park Trip Generation1
Existing Undeveloped Open Space 7.7 acres 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Proposed Project Trip Generation2
Developed Park Facilities/Amenities 1.5 acres 62 5 2 3 6 3 3 59 6 3 3 Total Park Trips (Remaining Undeveloped Acreage Plus Programmable Developed Acreage)3 Existing Undeveloped Park/Open Space 6.2 acres 31 2 1 1 2 1 1 31 3 1 2 Developed Park Facilities/Amenities 1.5 acres 62 5 2 3 6 3 3 59 6 3 3 Total Park Trips 93 7 3 4 8 4 4 90 9 4 5
Source: Traffic counts conducted by Veracity Traffic Group at Ryan Bonaminio Park driveways on Thursday, September 15, 2022 and on Saturday, September 17, 2022. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Not So Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region (April 2002). 1It was assumed that the existing open space currently does not generate any vehicular trips due to the lack of amenities or access to parking. 2Proposed project trip generation is calculated based on programmable acreage to be developed. 3The total park trips include the existing park acreage that would remain undeveloped plus the programmable acreage of the area to be developed.
Ms. Alisa Sramala
April 27, 2023
Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Facilities Evaluation
Pedestrian access to the existing undeveloped park is currently provided from the existing sidewalk along the north side of Jurupa Avenue. There are currently a few undesignated trails within the existing undeveloped open space within the park.
Pedestrian access to the park is proposed via a proposed paved path extending into the park from the existing sidewalk on the north side of Jurupa Avenue. The Jurupa Trailhead Master Plan and the City of Riverside Parks, Recreation & Community Services Department have expressed the need for a mid-block crosswalk or lighted crosswalk across Jurupa Avenue at the intersection with Bradford Street, which would provide a pedestrian connection to Rutland Park on the south side of Jurupa Avenue. The mid-block crosswalk is currently not a part of the Jurupa Trailhead Master Plan nor is it a City project, and there is currently no funding in place for a mid-block crosswalk across Jurupa Avenue.
The project will construct a portion of the Santa Ana River Greenway, which woul d consist of a decomposed granite (DG) pedestrian path alongside the Santa Ana River Trail within the proposed developed area of the park . Some of the existing undesignated trails will be closed as they are partially within the biological avoidance area of the park that will be closed to the public. The proposed pedestrian and trail improvements are consistent with the City of Riverside PACT Trails Master Plan (August 17, 2021), and development of the proposed project would not conflict with the existing or future pedestrian or trail network in the immediate vicinity of the project site.
Bicycle access to the project site is currently provided from the existing Class II bike lane s along Jurupa Avenue and the existing Santa Ana River Trail, which is built as a Class I bike path that passes through the project site along the southern and western boundaries. The Santa Ana River Trail is approximately 10 feet in width and is divided by a dashed line to separate the direction of travel. The project proposes to realign the trail to meander through the project site and avoid any potential conflict points with vehicles accessing the proposed parking lot on the southwest corner. This will also allow users from the Santa Ana River Trail to access the other amenities proposed in the project, such as the demonstration gardens, play areas and bike hub with restrooms.
The proposed bicycl e network improvements are consistent with the City’s Master Plan of Trails and Bikeways in the General Plan Circulation and Community Mobility Element (February 2018) and the City of Riverside PACT Active Transportation Plan (August 17, 2021), and development of the proposed project would not conflict with the existing or future bicycle network in the immediate vicinity of the project site.
There are currently two bus transit stops within ¼ mile of the project site, which are provided on northbound and southbound Van Buren Boulevard near the intersection with Jurupa Avenue. The two bus transit stops serve Riverside Transit Agency Route 21, which runs from the Galleria at Tyler to the Pedley Metrolink Station. No additional future transit facilities near the project site are planned per the City of Riverside’s General Plan Circulation and Community Mobility Element (February 2018). Development of the proposed project would not conflict with any existing or future planned transit facilities.
Ms. Alisa Sramala
April 27, 2023
Level of Service (LOS) Analysis Screening Assessment
The Level of Service Screening Assessment was conducted per the City of Riverside Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment (July 2020). Per these guidelines, there are various conditions that can exempt a project from a Level of Service (LOS) analysis. Of the conditions listed in the guidelines, the following are the most relevant to the project:
• Projects that generate less than 100 peak hour trips , as projects that generate 100 or less trips typically do not affect LOS significantly once distributed to the local network • Local serving churches, lodges, community centers, neighborhood parks and community parks
As previously shown in Table 2, the proposed project is estimated to generate 7 trips during the weekday AM peak hour , 8 trips during the weekday PM peak hour , and 9 trips during the highest Saturday peak hour. The calculated project traffic falls below the “100 peak hour trips” threshold and is anticipated to have a minimal impact on the local roadway network. Additionally, the proposed land use is a park that will be serving the nearby communities. This characteristic further indicates that most of the project traffic will be local. Based on these criteria, the project is determined to be exempt from an LOS analysis.
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Screening Assessment
As required by CEQA, a Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis screening assessment was conducted for the proposed project. This VMT analysis screening assessment was conducted in accordance with the City of Riverside Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment (July 2020), which includes the following screening criteria for projects:
• Projects located in a Transit Priority Area (TPA)
• Projects located in a low VMT-generating area (15% or more below regional average) • Local-serving land use types
• Affordable housing projects
• Projects generating less than 110 daily vehicle trips
The Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) VMT tool, which utilizes the Riverside County Transportation Model (RIVCOM), shows that the VMT per service population within the Travel Analysis Zone (TAZ) in which the project site is located (TAZ 1944) is below the screening threshold for a low VMT-generating area (15% or more below the regional average VMT per service population). Therefore, the proposed project is screened out from further VMT analysis due to the site’s location in a low VMT - generating area and is presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact. Attachment C contains WRCOG VMT tool outputs for the TAZ in which the project site is located (TAZ 19 44), which show that the VMT per service population in the project site TAZ is below the City’s screening threshold for a low VMT-generating area.
In addition, the City of Riverside’s VMT screening criteri a lists local parks as a land use type that is presumed to have a less than significant impact and is screened out from further VMT analysis. The proposed project is a local-serving park use and therefore is screened out from further VMT analysis and is presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact.
Ms. Alisa Sramala
April 27, 2023
In addition, the project is estimated to generate fewer than 11 0 trips per day as previously shown in Table
2. Vehicular trips generated by the proposed project would not exceed the City’s screening threshold of 110 trips per day for Small Projects, and therefore the project is screened out from further VMT analysis and is presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact.
Conclusions/Recommendations
The findings of this traffic assessment showed that the proposed project is anticipated to generate a total of 93 trips per day on a typical weekday, with a total of 7 trips during the weekday AM peak hour (3 inbound/4 outbound) and a total of 8 trips during the weekday PM peak hou r (4 inbound/4 outbound). The findings also show that the project is estimated to generate a total of 90 trips per day on a typical Saturday, with a total of 9 trips during the highest Saturday peak hour (4 inbound/5 outbound). It is anticipated that the project-generated traffic would have minimal impacts on intersections and roadways in the vicinity of the project.
The project would provide a total of 31 parking spaces that would serve both the proposed park users and users of the existing Santa Ana River Trail. A minimum of four (4) parking spaces are required for the Jurupa Avenue Trailhead, based on the size of the proposed developed amenities within the park. Therefore, sufficient parking would be provided for the proposed project.
The proposed pedestrian and trail improvements are consistent with the City of Riverside PACT Trails Master Plan (August 17, 2021), and development of the proposed project woul d n o t c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e existing or future pedestrian network in the immediate vicinity of the project site. The proposed bicycle network improvements are consis tent with the City’s Master Plan of Trails and Bikeways in the General Plan Circulation and Community Mobility Element (February 2018) and the City of Riverside PACT Active Transportation Plan (August 17, 2021), and development of the proposed project wou ld not conflict with the existing or future bicycle network in the immediate vicinity of the project site.
It is recommended that the project install proper signage and s triping along the proposed Santa Ana River Trail realignment through the project site, and installation of crosswalks will be required across the bike path. In addition, it is recommended that the project provide a pedestrian connection between the public sidewalk along Jurupa Avenue and the DG pedestrian path adjacen t to the bike path, which would require a crosswalk across the bike path with signage as part of this p edestrian connection. These improvements, which are not yet included in the Master Plan, are needed to wa rn bicyclists that they may need to slow down or stop, as there will be pedestrians crossing the bike pa th from the parking lot to access the various proposed amenities within the park.
Exhibit 4 illustrates the anticipated crossing markings and signage type s per the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Devices (CA-MUTCD, 2014 Edition, Revision 7, March 10, 2023). As shown , high- visibility ladder-style or continental-style crosswalk markings per CA-MUTCD Figures 3B-19 and 3B-19 (CA) are recommended at the anticipated pedestrian crossing areas along the Santa Ana River Trail within the Jurupa Trailhead Park. Exhibit 3 also shows that the following signage types per the CA-MUTCD are recommended at the anticipated pedestrian crossing areas:
• CA-MUTCD W11-2 (top) with W16-7P (bottom) at crosswalks (both directions) • CA-MUTCD W11-2 (top) with W16-9P (bottom) approximately 50-100 feet in advance of the crosswalks (both directions); or
• CA-MUTCD R9-6 approximately 20-50 feet in advance of the crosswalks (both directions)
Ms. Alisa Sramala
April 27, 2023
Attachment D contains CA-MUTCD Figures 3B-19 and 3B-19 (CA), which show the recommended high visibility crosswalk marking types, and CA-MUTCD Figures 9B-2, 9B-3, 9B-7 and 9B-8, which show the recommended pedestrian crossing signage along the Santa Ana River Trail.
The recommended crosswalk marking types would be highly visible to bicyclists approaching the anticipated pedestrian crossing locations, and the recommended signage would provide bicyclists advance warning of the pedestrian crossings as well as indicate the specific pedestrian crossing locations. These recommendations are anticipated to reduce bicycle speeds by warning bicyclists that pedestrians may be crossing ahead.
Should you have any questions , please contact either David Mizell or me at (619) 291-0707.
Sincerely,
RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY
Bri~1~,ns ,~
Associate Principal
K:\Files\ 19405\text\ 19405-A T.O I 0.JurupaA veTrailheadTrafficAssessment_ 2023-0426.docx Attachments
TM
RICK
ENGINEERING COMPANY
EXHIBIT 1
PROJECT VICINITY MAP
JURUPA AVENUE TRAILHEAD TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT
=RIVERSIDE GATEWAY PARK SYSTEM
=JURUPA AVENUE TRAILHEAD
c 2022 Rick Engineering Company
29-NOV-2022 10,17
JURUPA AVENUE TRAILHEAD: MASTER PLAN
OUTLOOKW/
BENCHES & SIGNAGE
POSEDGRANI
TRIANPATH
ENTTO Bl
VEHICULAR ACCESS GATE /
SARTSAFET Y CHECK POINT
@ PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
@ EMERGENCY ACCESS
S0URCE:STUDI0-MLA
TM
RICK EXHIBIT 2
CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN
ENGINEERING COMPANY
JURUPA AVENUE TRAILHEAD TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT
Nr+----NATURE PLAY
~ - ---DECOMPOSED GRANITE PATH
~,.,----- NEW BIKE PATH ALIGNMENT
&!:+-- - --:SIDEWALK W/ PLANTED
BUFFER
ENTRY MONUMENT SI N
c 2023 Rick Engineering Company
27 - APR-2023 09•28
TM
RICK
ENGINEERING COMPANY
EXHIBIT 3
PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
JURUPA AVENUE TRAILHEAD TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT
DISTRIBUTION PERCENT AGE
PROJECT SITE
c 2022 Rick Engineering Company
21-DEC-2022 13, 26
TM
RICK
ENGINEERING COMPANY
JURUPAAVE.
EXHIBIT 4
RECOMMENDED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS
JURUPA AVENUE TRAILHEAD TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT
ILLUSTRATION FOR
CONCEPTUAL
PURPOSES ONLY
LEGEND
-I
= INST ALL CONTINENT AL
CROSSWALK
= INST ALL SIGN
SIGN
LEGEND
W 11-2
[ AHEAD ]
W16-9P
[Z]
W16-7P
~ ~~'° ~•o iiiiiiiiio~•o iiiiiiiiiiiiiii~
~ GRAPHIC SCALE 1• • 80'
c 2023 Rick Engineering Company
27-APR-2023 09•42
ATTACHMENT A
Rick Engineering Company
5620 Friars Road
San Diego, CA 92110
619-291-0707
[email protected]
City of Riverside
Parks & Recreation Dept.
6927 Magnolia Avenue
Riverside, CA 92506
Riverside Gateway: Jurupa Avenue Trailhead
Existing 7.7 acres of undeveloped open space; project consists of providing
1.5 acres of park amenities including bicycle and equestrian facilities,and providing trailhead staging area/parking for Santa Ana River Trail.
Not Available
Not Available
Jurupa Avenue approx. 800' west of Van Buren Boulevard
11) •/ . l rt1 ' /11nv1Lu mn
Public Works Department
[APPROVED l
vihd- F>tti-d
Traffic Analysis Scoping Form
This scoping form shall be submitted to the City of Riverside Traffic Engineering Division Project Identif ication:
Case Number:
Relat ed Cases:
SP No.
EIR No.
GPA No.
CZ No.
Project Name:
Project Add ress:
Project Opening
Year:
Project
Description:
Consultant: Developer:
Name:
Address:
Telephone :
Fax/Email:
Scoping & Study Fees:
Fees to be made payabl e to "City of Riverside" and delivered to Land Developme nt.
City Hall 3rd Floor, 3900 Main Street, Riverside, CA 92522 1) Scoping Agreement Fee (For all projects not screened from analysis): $271.00 2) TIA Review (For projects with both LOS & VMT analysis of any scale , or standa lone LOS analyses with over 100 vehicle trips per hour): $2671.02 3) TIA Review (For standalone VMT ana lysis, or standalone LOS analyses with under 100 vehicle trips per hour): S 1288.20
3900 Main Street, Riverside, CA 92522 I Phone: (951) 826-53661 RiversideCA.gov Rick Engineering Company
5620 Friars Road
San Diego, CA 92110
619-291-0707
[email protected]
City of Riverside
Parks & Recreation Dept.
6927 Magnolia Avenue
Riverside, CA 92506
Riverside Gateway: Jurupa Avenue Trailhead
Existing 7.7 acres of undeveloped open space; project consists of providing
1.5 acres of park amenities including bicycle and equestrian facilities, and providing trailhead staging area/parking for Santa Ana River Trail.
Not Available
Not Available
Jurupa Avenue approx. 800' west of Van Buren Boulevard
Major Open Space/Parks
Major Open Space/Parks
PF PF
X
X
X
(See attached table)
00 0 3
0 0 0
4 7
4 4 8
Proposed Amenities: Custom rates developed from driveway counts Remaining Undeveloped Area: SANDAG (Undeveloped Park)
Public Works Department
C11) I. Irr- &. I n,l(ln 11 m ,1
Trip Generati on Informa tion:
Trip Generation Data Source: _ ___ _
Current General Plan Land Use: Proposed Genera l Plan Land Use:
Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning:
Existing Trip Generat ion
In
AM Trips
PM Trips
Trip Internalization:
Pass-By Allowance:
Out
D Yes
D Yes
Total
0 No
0 No
Potential Screening Checks
Proposed Trip Generation
In Out
, __ % Trip Discount)
, __ % Trip Discount)
Total
Is your project screened from specific analyses in accordance with City Guidelines? Is the project screened from LOS assessment? D Yes
37 3900 Main Street, Riverside, CA 92522 I Phone : (951) 826-53661 RiversideCA.gov Major Open Space/Parks
Major Open Space/Parks
PF
PF
X
X
X
(See attached table)
0 0
0 3
0 0
0 4
7 4
4 8
Proposed Amenities: Custom rates developed from driveway counts Remaining Undeveloped Area: SANDAG (Undeveloped Park)
X
Project would
generate fewer than 100 peak hour trips and would be a local serving neighborhood or community park.
Project would
be screened out from VMT analysis based on the following three (3) criteria: 1) Project is located in a low-VMT generating area (>15% below Ryan Bonaminio Park 9/15/22 and 9/17/22
25 30 35 10
City average VMT per service population); 2) Project would be a local- serving park/public facility; and 3) Project would generate less than 110ADT.
Public Works Deportme nt
<.it) ·I lrts &. lnncm111t>n
LOS screening justification (see Page 6 of the guidel ines): _____ _ _ _ _ Is the project screened from VMT a ssessmen t? O Yes
VMT screen ing justificatio n (see Pages 23-25 of the guidelines): ____ __ _ Level of Service Scop ing
• Proposed Trip Distribution (Attach Graphic for Detai led Distribution}:
Nor1h South East West
% % % %
• Attach list of Approved and Pending Projects that need to be considered (provided by the lead agency and adjacent agencies)
• Attach lis1 of stud y intersections/roadway segmen ts • Attach legible site plan
• Note othe r specifi c items to be addressed :
o Site access
o On-site circulation
o Parking
o Consistency with Plans supporting Bikes/Peds/Transit
o Other ___ _____ _
• Date of Traffic Counts _ ______ _
• Attach prop osed analysis scenar ios (years plus proposed forecasting approach) • Attach proposed phasing approach (if the project is phased) 3900 Main Street, Riverside, CA 92522 I Phone: (951) 826-53661 RiversideCA.gov X
Project would
generate fewer than 100 peak hour trips and would be a local serving neighborhood or community park.
Project would
be screened out from VMT analysis based on the following three (3) criteria: 1) Project is located in a low-VMT generating area (>15% below regional average); 2) Project would be a local-serving park/public facility; and 3) Project would generate less than 110 ADT.
Ryan Bonaminio Park 9/15/22 and 9/17/22
25 30
35 10
Public Works Department
( II) "',Irr, ,<::_ lnncwauon
VMT Scop ing
For projects that are not screened , identify the following:
• Travel Demond Forecasting Model ____ ____ _
• Attach WRCOG Screening VMT Assessment output or describe why it is not appropriate for use
• Attach proposed Model Land Use Inputs and Assumed Conversion Factors (attach)
Specific Issues to be addressed in the Study (in addition to the standard analysis described in the Guidelines) (To be filled out by the Public Works Traffic Engineering Division) 3900 Mai n Street, Riverside, CA 92522 I Phone : (951) 826-5366 1 RiversideCA .gov 7DEOH$
5LYHUVLGH*DWHZD\3DUNV7ULS*HQHUDWLRQ
-XUXSD$YHQXH7UDLOKHDG
,Q 2XW ,Q 2XW ,Q 2XW
$0
$0
30
30
$0
$0
DFUHV
DFUHV
7RWDO ,Q 2XW 7RWDO ,Q 2XW 7RWDO ,Q 2XW
([LVWLQJ8QGHYHORSHG2SHQ6SDFH DFUHV 'HYHORSHG3DUN)DFLOLWLHV$PHQLWLHV DFUHV
([LVWLQJ8QGHYHORSHG3DUN2SHQ6SDFH DFUHV 'HYHORSHG3DUN)DFLOLWLHV$PHQLWLHV DFUHV
6RXUFH
7UDIILFFRXQWVFRQGXFWHGE\9HUDFLW\7UDIILF*URXSDW5\DQ%RQDPLQLR3DUNGULYHZD\VRQ7KXUVGD\6HSWHPEHUDQGRQ6DWXUGD\6HSWHPEHU 6DQ'LHJR$VVRFLDWLRQRI*RYHUQPHQWV
6$1'$*
1RW6R%ULHI*XLGHRI9HKLFXODU7UDIILF*HQHUDWLRQ5DWHVIRUWKH6DQ'LHJR5HJLRQ $SULO
([LVWLQJWULSJHQHUDWLRQLVFDOFXODWHGEDVHGRQWRWDOH[LVWLQJSDUNDFUHDJH 3URSRVHGSURMHFWWULSJHQHUDWLRQLVFDOFXODWHGEDVHGRQSURJUDPPDEOHDFUHDJHWREHGHYHORSHG 7KHWRWDOSDUNWULSVLQFOXGHWKHH[LVWLQJSDUNDFUHDJHWKDWZRXOGUHPDLQXQGHYHORSHGSOXVWKHSURJUDPPDEOHDFUHDJHRIWKHDUHDWREHGHYHORSHG /DQG8VH 6L]H
303HDN+RXU
30
30
:HHNHQG
6DWXUGD\
7ULSV
7RWDO3DUN7ULSV
1HW3URMHFW7ULSV
+LJKHVW3HDN+RXU
$0
$0
7ULS
5DWH
SHUXQLW
/DQG8VH 8QLW
7ULS*HQHUDWLRQ5DWHV
)RUHFDVW3URMHFW*HQHUDWHG7ULSV
([LVWLQJ3DUN7ULS*HQHUDWLRQ
3URSRVHG3URMHFW7ULS*HQHUDWLRQ
7RWDO3DUN7ULSV
5HPDLQLQJ8QGHYHORSHG$FUHDJH3OXV3URJUDPPDEOH'HYHORSHG$FUHDJH
1HW&KDQJHLQ7ULSV
7RWDO([LVWLQJ7ULSV
$03HDN+RXU
$0
$0
303HDN+RXU
30
30
8QGHYHORSHG1HLJKERUKRRG&RXQW\3DUN
6$1'$*
'DLO\
7ULS
5DWH
SHUXQLW
'DLO\
7ULS
5DWH
SHUXQLW
$03HDN+RXU
$0
$0
7ULS
5DWH
SHUXQLW
7ULS
5DWH
SHUXQLW
:HHNGD\7ULSV
/RFDO&LW\RI5LYHUVLGH3DUN
'ULYHZD\&RXQWV
3URSRVHG'HYHORSHG3DUN$PHQLWLHV
:HHNHQG
6DWXUGD\
7ULSV:HHNGD\7ULSV
8QLW 'DLO\
7ULSV
'DLO\
7ULSV
+LJKHVW3HDN+RXU
$0
$0
TM
RICK EXHIBIT 1
PROJECT VICINITY MAP
=RIVERSIDE GATEWAY PARK SYSTEM
ENGINEERING COMPANY =JURUPA AVENUE TRAILHEAD
JURUPA AVENUE TRAILHEAD TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT
.. ..
JURUPA AVENUE TRAILHEAD: MASTERPLAN
COMPO
DESTRIAN PATH
JACENT TO Bl
PEDESTRIAN
CONNECTION TO
CROSSWALK TO
RUTLAND PARK
VEH ICULAR ACCESS GATE /
SART SAFETY CHECK POINT
@ PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
S0URCE:STUDI0-MLA
TM
RICK EXHIBIT 2
CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN
ENGINEERING COMPANY
JURUPA AVENUE TRAILHEAD TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT
DECOMPOSED ->4--1------..;;..--,-....- - ---,.--=,-~- ~-----, GRANITE PATH -.~;:----~-----""'.".'!"~-~,,.- ---TN EW BIKE PATH
JURUP.A AVENUE
ALIGNMENT
ENTRY MONUMENT 1111
SIGN
VEHICULAR ACC ESS GAT
SAFETY CHECK POINT
TM
RICK
ENGINEERING COMPANY
EXHIBIT 3
PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
JURUPA AVENUE TRAILHEAD TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT
DISTRIBUTION PERCENT AGE
PROJECT SITE
ATTACHMENT B
Thursday, September 15, 2022 Counts
City: Riverside Project #:
Location: Ryan Bonamino Park Western Driveway
AM Period NB SB EB WB PM Period NB SB EB WB
00:00 0 0 12:00 0 3
00:15 0 0 12:15 1 1
00:30 0 1 12:30 1 0
00:45 00 0 1 1 12:45 02 48 1 0
01:00 0 0 13:00 1 2
01:15 0 0 13:15 1 1
01:30 1 0 13:30 2 1
01:45 01 0 0 1 13:45 37 59 1 6
02:00 0 0 14:00 1 2
02:15 0 0 14:15 2 2
02:30 0 0 14:30 1 3
02:45 00 0 0 14:45 15 07 1 2
03:00 0 0 15:00 1 1
03:15 1 1 15:15 1 2
03:30 0 0 15:30 0 2
03:45 01 0 1 2 15:45 13 38 1 1
04:00 0 0 16:00 1 1
04:15 0 0 16:15 0 1
04:30 0 0 16:30 0 1
04:45 00 0 0 16:45 01 14 5
05:00 0 0 17:00 4 4
05:15 0 1 17:15 2 4
05:30 1 0 17:30 1 3
05:45 01 1 2 3 17:45 3 10 8 19 29
06:00 0 1 18:00 5 3
06:15 0 3 18:15 3 4
06:30 1 4 18:30 4 7
06:45 01 5 1 3 1 4 18:45 2 14 5 19 33
07:00 1 3 19:00 4 6
07:15 3 5 19:15 6 6
07:30 1 3 19:30 5 5
07:45 27 5 1 6 2 3 19:45 4 19 3 20 39
08:00 3 1 20:00 4 6
08:15 1 3 20:15 3 1
08:30 3 2 20:30 1 2
08:45 31 0 17 1 7 20:45 3 11 4 13 24
09:00 1 2 21:00 1 3
09:15 1 3 21:15 0 2
09:30 1 1 21:30 2 1
09:45 36 3 9 1 5 21:45 14 17 1 1
10:00 1 1 22:00 1 1
10:15 1 1 22:15 1 0
10:30 1 2 22:30 1 1
10:45 14 4 8 1 2 22:45 03 02 5
11:00 1 1 23:00 0 0
11:15 2 1 23:15 0 0
11:30 2 1 23:30 1 0
11:45 05 2 5 1 0 23:45 12 00 2
Total Vol. 36 62 98 81 116 197
GPS Coordinates:
NB SB EB WB Combined
117 178 295
Split % 36.7% 63.3% 33.2% 41.1% 58.9% 66.8%
Peak Hour 08:00 06:30 07:00 19:00 18:30 18:30
Volume 10 17 23 19 24 40
P.H.F. 0.83 0.85 0.72 0.79 0.86 0.83
Prepared by: Field Data Services of Arizona/Veracity Traffic Group (520) 316-6745 PMAM
Daily Totals
Thursday, September 15, 2022Volumes for: 22-1548-001
33.976215, -117.395528
City: Riverside Project #:
Location: Ryan Bonamino Park Middle Driveway
AM Period NB SB EB WB PM Period NB SB EB WB
00:00 0 1 12:00 4 3
00:15 0 0 12:15 2 3
00:30 0 0 12:30 1 3
00:45 00 12 2 12:45 5 12 3 12 24
01:00 0 0 13:00 5 7
01:15 0 0 13:15 1 6
01:30 0 0 13:30 2 4
01:45 00 00 13:45 5 13 2 19 32
02:00 0 0 14:00 1 7
02:15 1 0 14:15 2 5
02:30 1 0 14:30 4 2
02:45 02 00 2 14:45 29 4 1 8 2 7
03:00 0 1 15:00 4 1
03:15 0 0 15:15 1 4
03:30 0 0 15:30 5 1
03:45 00 01 1 15:45 41 4 2 8 2 2
04:00 0 0 16:00 3 3
04:15 0 0 16:15 3 2
04:30 0 1 16:30 9 1
04:45 00 12 2 16:45 41 9 3 9 2 8
05:00 1 0 17:00 5 4
05:15 1 1 17:15 9 1 2
05:30 2 0 17:30 2 5
05:45 15 01 6 17:45 15 31 13 34 65
06:00 0 1 18:00 18 1 2
06:15 2 2 18:15 9 7
06:30 3 1 18:30 17 1 3
06:45 38 26 1 4 18:45 11 55 8 40 95
07:00 5 3 19:00 11 1 2
07:15 1 4 19:15 14 1 8
07:30 2 2 19:30 7 1 2
07:45 4 12 5 14 26 19:45 33 51 6 5 8 9 3
08:00 6 2 20:00 4 1 5
08:15 7 5 20:15 3 5
08:30 6 5 20:30 5 1 1
08:45 6 25 9 21 46 20:45 2 14 8 39 53
09:00 11 7 21:00 1 4
09:15 2 7 21:15 2 2
09:30 3 13 21:30 0 3
09:45 62 21 0 3 7 5 9 21:45 03 2 1 1 1 4
10:00 6 8 22:00 2 1
10:15 4 6 22:15 1 0
10:30 5 6 22:30 0 1
10:45 52 01 2 3 2 5 2 22:45 25 24 9
11:00 3 5 23:00 1 0
11:15 3 5 23:15 0 0
11:30 4 1 1 23:30 0 0
11:45 5 15 6 27 42 23:45 01 11 2
Total Vol. 109 143 252 211 253 464
GPS Coordinates:
NB SB EB WB Combined
320 396 716
Split % 43.3% 56.7% 35.2% 45.5% 54.5% 64.8%
Peak Hour 08:15 09:15 09:00 17:45 19:15 17:45
Volume 30 38 59 59 61 104
P.H.F. 0.68 0.73 0.82 0.82 0.85 0.87
Prepared by: Field Data Services of Arizona/Veracity Traffic Group (520) 316-6745 PMAM
Daily Totals
Thursday, September 15, 2022Volumes for: 22-1548-002
33.976515, -117.394337
City: Riverside Project #:
Location: Ryan Bonamino Park Eastern Driveway
AM Period NB SB EB WB PM Period NB SB EB WB
00:00 1 0 12:00 6 2
00:15 0 0 12:15 4 4
00:30 0 0 12:30 5 2
00:45 01 00 1 12:45 7 22 2 10 32
01:00 0 0 13:00 5 1
01:15 0 1 13:15 5 1
01:30 0 0 13:30 6 3
01:45 00 01 1 13:45 42 0 2 7 2 7
02:00 0 0 14:00 8 2
02:15 0 0 14:15 4 1
02:30 1 0 14:30 3 2
02:45 01 00 1 14:45 41 9 0 5 2 4
03:00 0 0 15:00 3 1
03:15 1 0 15:15 4 2
03:30 0 0 15:30 4 0
03:45 01 00 1 15:45 41 5 0 3 1 8
04:00 0 0 16:00 5 3
04:15 0 0 16:15 6 5
04:30 1 1 16:30 2 3
04:45 12 01 3 16:45 7 20 6 17 37
05:00 1 3 17:00 4 5
05:15 2 2 17:15 7 8
05:30 4 2 17:30 12 1 0
05:45 4 11 4 11 22 17:45 13 36 14 37 73
06:00 4 4 18:00 7 1 3
06:15 8 5 18:15 9 1 6
06:30 4 5 18:30 9 7
06:45 10 26 4 18 44 18:45 83 31 2 4 8 8 1
07:00 6 3 19:00 7 1 3
07:15 6 4 19:15 10 9
07:30 5 4 19:30 15 8
07:45 10 27 7 18 45 19:45 11 43 8 38 81
08:00 8 7 20:00 12 3
08:15 10 1 2 20:15 9 4
08:30 6 1 3 20:30 8 2
08:45 9 33 7 39 72 20:45 4 33 1 10 43
09:00 13 6 21:00 5 2
09:15 10 3 21:15 4 3
09:30 11 6 21:30 8 2
09:45 14 48 5 20 68 21:45 21 9 0 7 2 6
10:00 10 4 22:00 1 0
10:15 8 3 22:15 2 1
10:30 5 5 22:30 1 0
10:45 10 33 3 15 48 22:45 15 23 8
11:00 1 2 23:00 1 1
11:15 5 4 23:15 1 1
11:30 8 2 23:30 0 1
11:45 5 19 3 11 30 23:45 02 03 5
Total Vol. 202 134 336 267 188 455
GPS Coordinates:
NB SB EB WB Combined
469 322 791
Split % 60.1% 39.9% 42.5% 58.7% 41.3% 57.5%
Peak Hour 09:00 07:45 08:15 19:15 17:30 17:30
Volume 48 39 76 48 53 94
P.H.F. 0.86 0.75 0.86 0.80 0.83 0.87
Prepared by: Field Data Services of Arizona/Veracity Traffic Group (520) 316-6745 PMAM
Daily Totals
Thursday, September 15, 2022Volumes for: 22-1548-003
33.976813, -117.393149
Saturday, September 17, 2022 Counts
City: Riverside Project #:
Location: Ryan Bonamino Park Western Driveway
AM Period NB SB EB WB PM Period NB SB EB WB
00:00 0 0 12:00 3 3
00:15 0 0 12:15 3 2
00:30 0 0 12:30 0 1
00:45 00 11 1 12:45 17 39 1 6
01:00 0 0 13:00 1 2
01:15 0 0 13:15 3 2
01:30 0 0 13:30 0 0
01:45 00 00 13:45 04 04 8
02:00 0 0 14:00 1 0
02:15 0 0 14:15 0 1
02:30 0 0 14:30 0 2
02:45 11 00 1 14:45 01 36 7
03:00 0 0 15:00 1 1
03:15 0 0 15:15 3 1
03:30 0 0 15:30 0 1
03:45 00 00 15:45 26 03 9
04:00 0 0 16:00 0 2
04:15 1 0 16:15 0 1
04:30 0 1 16:30 1 2
04:45 01 01 2 16:45 01 05 6
05:00 0 0 17:00 4 0
05:15 0 1 17:15 0 0
05:30 0 0 17:30 1 4
05:45 11 12 3 17:45 05 15 1 0
06:00 0 0 18:00 0 3
06:15 0 3 18:15 1 2
06:30 2 0 18:30 2 4
06:45 13 25 8 18:45 25 7 1 6 2 1
07:00 0 3 19:00 5 5
07:15 2 4 19:15 6 2
07:30 1 6 19:30 0 2
07:45 47 5 1 8 2 5 19:45 2 13 1 10 23
08:00 3 6 20:00 4 1
08:15 3 6 20:15 0 1
08:30 5 7 20:30 2 0
08:45 3 14 4 23 37 20:45 06 02 8
09:00 7 2 21:00 2 2
09:15 3 5 21:15 1 2
09:30 5 4 21:30 1 0
09:45 4 19 2 13 32 21:45 04 04 8
10:00 6 5 22:00 2 1
10:15 3 2 22:15 0 2
10:30 4 6 22:30 1 2
10:45 4 17 1 14 31 22:45 14 05 9
11:00 3 4 23:00 3 2
11:15 2 1 23:15 0 1
11:30 4 3 23:30 2 1
11:45 41 3 08 2 1 23:45 05 04 9
Total Vol. 76 85 161 61 73 134
GPS Coordinates:
NB SB EB WB Combined
137 158 295
Split % 47.2% 52.8% 54.6% 45.5% 54.5% 45.4%
Peak Hour 09:00 07:45 07:45 18:30 18:15 18:30
Volume 19 24 39 15 18 33
P.H.F. 0.68 0.86 0.81 0.63 0.64 0.83
Prepared by: Field Data Services of Arizona/Veracity Traffic Group (520) 316-6745 PMAM
Daily Totals
Saturday, September 17, 2022Volumes for: 22-1548-001
33.976215, -117.395528
City: Riverside Project #:
Location: Ryan Bonamino Park Middle Driveway
AM Period NB SB EB WB PM Period NB SB EB WB
00:00 0 0 12:00 2 7
00:15 0 0 12:15 3 5
00:30 0 0 12:30 1 7
00:45 00 00 12:45 17 5 2 4 3 1
01:00 0 0 13:00 1 8
01:15 1 0 13:15 1 4
01:30 0 0 13:30 4 3
01:45 01 00 1 13:45 28 5 2 0 2 8
02:00 0 0 14:00 3 2
02:15 2 0 14:15 0 5
02:30 0 1 14:30 0 5
02:45 02 01 3 14:45 47 6 1 8 2 5
03:00 0 0 15:00 1 7
03:15 0 0 15:15 4 2
03:30 0 0 15:30 4 2
03:45 00 22 2 15:45 3 12 1 12 24
04:00 0 0 16:00 3 5
04:15 0 0 16:15 4 6
04:30 0 0 16:30 6 6
04:45 11 11 2 16:45 2 15 5 22 37
05:00 0 0 17:00 4 3
05:15 0 1 17:15 6 3
05:30 0 1 17:30 2 4
05:45 33 13 6 17:45 7 19 5 15 34
06:00 3 1 18:00 11 6
06:15 11 4 18:15 3 9
06:30 7 1 18:30 4 1 1
06:45 14 35 4 10 45 18:45 6 24 4 30 54
07:00 6 1 19:00 5 8
07:15 9 5 19:15 7 6
07:30 8 7 19:30 7 8
07:45 9 32 6 19 51 19:45 3 22 7 29 51
08:00 11 6 20:00 6 5
08:15 7 1 0 20:15 1 4
08:30 12 5 20:30 3 4
08:45 43 41 4 3 5 6 9 20:45 6 16 2 15 31
09:00 9 5 21:00 2 2
09:15 9 9 21:15 3 3
09:30 7 13 21:30 3 1
09:45 3 28 5 32 60 21:45 21 0 0 6 1 6
10:00 11 1 2 22:00 0 1
10:15 13 7 22:15 1 0
10:30 7 9 22:30 2 0
10:45 83 91 0 3 8 7 7 22:45 03 01 4
11:00 4 6 23:00 0 1
11:15 2 1 0 23:15 1 0
11:30 2 3 23:30 2 1
11:45 31 11 4 3 3 4 4 23:45 14 02 6
Total Vol. 186 174 360 147 194 341
GPS Coordinates:
NB SB EB WB Combined
333 368 701
Split % 51.7% 48.3% 51.4% 43.1% 56.9% 48.6%
Peak Hour 07:45 08:45 10:00 17:15 18:15 17:45
Volume 39 41 77 26 32 56
P.H.F. 0.81 0.73 0.84 0.59 0.73 0.82
Prepared by: Field Data Services of Arizona/Veracity Traffic Group (520) 316-6745 PMAM
Daily Totals
Saturday, September 17, 2022Volumes for: 22-1548-002
33.976515, -117.394337
City: Riverside Project #:
Location: Ryan Bonamino Park Eastern Driveway
AM Period NB SB EB WB PM Period NB SB EB WB
00:00 0 0 12:00 9 3
00:15 0 0 12:15 7 3
00:30 0 1 12:30 7 4
00:45 00 01 1 12:45 6 29 4 14 43
01:00 1 0 13:00 9 1
01:15 0 0 13:15 4 5
01:30 0 0 13:30 6 1
01:45 01 00 1 13:45 5 24 5 12 36
02:00 1 0 14:00 7 2
02:15 0 0 14:15 2 2
02:30 0 0 14:30 6 3
02:45 01 00 1 14:45 41 9 1 8 2 7
03:00 0 0 15:00 9 1
03:15 0 0 15:15 6 1
03:30 0 0 15:30 6 5
03:45 00 00 15:45 6 27 3 10 37
04:00 0 0 16:00 5 4
04:15 1 0 16:15 4 4
04:30 0 1 16:30 5 4
04:45 12 12 4 16:45 6 20 4 16 36
05:00 0 2 17:00 4 5
05:15 2 1 17:15 3 4
05:30 4 4 17:30 0 4
05:45 4 10 5 12 22 17:45 18 6 1 9 2 7
06:00 3 6 18:00 3 6
06:15 2 8 18:15 3 6
06:30 4 6 18:30 2 5
06:45 5 14 6 26 40 18:45 4 12 3 20 32
07:00 6 6 19:00 11 5
07:15 9 6 19:15 3 9
07:30 8 1 1 19:30 6 4
07:45 73 01 2 3 5 6 5 19:45 7 27 2 20 47
08:00 11 8 20:00 3 2
08:15 9 8 20:15 1 2
08:30 10 7 20:30 2 4
08:45 9 39 8 31 70 20:45 17 19 1 6
09:00 11 9 21:00 0 2
09:15 11 1 0 21:15 0 1
09:30 11 9 21:30 0 3
09:45 10 43 8 36 79 21:45 00 06 6
10:00 13 9 22:00 2 1
10:15 9 6 22:15 1 2
10:30 7 7 22:30 0 1
10:45 9 38 7 29 67 22:45 14 04 8
11:00 10 4 23:00 0 1
11:15 7 3 23:15 1 1
11:30 13 3 23:30 0 0
11:45 7 37 3 13 50 23:45 01 02 3
Total Vol. 215 185 400 178 140 318
GPS Coordinates:
NB SB EB WB Combined
393 325 718
Split % 53.8% 46.3% 55.7% 56.0% 44.0% 44.3%
Peak Hour 09:15 07:30 09:15 12:00 17:45 19:00
Volume 45 39 81 29 23 47
P.H.F. 0.87 0.81 0.92 0.81 0.96 0.73
Prepared by: Field Data Services of Arizona/Veracity Traffic Group (520) 316-6745 PMAM
Daily Totals
Saturday, September 17, 2022Volumes for: 22-1548-003
33.976813, -117.393149
SANDAG Trip Generation Rates
238 73
&6-)* +9-() 3* :),-'90%6 86%**-' +)2)6%8-32 6%8)7 *36 8,) 7%2 (-)+3 6)+-32
%46-0
0%2( 97) 86-4 '%8)+36-)7 )78-1%8)( ;))/(%= :),-'0) ,-+,)78 4)%/ ,396 TPYW -2
398 VEXMS
86-4 0)2+8,
?46-1%6=
(-:)68)(
4%77&= A4 86-4 +)2)6%8-32 6%8)
(6-:);%=
&IX[IIR
%1 &IX[IIR
41
1MPIW
0 %+6-'90896)
3TIR7TEGI
?
A EGVI
%-64368?
A
'SQQIVGMEP EGVIJPMKLXWUJX
+IRIVEP%ZMEXMSR EGVIJPMKLXFEWIHEMVGVEJX
,IPMTSVXW EGVI
%98313&-0)7
'EV;EWL
%YXSQEXMG
WMXIEGVI
7IPJWIVZI [EWLWXEPP
+EWSPMRI?
A
[MXL*SSH1EVX ZILMGPIJYIPMRKWTEGI
[MXL*SSH1EVX
'EV;EWL ZILMGPIJYIPMRKWTEGI
3PHIV7IVZMGI7XEXMSR(IWMKR ZILMGPIJYIPMRKWTEGI WXEX MSR
7EPIW
(IEPIV
6ITEMV
WUJXEGVIWIVZMGIWX EPP
%YXS6ITEMV'IRXIV WUJXEGVIWIVZMGIWXEPP
%YXS4EVXW7EPIW WUJX
5YMGO0YFI WIVZMGIWXEPP
8MVI7XSVI WUJXWIVZMGIWXEPP
')1)8)6= EGVI
',96',
SV7]REKSKYI
?
A
WUJXEGVI
UYEHVYTPIVEXIW
JSV7YRHE]SVHE]WSJEWWIQFP]
'311)6'-%06)8%-07
7YTIV6IKMSREP7LSTTMRK'IRXIV WUJX'EGVI
1SVIXLER
EGVIWQSVIXLER
WUJX[YWYEPP]
QENSVWXSVIW
6IKMSREP7LSTTMRK'IRXIV?
A WUJX
'EGVI
EGVIW
WUJX[YWYEPP]QENSVWXSVIW
'SQQYRMX]7LSTTMRK'IRXIV?
A
WUJXEGVI
EGVIWWUJX
[YWYEPP]QENSVWXSVIHIXEGLIH
VIWXEYVERX
W
KVSGIV]ERHHVYKWXSVI
2IMKLFSVLSSH7LSTTMRK'IRXIV WUJXEGVI
0IWWXLEREGVIWPIWWXLER
WUJX[YWYEPP]KVSGIV]
HVYKWXSVIGPIERIVWFIEYX]
FEVFIVWLST
JEWXJSSHWIVZMGIW
'SQQIVGMEP7LSTW?
A
7TIGMEPX]6IXEMP7XVMT'SQQIVGMEP WUJXEGVI
)PIGXVSRMGW7YTIVWXSVI WUJX
*EGXSV]3YXPIX WUJX
7YTIVQEVOIX WUJXEGVI
(VYKWXSVI
WUJX
'SRZIRMIRGI1EVOIX
LSYVW
WUJX
'SRZIRMIRGI1EVOIX
LSYVW
WUJX
'SRZIRMIRGI1EVOIX
[KEWSPMRITYQTW
WUJXZILMGPIJYIPMRKWTEGI
(MWGSYRX'PYF WUJXEGVI
(MWGSYRX7XSVI WUJXEGVI
*YVRMXYVI7XSVI WUJXEGVI
0YQFIV7XSVI WUJXEGVI
,SQI-QTVSZIQIRX7YTIVWXSVI WUJX
,EVH[EVI4EMRX7XSVI WUJXEGVI
+EVHIR2YVWIV] WUJX
EGVI
1M\IH9WI
'SQQIVGMEP
[WYTIVQEVOIX
6IWMHIRXMEP WUJXEGVI
GSQQIVGMEPSRP]
H[IPPMRKYRMXEGVI
VIWMHIRXMEPSRP]
)(9'%8-32
9RMZIVWMX]
]IEVW
?
A WXYHIRXEGVI
.YRMSV'SPPIKI
]IEVW
?
A WXYHIRXWUJXEGVI
,MKL7GLSSP?
A WXYHIRXWUJXEGVI
1MHHPI.YRMSV,MKL?
A WXYHIRXWUJXEGVI
)PIQIRXEV]?
A WXYHIRXWUJX
EGVI
(E]'EVI?
A GLMPH
WUJX
*-2%2'-%0
7?
A
&ERO
;EPO-RSRP]
WUJXEGVI
[MXL(VMZI8LVSYKL WUJXEGVI
(VMZI8LVSYKLSRP]
SRI[E]
PERI
7EZMRKW
0SER WUJXEGVI
(VMZI8LVSYKLSRP]
SRI[E]
PERI
,374-8%0?
A
+IRIVEP FIHWUJXEGVI
'SRZEPIWGIRX2YVWMRK FIH
-2(9786-%0
-RHYWXVMEP&YWMRIWW4EVO
GSQQIVGMEPMRGPYHIH
?
A WUJXEGVI
-RHYWXVMEP4EVO
RSGSQQIVGMEP
WUJX
EGVI
-RHYWXVMEP4PERX
QYPXMTPIWLMJXW
?
A WUJXEGVI
1ERYJEGXYVMRK%WWIQFP] WUJXEGVI
;EVILSYWMRK WUJXEGVI
7XSVEKI WUJXZEYPXEGVI
7GMIRGI6IWIEVGL
(IZIPSTQIRX
WUJX
EGVI
0ERHJMPP
6IG]GPMRK'IRXIV EGVI
238)
8LMWPMWXMRKSRP]VITVIWIRXWEKYMHISJEZIVEKISVIWXMQEXIHXVEJJMGKIRIVEXMSRHVMZI[E]VEXIWERHWSQIZIV]KIRIVEPXVMTHEXEJSVPERHYWIW IQTLEWMWSREGVIEKIERHFYMPHMRKWUYEVIJSSXEKI
MRXLI7ER(MIKSVIKMSR8LIWIVEXIW
FSXLPSGEPERHREXMSREP
EVIWYFNIGXXSGLERKIEWJYXYVIHSGYQIRXEXMSRFIGSQIWEZEMPEFPISVEWVIKMSREPWSYVGIWEVIYTHEXIH*SVQSVIWTIGMJMGMRJSVQEXMSR VIKEVHMRKXVEJJMGHEXEERHXVMTVEXIWTPIEWIVIJIVXSXLI7ER (MIKS8VEJJMG+IRIVEXSVWQERYEP % P [ E ] W G L I G O [ M X L P S G E P N Y V M W H M G X M S R W J S V X L I M V T V I J I V V I H S V E TTPMGEFPI VEXIW
3:)6
&7XVIIX7YMXI
7ER(MIKS'EPMJSVRME
y*E\
1)1&)6%+)2'-)7
'MXMIWSJ'EVPWFEH'LYPE:MWXE'SVSREHS(IP 1EV)P'ENSR)RGMRMXEW)WGSRHMHS-QTIVMEP&IEGL0E1IWE 0IQSR+VSZI2EXMSREP'MX] 3GIERWMHI4S[E]7ER(MIKS7ER1EVGSW7ERXII7SPERE&IEGL:MWXEERH'SYRX]SJ7ER(MIKS %(:-736=0-%-7321)1&)67
'EPMJSVRME(ITEVXQIRXSJ8VERWTSVXEXM SR'SYRX];EXIV%YXLSVMX]97(ITEVXQIRXSJ(IJIRWI7(9R MJMIH4SVX(MWXVMGXERH8MNYERE&ENE'EPMJSVRME _
SANDAG
0 % 2 ( 9 7 ) 8 6 - 4 ' % 8 ) + 3 6 - ) 7 ) 7 8 - 1 % 8 ) ( ; ) ) / ( % = : ) , - ' 0 ) , - + , ) 7 8 4 ) % / , 39 6 T P Y W - 2
3 9 8 V E X M S
8 6 - 4 0 ) 2 + 8 ,
?46-1%6=
(-:)68)(
4%77&= A4 86-4 +)2)6%8-32 6%8)
(6-:);%=
&IX[IIR
%1 &IX[IIR
41
1MPIW
0 0-&6%6=?
A WUJXEGVI
03(+-2+?
A
,SXIP
[GSRZIRXMSRJEGMPMXMIWVIWXEYVERX
SGGYTMIHVSSQEGVI
1SXIP
SGGYTMIHVSSQEGVI
6IWSVX,SXIP
SGGYTMIHVSSQEGVI
&YWMRIWW,SXIP SGGYTMIHVSSQ
1-0-8%6= ?
A QMPMXEV]
GMZMPMERTIVWSRRIP
3**-')
7XERHEVH'SQQIVGMEP3JJMGI?
A WUJX 3EGVI
PIWWXLERWUJX
0EVKI
,MKL6MWI
'SQQIVGMEP3JJMGI?
A WUJX 3EGVI
QSVIXLERWUJXWXSVMIW
3JJMGI4EVO
WUJX
WUJXEGVI
7MRKPI8IRERX3JJMGI WUJX
EGVI
'SVTSVEXI,IEHUYEVXIVW WUJXEGVI
+SZIVRQIRX
'MZMG'IRXIV
?
A WUJX
4SWX3JJMGI
'IRXVEP;EPO-R3RP]
WUJX
'SQQYRMX]
RSXMRGPYHMRKQEMPHVSTPERI
WUJXEGVI
'SQQYRMX]
[QEMPHVSTPERI
WUJXEGVI
1EMP(VST0ERISRP]
SRI[E]
PERI
(ITEVXQIRXSJ1SXSV:ILMGPIW
WUJX
EGVI
1IHMGEP(IRXEP?
A WUJXEGVI
4%6/7?
A
'MX]
HIZIPSTIH[QIIXMRKVSSQWERHWTSVXWJEGMPMXMIW
EGVI
6IKMSREP
HIZIPSTIH
EGVI
2IMKLFSVLSSH'SYRX]
YRHIZIPSTIH
EGVI
EHHJSVWTIGMJMGWTSVXYWIW
TMGRMGWMXI
7XEXI
EZIVEKIEGVIW
EGVITMGRMGWMXI
%QYWIQIRX
8LIQI
EGVIEGVI
WYQQIVSRP]
7ER(MIKS>SS EGVI
7IE;SVPH
EGVI
6)'6)%8-32
&IEGL3GIERSV&E]?
A JXWLSVIPMRIEGVI
&IEGL0EOI
JVIWL[EXIV
JXWLSVIPMRIEGVI
&S[PMRK'IRXIV WUJXEGVIPERI
'EQTKVSYRH GEQTWMXI
+SPJ'SYVWI EGVILSPIGSYVWI
(VMZMRK6ERKISRP] EGVIXIIFS\
1EVMREW FIVXLEGVI
1YPXMTYVTSWI
QMRMEXYVIKSPJZMHISEVGEHIFEXXMRKGEKIIXG
EGVI
6EGUYIXFEPP,IEPXL'PYF WUJXEGVIGSYVX
8IRRMW'SYVXW EGVIGSYVX
7TSVXW*EGMPMXMIW
3YXHSSV7XEHMYQ EGVIWIEX
-RHSSV%VIRE EGVIWIEX
6EGIXVEGO EGVIWIEX
8LIEXIVW
QYPXMTPI\[QEXMRII
?
A
WUJX
WIEXWGVIIR
6)7-()28-%0 ?
A
)WXEXI9VFERSV6YVEP H[IPPMRKYRMX 6
EZIVEKI(9EGVI
7MRKPI*EQMP](IXEGLIH H[IPPMRKYRMX 6
EZIVEKI(9EGVI
'SRHSQMRMYQ
H[I PPMRKYRMX6
SVER]QYPXMJEQMP](9EGVI
%TEVXQIRX H[IPPMRKYRMX 6
SVER]QYPXMJEQMP]YRMXWQSVIXLER(9EGVI
1MPMXEV],SYWMRK
SJJFEWIQYPXMJEQMP]
PIWWXLER(9EGVI
H[IPPMRKYRMX
(9EGVI
H[IPPMRKYRMX
1SFMPI,SQI
*EQMP] H[IPPMRKYRMXEGVI
%HYPXW3RP] H[IPPMRKYRMXEGVI
6IXMVIQIRX'SQQYRMX] H[IPPMRKYRMX
'SRKVIKEXI'EVI*EGMPMX] H[IPPMRKYRMX
6)78%96%287 ?
A
5YEPMX] WUJXWIEXEGVI
7MXHS[RLMKLXYVRSZIV WUJXWIEXEGVI
*EWX*SSH
[HVMZIXLVSYKL
WUJXWIEXEGVI
*EWX*SSH
[MXLSYXHVMZIXLVSYKL
WUJX
(IPMGEXIWWIR
EQTQ
WUJXWIEX
86%274368%8-32
&YW(ITSX WUJX
8VYGO8IVQMREP WUJXFE]
EGVI
;EXIVTSVX1EVMRI8IVQMREP FIVXLEGVI
8VERWMX7XEXMSR
0MKLX6EMP[TEVOMRK
EGVI TEVOMRKWTEGI
SGGYTMIH
4EVO
6MHI0SXW EGVI
TEZIHEGVI
TEVOMRKWTEGI
SGGYTMIH
4VMQEV]WSYVGI
7ER (MIKS 8VEJJMG +IRIVEXSVW
3XLIVWSYVGIW
-8) 8VMT +IRIVEXMSR 6ITSVX ?XL )HMXMSRA8VMT+IRIVEXMSR6EXIW SXLIVEKIRGMIWERHTYFPMGEXMSRW
ZEVMSYW7%2(%+
'%086%27WXYHMIWVITSVXWERHIWXMQEXIW
4 8VMTGEXIKSV]TIVGIRXEKIVEXMSWEVIHEMP]JVSQPSGEPLSYWILSPHWYVZI]WSJXIRGERRSXFIETTPMIHXSZIV]WTIGMJMGPERHYWIWERHHSRSXMRGPYHIRSRVIWMHIRXHVMZIVW
HVEJX7%2(%+%REP]WMW SJ 8VMT (MZIVWMSRVIZMWIH2SZIQFIV
46-1%6=SRIXVMTHMVIGXP]FIX[IIRSVMKMRERHTVMQEV]HIWXMREXMSR (-:)68)(PMROIHXVMT
LEZMRKSRISVQSVIWXSTWEPSRKXLI[E]XSETVMQEV]HIWXMREXMSR [LSWIHMWXERGIGSQTEVIHXSHMVIGXHMWXERGI tQMPI
4%77&=YRHMZIVXIHSVHMZIVXIH QMPI
0 8VMTPIRKXLWEVIEZIVEKI[IMKLXIHJSVEPPXVMTWXSERHJVSQKIRIVEPPERHYWIWMXI %PPXVMTWW]WXIQ[MHIEZIVEKIPIRKXL!
QMPIW
' *MXXIHGYVZIIUYEXMSR
0R
8 !0R
\
8!XSXEPXVMTW\!WUJX
3 *MXXIHGYVZIIUYEXMSR
0R
8 !0R
\
6 *MXXIHGYVZIIUYEXMSR
X!
0R
H
X!XVMTW(9H!HIRWMX]
(9EGVI
(9!H[IPPMRKYRMX
7 7YKKIWXIH4%77&=?YRHMZIVXIHSVHMZIVXIH QMPIATIVGIRXEKIWJSVXVMTVEXIVIHYGXMSRWSRP] HYVMRK41TIEOTIVMSH
FEWIHSRGSQFMREXMSRSJPSGEPHEXEVIZMI[ERH3XLIVWSYVGIW
'311)6'-%06)8%-0
6IKMSREP7LSTTMRK'IRXIV
'SQQYRMX]
2IMKLFSVLSSH
7TIGMEPX]6IXEMP7XVMT'SQQIVGMEP
SXLIV
7YTIVQEVOIX
'SRZIRMIRGI1EVOIX
(MWGSYRX'PYF7XSVI
*-2%2'-%0
&ERO
%98313&-0)
+EWSPMRI7XEXMSR
6)78%96%28
5YEPMX]
7MXHS[RLMKLXYVRSZIV
*EWX*SSH
8 8VMT6IHYGXMSRW-RSVHIVXSLIPTTVSQSXIVIKMSREPWQEVXKVS[XLTSPMGMIW ERHEGORS[PIHKI7ER(MIKS
WI\TERHMRKQEWWXVERWMXW]WXIQGSRWMHIV
ZILMGPIXVMTVEXIVIHYGXMSRW
[MXLTVSTIVHSGYQIRXEXMSRERHRIGIWWEV]
EHNYWXQIRXWJSVTIEOTIVMSHW
8LIJSPPS[MRKEVIWSQII\EQTPIW
?A% HEMP]XVMTVIHYGXMSRJSVPERHYWIW[MXLXVERWMXEGGIWWSVRIEV XVERWMXWXEXMSRWEGGIWWMFPI[MXLMRQMPI
?A9TXS HEMP]XVMTVIHYGXMSRJSVQM\IHYWIHIZIPSTQIRXW[LIVI VIWMHIRXMEPERHGSQQIVGMEPVIXEMPEVIGSQFMRIH
HIQSRWXVEXIQSHI
WTPMXSJ[EPOMRKXVMTWXSVITPEGIZILMGYPEVXVMTW
2IMKLFSVLSSH'SYRX]
YRHIZIPSTIH
EGVI
EHHJSVWTIGMJMGWTSVXYWIW
TMGRMGWMXI
4%6/ 7
-
ATTACHMENT C
User's ,Guide
E]
o ( ail)
Yes ( ass)
Screen ina results ere
based on- locet ion of parcel
centro ·ds. I' resu cs are
desired cons·dering t e ful l
p arcel, please refer to the
associated map I ayers to
vis ally rev·ew parcel and
TAZ bou ndary relBtionship.
Community 0
Reg ans have
different
thresholds
(1=Yes, O=No)
Ju.rupa Ai.ie
Jurupa Ave
~
~~
0:
~
,f
<,;•"'"
Jurul'8 p,~•
j\11111'" p,~•
Powered by Fehr & Peers User's Guide
"-
~
~ ...... _______ __
----
--------
\ art /
'\
" J.. .,,,
,, ~ <9., <,"-,. '>-9 ,.,.
"1,,0. .,,.,. ,, <9,;
-1>;." ,, e ~o-
~,...~ ""'
~" O'
Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 155060027
TrafficAnalysis 1944
Zone (TAZ)
Ins de a Transit
Priority Aree
(TPA}
TAZVMT
IVE SI E
0 26.7
37.6 -29. 14%
OD VM. Per Service
opu la1 on
32 Jurupa A111e
Jurupa Av@
\ \
\ I LL \
\
ATTACHMENT D
California MUTCD 2014 Edition
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Chapter 3B – Pavement and Curb Markings November 7, 2014 Part 3 – Markings
Figure 3B-17 (CA). Examples of Crosswalk Enhancements at Uncontrolled Multi/ane Approaches
-
:E ~~ ~!\~A --t 1H~ ~ - ~~ ~~ ;;;[l ~ ~."-ii l-2oto50ft~ ~(~•)(•~ ~~ ... w ~ === :: :E ~ :!: ,, :E ;o ;;; ::! ;: Legend ~ ~ ' N ~ --
N u, :E ;j :E - Direction of travel
:E ~B - One-way roadway - Midblo ck ~ <$>~ * Optional
.... rIJ ~ ::,,;.. G] NOTE: Adequate visibility
tW -r~ ~ 2~<J ~ -• ~ ~ =>,. should be provided.
~ ....
N -
--
--- ------ ---- -
it~ r • t~~ ij
~~ ~ •
;;; :E ~
• .... T'"
.... .... T'"
.... ,, .., 3:: .., R1-1
California MUTCD 2014 Edition
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Chapter 3B – Pavement and Curb Markings November 7, 2014 Part 3 – Markings
____________________________________________________________________________________________ Figure 3B-19. Examples of Crosswalk Markings
Diagon *
Spacing of lines
selected to avoid
wheel path
*High visibility Crosswalk Marking
Figure 38-19 (CA). Examples of Crosswalk Markings
Ladder*
I
Bar Pai *
Spacing of lines
selected to avoid
wheel path
*High visibility Crosswalk Marking
California MUTCD 2014 Edition
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Chapter 9B – Signs November 7, 2014
Part 9 – Traffic Control for Bicycle Facilities
Figure 98-2. Regulatory Signs and Plaques for Bicycle Facilities STOP
RH R1-2 R3-17
BEGIN
RIGHT TURN LANE
•
SLOWER
TRAFFIC
KEEP
RIGHT YI ELD TO Bl KES
R4-3
R5-1b
RIDE
WITH R9-3cP
TRAFFIC
(310
USE
PED
SIGNAL
R9-5
~
r~
BUTTON
FOR GREEN
LICHT
R10-24
070
YIELD
TO
PEDS
R9-6
r~
BUTTON TO
TURN ON
WARNING
LIGHTS
R10-25
R4-4
NO
MOTOR
VEHICLES
RS-3
KEEP
LEFT RIGHT
R9-7
~
r~
BUTTON
FOR GREEN
LICHT
-
R10-26
I AHEAD 1-
R3-17aP
I ENDS
R3-17bP
DO
NOT
II PASS
R4-1
d:f0
MAY USE
FULL LANE
R4-7 R4-11
RS-6
R9-13
R15-1
BIKE
LANE
R?-9
R9-14
®
BIKE
LANE
R7-9a
rp:!!
FOR
GREEN
~
R10-4
I T~A~L I
R1 5-2P
PASS
WITH
CARE
R4-2
KEEP
RIGHT
EXCEPT
TO PASS
R4-16
R9-3
TO REQUEST
GREEN
WAIT i
ON oro
R10-22
R15-8
California MUTCD 2014 Edition
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Chapter 9B – Signs November 7, 2014
Part 9 – Traffic Control for Bicycle Facilities
WH
I 4 11 I
W1-7
W3-1
W8-1
W10-12
Figure 98-3 . Warning Signs and Plaques and Object Markers for Bicycle Facilities
W1-2 W1-3 W1-4 W1-5
W2-1 W2-2 W2-3 W2-4
W3-2 W3-3 W5-2 W5-4a
W8-2 W8-3 W10-1
!.6
W1H5P*
w11-1 * w11-2 * W12-2
GB
W1-6
W2-5
W7-5
NO
TRAIN HORN
W10-9P
w1s-1 *
SHARE
~ ; ; ; THE
I[ 500 FT]] I[ AHEAD ]I ROAD ll ~ II T
W16-1P* W16-2P* W16-2aP* W16-7P* W16-9P* OM3-L OM3-C OM3-R * A fluorescent yellow-green background color may be used for this sign or plaque. The background color of the plaque should match the color of the warning sign that it supplements .
California MUTCD 2014 Edition
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Chapter 9B – Signs November 7, 2014
Part 9 – Traffic Control for Bicycle Facilities
Revised March 29, 2019
Figure 9B-7. Examples of Signing and Markings for a Shared-Use Path Crossing R44A(CA)
Shared-use path
R1-1I 1-•
D3-1
• 454L ft ft ft 50 ft -------•
$
W2-1
(if no stop, yield, or
signal control on path)
Intersection traffic control devices might be STOP
or YIELD signs facing shared-use path approaches ,
roadway approaches , or both, depending on
conditions (see Section 9B.03)
Roadway
W11-15
W11-1 W11-15P
W16-2aP W16-2aP
(optional) (optional)
feOR :
lloonl
D3-1
I •.
1 • R1-1
Crosswalk
•J lines as
I needed
... \ c!:s-3
0 "'
~
R
= W11-1I
W16-7P
W11-15I
W11-15P/
W16-7P
Varies
see
Section
9B.18
100 ft
I
8 ft
I
32 ft
t
8 ft
I
California MUTCD 2014 Edition
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Chapter 9B – Signs November 7, 2014
Part 9 – Traffic Control for Bicycle Facilities
Figure 98-8. Example of Mode-Specific
Guide Signing on a Shared-Use Path
L
D11- 1a
L
D11-1 a
D11-3
M5-2
D11-2
Appendix K
nts
Response to Comments
Comment Letter 1: Mission Grove Neighborhood
Alliance LLC (MGNA) – January 2, 2026
Responses to Comment Letter 1: Mission Grove
Neighborhood Alliance LLC
Phase 2: The Inquiry 250 Questions
I. Aesthetics, Light Pollution & Historic Heritage (Questions 1–25) Response to Question Number 1: Riverside’s citrus and agricultural heritage is protected in the Arlington Heights neighborhood, in the heart of Riverside’s greenbelt. This project is not located within the greenbelt area, but rather adjacent to the Santa Ana River. This project complies with General Plan Objective LU-1 to increase the prominence of the Santa Ana River by providing better connections and increased recreational opportunities.
Response to Question Number 2: A lighting plan will be prepared during subsequent design development. Lighting will be designed to meet applicable limits to protect dark skies and any sensitive receptors.
Response to Question Number 3: A lighting plan will be prepared during subsequent design development. Lighting will be designed to meet applicable limits to protect dark skies and any sensitive receptors.
Response to Question Number 4: A lighting plan will be prepared during subsequent design development. Lighting will be designed to meet applicable codes and limits to protect dark skies and sensitive receptors.
Response to Question Number 5: The decomposed granite path will be located in the developed area of the existing park.
Response to Question Number 6: Material selection will take place during subsequent design development. The secondary lookout will likely be constructed from non-porous materials such as painted or powder coated metal. Both allow for durability and ease of graffiti removal, and hold up well in Riverside parks..
Response to Question Number 7: To prevent erosion, pavers, concrete steps, or other hardened material can be used to armor social trails that need to remain at the time of design development.
Response to Question Number 8:.Anti-skateboarding hardware could be incorporated into the Grand Stairs to deter skateboarding in areas that compromise the safety of park users, and to minimize damage to public facilities.
Response to Question Number 9: When seeding or planting native plants, use of local-genotypes will be emphasized.
Response to Question Number 10: The marker itself does not qualify as a historical resource under CEQA. It is not locally designated and not eligible for the CRHR. The historic marker will be protected in place during grading or if needed will be relocated to prevent damage.
Response to Question Number 11: A lighting plan will be prepared during subsequent design development. Lighting will be designed to meet applicable limits to protect dark skies and any sensitive receptors.
Response to Question Number 12: Material selection will take place during subsequent design development.
Response to Question Number 13: Visual impacts on the Mount Rubidoux Historic District were analyzed in the Loring Park Master Plan IS/MND (pgs 3.37-3.38) and determined to be less than significant.
Response to Question Number 14: Material selection will take place during subsequent design development. A combination of fencing and planting can be used to screen the railroad tracks.
Response to Question Number 15: Specific design details and material selection will take place during subsequent design development. The raincross symbol will be considered for incorporation into the plaza design.
Response to Question Number 16: The terraced seating at Loring Park is at ground level and does not obstruct protected view corridors.
Response to Question Number 17: There will be an approximately 20’ wide planted buffer between the Santa Ana River Trail Greenway and the proposed new parking area at Tequesquite North. Plants and trees will be selected to allow a clear view into the parking lot from Tequesquite Avenue and from the trail, for safety purposes.
Response to Question Number 18: The grand staircase at Loring Park will be selected during design development. It will likely be concrete, which typically has an albedo of 0.20 – 0.40.
Response to Question Number 19: Safety lighting will use full-cutoff or shielded fixtures that direct light downward to minimize spillover.
Response to Question Number 20: The shaded overlook structure will be selected to complement the surrounding historic neighborhood and natural setting.
II. Air Quality & Greenhouse Gases (Questions 26–50)
Response to Question Number 26: The construction emissions modeling incorporates the requirements of SCAQMD Rule 403: Fugitive Dust by assuming that exposed surfaces would be watered three times per day, consistent with Standard Condition AQ-SC-1. The three times daily efficacy assumes watering every 2.1 hours and achieves a 74% reduction in fugitive dust emissions from grading equipment passes, bulldozing, and truck loading.
Response to Question Number 27: The sensitive receptors along Indian Hill Road are located across Indian Hill Road to the south of the Camp Evans project site. As discussed in the Camp Evans Master Plan IS/MND, Chapter 3, Section III, Air Quality, Impact AQ-c, the potential localized air quality impacts resulting from the proposed project on adjacent sensitive receptors during construction were quantitatively assessed using the SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs), which represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to localized air quality impacts. As discussed therein, emissions from construction of the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD LSTs applicable to the proposed project. Therefore, additional quantitative analysis to assess local PM2.5 concentrations is not required.
Response to Question Number 28: The greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions analysis has been revised to account for the carbon sequestration loss from removing dense vegetation. The revised GHG emissions modeling incorporates the carbon sequestration loss from the removal of ruderal mustards and forbs (modeled as shrubland) and eucalyptus forest (modeled as broadleaf forests).
By including the carbon sequestration loss in the GHG analysis of the Camp Evans Master Plan IS/MND, the net loss of carbon sequestration was estimated at 43.8 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year. The total estimated annual GHG emissions for the project, as shown in Table VIII-3, increased to 738.7 MTCO2e, which is below the applicable threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Therefore, GHG impacts remain less than significant.
Response to Question Number 29: The intent is to use permeable surface for the parking rows.
Response to Question Number 30: The contractor will be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403: Fugitive Dust, which requires that all track-out dust from an operation shall be removed at the conclusion of each workday or evening shift. Therefore, the contractor will be required to monitor and remove track-out dust daily. The City of Riverside will coordinate monitoring and reporting of the implementation of the project-specific mitigation measures for the proposed project. Monitoring will include: (1) verification that each mitigation measure has been implemented; (2) recordation of the verification and any necessary notations regarding implementation of each mitigation measure; and (3) retention of monitoring records.
Response to Question Number 31: The VOC limit for architectural coatings used on the Concession Area Hub is 50 grams of VOC per liter of colorant, less water and exempt compounds. The VOC limit is defined in Standard Condition AQ-SC-2 and SCAQMD, Rule 1113, Table of Standards 2, VOC Limits for Colorants. The contractor must comply with AQ-SC-2 and compliance is required upon submittal of specifications.
Response to Question Number 32: Power can be provided for authorized and permitted food trucks at Carlson Park.
Response to Question Number 33: The City’s typical outdoor restroom buildings rely on high- efficiency passive ventilation rather than mechanical air filtration systems. Good air flow can be achieved through use of louvered and mesh covered openings and similar. Annual escalations costs are not specific to an air-filtration system, but are to be expected for the cost of the restroom building itself.
Response to Question Number 34: The parks are separate projects that are not functionally linked; each can be developed and serve the public on its own merits. Completion of one site does not commit the City to the completion of the others.
Response to Question Number 35: Tier 4 Final engines will not be mandated for any construction activities to reduce NOX emissions. As shown in Chapter 3, Section III, Air Quality, criteria air pollutant emissions from the use of fleet average construction equipment would not exceed any SCAQMD regional air quality significance threshold or localized significance threshold. Appendix C shows that the construction emissions modeling assumed fleet average construction equipment for quantifying construction emissions. Therefore, the use of Tier 4 Final engines is not required.
Response to Question Number 36: The contractor will be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403: Fugitive Dust, which requires the contractor to apply water or stabilizing agents in sufficient quantity to prevent generation of dust plumes during grading activities and other earth-moving activities. Additionally, Rule 403 states that upwind fencing can prevent material movement on site during grading activities. Thus, required compliance with Rule 403 would prevent fugitive dust plumes from leaving the site during wind events.
Response to Question Number 37: The operational criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions modeling accounts for the mobile source emissions from the 208 new parking spaces included in the Tequesquite North Extension. As stated in Chapter 3, Section III, Air Quality, based on the traffic assessment for the proposed Tequesquite North Extension project prepared by Rick Engineering, the Tequesquite North Extension project is anticipated to generate a net increase of 295 trips per day on a typical weekday and a net increase of 278 trips per day on a typical Saturday compared to existing conditions. The mobile source emissions generated by these additional vehicle trips are included in the operational emissions modeling for the Tequesquite Sites and Stanta Ana River Greenway Master Plan IS/MND.
Response to Question Number 38: The project will be designed and constructed to meet building codes applicable at the time of project plan check submittal. Most likely, CalGreen Code will still be in effect, and the project will provide the number of electric vehicle charging stations required by applicable codes.
Response to Question Number 39: The greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions analysis has been revised to account for the carbon sequestration loss from removing riparian, marsh, and grassland. The revised GHG emissions modeling incorporates the carbon sequestration loss from the removal of ruderal mustards and forbs (modeled as shrubland) and eucalyptus forest (modeled as broadleaf forests). By including the carbon sequestration loss in the GHG analysis of the Tequesquite Sites and Santa Ana River Greenway Master Plan IS/MND, the net loss of carbon sequestration was estimated at 52.8 MTCO2e per year. The total estimated annual GHG emissions from the project, as shown in Table VIII-3, increased to 1,264.4 MTCO2e, which is below the applicable threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Therefore, GHG impacts remain less than significant Response to Question Number 40: The CalEEMod GHG emissions modeling uses the same global warming potential (GWP) values as those shown in Table VIII-1, which are the GWPs used by the California Air Resources Board in its annual GHG inventory. These GWPs are based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) published in 2007. The CalEEMod User Guide, Section 4.3.1.3.2, Greenhouse Gases, states that CalEEMod uses the same GWPs as IPCC AR4.
Response to Question Number 41: The VOC limit for architectural coatings used on the new play court sources is 50 grams of VOC per liter of colorant, less water and exempt compounds. The VOC limit is defined in Standard Condition AQ-SC-2 and SCAQMD, Rule 1113, Table of Standards 2, VOC Limits for Colorants. The contractor must comply with AQ-SC-2 and compliance is required upon submittal of specifications. The City of Riverside will coordinate monitoring and reporting of the implementation of the project-specific mitigation measures for the proposed project. Monitoring will include: (1) verification that each mitigation measure has been implemented; (2) recordation of the verification and any necessary notations regarding implementation of each mitigation measure; and (3) retention of monitoring records.
Response to Question Number 42: The nearest sensitive receptors to the Camp Evans Master Plan project site are adjacent to and east of the site, as discussed on page 3-16 of the Camp Evans Master Plan IS/MND. As discussed on page 3-18 of the Tequesquite Sites and Santa Ana River Greenway Master Plan IS/MND, the nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed Tequesquite North Extension project site are adjacent to and east of the site. The nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed Tequesquite South Extension project site are approximately 25 meters south of the site. The nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed Santa Ana River Greenway trail are adjacent to and east of the trail. As discussed on page 3-16 of the Loring Park Master Plan IS/MND, the nearest sensitive receptors are adjacent to and north and west of the project site. As discussed on page 3-23 of the Martha McLean Anza Narrows Park and Jurupa Avenue Trailhead Master Plans IS/MND, the nearest sensitive receptors are adjacent to and east of the site.
Response to Question Number 43: The City’s Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department (PRCSD) and its contractors are in a transition period to phase-out gas powered equipment for landscape maintenance. The PRCSD will continue to use the current inventory of equipment until end of service life and will replace with zero emission alternatives.
Response to Question Number 44: As discussed in IS/MND section VIII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the project would be consistent with the City of Riverside’s 2016 Economic Prosperity Plan and Climate Action Plan (2016 CAP), which is the applicable climate action plan for the City of Riverside. As discussed therein, the proposed project would include GHG-reduction measures from the 2016 CAP and therefore would be consistent with the 2016 CAP. Additionally, as discussed in the IS/MND, the project would be consistent with the County of Riverside’s 2019 Climate Action Plan and CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan.
Response to Question Number 45: The contractor will be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403: Fugitive Dust, which requires the contractor to apply water or stabilizing agents in sufficient quantity to prevent generation of dust plumes from disturbed surfaces and during earth-moving activities. Rule 403 states that upwind fencing can prevent material movement on site during earth- moving activities. The contractor will be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, which may include upwind fencing if necessary to prevent the generation of dust plumes.
Response to Question Number 46: Restoration of the Hidden Valley Wetlands and Hidden Valley Ponds sites – including any dredging and clearing activities – would occur as part of the Upper Santa Ana River Restoration Project. Therefore, any odorous impacts associated with such restoration activities are not evaluated as part of the proposed project.
Response to Question Number 47: The contractor will be required to comply with Standard Condition AQ-SC-1, which requires the covering or watering of haul truck loads, consistent with the requirements of SCAQMD Rule 403. The City of Riverside will coordinate monitoring and reporting of the implementation of the project-specific mitigation measures for the proposed project.
Monitoring will include: (1) verification that each mitigation measure has been implemented; (2) recordation of the verification and any necessary notations regarding implementation of each mitigation measure; and (3) retention of monitoring records.
Response to Question Number 48: Additional mitigation measures to favor local construction labor to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and associated mobile source emissions is not specifically required by CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan, the County of Riverside’s 2019 CAP, or the City’s 2016 CAP. Regardless, such measures would not be necessary, as the project would result in a less than significant impact on GHG emissions.
Response to Question Number 49: The project specifications will require the contractor to comply with AQ-SC-2 and the VOC limits provided by SCAQMD, Rule 1113, Table of Standards 2, VOC Limits for Colorants. The PRCSD or its representative will review submittals prior to start of construction to confirm compliance.
Response to Question Number 50: This comment regarding the choice of drought-tolerant species and the global warming projection for 2100 is not related to any requirement under CEQA to evaluate GHG emissions. The proposed project would comply with CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan, the County of Riverside’s 2019 CAP, or the City’s 2016 CAP, and would not generate GHG emissions above any applicable threshold.
III. Biological Resources & MSHCP (Questions 51–75)
Response to Question Number 51: Because burrowing owls are highly mobile, prior to project construction, a preconstruction survey would be required to avoid direct impacts on burrowing owls. The details of this survey are included in BIO-22 (Burrowing Owl Management Plan). The BUOW management plan would require final approval from the RCA, USFWS, and CDFW. This would ensure that an approach would be available and agreed upon by the resource agencies to avoid and/or minimize impacts on the species if it moves into the LOD. It would also provide strategies for passive or active relocation. This would avoid or minimize potential project delays and ensure compliance with the MSHCP.
Response to Question Number 52: To comply with Section 6.1.2, riparian/riverine resources were identified and mapped within the jurisdictional survey area in conjunction with the jurisdictional delineations performed for the project. Three separate jurisdictional delineation reports are provided for the project and included as appendices to the MSHCP Consistency Analysis.
To comply with Section 6.1.2 Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools, habitat assessments were performed for the following special-status species, including: fairy shrimp; Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni); vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi); Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp (Linderiella santarosae); riparian birds; least Bell’s vireo (LBV; Vireo bellii pusillus); Southwestern willow flycatcher (SWFL; Empidonax traillii extimus); and Western yellow-billed cuckoo (WYBC; Coccyzus americanus occidentalis). Habitat assessments were also conducted for species that are dependent on riparian/riverine habitat or benefit from these areas, including narrow endemic plant species and criteria area plant species, fish, reptiles, and amphibians. Surveys were conducted for species determined to have potential habitat in the project area. Because none of the park sites fall within a mapped survey area for any amphibian species within MSHCP Section 6.3.2 Additional Survey Needs and Procedures, a habitat assessment for amphibian species was not required and no further action is required.
An evaluation of wildlife connectivity and linkages was also conducted. Focused surveys were conducted where suitable habitat was determined to be present. A review of riparian/riverine resources and vernal pools was performed and delineations of federal and State of California (State) jurisdictional waters and wetlands were conducted.
Response to Question Number 53: MM-Bio-14 describes that the mitigation will be coordinated with Clean Water Act Section 401 and 404 permitting and CDFW 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement. The US Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and Wildlife will prescribe and have final approval over performance standards . The permits issued by these agencies include requirements to meet these performance standards.
Response to Question Number 54: During project implementation, compliance with Avoidance and Minimization Measures will delineate the biological avoidance zone for resource protection.
Relevant project avoidance and minimization measures include BIO-6 (Construction and Project Limits) that states “Construction personnel will strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials to the proposed LOD and designated staging areas and routes of travel.” and BIO-12(LODs and ESAs) that states “The LODs, including the upstream, downstream, and lateral extents on either side of any stream adjacent to the project’s LOD, will be clearly defined and marked in the field. Biological monitors will review the LODs prior to initiation of construction activities (MSHCP Volume I, Section 7.5.3, and MSHCP Volume I, Appendix C). ESA fencing will be installed during construction to ensure avoidance of jurisdictional areas and riparian habitat.” Response to Question Number 55: During project implementation, contractors will comply with Avoidance and Minimization Measure BIO-7 (Exotic Species). Exotic plant species removed during construction will be properly handled to prevent sprouting or regrowth. Please refer to MSHCP Chapter 8 for information on the MSHCP Monitoring Program to assess the condition of species and natural communities in the MSHCP Reserve System.
Response to Question Number 56: Arroyo chub is a Fully Covered species under the MSHCP; these species are discussed in Section 2.1.4 of the MSHCP, Volume I, and listed in Exhibit C to the IA and Section 9.2 of the MSHCP, Volume I.
Response to Question Number 57: Cooper’s Hawk and sharp-shinned hawk are Covered species under the MSHCP; these species are discussed in Section 2.1.4 of the MSHCP, Volume I, and listed in Exhibit C to the IA and Section 9.2 of the MSHCP, Volume I. Furthermore, sharp-shinned hawks do not nest in the project area; they nest in Canada and in the northern United States.
Response to Question Number 58: The Santa Ana River was identified by the MSHCP wildlife corridor analysis as a wildlife corridor for animals including large mammals. Therefore, fences would not trap mammals against the river; the river is the corridor connecting to other open space.
Response to Question Number 59: The mule fat vegetation community is not considered a CDFW Sensitive Natural Community, and any loss of mule-fat prior to project approval does not raise a substantive issue. When seeding or planting native plants, use of local-genotypes will be emphasized.
Response to Question Number 60: The project is not within the MSCHP Delhi Sands flower-loving fly Species Survey Area. The project is near but not within the known soils and habitat for this species, and therefore, species specific plantings would not be appropriate.
Response to Question Number 61: BIO-1 (Nesting Bird Surveys and Vegetation Clearing Restrictions) provides the details of how nesting bird surveys would be conducted.
Response to Question Number 62: Sensitive species will be protected using aesthetically appropriate barriers and signage to separate sensitive areas from active use areas such as trails.
Response to Question Number 63: The equestrian rest stop will have receptacles for manure and signs will be posted to request owners to clean up after their animals.
Response to Question Number 64: MSHCP Criteria Cell 187 overlaps with the northwestern corner of Camp Evans. The exercise loop does not introduce impacts within Criteria Cell 187.
Response to Question Number 65: Buffers will be compliant with the MSCHP. Minimum buffers will be implemented or sound walls will be erected to protect habitat from disturbance.
Response to Question Number 66: The proposed Tequesquite Sites and Santa Ana River Greenway Master Plan, Riverside Gateway Parks is covered by the MSHCP and must therefore comply with the construction guidelines detailed in MSHCP Section 7.5.3. and Best Management Practices (MSHCP Appendix C). These construction guidelines would reduce the potential for indirect effects on sensitive habitat. Several construction guidelines are presented as MM-BIO-3 through MM-BIO-10, MM-BIO-15, and MM-BIO-18 through MM-BIO-20 to ensure their implementation and show how indirect effects on sensitive vegetation would be avoided.
Response to Question Number 67: Material selection will take place during subsequent design development. When seeding or planting native plants, use of local-genotypes will be emphasized.
Response to Question Number 68: The proposed project site does not fall within a mapped survey area for any mammal species that are included in the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures under Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP. No sensitive bat species were identified as occurring within the project area.
Response to Question Number 69: Please refer to MSHCP Chapter 8 for information on the MSHCP Monitoring Program to assess the condition of species and natural communities in the MSHCP Reserve System.
Response to Question Number 70: MSHCP Criteria Cells in Existing Core A that overlap with the BSA include 617, 621, 534, 443, and 187. These cells contribute to the assembly of Existing Core A, and the MSHCP Criteria for these Cells focus on the conservation of Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, riparian scrub, grassland, riparian scrub, woodland and forest habitat, and agricultural lands.
Response to Question Number 71: The project habitat assessment concluded that the riparian/riverine habitat in the BSA is not suitable to support southern mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa) or California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), both of which are State- and/or federally listed species and listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP as being dependent on riparian/riverine resources. However, the BSA does contain suitable habitat to support the non- listed western spadefoot and Coast Range California newt; both species are listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP as being dependent on riparian/riverine resources or benefiting from these resources.
Both western spadefoot and Coast Range California newt are MSHCP Covered species, the project is not within the MSHCP Amphibian Species Survey Area, and there are no other amphibian planning species for the BSA. The separated walking path will use materials that are non-toxic to amphibians.
Response to Question Number 72: The project will abide by the Best Management Practices of the MSHCP (Appendix C) requirement 13, which requires that to avoid attracting predators of the species of concern, the project site be kept as clean of debris as possible, and that all food related trash items will be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the site(s).
Response to Question Number 73: The project will comply with the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines, which requires that night lighting be directed away from the MSHCP Conservation Area to protect species within the MSHCP Conservation Area from direct night lighting and that shielding be incorporated in project designs to ensure ambient lighting in the MSHCP Conservation Areas. The project will implement avoidance and minimization measure Bio-16 (Night Lighting Management) that states that any new permanent lighting structures that are installed as a part of the project will be designed to avoid impacts on conservation lands.
Response to Question Number 74: The project will implement avoidance and minimization measure Bio-16 (Waste Management) which states that to avoid attracting predators of special- status species, the project site will be kept as clean of debris as possible. All food-related trash items will be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the site(s) (MSHCP Volume I, Appendix C). Waste, dirt, rubble, or trash will not be deposited in the Conservation Area or on native habitat (MSHCP Volume I, Section 7.5.3).
Response to Question Number 75: The MSHCP Consistency Analysis includes the impact of the Water Play area as a component of the Tequesquite North Project.
IV. Cultural & Tribal Resources (Questions 76–100)
Response to Question Number 76: question The Fairmount Park Master Plan avoids improvements in the location of ICF-LE-004. ICF-LE-004 does not meet any of the four criteria for inclusion in the CRHR. The current recording of the feature has exhausted the site’s research potential and this type of water conveyance feature is ubiquitous in the region. As such, ICF does not recommend the site as eligible for inclusion in the CRHR and it is not considered a historical resource per CEQA.
Response to Question Number 77: This is addressed in MMs CUL-3, CUL-4, CUL-5, and TCR-1.
Response to Question Number 78: At this conceptual master plan level of design, the project intent is to avoid improvements that would disturb culturally significant resources. The City will continue design coordination with the tribes during detailed design development for each of the sites. MMs CUL-3, CUL-4, CUL-5, and TCR-1 are to be adopted to provide procedures in case resources are found during site development. Additionally, the PRCSD has met with tribes beyond AB52 requirements during an Intertribal Summit in September 2025 to discuss Fairmount Park and other opportunity sites for partnerships in programming, art installations, education/interpretation, acknowledgements/ceremonies, and how sensitive historic sites should be handled.
Representatives of the Cahuilla, Luiseno, Serrano, Gabrielino/Tongva, and Kumeyaay tribes were invited.
Response to Question Number 79: All project sites have been determined to be sensitive for archaeological and Native American resources, and as per the Survey Report and all ISMDs, Native American and Archaeological monitoring are recommended (MM CUL-2).
Response to Question Number 80: According to the cultural resources report, P-33-000678 is noted as largely buried due to road construction and private development uphill from the site.
Cumulative impacts of foot traffic are not significant since the resource is buried and not at the ground surface.
Response to Question Number 81: . Only two of the ten sites, P-33-000127 and P-33-000678 are eligible for CRHR eligible; the other 8 sites (P-33-, -003357, -003358, -008698, -009652, -016848, - 016849, -017331, and -022303) were not deemed historic resources eligible for CRHR. During design development for the specific project sites, the City will coordinate with the relevant interested tribes to find an appropriate design solution to protect resources.
Response to Question Number 82: This is MM-CUL-1.
Response to Question Number 83: This is MM-CUL-5.
Response to Question Number 84: The site was evaluated under all four criteria of the CRHR and recommended as ineligible. The analysis was based on the historical significance of the site and its current condition. Ultimately, it was determined that the documentation of the site for the current project has exhausted its research potential. The detailed evaluation is in the CR technical report.
Response to Question Number 85: The 1931 Aerial Photograph references an outcropping of boulders near the Union Pacific Railroad bridge north of Martha McLean Anza Narrows Park. The project does not propose work in this area.
Response to Question Number 86: No. GPR is not really an appropriate method of investigation to identify individual artifacts. If there were potential for archaeological features such as house floors or buried building foundations this might be appropriate. But, such work would require “ground truthing” to be useful, and because sites are mostly being avoided or there will not be substantial impacts, this kind of study is not warranted. The ground truthing part of the process might unnecessarily disturbed archaeological materials that would not otherwise be disturbed.
Response to Question Number 87: As specified in the Tequesquite Sites and Santa Ana River Greenway Master Plan IS/MND (pgs. 3.116 - 3.120) implementation of mitigation measure MM- NOI-2, Buffer Distances and Use of Less Vibration-Intensive Construction Equipment to Avoid Potential Building Damage Impacts During Project Construction, will ensure that residential properties that contribute to the Rio Verde Terrace Tract of the Cliffside Neighborhood Historic District near the master plan area will not be subject to damage from construction vibration.
Response to Question Number 88: All local tribes will be invited to collaborate with the PRCSD on interpretive signage design and content.
Response to Question Number 89: Because no locally designated or otherwise CRHR-eligible or listed water conveyance features would be subject to significant impact from the master plans, the project does not include specified plans to treat and protect such features as historical resources under CEQA.
Response to Question Number 90: There is no MM for previously recorded Isolates (-33-017330 and 017332) as these were by previous researchers that discovered them. It is unknown where these isolated artifacts were curated.
Response to Question Number 91: During design development, the PRCSD will continue to coordinate with the local tribes to develop the park designs and interpretive messaging, in particular to the cultural significance of the Santa Ana River to the areas past, present, and future inhabitants of the area.
Response to Question Number 92: Concerns and input provided at the time of the report is presented in the Coordination Table. At this conceptual master plan level of design, the project intent is to avoid improvements that would disturb culturally significant resources. The City will continue design coordination with the tribes during detailed design development for each of the sites. MMs CUL-3, CUL-4, CUL-5, and TCR-1 are to be adopted to provide procedures in case resources are found during site development. Additionally, the PRCSD has met with tribes beyond AB52 requirements during an Intertribal Summit in September 2025 to discuss Fairmount Park and other opportunity sites for partnerships in programming, art installations, education/interpretation, acknowledgements/ceremonies, and how sensitive historic sites should be handled.
Representatives of the Cahuilla, Luiseno, Serrano, Gabrielino/Tongva, and Kumeyaay tribes were invited.
Response to Question Number 93: The Cultural Resources Technical Report shall be removed from documents for public review.
Response to Question Number 94: MM-CUL-3 calls for the development of an Archaeological Monitoring Plan by the contractor, the City, and consulting tribes. A curation agreement should be part of that Monitoring Plan.
Response to Question Number 95: The project design will be adjusted if needed to accommodate discovered resources.
Response to Question Number 96: During construction, a temporary chain link fence will be installed to exclude the existing utility building from the contractor’s work area.
Response to Question Number 97: Because no locally designated or otherwise CRHR-eligible or listed buildings, structures, or landscapes would be subject to significant impact from the master plans, the project does not include plans for Historic American Building Survey, Historic American Engineering Record, or Historic American Landscape Survey documentation.
Response to Question Number 98: TCRs are defined by CEQA under AB52 and in consultation with Native American consulting parties.
Response to Question Number 99: There has been no Archaeological Monitoring Plan developed to date. It is assumed that the monitoring plan would include a research design such that unanticipated discoveries could be evaluated for the CRHR. It is also assumed that Native American consulting parties would have input on the development of the Monitoring Plan and research design.
Response to Question Number 100: Martha McLean’s advocacy played an important part in saving the Santa Ana River in Riverside from becoming a concrete lined channel. During the design development phase of the project, the style, color, and materials of the park improvements will be selected to complement the Santa Ana River.
V. Hydrology & Water Quality (Questions 101–125)
Response to Question Number 101: SP ADFR-16 is not within the project limits. A 2022 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report is included as an Appendix to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Response to Question Number 102: Permeable asphalt used in the parking lot can be cleaned using a regenerative air sweeper.
Response to Question Number 103: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans are not being prepared during this park master planning phase of the project. MM HAZ-BMP-1 requires the City to prepare a project-specific SWPPP when the project is closer to implementation. The SWPPP will be prepared prior to start of construction.
Response to Question Number 104: Runoff from replaced and/or new impervious surfaces are proposed to be treated by methods in accordance with the 2010 Santa Ana Region (SAR) MS4 Permit (Order No. R8-2010-0033, as amended by Order No. R8-2013-0024) and Water Quality Management Plan guidance document for the Santa Ana Region of Riverside County, dated October 22, 2012.
Response to Question Number 105: The SART re-route will be designed to conform to existing topography, avoiding large-scale grading that disrupts established drainage paths.
Response to Question Number 106: The water play area at Tequesquite North is planned to have a recirculating water system.
Response to Question Number 107: Prevention of the track-out of silt during construction will be addressed by the project SWPPP.
Response to Question Number 108: The hydrology and hydraulic analyses were prepared prior to 2024 rainfall events.
Response to Question Number 109: If previously undocumented wetland is discovered, the PRCSD will have a biologist review the site and the project will be adjusted accordingly. The intent is to avoid impacts to riparian/riverine resources.
Response to Question Number 110: Runoff from replaced and/or new impervious surfaces are proposed to be treated by methods in accordance with the 2010 Santa Ana Region (SAR) MS4 Permit (Order No. R8-2010-0033, as amended by Order No. R8-2013-0024) and Water Quality Management Plan guidance document for the Santa Ana Region of Riverside County, dated October 22, 2012.
Response to Question Number 111: Agronomic soils tests will be conducted prior to planting.
Native plant species will be selected as appropriate for the soils found, and/or soil will be amended as appropriate.
Response to Question Number 112: Section 404 and other regulatory permits will be obtained to cover work to the storm drain outfall.
Response to Question Number 113: If the water table is encountered during construction work, a solution acceptable to the PRCSD will developed with contractor’s recommendation and to meet any required regulatory framework.
Response to Question Number 114: River access grading is not a part of the current project.
Response to Question Number 115: A WQMP has not been prepared at this level of planning.
Response to Question Number 116: Work in the old pond areas is not a part of the current project.
Response to Question Number 117: Oxidized rhizospheres will be protected by avoidance and minimization of work in riparian areas. Otherwise, techniques such as soil moisture maintenance, strategic earthwork and sod banking, and mycorrhizal inoculation will also be considered.
Response to Question Number 118: Hydraulic leaks from heavy equipment will be handled using BMPs such as using diapering or using biodegradable hydraulic fluid. The SWPPP will be prepared at the time of construction and will include BMPs for construction..
Response to Question Number 119: Runoff from replaced and/or new impervious surfaces are proposed to be treated by methods in accordance with the 2010 Santa Ana Region (SAR) MS4 Permit (Order No. R8-2010-0033, as amended by Order No. R8-2013-0024) and Water Quality Management Plan guidance document for the Santa Ana Region of Riverside County, dated October 22, 2012.
Response to Question Number 120: Standing water is not anticipated in areas proposed for improvements.
Response to Question Number 121: Yes, refer to Initial Study Chapter 3 Section 4.
Response to Question Number 122: The top 0.5-1” of soil can be scaped and set aside for use to re- establish biocrust after planting. Lab-grown cyanobacteria may also be used.
Response to Question Number 123: Aquatic invertebrate population will not be monitored as a baseline for river health. The project is topographically and hydrologically separated from the Santa Ana River .
Response to Question Number 124: Site grading will route sheet-flow around the earthen berm.
Response to Question Number 125: The PRCSD’s project specifications will include requirements for the contractor to keep the work site clean and free of trash and debris.
VI. Social, Economic & Infrastructure (Questions 126–150) Response to Question Number 126: The Santa Ana River Trail re-route separates bicycle traffic from vehicular traffic on Tequesquite Avenue.
Response to Question Number 127: Yes.
Response to Question Number 128: Emergency response vehicle access to the Cottonwood Trail will be coordinated with the Fire and Police Departments during design development to ensure design and construction materials meet requirements.
Response to Question Number 129: The contractor will be required to water the exposed ground three times a day, clean trucks, remove track-outs, and cover/water haul truck loads (Mitigation Measure AQ-SC-1).
Response to Question Number 130: City of Riverside Municipal Code table 19.580.060 indicates 1 parking space/100 square feet of floor area is required. The skating rinks together will be about 6,506 square feet. About 65 parking spaces would be needed and the project is providing more than that with about 208 parking spaces.
Response to Question Number 131: The proposed primary purpose of the bike hub at Jurupa Avenue Trailhead is to support Santa Ana River Trail users with supplies for minor bike repairs, small snacks, water, and similar. This will not likely impact small businesses in Arlanza Response to Question Number 132: The Santa Ana River Trail Greenway segment from Carlson Park to Tequesquite South aims to connect and enhance existing trails by improving safety and user experience through better edge conditions, connections, and rest areas. The project includes lighting.
Response to Question Number 133: Illegal dumping is less prevalent at improved recreation areas due to increased lighting, and natural surveillance as a byproduct of increased usage of the site.
Illegal dumping can be deterred using territorial reinforcement tools such as decorative barriers with designated entries to the park space, and with the on-going maintenance that will take place once the park is developed.
Response to Question Number 134: The Opinion of Probable Cost is developed with prevailing wage requirements.
Response to Question Number 135: There are bus routes provided by Riverside Transit Agency, along with sidewalks and bikeways in the city to support equitable access for residents.
Response to Question Number 136: CEQA review is not required for social impacts.
Concessionaire agreements allowing sales of refreshments in parks would typically need to be approved by City Council.
Response to Question Number 137: Park improvements on previously undeveloped land will require an increase in operating budgets.
Response to Question Number 138: Annual escalations are approximations and are in this case intended to broadly cover increases for all implantation costs Response to Question Number 139: The fitness trail will be ADA compliant.
Response to Question Number 140: A shuttle plan has not been developed as part of this project.
Response to Question Number 141:. The City has considered the potential for parking overflow into the adjacent residential neighborhoods. Per Municipal Code Chapter 17.188, one space per 8,000 sf of active recreational area is needed, and 1 space per acre of passive recreational area is needed. The Park Master Plan proposes the following parking. One parking spot is proposed at Loring Park where three are recommended due to spatial constraints. The one space will be ADA accessible. Additional parking is planned about a quarter of a mile away in Camp Evans to serve Loring Park.
Site Spaces needed
per Municipal
Code
Spaces
proposed
Camp Evans 34 88
Tequesquite North and South 132 208
Jurupa Avenue Trailhead 4 31
Martha McLean Anza Narrows Park 36 63
Loring Park 3 1
Response to Question Number 142: The specific method to be used for providing wayfinding signage in Spanish will be determined during design development. The sign may include the content in both English and Spanish, or a QR code may be used to link to an online Spanish language version of the signage.
Response to Question Number 143: Fire and Police emergency response have 24/7 access to the project sites.
Response to Question Number 144: The PRCSD has not had a problem with park drinking fountain water lines freezing. Vandal resistant drinking fountain models are selected.
Response to Question Number 145: Community feedback was used to develop the park master plans, and any subsequent comments will inform design development prior to construction.
Response to Question Number 146: Youth employment programs are not specifically identified for this project at this park master planning stage. It will be considered during design development, as conservation corp participation is promoted through grant programs often used to fund park construction.
Response to Question Number 147: The Housing Element of the Phase 1 General Plan Update adopted in 2021 discusses the City’s comprehensive strategy for promoting safe, decent, and affordable housing throughout the community.
Response to Question Number 148: Pollution liability insurance coverage for contractors is determined by the City’s Risk Management Division on a case by case basis. The contractor’s cost for insurance is typically a general condition or general contractor fee.
Response to Question Number 149: The PRCSD typically has the water service for water play areas on a timer programmed to operate only seasonally during scheduled open hours.
Response to Question Number 150: While a new separated concrete path represents a higher initial capital outlay, it is the more fiscally responsible choice over a 25-year period. Concrete’s 40- year service life and minimal maintenance requirements result in a lower total cost of ownership compared to asphalt, which requires costly seal coats every 5 years and a full resurfacing after 15 years. The concrete path better supports long-term ADA accessibility and reduces the City's long- term maintenance liability..
VII. Noise & Vibration (Questions 151–175)
Response to Question Number 151: Rock crushing is not anticipated.
Response to Question Number 152: No vibration impacts were identified for historic resources.
The various IS/MNDs identify impact distances beyond which potential damage due to ground- borne vibration would not occur. No vibration-intensive construction activities are predicted to occur within the identified impact distances of built features of historic resources.
Response to Question Number 153: The proposed skatepark does not include acoustic baffles.
Skatepark noise is analyzed in the Noise section of the Tequesquite Sites and Santa Ana River Greenway Master Plan IS/MND. As shown in Table XIII-6 and Table XIII-7, noise levels from the skatepark, either individually or when combined with other park activities, are predicted to comply with the applicable noise ordinance standards at the closest homes in the City of Riverside and the City of Jurupa Valley.
Response to Question Number 154: Pickleball noise is assessed against the applicable municipal code standards of the City of Riverside and the City of Jurupa Valley, using the L50 and Lmax noise metrics, respectively. These noise levels include the contributions of any impulsive noise. However, neither noise ordinance provides methods or requirements to specifically quantify the impulsiveness of the noise source.
Response to Question Number 155: Construction hours for the Martha McLean Anza Narrows Park and Jurupa Avenue Trailhead would comply with the City of Riverside Municipal Code.
Construction activities will be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and shall not occur at any time on Sundays or federal holidays.
Response to Question Number 156: Train operations are pre-existing, and are part of the baseline condition against which project impacts are measured. The project does not increase the frequency or volume of train noise. Because users on the nature walk are in motion and only exposed to intermittent train noise for brief periods, this does not constitute a significant impact on human health or the environment.
Response to Question Number 157: Temporary noise barriers are not proposed for the homes adjacent to the Tequesquite North staging area. As specified in the Noise section of the Tequesquite Sites and Santa Ana River Greenway Master Plan IS/MND, mitigation measure MM-NOI-1 would be required to limit noise-generating construction activity to the permitted daytime hours and to implement standard noise-reduction methods to minimize potential annoyance at nearby noise- sensitive receptors.
Response to Question Number 158: Vibration monitoring is not proposed during the installation of the proposed Grand Stairs at Loring Park. As specified in the Loring Park Master Plan IS/MND, implementation of mitigation measure MM-NOI-2, Observe Buffer Distances and Use Less Vibration- intensive Construction Equipment to Avoid Potential Building Damage Impacts during Project Construction, will avoid potential damage to surrounding properties from construction vibration.
Response to Question Number 159: Traffic impacts on local roads were found to be less than significant because the Riverside Gateway projects would not add substantial traffic relative to existing traffic volumes. The increase in traffic on Van Buren Bouleverd due to the park projects would be negligible compared to existing traffic volumes on the street. Therefore, traffic noise increases would also be negligible.
Response to Question Number 160: Replacing backup alarms on construction equipment with white noise strobes is not proposed. Mitigation measures are specified to limit noise-generating construction activity to the permitted daytime hours and to implement standard noise-reduction methods to minimize potential annoyance at nearby noise-sensitive receptors.
Response to Question Number 161: Operating hours for any concessions proposed as part of this project will comply with the City’s Municipal Code Title 7 – Noise Control.
Response to Question Number 162: High intensity active recreation facilities, such as pickleball and the skatepark, are located more than 300’ away from biological avoidance areas to mitigate impacts.
Response to Question Number 163: Operations for the skating rink will conform to City Municipal Code Title 7 for Noise Control.
Response to Question Number 164: The thresholds of significance vary by noise and vibration source. Construction noise and vibration annoyance are assessed relative to the City noise ordinances, which control the hours during which construction activities are permitted (rather than using a specific dB level). On-site operational noise is assessed based on City noise ordinances; for receptors in the City of Riverside the noise limits used are 55 dBA L50 during the day and 45 dBA L50 at night; for receptors in the City of Jurupa Valley the noise limits used are 55 dBA Lmax during the day and 45 dBA Lmax at night. Traffic noise is assessed based on predicted noise increases, with increases of 3 dB or less considered less than significant. Potential building damage impacts from construction vibration are assessed using criteria provided by Caltrans of 0.25 inches/second PPV for historic buildings, 0.3 inches/second PPV for older residential structures, and 0.5 inches/second PPV for new residential structures.
Response to Question Number 165: Acoustic reflection off the Santa Ana River was not identified as causing any noise impacts and the project does not propose measures to prevent acoustic reflection off the river water surface. High acoustical reflectivity is a natural characteristic of still flat water surfaces and is less pronounced for flowing water surfaces, such as a river.
Response to Question Number 166: Using power tools for maintenance is considered a construction activity and would be restricted to the daytime hours permitted by the City’s municipal code. Construction activities will be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and shall not occur at any time on Sundays or federal holidays.
Response to Question Number 167: The project does not include public address (PA) systems for the roller rinks.
Response to Question Number 168: The rail bridge is northwest of Martha McLean-Anza Narrows Park, outside of the park boundary. The project would not generate substantial ground-borne vibration at the bridge. For context, please note that the primary sources of vibration at the bridge are the existing trains, which are not associated with the proposed project.
Response to Question Number 169: Noise impacts on birds present in the project area would depend upon the type and duration of the construction activity, the proximity to habitat, and the time of year. Mitigation measure BIO-17, Santa Ana River – Nesting Season Noise Requirements would avoid or minimize such impacts.
Response to Question Number 170: The project does not propose a noise complaint hotline for residents during project construction. The City’s 311 system may be used by residents to notify the City of concerns.
Response to Question Number 171: There is not development for high intensity active recreation in the passive recreation areas where nature education would generally take place, so no significant noise from recreation is anticipated.
Response to Question Number 172: The PRCSD intends for the skatepark to be concrete.
Response to Question Number 173: Food trucks on project property will be by permit only.
Permittees will be required to operate within set guidelines. Food trucks will conform to City Municipal Code Title 7 for Noise Control
Response to Question Number 174: There is no specific noise study for the proposed Secondary Lookout at Loring Park. Noise from the construction and operation of the Secondary Lookout is covered by the analysis in the Noise section of the Loring Park Master Plan IS/MND, which considers the entire park. It is noted that the overlook would be adjacent to Mission Inn Avenue, on the opposite side of the park from Ladera Lane.
Response to Question Number 175: Maintenance of lights in parks is typically completed during a standard work day. The work will conform to City Municipal Code Title 7 for Noise Control
VIII. Transportation & VMT (Questions 176–200) – RICK Traffic responses and highlighted yellow for others responses needed.
Response to Question Number 176: The City of Riverside’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines (July 2020) provides screening thresholds for both SB-743/VMT analysis (CEQA) and for LOS analysis (non-CEQA). All of the proposed individual park projects within the Riverside Gateway Parks are screened out from both CEQA VMT analysis and non-CEQA LOS analysis.
Response to Question Number 177: Bicycle speed reduction signage is recommended along the SART Reroute section within the Tequesquite North Extension Park.
Response to Question Number 178: There is a steep slope separating Gregory Road from the concessions area, making it unlikely for cars to queue on Gregory Road. There is a parking lot about 115’ away that would be more convenient for people to use.
Response to Question Number 179: Each park would provide pedestrian and bicycle access and circulation to encourage non-vehicular trips to the parks.
Response to Question Number 180: Signage, gates and other similar tools can keep emergency access routes clear. The methods and configurations used for this project will be determined during design development.
Response to Question Number 181: A total of 132 parking spaces are required for the combined Tequesquite North and South Extension Parks per the City’s parking requirements for “active recreation area within a park” (1 per 8,000 sq. ft) and for “passive recreation within a park” (1 per acre). The proposed 208 parking spaces for Tequesquite North and South Extension Parks would exceed the City’s parking requirements for the two parks.
Response to Question Number 182: No modifications or improvements to the Gregory Road/Tequesquite Ave intersection are currently proposed with the project.
Response to Question Number 183: Bike speed reductions are typically enforced with signage and the frequency and number of pedestrians using the multi-use trails.
Response to Question Number 184: ”Transit to Trails” will rely on Riverside Transit Agency bus routes and other public transportation options such as PRCSD’s Riverside Connect special transportation shuttles.
Response to Question Number 185: The City of Riverside will use prescriptive routing, financial safeguards, and project specific operational conditions for construction hauling.
Response to Question Number 186: The City will provide lighting and bike racks. As at any City park, park patrons must bring their own locks and cables to secure their bicycles.
Response to Question Number 187: The width of the trail can accommodate emergency response vehicles.
Response to Question Number 188: Signage can be posted to indicate pedestrians yield to equestrians, bicyclists yield to everyone, and equestrians yield to no one.
Response to Question Number 189: Wayfinding signage can include time and/or distance to destination information.
Response to Question Number 190: There is no traffic management plan for the Marcy Library during the document review period.
Response to Question Number 191: Tequesquite Avenue is not wide enough for u-turn maneuvers. The project cannot prevent a few drivers a day from making 3-point turns to u-turn if that is their desire.
Response to Question Number 12: None of the park projects included VMT analysis. A VMT assessment was conducted that determined that all park projects would be locally-serving and were screened out from VMT analysis.
Response to Question Number 193: The parking lot at Tequesquite North will include permeable surfacing in the parking bays.
Response to Question Number 194: Monitoring of Santa Ana Trail User speeds is not part of this project. However, trail etiquette signage and speed limit signs can be posted to educate trail users.
Response to Question Number 195: The needed turning radius for the Cottonwood Trail will be determined during design development.
Response to Question Number 196: The 2.5-acre Loring Park is expected to have very low parking demand, and an 11-stall parking lot will be provided off Mission Inn Avenue as part of the Camp Evans park project that will be walking distance from Loring Park.
Response to Question Number 197: There is not a designated ride-share drop-off zone, however ride-share can pull into the parking lot for pick-up and drop-off.
Response to Question Number 198: The metric can use an algorithmic baseline of the lowest common denominator average that factors in older adults and children.
Response to Question Number 199: The Camp Evans at Fairmount Park traffic assessment recommended operational and safety improvements along Mission Inn Avenue between the bridge and Scout Lane, including the existing driveway serving the 11-stall parking lot that will be provided.
Response to Question Number 200: A bike repair station will be provided at the bike rest stop and near bike parking.
IX. Hazards, Wildfire & Safety (Questions 201–225)
Response to Question Number 201: The project is not within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The PRCSD performs selective brush clearing to reduce fire fuel load while preserving native habitat when possible.
Response to Question Number 202: Riparian zones in the project are generally avoided and thus not lighted. The master plans intend to activate underutilized park land and increase foot traffic, which provides natural surveillance that deters unauthorized activities.
Response to Question Number 203: Illegal fill observed by City staff will be reported to the appropriate agency.
Response to Question Number 204: An evacuation route has not been prepared as part of the park master plans.
Response to Question Number 205: A licensed civil engineer will be part of the design team for design development and will engineer the appropriate design for the berms including proper subgrade preparation to reduce the risk of liquefaction.
Response to Question Number 206: A typical concession building in Riverside’s PRCSD is a medium risk facility due to limited food preparation (such as popcorn, hot dogs, nachos, coffee, and similar). The concession building will be built to meet appropriate building fire and mechanical codes as adopted by the City.
Response to Question Number 207: Though not part of this project, Springbrook Wash, also known as University Wash, is undergoing re-design to facilitate maintenance operations including preventing and cleaning up modern refuse.
Response to Question Number 208: A Vector Control Plan has not been prepared for this project.
Water play areas will be designed to avoid prolonged standing water.
Response to Question Number 209: Equipment decontamination will be required under construction contracts to avoid spread of weed seeds.
Response to Question Number 210: The average response time for City of Riverside Fire Department is about 7 minutes and 38 seconds from dispatch to arrival at the scene. The furthest distance on the trail from an entry point is about 2,000’. Driving on the trail at about 5 miles per hour, it would take an additional 4 minutes and 33 seconds for the emergency response vehicle to reach the furthest point on the SART greenway trail.
Response to Question Number 211: There will likely be typical construction materials and products such as solvents, adhesives and similar stored on site during the construction period.
These materials are typically stored in a secured containers within a secured fenced temporary work yard.
Response to Question Number 212: This project does not propose any grading in the Santa Ana River bottom. There are no high pressure gas distribution lines at the project sites.
Response to Question Number 213: Use of blue light emergency communication stations on the trail will be determined at the time of design development.
Response to Question Number 214: California Division of Occupational Safety and Health has legally mandated protocols that the contractor must follow for safety when temperatures reach 95°F.
Response to Question Number 215: No construction at a river access point is proposed as part of this project.
Response to Question Number 216: A civil engineer and geotechnical testing consultant will monitor slope stability during grading.
Response to Question Number 217: In California, fertilizers are regulated by the California Department of Food and Agriculture, with safe limits set for heavy metals and deleterious or harmful ingredients in amounts that could pose a threat to public safety. The park grading will be designed to keep stormwater onsite and not run directly into the Santa Ana River without being treated or managed through a water quality Best Management Practice.
Response to Question Number 218: A vandal resistant barrier between the park and the railroad tracks will be coordinated at the time of design development.
Response to Question Number 219: Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design principles will be used during design development.
Response to Question Number 220: The water recycling system for the water play area is required by state health codes to use ultraviolet light in addition to chlorine treatment.
Response to Question Number 221: For vegetation removal work, the work area is demarcated with tape and signs to inform the public.
Response to Question Number 222: The PRCSD will not likely close trails within this project area during red flag warnings as they are in a developed urban area and not in an inaccessible back county setting.
Response to Question Number 223: Typical park restrooms are well ventilated by use of mesh covered openings near the ceilings.
Response to Question Number 224: During design development, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will be prepared. It will include Best Management Practices requiring equipment to have a spill cleanup materials readily accessible.
Response to Question Number 225: No hazardous material leaching is anticipated on the project sites.
X. Long-term Sustainability & Alternatives (Questions 226–250) Response to Question Number 226: An alternatives analysis is not required for a CEQA mitigated negative declaration. Any alluvial fan sage scrub degradation taking place is part of the environmental baseline and not a result of the proposed project.
Response to Question Number 227: Maintenance of any permeable pavement and native garden buffers would be on-going in perpetuity for the life of the site similar to the rest of the city park system.
Response to Question Number 228: There is no current requirement for the City to track carbon sequestration for this project, which is park master plans. Requirements for tracking carbon sequestration may come with later implementation grants. At which time, the City will coordinate with the State Coastal Conservancy to use an acceptable method for tracking carbon sequestration.
Response to Question Number 229: The 7% annual escalation intends to account for the rising costs of construction each year. Any changes to construction costs caused by climate changes is assumed to be incorporated into this cost for preliminary estimating purposes.
Response to Question Number 230: Alternatives analysis are not required for CEQA mitigated negative declarations.
Response to Question Number 231: Temporary and/or seasonal irrigation and use of recycled water when available, can help sustain trees to counteract the urban heat island effect and global warming.
Response to Question Number 232: The parks are separate projects that are not functionally linked; each can be developed and serve the public on its own merits. Completion of one site does not commit the City to the completion of the others.
Response to Question Number 233: When accepting grant funds, the City will sign a grant agreement committing to the terms of the Coastal Conservancy.
Response to Question Number 234: The Riverside Parks, Habitat, and Water Project (https://riversideca.gov/utilities/projects) will bring recycled water distribution lines near the project site. The PRCSD is coordinating with Riverside Public Utilities Department to coordinate future connections of parks to the system.
Response to Question Number 235: The PRCSD will work consultant and contractor to use an adaptive management plan to find the appropriate native and near-native plant palette to fit the site conditions.
Response to Question Number 236: The PRCSD will select from options such as using an appropriate light color/spectrum (amber or other warm color LED), shielding the light from spillover, and programming the light operation times appropriately for wildlife.. An adaptive management strategy will be used to determine appropriate native and near-native plants to meet changing climate and site conditions over time.
Response to Question Number 238: The project will not result in substantial erosion or siltation as discussed in section X of the Initial Study.
Response to Question Number 239: No new river access points are proposed as part of this project.
Response to Question Number 240: When park features are replaced, they are disposed of in a legal manner.
Response to Question Number 241: The proposed project does not have an impact on the City’s citrus heritage. There are no known citrus trees existing on the project sites.
Response to Question Number 242: The PRCSD has an Adopt-A-Park program to encourage park stewardship. Contact 951-826-2000 for more information.
Response to Question Number 243: Park trees are inspected and treated if they show signs of infection. If the tree cannot be saved, replacement trees are planted.
Response to Question Number 244: The PRCSD will evaluate the use of solar power for restrooms and concessions buildings for the project during the later design development stage.
Response to Question Number 245: The City performs a city-wide Quality of Life survey every few years to get information about the community’s needs, including how well the city park system is serving the community. The PRCSD will continue to use metrics developed by the Trust for Public Land to gauge progress towards social equity in the city’s park system (https://www.tpl.org/city/riverside-california)
Response to Question Number 246: The PRCSD typically uses stabilized decomposed granite for recreational trails.
Response to Question Number 247: New water play areas will use recirculating water systems where water is sanitized similar to a swimming pool. These are typically allowed to remain open during drought conditions to allow families to continue to recreate and cool off during hot weather.
Operations of this recreation amenity will conform to applicable laws and restrictions.
Response to Question Number 248: While not necessarily designated bee and butterfly corridors, the planting palette will emphasize use of native and near-native plants to support local pollinators.
Response to Question Number 249: The Hidden Valley pond restoration is not part of this project.
Some of this project’s environmental analysis overlapped with the Hidden Valley pond project, and was referenced periodically.
Response to Question Number 250: The primary purpose of this park master plan project is to develop the plans to enhance park spaces along the Santa Ana River, so that these parks can serve as a gateway to bring people to the river to view and learn about it, while doing no harm and hopefully enhancing local ecology through the use of a primarily native plant palette. Since ecological restoration is not the primary goal of the park projects, the PRCSD will not likely conduct on-going assessments for ecological conditions after project implementation other than relying on visual inspections and adaptive plant management For any required mitigation involving habitat restoration, the City will carry out the restoration and management plan approved by regulatory agencies, which usually has a 5 year duration.
Comment Letter 2: Ellen Baer – January 2, 2026
Responses to Comment Letter 2: Ellen Baer –
January 2, 2026
Response to Comment 2-1: ~5,000 sf
Response to Comment 2-2: Comment is noted. Programming of the potential camping area is yet to be determined, but any camping will be allowed only in a controlled and permitted manner.
Response to Comment 2-3: Trips are calculated as number of vehicles, not number of people. Each vehicle generates one inbound trip and one outbound trip, so each vehicle generates two trips. The trip rates per acre are based on traffic counts that were collected at Ryan Bonamino Park, which is a developed park with sports fields and other amenities that generate higher trips than a more passive park. The increase of 477 trips per day at Camp Evans/Fairmount Park is not very high considering that Ryan Bonamino Park currently generates 1,800 vehicle trips on a typical weekday.
The 477 trips would be dispersed over an entire day with 39 trips during the AM peak hour and
with 45 trips during the PM peak hour. The project is expected to provide a sufficient number of parking spaces per the City’s parking requirements for a park use.
Response to Comment 2-4: Comment noted.
Response to Comment 2-5: Maintenance may not necessarily be needed once per day, and will be fine tuned once the project is implemented. The Camp Evans/Fairmount Park project would provide a parking lot with 60 stalls, a second parking lot with 17 stalls, and a third parking lot with 11 stalls, for a total of 88 parking stalls.
Response to Comment 2-6: The City’s intent is to provide low cost nearby camping for the community. Specific operation details are yet to be determined.
Response to Comment 2-7: Impacts of grading on wildlife are described in the Intial Study, Section IV.
Response to Comment 2-8: Comment noted.
Response to Comment 2-9: Question is unclear.
Response to Comment 2-10: The project site has a zoning designation of Public Facilities (PF) and a GP 2025 land use designation of Private Recreation (PR).
Response to Comment 2-11: Please see response to comment 2-10.
Response to Comment 2-12: Response from ICF pending While common (non-special status) species are not sensitive resources considered under CEQA, the City’s participation in the MSHCP and implementation of the preserve design provides broad habitat protections that benefit common and special status species; additionally, the project’s avoidance and minimization measures for special status species also benefit common species.
Response to Comment 2-13: Non-native invasive species are not afforded protection because they threaten the existence of native species.
Response to Comment 2-14: Yellow warbler and yellow-breasted chat are Covered Species under the MSHCP; these species are discussed in Section 2.1.4 of the MSHCP, Volume I, and listed in Exhibit C to the IA and Section 9.2 of the MSHCP, Volume I. Per the MHSCP, high quality riparian habitat within Existing Core A (composed largely of PQP lands in the Prado Basin and the Santa Ana River in the northwest region of the MSHCP Area.) and along the edges must be maintained for species such as SWFL, yellow warbler, yellow-breasted chat, WYBC, and other species listed for Existing Core A.
The MND identifies that Other riparian bird species associated with riparian communities and listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP would also be expected to occur in the riparian/riverine community adjacent to the Park Site. Project measures will be implemented to prevent inadvertent potential indirect effects on migratory birds. The MND identifies that yellow warbler and yellow-breasted chat were detected throughout suitable habitat during riparian bird surveys. The MND also identifies that surveys were conducted for southwestern willow flycatcher and western yellow- billed cuckoo and that surveys were negative.
The only reptile listed as benefiting from the preservation of riparian/riverine resources in MSHCP Section 6.1.2 (RCIP 2003) is western pond turtle, which is federally proposed as threatened and a state SSC and is a Fully Covered species under the MSHCP. Western pond turtles were not observed during surveys; however, the non-native invasive red-eared slider turtle (Trachemys scripta elegans) was observed during surveys. Non-native invasive species threaten the existence of native species and are therefore not afforded protection.
Response to Comment 2-15: The City’s participation in the MSHCP and implementation of the preserve design provides broad habitat protections that benefit migrating avian species. Sensitive bird species are specifically addressed in the MND.
Response to Comment 2-16: Comment noted.
Comment Letter 3: Sierra Club – January 2, 2026
Responses to Comment Letter 3: Sierra Club –
January 2, 2026
Response to Comment 3-1: Comment noted. City will add the Sierra Club as a stakeholder during community meetings for subsequent design development of the project.
Response to Comment 3-2: The parks are separate projects that are not functionally linked; each can be developed and serve the public on its own merits. Completion of one site does not commit the City to the completion of the others.
Response to Comment 3-3: An additional rare plant survey will be conducted for each site prior to subsequent design development to ensure avoidance of special status plants.
Response to Comment 3-4: The PRCSD continues to seek grant funding to implement and renovate parks throughout the city. The grant used for this project was restricted to use for parks within a certain distance of the Santa Ana River.
Response to Comment 3-5:. Please see table below regarding areas proposed for active recreation versus passive recreation and natural lands.
Response to Comment 3-6: Comment noted. During design development, the PRCSD will work to balance recreational infrastructure development with anticipated maintenance costs to find the best value to meet the community’s needs.
Response to Comment 3-7: Comment noted.
Comment Letter 4: California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW), January 23, 2026
Responses to Comment Letter 4: California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), January
23, 2026
Response to Comment 4-1: The City will complete the Consistency Analysis process, and once the Consistency Analysis is complete, the MNDs will be updated with any additional measures identified through the JPR and DBESP process in the Consistency Analysis to demonstrate the Project’s consistency with and the City’s implementation of the MSHCP.
Response to Comment 4-2: The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Camp Evans Park Master Plan, Riverside Gateway Parks Program has been updated per CDFW’s recommendation to avoid take of active burrowing owl burrows (nests) and comply with MSHCP Additional Survey Needs and Procedures for burrowing owl under Section 6.3.2; edits were made to mitigation measure MM-BIO- 22 (burrowing owl).
Response to Comment 4-3: The City will coordinate with CDFW to identify potential overlap with impact or mitigation areas and whether any conflicts with existing requirements of the Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) could occur as a result. The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Camp Evans Park Master Plan, Riverside Gateway Parks Program has been updated per CDFW’s recommendation; edits were made to mitigation measure MM-BIO-15 (rivers, streams, and lakes).
Response to Comment 4-4: The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Camp Evans Park Master Plan, Riverside Gateway Parks Program has been updated per CDFW’s recommendation; edits were made to mitigation measure MM-BIO-24 (Crotch’s bumblebee).
Comment Letter 5: California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW), January 23, 2026
Responses to Comment Letter 5: California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), February
2, 2026
Response to Comment 5-1: The City will complete the Consistency Analysis process, and once the Consistency Analysis is complete, the MNDs will be updated with any additional measures identified through the JPR and DBESP process in the Consistency Analysis to demonstrate the Project’s consistency with and the City’s implementation of the MSHCP including how the Project might contribute to, or conflict with, assembly of the MSHCP Conservation Area consistent with the reserve configuration requirements; specifications of Criteria for Cells within the Projects’ location; and how Public/Quasi Public Lands (PQP) are being impacted and how they will be replaced. The City will prepare and submit a JPR and a DBESP to RCA, CDFW, and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for review and response to determine if the project is consistent with Reserve Assembly, PQP requirements, and that the mitigation proposed for the impacts to riparian/riverine resources is biologically equivalent or superior to an avoidance alternative.
Response to Comment 5-2: The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Tequesquite Sites and Santa Ana River Greenway Park Master Plans, Riverside Gateway Parks Program has been updated per CDFW’s recommendation to avoid take of active burrowing owl burrows (nests) and comply with MSHCP Additional Survey Needs and Procedures for burrowing owl under Section 6.3.2; edits were made to mitigation measure MM-BIO-22 (burrowing owl).
Response to Comment 5-3: The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Tequesquite Sites and Santa Ana River Greenway Park Master Plans, Riverside Gateway Parks Program has been updated per CDFW’s recommendation to require a notification of lake or streambed alteration be submitted to CDFW, as required by Fish and Game Code section 1602; edits were made to mitigation measure MM-BIO-21 (rivers, streams, and lakes).
Response to Comment 5-4: The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Tequesquite Sites and Santa Ana River Greenway Park Master Plans, Riverside Gateway Parks Program has been updated per CDFW’s recommendation; edits were made to mitigation measure MM-BIO-11 (Crotch’s bumblebee).
Comment Letter 6: Regional Conservation Authority
(RCA) – January 7, 2026
Responses to Comment Letter 6: Regional
Conservation Authority (RCA) – January 7, 2026
Response to Comment 6-1: The City initiated Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Joint Project Review (JPR) with the Regional Conservation Agency and the wildlife agencies in April 2024 and was assigned Joint Project Review number JPR 24-04-05-01.
The City will continue to work with the RCA and wildlife agencies to complete the JPR prior to proceeding with implementation of the project. If any changes are needed to the park master plan, mitigated negative declaration or mitigation measures resulting from the JPR, the City will prepare an amended park master plan, MND and/or MMRP and return to City Council for adoption of the amended documents prior to proceeding with the project implementation.