Dixieline Lumber Yard Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative … · 2019-11-22 · Dixieline Lumber...

Dixieline Lumber Yard

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Lead Agency: City of Riverside

Community & Economic Development Department Planning Division

3900 Main Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92522

Prepared by:

Sagecrest Planning+Environmental

2400 E Katella Avenue, Suite 800 Anaheim, CA 92806

Contact: Christine Saunders

November 2019

Dixieline Lumber Yard Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

This page intentionally left blank.


Table of Contents Section 1 - Project Summary ......................................................................................................................................1 Section 2 – Initial Study Checklist ............................................................................................................................ 17

Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ....................................................................................................... 17 Determination ..................................................................................................................................................... 18 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................................. 19

Section 3 - Environmental Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 20 1) Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................... 20 2) Agriculture and Forest Resources .......................................................................................................... 23 3) Air Quality .............................................................................................................................................. 26 4) Biological Resources ............................................................................................................................... 37 5) Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................................. 43 6) Energy .................................................................................................................................................... 48 7) Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................................... 49 8) Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................................................... 55 9) Hazards and Hazardous Materials ......................................................................................................... 59 10) Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................................ 66 11) Land Use and Planning ........................................................................................................................... 73 12) Mineral Resources.................................................................................................................................. 74 13) Noise ...................................................................................................................................................... 75 14) Population and Housing ......................................................................................................................... 78 15) Public Services ........................................................................................................................................ 79 16) Recreation .............................................................................................................................................. 82 17) Transportation ....................................................................................................................................... 84 18) Tribal Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................................... 88 19) Utilities and System Services.................................................................................................................. 90 20) Wildfire ................................................................................................................................................... 94 21) Mandatory Findings of Significance ....................................................................................................... 97

Section 4 - Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program .................................................................................... 99 Section 5 – Organizations and Persons Consulted ................................................................................................ 107 Section 6 – References .......................................................................................................................................... 108

Tables Table 1 – Land Use, General Plan, and Zoning Summary ...........................................................................................3 Table 2 - SCAQMD Regional Criteria Pollutant Emission Thresholds of Significance .............................................. 26 Table 3 - Project-Related Construction and Operational Emissions Mass Daily Thresholds................................... 30 Table 4 – Project Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................ 56

Figures Figure 1 – Regional Location Map ..............................................................................................................................7 Figure 2 - Project Vicinity Map ...................................................................................................................................8 Figure 3 - General Plan and Zoning Designations .......................................................................................................9 Figure 4 – Site Plan .................................................................................................................................................. 10 Figure 5 – Floor Plan ................................................................................................................................................ 11 Figure 6 - Elevations ................................................................................................................................................ 12 Figure 7 – Conceptual Landscape Plan .................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 8 – Conceptual Grading Plan ........................................................................................................................ 14 Figure 9 – Truck Turning Template .......................................................................................................................... 15


Appendices

Appendix A - Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report Dixieline Lumber Project

Appendix B - General Biology and Habitat Assessment for Burrowing Owl

Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Dixieline Lumber Yard Project

Appendix D - Phase I Environmental Site Assessment

Appendix E - Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan

1 | P a g e

Section 1 - Project Summary

WARD: 1 1. Case Number(s): P18-0699 (Design Review) and P18-0787 (Minor Conditional Use Permit)

2. Project Title: Dixieline Lumber Yard 3. Hearing Date: December 19, 2019 4. Lead Agency: City of Riverside

Community & Economic Development Department Planning Division 3900 Main Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92522

5. Contact Person: Alyssa Berlino, Associate Planner

Phone Number: (951) 826-5628 6. Project Location: 2625 Durahart Street, Riverside, California.

Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 210-150-001 and 210-150-016 7. Project Applicant/ Dixieline Pro Build Company, LLC Project Sponsor’s 3250 Sports Arena Boulevard

Name and Address: San Diego, CA 92110

8. General Plan I – General Industrial Designation: 9. Zoning: I-WC – Industrial and Water Course Overlay Zones

DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION


2 | P a g e

10. Description of Project: The Applicant proposes to construct a 37,350 square foot (sf) industrial

building for office, manufacturing, and warehouse uses, with ancillary outdoor storage of approximately 65,574 sf (Proposed Project), on a gross 7.24-acre site (net 7.10 acres after dedication), identified as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 210-150-001 and 210-150-016 (Project Site) in the City of Riverside. The Proposed Project would involve the construction of a 24’-3” high industrial building on the most northerly parcel. Outdoor storage of lumber trusses with a maximum stacking height of 12 feet is proposed on both parcels, as shown on Figure 4 – Site Plan. The proposed building would consist of 3,600 sf of office space, 18,750 sf of interior warehousing, and 15,000 sf of manufacturing area, as shown on Figure 5 – Floor Plan and Figure 6 – Proposed Elevations. Two outdoor finished product staging areas of approximately 16,200 sf and 20,950 sf, and one raw product storage area of 28,424 sf, would make up the total 65,574 sf of outdoor storage. Additional site improvements include paved parking areas, landscaping, as shown on Figure 7 – Conceptual Landscape Plan, a bioretention basin, perimeter six-foot high tubular steel fencing, and an entry gate located at the access point from Durahart Street, as well as grading during construction. Off-site improvements include the build out of the Durahart Street cul-de-sac, including curb, gutter, and sidewalk, to City standards, as shown on Figure 8 – Conceptual Grading Plan and Figure 9 – Truck Turning Template. No structures or outdoor storage are proposed within the area of the Project Site designated with the WC – Water Course Overlay Zone.

11. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The Project Site is in an industrial area of the City of Riverside, in north western Riverside County, as shown in Figure 1 – Regional Location Map and Figure 2 – Project Vicinity Map. The Project Site is bounded by Massachusetts Avenue and inactive, abandoned Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) railroad tracks to the south, Durahart Street to the east, Spruce Street and SR-60/I-215 to the north, and Kansas Avenue to the west. The Project Site can be accessed from two nearby freeways: SR-91 via Spruce Street to the northwest and SR-60/I-215 via 3rd Street to the southeast. The Project Site consists of vacant land with an asphalt road running from the east property line of APN 210-150-001 at Durahart Street and ends approximately near the southwest corner of APN 210-150-016, closer to Massachusetts Avenue. The Project Site was developed as a paint manufacturing facility in 1953 and operated under several ownerships until 1999. In 2000, the facility was demolished. From 2000 to 2016, site activities were restricted to the operation of remediation-related activities to address contamination in soil from former paint manufacturing operations. An inactive soil vapor extraction system (SVE) is located at approximately the center of the Project Site. The Project Site is surrounded by a chain-link fence.

Surrounding land uses are primarily industrial and manufacturing uses. All surrounding land uses have a General Plan designation of Industrial and are zoned Industrial, as shown in Table 1 – Land Use, General Plan, and Zoning Summary.


3 | P a g e

Table 1 – Land Use, General Plan, and Zoning Summary

Existing Land Use General Plan Designation Zoning Designation

Project Site Vacant I – General Industrial I-WC – Industrial and Water Course Overlay Zones

North U-Haul of Riverside and Walters Wholesale Electric

I – General Industrial I – Industrial Zone

East Vacant Industrial I – General Industrial I – Industrial Zone

South

Gar Labs Corp, Web-Cam Performance Camshafts, and BNSF Railroad

I – General Industrial I – Industrial Zone

West

Path of Life Ministries Emergency Shelter and Access Center, JP Saw Sharpening, Retrofit Technology

I – General Industrial I-WC – Industrial and Water Course Overlay Zones

12. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financial approval, or participation

agreement.):

Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board 13. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area

requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significant impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?

• Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation • Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians • Cahuilla Band of Indians • Pechanga Cultural Resources Department • Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians • San Manuel Band of Mission Indians • Cultural Resources Specialist – Travis Armstrong • Morongo Band of Mission Indians • Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians • San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians


4 | P a g e

The above Native American tribes have requested notification pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52 from the City of Riverside for projects in which the City is the lead agency. Accordingly, the City contacted each of the above listed Native American tribes regarding the Proposed Project on June 12, 2019. The following Native American tribes requested formal consultation specific to the Proposed Project: • Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians (consultation requested on August 5, 2019 and concluded on

November 7, 2019) • Morongo Band of Mission Indians (consultation requested on July 30, 2019 and concluded on

September 24, 2019) • Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (consultation requested on August 16, 2019 and

concluded on October 4, 2019) In addition, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians requested they be sent any cultural resources assessments completed as part of the Proposed Project, which was provided to them on October 31, 2019.

14. Other Environmental Reviews Incorporated by Reference in this Review: a. General Plan 2025 b. General Plan 2025 Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report c. Title 16, Building and Construction d. Title 17, Grading Code e. Title 19, Zoning Code f. Title 20, Cultural Resources g. Appendix A, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report h. Appendix B, General Biological and Habitat Assessment for Burrowing Owl i. Appendix C, Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Dixieline Lumber Yard Project j. Appendix D, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment k. Appendix E, Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan 15. Acronyms AICUZ - Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Study AQMP - Air Quality Management Plan AUSD - Alvord Unified School District CEQA - California Environmental Quality Act CMP - Congestion Management Plan EIR - Environmental Impact Report EMWD - Eastern Municipal Water District EOP - Emergency Operations Plan FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Agency FPEIR - GP 2025 Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report GIS - Geographic Information System GhG - Green House Gas GP 2025 - General Plan 2025


5 | P a g e

GP 2025 FPEIR – General Plan 2025 Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report IS - Initial Study LHMP - Local Hazard Mitigation Plan MARB/MIP - March Air Reserve Base/March Inland Port MJPA-JLUS - March Joint Powers Authority - Joint Land Use Study MSHCP - Multiple-Species Habitat Conservation Plan

MVUSD - Moreno Valley Unified School District NCCP - Natural Communities Conservation Plan OEM - Office of Emergency Services OPR - Office of Planning & Research, State PEIR - Program Environmental Impact Report

PW - Public Works, Riverside RCALUC - Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission

RCALUCP - Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan RCP - Regional Comprehensive Plan RCTC - Riverside County Transportation Commission RMC - Riverside Municipal Code

RPD - Riverside Police Department RPU - Riverside Public Utilities RTIP - Regional Transportation Improvement Plan RTP - Regional Transportation Plan

RUSD - Riverside Unified School District SCAG - Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD - South Coast Air Quality Management District SCH - State Clearinghouse SKR-HCP - Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat - Habitat Conservation Plan SWPPP - Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan USGS - United States Geologic Survey WMWD - Western Municipal Water District WQMP - Water Quality Management Plan


6 | P a g e



Figure 1: Regional Location MapSource: Google Maps

Project Site


Figure 2: Project Vicinity MapSource: Google Maps

Project Site


Figure 3: General Plan and Zoning DesignationsSource: General Plan 2025 Land Use Map

Zoning Map of the City of Riverside

Project Site Project Site

Zoning General Plan

I – INDUSTRIAL

WC – WATER COURSE OVERLAY


Figure 4: Site Plan Source: Broeske Architects & Associates, Inc.


Figure 5: Floor Plan Source: Broeske Architects & Associates, Inc.


Figure 6: Elevations Source: Broeske Architects & Associates, Inc.


Figure 7: Conceptual Landscape Plan Source: Ian Davidson Landscape Architecture


Figure 8: Conceptual Grading PlanSource: B&W Consulting Engineers, Inc.


Figure 9: Truck Turning Template Source: B&W Consulting Engineers, Inc.


16 | P a g e


17 | P a g e

Section 2 – Initial Study Checklist Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture & Forest Resources

Air Quality

Biological Resources

Cultural Resources

Energy

Geology/Soils

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Hazards & Hazardous

Materials

Hydrology/Water Quality

Land Use/Planning

Mineral Resources

Noise

Population/Housing

Public Services

Recreation

Transportation

Tribal Cultural Resources

Utilities/Service Systems

Wildfire

Mandatory Findings of Significance

ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION


18 | P a g e

Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation which reflects the independent judgment of the City of Riverside, it is recommended that: The City of Riverside finds that the Proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

The City of Riverside finds that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

The City of Riverside finds that the Proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

The City of Riverside finds that the Proposed Project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

The City of Riverside finds that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the Proposed Project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date Printed Name & Title Alyssa Berlino, Associate Planner for City of Riverside


19 | P a g e

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the

scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measure which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used, or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The explanation of each issue should identify: a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.


20 | P a g e

Section 3 - Environmental Analysis

1) Aesthetics

Would the Project: Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant

With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

No Impact: Scenic resources can be found throughout the City both from urban areas toward the hills and from wilderness areas looking onto Riverside, with the Box Springs Park and Box Springs Mountain located east, and Mount Rubidoux to the west of the Project Site. Due to the topography, landscaping, and surrounding buildings, these scenic vistas cannot be seen from the majority of the Project Site or immediate vicinity. The project area (i.e., along Durahart Street and Massachusetts Avenue) contains visual obstructions such as existing buildings, and freeways (SR-91 and SR-60/I-215) that substantially limit views of these scenic vistas. Since the Project Site is within an urbanized area surrounded by existing development, visual obstruction of scenic vistas would not occur. Additionally, the Proposed Project would be subject to the City’s Citywide Design and Sign Guidelines and be required to undergo Planning Division Staff review and approval to ensure design elements are proposed and implemented in accordance with Title 19 - Zoning of the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impacts associated with a scenic vista.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Source: GP 2025 – Figure CCM-4 – Master Plan of Roadways

GP 2025 FPEIR

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

No Impact: The Project Site is in the northern portion of the City of Riverside. The nearest state highways are SR-60/I-215, generally to the north and east of Project Site, and SR-91, generally to the west of the Project Site. The two state highways interchange generally north of the Project Site, and the SR-60 joins with the I-215 to the east of the Project Site, resulting in the Project Site being surrounded by highways on three sides. None of the portions of these highways near the Project Site are designated as a state scenic highway. SR-91 is designated as “eligible” for designation on portions west of the I-15 freeway, more than 10-miles to the west of the Project Site. No portion of SR-60/I-215 is designated or eligible as a state scenic highway. The nearest designated state scenic highway in Riverside County is SR-243, located east of the City of Riverside. The Proposed Project is not located along or within view of a scenic boulevard, parkway, or special boulevard as designated by the City’s General Plan 2025. The nearest scenic and special boulevard to the Proposed Project is University Avenue, which is located approximately 3,000 feet south of the Project Site. Additionally, the Project Site is currently vacant and disturbed (e.g. previously graded) and does not


21 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact contain any scenic resources. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impacts associated with scenic resources within a state scenic highway.


Sources: GP 2025 – Figure CCM-4 – Master Plan of Roadways and GP 2025 FPEIR

California Department of Transportation, California Scenic Highway Mapping System-Riverside County

Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Dixieline Lumber Yard Project, VCS Environmental, September 19, 2019 (Revised October 31, 2019)

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?

Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project involves the construction of a 37,350-sf industrial building for office, manufacturing, and warehouse uses, with ancillary outdoor storage of approximately 65,574 sf. Off-site improvements include the build out of the Durahart Street cul-de-sac, including curb, gutter, and sidewalk, to City standards. Surrounding development to the Project Site involves industrial uses, including outdoor storage (mostly vehicles); therefore, the proposed use would be consistent with the surrounding development. The proposed building is single-story, consistent with surrounding development and the outdoor storage stacks would be limited to 12 feet in height. The Project Site is currently vacant, and the Proposed Project would be developed in a consistent and visually pleasing manner subject to the City’s Citywide Design and Sign Guidelines. The perimeter of the Project Site would be protected by a six-foot high tubular steel fence on the property line with landscaping within the 10-foot setback to the interior of the fence in order to screen views of the Project Site from the public right-of-way. Minor Conditional Use Permit (Planning Case P18-0787) would allow for the tubular steel fence to be located at the property line rather than and the back of the landscaped setback. Additionally, the Proposed Project is required to process a Design Review entitlement, with the City’s Planning Division, to ensure the proposed design is consistent with these guidelines and implemented in accordance with the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, potential impacts associated with the visual character or quality of the Project Site and its surroundings would be less than significant.


Source: GP 2025 and GP 2025 FPEIR

Citywide Design and Sign Guidelines


22 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project would introduce light features to the vacant Project Site. Accordingly, the new building, outdoor storage areas, and associated components would include lighting features typical of industrial developments, such as security lighting and indoor lighting. However, while the Proposed Project would introduce new sources of light, all lighting fixtures would comply with Title 19 – Article VIII – Chapter 19.556 – Outdoor Lighting of the Riverside Municipal Code. As a standard condition prior to the issuance of a building permit, the City will require the Property Owner/Developer to submit of a photometric study to demonstrate compliance with the requirements in Title 19. Ambient light is created by the surrounding industrial properties as well as from the SR-91 and SR-60/I-215 highways. Construction would be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, which would eliminate the need for construction lighting.

The Proposed Project would also introduce new sources of daytime glare due to the new building surfaces and vehicles traveling to and from the Project Site. However, the glare created by the proposed development would be consistent with the levels of glare that are emitted by the surrounding development. Additionally, exterior building materials would be constructed in accordance with Title 19 – Article VIII – Chapter 19.710 – Design Review of the Riverside Municipal Code and in compliance with the Citywide Design and Sign Guidelines to reduce potential impacts of glare. The Proposed Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Therefore, potential impacts associated with light or glare would be less than significant.


Sources: GP 2025 and GP 2025 FPEIR – Figure 5.1-2 – Mount Palomar Lighting Area

RMC Title 19 – Article VIII – Chapter 19.556 – Outdoor Lighting

RMC Title 19 – Article VIII – Chapter 19.710 – Design Review



23 | P a g e

2) Agriculture and Forest Resources


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information complied by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in the Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

No Impact: The Proposed Project involves the construction of a 37,350-sf industrial building for office, manufacturing, and warehouse uses, with ancillary outdoor storage of approximately 65,574 sf. Off-site improvements include the build out of the Durahart Street cul-de-sac, including curb, gutter, and sidewalk, to City standards. The Project Site is in a developed portion of an urbanized area. The Project Site is not designated as and is not adjacent to or in proximity of any land classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the Figure OS-2 – Agricultural Suitability (GP 2025). The Project Site is identified as urban/built out land and therefore does not support agricultural resources or operations. There are no agricultural resources or operations, including farmlands within proximity of the Project Site. The Proposed Project would not convert any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impacts associated with conversion of farmland.


Source: GP 2025 – Figure OS-2 – Agricultural Suitability

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

No Impact: The Project Site is not located within an area that is affected by a Williamson Act Preserve or under a Williamson Act Contract. The Project Site is not zoned for agricultural use and is not next to land zoned for agricultural use; the Project Site is zoned as I-WC – Industrial and Water Course Overlay Zones and surrounded by industrial uses. The Proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impacts associated with agricultural uses or a Williamson Act contract.



24 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact Sources: GP 2025 – Figure OS-3 - Williamson Act Preserves

GP 2025 FPEIR – Figure 5.2-4 – Proposed Zones Permitting Agricultural Uses

RMC Title 19

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)) timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

No Impact: The Project Site is within the City of Riverside, which does not have zoning designated for forest land that can support 10-percent native tree cover, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production within City limits. The site does not contain forestland or timberland. There is no conflict with existing zoning and no cause for rezoning of land related to forestland or timberland. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impacts associated with forest land or timberland.


Sources: GP 2025 – Figure OS-2 – Agricultural Suitability

GP 2025 – Figure OS-3 – Williamson Act Preserves

GP 2025 FPEIR Appendix I – Designated Farmland Table

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

No Impact: As indicated in Section 2(c), the City does not have a zoning designation for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production within City limits. In addition, the Project Site is currently vacant and is bounded by industrial uses. The Proposed Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impacts associated with forest land.




GP 2025 FPEIR Appendix I – Designated Farmland Table


25 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

No Impact: The Project Site is in an urbanized area of the City and identified as Urban and Built-up Land. No agricultural activities are presently occurring on-site. The City of Riverside has no forest land or timberland. The existing condition on-site is vacant and undeveloped. The Proposed Project would be consistent with the existing zoning designation of I-WC – Industrial and Water Course Overlay Zones and would not result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impacts associated with farmland or forest land.





26 | P a g e

3) Air Quality


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

An Air Quality Report was completed to determine potential impacts to air quality associated with the development of the Proposed Project (Appendix A - Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Report Dixieline Lumber Project, Sagecrest Planning+Environmental, July 2019). The results of the analysis are based on CalEEMod version 2016.3.2.

Many air quality impacts that derive from dispersed mobile sources, which are the dominate pollution generators in the Air Basin, often occurs hours later and miles away after photochemical processes have converted primary exhaust pollutants into secondary contaminants such as ozone. The incremental regional air quality impact of an individual project is generally very small and difficult to measure. Therefore, SCAQMD has developed significance thresholds based on the volume of pollution emitted rather than on actual ambient air quality because the direct air quality impact of a project is not quantifiable on a regional scale. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that any project in the Air Basin with daily emissions that exceed any of the identified significance thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact. For the purposes to this air quality impact analysis, a regional air quality impact would be considered significant if emissions exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds identified in Table 2 - SCAQMD Regional Criteria Pollutant Emission Thresholds of Significance.

Table 2 - SCAQMD Regional Criteria Pollutant Emission Thresholds of Significance

Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Lead Construction 75 100 550 150 150 55 3 Operation 55 55 550 150 150 55 3 Source: http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/signthres.pdf

Project-related construction air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the vicinity of the Proposed Project, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin. In order to assess local air quality impacts the SCAQMD has developed Localized Significant Thresholds (LSTs) to assess the project-related air emissions in the vicinity of the Proposed Project. SCAQMD has also provided Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology), July 2008, which details the methodology to analyze local air emission impacts. The LST Methodology found that the primary emissions of concern are NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The LST Methodology provides Look-Up Tables with different thresholds based on the location and size of the Project Site and distance to the nearest sensitive receptors.


27 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

No Impact: The Proposed Project involves the construction of a 37,350-sf industrial building for office, manufacturing, and warehouse uses, with ancillary outdoor storage of approximately 65,574 sf. Off-site improvements include the build out of the Durahart Street cul-de-sac, including curb, gutter, and sidewalk, to City standards.

SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a discussion of any inconsistencies between a Proposed Project and applicable General Plans and regional plans (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125). The regional plan that applies to the Proposed Project includes the SCAQMD AQMP. Therefore, this section discusses any potential inconsistencies of the Proposed Project with the AQMP.

The purpose of this discussion is to set forth the issues regarding consistency with the assumptions and objectives of the AQMP and discuss whether the Proposed Project would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with Federal and State air quality standards. If the decision-makers determine that the Proposed Project is inconsistent, the lead agency may consider project modifications or inclusion of mitigation to eliminate the inconsistency.

The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that "New or amended General Plan Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP." Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually not required. A Proposed Project would be consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency:

(1) Whether the project would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP. (2) Whether the project would exceed the assumptions in the AQMP, or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase.

Criterion 1 - Increase in The Frequency or Severity of Violations

Based on the air quality modeling analysis contained in Appendix A, short-term regional construction air emissions would not result in significant impacts based on SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance or local thresholds of significance. The ongoing operation of the Proposed Project would generate air pollutant emissions that are inconsequential on a regional basis and would not result in significant impacts based on SCAQMD thresholds of significance. The analysis for long-term local air quality impacts showed that local pollutant concentrations would not be projected to exceed the air quality standards. Therefore, no long-term impact would occur, and no mitigation would be required.


28 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact Based on the information provided above, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the first criterion.

Criterion 2 - Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP

Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined by performing an analysis of the Proposed Project with the assumptions in the AQMP. The emphasis of this criterion is to ensure the analyses conducted for the Proposed Project is based on the same forecasts as the AQMP. The AQMP is developed through use of the planning forecasts provided in the RTP/SCS and FTIP. The RTP/SCS is a major planning document for the regional transportation and land use network within Southern California. The RTP/SCS is a long-range plan that is required by federal and state requirements placed on SCAG and is updated every four years. The FTIP provides long-range planning for future transportation improvement projects that are constructed with state and/or federal funds within Southern California. Local governments are required to use these plans as the basis of their plans for the purpose of consistency with applicable regional plans under CEQA. The City of Riverside is located within the Riverside County sub region of the SCAG projections. The GP 2025 FPEIR determined that implementation of the General Plan 2025 would generally meet attainment forecasts and attainment of the standards of the AQMP. The General Plan 2025 contains policies to promote mixed use, pedestrian-friendly communities that serve to reduce air pollutant emissions over time.

The Project Site is designated as Industrial in General Plan 2025 and is zoned Industrial with a Water Course Overlay. The Proposed Project would be consistent with the current land use designation and would not require a General Plan Amendment or zone change. The Proposed Project is consistent with City of Riverside General Plan 2025 Program “Typical Growth Scenario” in all aspects, which defines the assumptions that are represented in AQMP. The Proposed Project is consistent with the 2016 AQMP and would not conflict or obstruct its implementation and is consistent with the AQMP for the second criterion.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no potential direct, indirect, or cumulatively considerable impacts associated with an inconsistency with the SCAQMD AQMP.


Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District’s 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)

GP 2025

b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?

Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).


29 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact Cumulative projects include local development as well as general growth within the project area. However, as with most development, the greatest source of emissions is from mobile sources, which travel throughout the local area. Therefore, from an air quality standpoint, the cumulative analysis would extend beyond any local projects and when wind patterns are considered would cover an even larger area. Accordingly, the cumulative analysis for the Proposed Project’s air quality must be generic by nature. The project area is out of attainment for ozone and PM10 and PM2.5 particulate matter. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b), this analysis of cumulative impacts incorporates a three-tiered approach to assess cumulative air quality impacts.

• Consistency with the SCAQMD project specific thresholds for construction and operations; • Project consistency with existing air quality plans; and • Assessment of the cumulative health effects of the pollutants.

Consistency with Project Specific Thresholds

Based on the following analysis, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts relative to the daily significance thresholds for criteria air pollutant construction emissions established by the SCAQMD.

Construction-Related Impacts

The Proposed Project involves the construction of a 37,350-sf industrial building for office, manufacturing, and warehouse uses, with ancillary outdoor storage of approximately 65,574 sf. Off-site improvements include the build out of the Durahart Street cul-de-sac, including curb, gutter, and sidewalk, to City standards. General construction activities, such as site preparation, grading, and travel by construction workers can contribute to air pollutants. All construction activities would comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 (SCAQMD 2005) regarding the control of fugitive dust emissions, and existing City dust suppression practices that minimize dust and other emissions. Such controls include frequent watering of the Project Site, the covering and/or wetting of trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose materials off-site, street sweeping, as needed, to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or mud that would otherwise be carried off by trucks departing the Project Site, suspending grading and excavation activities in high winds (25 miles per hour [mph] or more) as well as implementation of a traffic control plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities, etc., that would be incorporated into the construction plans.

Construction is conservatively anticipated to last five months and construction would be broken into four phases: site preparation, grading, building construction, and paving. Pollutant emissions resulting from Proposed Project construction activities were calculated using the CalEEMod model 2016.3.2. Construction emissions are based on information provided by the Applicant. As shown in Table 3 - Project-Related Construction and Operational Emissions Mass Daily Thresholds, the incremental increase in emissions from Proposed Project construction activities fall well below SCAQMD significance thresholds for regional emissions. Therefore, potential air quality impacts associated with construction would be less than significant.


30 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact Operational-Related Impacts

The Proposed Project’s incremental increase in regional emissions resulting from operation of the Proposed Project would not exceed any SCAQMD thresholds. Mobile source emission calculations utilize the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) rate calculated by CalEEMod, based on the specific proposed land use and intensity. The daily VMT rate is based on the number of daily trips for each land use and applied to a commute percentage and an average trip length, both of which are land use specific values derived from CalEEMod. These values account for variations in trip frequency and length associated with commuting to and from the Proposed Project. Emission factors specific to the buildout year are projected based on SCAB-specific fleet turnover rates and the impact of future emission standards and fuel efficiency standards. The increase in the consumption of fossil fuels to provide power, heat, and ventilation was considered in the calculations as stationary point source emissions. Future fuel consumption rates are estimated based on land use specific energy consumption rates. The emission factors used in this analysis represent a State-wide average of known power producing facilities, utilizing various technologies and emission control strategies, and do not consider any unique emissions profile. These emission factors are considered conservative and representative. Area source emissions were calculated by CalEEMod and include emissions from natural gas and landscape fuel combustion, consumer products, and architectural coatings (future maintenance). As shown in Table 3, the operational pollutant emission concentrations resulting from the operation of the Proposed Project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, potential air quality impacts associated with operation would be less than significant.

Table 3 - Project-Related Construction and Operational Emissions Mass Daily Thresholds (pounds per day)

VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Construction Emissions

SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 2020 4.86 53.90 30.99 0.69 9.06 5.74

Maximum Daily 4.86 53.90 30.99 0.069 9.06 5.74 Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No

Operational Emissions SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55

Project Emissions 1.37 3.46 9.17 0.03 2.50 0.71 Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No

Notes: 1. Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod version 2016.3.2, as recommended by the SCAQMD. Source: Appendix A

The greatest cumulative operational impact on the air quality to the Air Basin would be the incremental addition of pollutants mainly from increased traffic from residential, commercial, and industrial development. In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, projects that do not exceed SCAQMD criteria or


31 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact can be mitigated to less than criteria levels are not significant and do not add to the overall cumulative impact. The regional ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions created from the on-going operations of the Proposed Project have been calculated above. Development of the Proposed Project would result in less than significant regional emissions of VOC and NOx (ozone precursors), PM10, and PM2.5 during operation. Therefore, potential cumulative impacts associated with operation of the Proposed Project would be less than significant.

Consistency with Air Quality Plans

The Project Site has a General Plan land use designation of Industrial and is zoned Industrial with a Water Course Overlay. The Proposed Project would be consistent with the land use designation and would not require a General Plan Amendment or zone change. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in an inconsistency with the current land use designation. The Proposed Project would not exceed the AQMP assumptions for the Project Site and is found to be consistent with the AQMPs for the Air Basin.

Cumulative Health Impacts

The Air Basin is designated as nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, which means that the background levels of those pollutants are at times higher than the ambient air quality standards. The air quality standards were set to protect public health, including the health of sensitive individuals (elderly, children, and the sick). Therefore, when the concentrations of those pollutants exceed the standard, it is likely that some sensitive individuals in the population would experience health effects. The regional analysis found that the Proposed Project would not exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds for VOC and NOx (ozone precursors), PM10 and PM2.5. Therefore, potential cumulative health impacts associated with the Proposed Project would be less than significant.

Per the GP 2025 FPEIR, AQMP thresholds indicate future construction activities under the General Plan are projected to result in significant levels of NOx and ROG, both ozone precursors, PM-10, PM-2.5 and CO. Although long-term emissions are expected to decrease by 2025, all criteria pollutants remain above the SCAQMD thresholds. The Proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan 2025 and cumulative impacts related to criteria pollutants as a result of the Proposed Project were previously evaluated as part of the cumulative analysis of build out anticipated under the General Plan 2025 Program. As a result, the Proposed Project does not result in any new significant impacts that were not previously evaluated and for which a statement of overriding considerations was adopted as part of the GP 2025 FPEIR. Therefore, potential impacts associated with cumulative air quality emissions would be less than significant.


Source: GP 2025 FPEIR Table 5.3-B SCAQMD CEQA Regional Significance Thresholds

South Coast Air Quality Management District 2016 Air Quality Management Plan

Appendix A - Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report Dixieline Lumber Project, Sagecrest Planning+Environmental, July 2019 (Revised September 2019, November 2019)


32 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

Less Than Significant Impact: Short-term impacts associated with construction from General Plan 2025 typical build out would result in increased air emissions from grading, earthmoving, and construction activities. Mitigation Measures of the GP 2025 FPEIR requires individual development to employ construction approaches that minimize pollutant emissions (GP 2025 FPEIR MM AIR 1- MM AIR 5, e.g., watering for dust control, tuning equipment, limiting truck idling times). The nearest sensitive receptor is a single-family residence located approximately 550 feet to the east of the Project Site on the northwest corner of Massachusetts Avenue and Chicago Avenue. In conformance with the GP 2025 FPEIR MM AIR 1 – MM AIR 5 and as shown in Table 3 in Section 3(b), project-related construction and operational emissions are below SCAQMD thresholds.

Construction-Related Sensitive Receptor Impacts

Construction of the Proposed Project may expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of localized criteria pollutant concentrations and from toxic air contaminant emissions created from onsite construction equipment.

Local Criteria Pollutant Impacts from Construction

The local air quality impacts from construction of the Proposed Project would not exceed the local NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds of significance. Therefore, potential local air quality impacts associated with construction of the Proposed Project would be less than significant.

Toxic Air Contaminants Impacts from Construction

The greatest potential for toxic air contaminant emissions would be related to diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions associated with heavy equipment operations during construction of the Proposed Project. According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of “individual cancer risk”. “Individual Cancer Risk” is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of toxic air contaminants over a 70-year lifetime would contract cancer, based on the use of standard risk-assessment methodology. Given the relatively limited number of heavy-duty construction equipment and the short-term construction schedule, the Proposed Project would not result in a long-term (i.e., 70 years) substantial source of toxic air contaminant emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk at the nearest sensitive receptor located approximately 550 feet to the east of the Project Site. In addition, California Code of Regulations Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Section 2449 regulates emissions from off-road diesel equipment in California. This regulation limits idling of equipment to no more than five minutes, requires equipment operators to label each piece of equipment and provide annual reports to CARB of their fleet’s usage and emissions. This regulation also requires systematic upgrading of the emission Tier level of each fleet, and currently no commercial operator can purchase Tier 0 or Tier 1 equipment and by January 2023 no commercial operator can purchase Tier 2 equipment. In addition to the purchase


33 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact restrictions, equipment operators need to meet fleet average emissions targets that become more stringent each year between years 2014 and 2023. Therefore, potential short-term toxic air contaminant impacts associated with construction would be less than significant.

Operations-Related Sensitive Receptor Impacts

The on-going operations of the Proposed Project may expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of local CO emission impacts from the project-generated vehicular trips and from the potential local air quality impacts from onsite operations. The following analyzes the vehicular CO emissions and local criteria pollutant impacts from onsite operations.

Local CO Hotspot Impacts from Project-Generated Vehicle Trips

CO emissions are a function of vehicle idling time, meteorological conditions, and traffic flow. Under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels (i.e., adversely affecting residents, school children, hospital patients, and the elderly).

The Basin is designated as an attainment/maintenance area for the Federal CO standards and an attainment area for State standards. There has been a decline in CO emissions even though vehicle miles traveled on U.S. urban and rural roads have increased nationwide estimated anthropogenic CO emissions have decreased 68 percent between 1990 and 2014. In 2014, mobile sources accounted for 82 percent of the nation’s total anthropogenic CO emissions. Three major control programs have contributed to the reduced per-vehicle CO emissions: exhaust standards, cleaner burning fuels, and motor vehicle inspection/maintenance programs.

According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, a potential CO hotspot may occur at any location where the background CO concentration already exceeds 9.0 ppm, which is the 8-hour California ambient air quality standard. The Project Site is located nearby SRA 23, Rubidoux. Communities within SRAs are expected to have similar climatology and ambient air pollutant concentrations. The closest monitoring station representative of SRA 23 is the Metropolitan Riverside County Station (Rubidoux), which is located approximately 3.7 miles northwest of the Project Site. The projected future (2020) highest one-hour CO concentration at the Metropolitan Riverside County Station is 3.2 ppm for the 8-hour California ambient air quality standard1. The background CO concentration near the Project Site and the nearest sensitive receptor to the Project Site does not exceed or approach the 9.0 ppm threshold and a CO hotspot would not occur. Therefore, potential CO hotspot impacts would be less than significant.

Therefore, potential impacts to offsite sensitive receptors associated with substantial pollutant concentrations from the operation of the Proposed Project would be less than significant.

Local Criteria Pollutant Impacts from Onsite Operations

The local air quality impacts from the operation of the Proposed Project would occur from onsite sources

1 http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/carbon-monoxide-concentrations/projected-future-year-8-hour-concentration-(ppm).doc?sfvrsn=2


34 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact such as landscaping equipment. As shown in Table 3, operation of the Proposed Project would not exceed the local NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds of significance. Therefore, potential impacts to local air quality associated with on-site emissions from the on-going operations of the Proposed Project would be less than significant.

Therefore, potential direct, indirect, or cumulatively considerable impacts to sensitive receptors associated with substantial pollutant concentrations from the operation of the Proposed Project would be a less than significant.


Source: GP 2025 FPEIR Table 5.3-B SCAQMD CEQA Regional Significance Thresholds

South Coast Air Quality Management District 2016 Air Quality Management Plan

Appendix A - Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report Dixieline Lumber Project, Sagecrest Planning+Environmental, July 2019 (Revised September 2019, November 2019)


35 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?

Less Than Significant Impact: Based on the Proposed Project’s construction and operational characteristics, the Proposed Project would not result in odor emissions that could adversely affect a substantial number of people. There are no potential sources of emissions associated with the Proposed Project that could adversely affect a substantial number of people, aside from the localized emissions that are addressed separately above under Section 3(c) above. Potential odor impacts have been analyzed separately for construction and operations below.

Individual responses to odors are highly variable and can result in a variety of effects. Generally, the impact of an odor results from a variety of factors such as frequency, duration, offensiveness, location, and sensory perception. The frequency is a measure of how often an individual is exposed to an odor in the ambient environment. The intensity refers to an individual’s or group’s perception of the odor strength or concentration. The duration of an odor refers to the elapsed time over which an odor is experienced. The offensiveness of the odor is the subjective rating of the pleasantness or unpleasantness of an odor. The location accounts for the type of area in which a potentially affected person lives, works, or visits; the type of activity in which he or she is engaged; and the sensitivity of the impacted receptor.

Sensory perception has four major components: detectability, intensity, character, and hedonic tone. The detection (or threshold) of an odor is based on a panel of responses to the odor. There are two types of thresholds: the odor detection threshold and the recognition threshold. The detection threshold is the lowest concentration of an odor that would elicit a response in a percentage of the people that live and work in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site and is typically presented as the mean (or 50 percent of the population). The recognition threshold is the minimum concentration that is recognized as having a characteristic odor quality, this is typically represented by recognition by 50 percent of the population. The intensity refers to the perceived strength of the odor. The odor character is what the substance smells like. The hedonic tone is a judgment of the pleasantness or unpleasantness of the odor. The hedonic tone varies in subjective experience, frequency, odor character, odor intensity, and duration.

Construction-Related Odor Impacts

According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The Proposed Project would consist of the construction of a 37,350-sf industrial building for office, manufacturing, and warehouse uses, with ancillary outdoor storage of approximately 65,574 sf. The Proposed Project would not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors. Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project may generate detectable odors from heavy duty equipment exhaust and architectural coatings. However, construction-related odors would be short-term in nature and cease upon project completion. In addition,


36 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact the Proposed Project would comply with the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485, which minimizes the idling time of construction equipment either by shutting it off when not in use or by reducing the time of idling to no more than five minutes. This would further reduce the detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust. The Proposed Project would also comply with the SCAQMD Regulation XI, Rule 1113 – Architectural Coating, which would minimize odor impacts from ROG emissions during architectural coating. Any impacts to existing adjacent land uses, including the nearest sensitive receptor, would be short-term; therefore, potential impacts associated with odors affecting a substantial number of people would be less than significant.

Potential Operations-Related Odor Impacts

The Proposed Project would consist of the construction of a 37,350-sf industrial building for office, manufacturing, and warehouse uses, with ancillary outdoor storage of approximately 65,574 sf. Off-site improvements include the build out of the Durahart Street cul-de-sac, including curb, gutter, and sidewalk, to City standards. There are no anticipated sources of odors from operation of on-site equipment or vehicles. Trash storage areas could emit odors, however, pursuant to RMC Title 19 – Chapter 19.554 – Trash/Recyclable Materials Collection Area Enclosures, permanent trash enclosures that protect trash bins from rain as well as limit air circulation would be required. Due to the distance of the nearest sensitive receptor of the single-family residence approximately 550 feet to the east of the Project Site and through compliance with City trash storage regulations, potential impacts associated with on-going operational odors would be less than significant.


Source: RMC Title 19 – Chapter 19.554 – Trash/Recyclable Materials Collection Area Enclosures

SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook


37 | P a g e

4) Biological Resources


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

A General and Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment was completed to determine potential impacts to biological resources associated with the development of the Proposed Project (Appendix B - General Biology and Habitat Assessment for Burrowing Owl, Osborne Biological Consulting, October 16, 2018).

Less Than Significant Impact: The Project Site is in an urban built-up area and is surrounded by existing development. The Project Site does not occur near or within a Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Criteria Cell or area designated for MSHCP conservation. There are no MSHCP Reserve Assembly Requirements associated with the Project Site. The Project Site is in an area that required a survey for Burrowing Owl. The Project Site does not contain suitable habitat for Burrowing Owl, and none were observed on site. There is no potential for narrow endemic, rare, or endangered plant species or Federally endangered, threatened, or rare animal species or their habitats. Therefore, potential direct, indirect, or cumulatively considerable impacts associated with federally endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats would be less than significant.


Sources: GP 2025 – Figure OS-6 – Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat (SKR) Core Reserve and Other Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP)

GP 2025 – Figure OS-7 – MSHCP Cores and Linkages

GP 2025 – Figure OS-8 – MSHCP Cell Areas

GP 2025 FPEIR – Figure 5.4-2 – MSHCP Area Plans

GP 2025 FPEIR – Figure 5.4-4 - MSHCP Criteria Cells and Subunit Areas

GP 2025 FPEIR – Figure 5.4-6 – MSHCP Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area

GP 2025 FPEIR – Figure 5.4-7 – MSHCP Criteria Area Species Survey Area

GP 2025 FPEIR – Figure 5.4-8 – MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area

Appendix B – General Biology and Habitat Assessment for Burrowing Owl, Osborne Biological Consulting, October 16, 2018


38 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

Less Than Significant Impact: The Project Site has been previously graded and is located within an urbanized area. The Water Course (WC) overlay designation pertains to a past flood control facility whose function has been replaced by an underground storm drain. According to the City’s Municipal Code, Title 19 – Article VI - Chapter 19.230, the WC overlay is established to clearly identify and designate areas of the City as floodways, stream channels and area that are subject to periodic flooding and accompanying hazards that should be kept free from particular structures or improvements that may endanger life or property or significantly restrict the carrying capacity of the designated floodway or stream channel. No structures or outdoor storage is proposed within the WC Overlay Zone. There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community existing on or within proximity of the Project Site. Generally, the surrounding area has been developed for many years and has a long history of severe disturbance such that there is little chance that any riparian habitat could have persisted. Therefore, potential direct, indirect, or cumulatively considerable impacts associated with riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would be less than significant.










MSHCP Section 6.1.2 – Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools

RMC Title 19 – Article VI – Chapter 19.230 – Water Course Overlay Zone



39 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project is located on a previously graded site within an urbanized area and maintains a Water Course (WC) overlay designation. According to the City’s Municipal Code, Title 19 – Article VI - Chapter 19.230, the WC overlay is established to clearly identify and designate areas of the City as floodways, stream channels and area that are subject to periodic flooding and accompanying hazards that should be kept free from particular structures or improvements that may endanger life or property or significantly restrict the carrying capacity of the designated floodway or stream channel. Field observations and survey of the Project Site were conducted as a part of the Habitat Assessment observed no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community existing on site or within proximity to the Project Site. Generally, the surrounding area has been developed for many years and a long history of severe disturbance exists in the area, such that there is little chance that any riparian habitat could have persisted. Further, no structures or outdoor storage are proposed in any area of the Project Site denoted with the WC Overlay. The Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect, on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means.

Additionally, when a project involves more than five acres of clearing, grading and excavation, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations require permitting from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Project Site is 7.24 acres; therefore, this permit is required because sediment from the construction site can impact natural or artificial watercourses. The Federal Water Pollution Act requires discharges into navigable waters to meet the standards of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The applicant must file a Notice of Intent (NOI) and appropriate fee for construction activities with the State Water Resources Control Board. For projects involving alterations to blue-line streambeds or other bodies of water and/or involving more than one acre of clearing, grading, or excavation, an erosion and sediment control plan is required. This plan can be part of the grading plan and must be approved prior to any building permits being issued. Sediment from construction can block and/or pollute natural streambeds causing some of the flora and fauna to die.

Therefore, potential direct, indirect, or cumulatively considerable impacts associated with federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means would be less than significant.


40 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Source: City of Riverside GIS/CADME USGS Quad Map Layer


Appendix D – Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Cody Ehlers Group, June 29, 2018

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

No Impact: The Proposed Project is within an urbanized area and would not result in a barrier to the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The Project Site is not located within any MSHCP Criteria Cells, Cores, or Linkages. Further, the Project Site is significantly degraded and does not facilitate the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. The Project Site is not used as a migratory wildlife corridor, nor does it qualify for use as a native wildlife nursery site. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impacts associated with movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.


Source: Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (2003)




e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

Less Than Significant Impact: Implementation of the proposed Project is subject to all applicable Federal, State, and local policies and regulations related to the protection of biological resources and tree preservation. In addition, the Proposed Project is required to comply with Riverside Municipal Code Section


41 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact 16.72.040 establishing the MSHCP mitigation fee and Section 16.40.040 establishing the Threatened and Endangered Species Fees.

Any project within the City of Riverside’s boundaries that proposes planting a street tree within a City right-of-way must follow the Urban Forest Tree Policy Manual. The Manual documents guidelines for the planting, pruning, preservation, and removal of all trees in City rights-of-way. The specifications in the Manual are based on national standards for tree care established by the International Society of Arboriculture, the National Arborists Association, and the American National Standards Institute. Any future project would follow the Tree Policy Manual when planting a tree within a City right-of-way. Therefore, potential impacts associated with the conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources would be less than significant.



RMC Title 16 – Chapter 16 – Section 16.72.040 – Establishing the Western Riverside County MSHCP Mitigation Fee

RMC Title 16 – Chapter 16 – Section 16.40.040 – Establishing a Threatened and Endangered Species Fees

City of Riverside Urban Forest Tree Policy Manual

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

Less Than Significant Impact: The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, known as the MSHCP, is a comprehensive plan designed to integrate the protection and preservation of important biological resources with ongoing regional development. The Project Site does not occur near or within a MSHCP Criteria Cell or area designated for MSHCP conservation. There are no MSHCP Reserve Assembly Requirements associated with the Project Site. The Assessment found no potential for narrow endemic, rare, or endangered plant species. The proposed site improvements are consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations of the vacant site. The Proposed Project is consistent with the guidelines of MSHCP, including Section 6.1.4, Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlife Interface and related policies in the General Plan 2025, including Policy LU-7.4. As well, the Proposed Project is consistent with the SKR HCP and with General Plan Policy OS-5.3, which all designate the Project Site as not a part of environmentally sensitive areas and/or as urbanized/disturbed lands. Therefore, potential direct, indirect, or cumulatively considerable impacts associated with the conflict with provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan would be less than significant.


42 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No



GP 2025 – Figure OS-6 – Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat (SKR) Core Reserve and Other Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP)


43 | P a g e

5) Cultural Resources


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines?

Less Than Significant Impact: An Archaeological and Paleontological Records Search and NAHC List Memorandum was prepared by VCS Environmental for the Project Site. The Memorandum identifies that the Project Site has previously been developed dating as far back as 1959. The prior use on the Project Site was a paint manufacturing plant. The Proposed Project is located on a site where no historic resources exist as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines because the Project Site currently is a vacant lot, previously developed within an urbanized area. Therefore, potential direct, indirect, or cumulatively considerable impacts associated with historical resources would be less than significant.


Source: GP 2025 FPEIR – Table 5.5-A – Historical Districts and Neighborhood Conservation Areas

GP 2025 FPEIR Appendix D – Cultural Resources Study

RMC Title 20 – Cultural Resources

Appendix C – Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Dixieline Lumber Yard Project, VCS Environmental, September 19, 2019 (Revised November 14, 2019)

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines?

Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment was prepared by VCS Environmental on September 19, 2019 (Revised November 14, 2019) for the Project Site. No cultural resources were identified on the Project Site as a result of the project surveys, however, due to the proximity to the Santa Ana River floodplain and the potential for resources in the vicinity of the river, as well as the general cultural sensitivity of the area, there remains the potential for buried resources to be present on the Project Site, which would require the Property Owner/Developer to retain an on-call archaeologist and paleontologist as reflected in MM CUL 2. Additionally, as a result of consultation with Native American tribal agencies in accordance with AB52, as further discussed in Section 18 – Tribal Cultural Resources, the City has agreed to implement MM CUL 1, MM CUL 2, MM CUL 3, and MM CUL 4.

With implementation of MM CUL 1 through MM CUL 4, potential direct, indirect, or cumulatively considerable impacts associated with archeological resources would be less than significant.


44 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

Mitigation Measures:

MM CUL 1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, if there are any changes to project site design and/or proposed grades, the Property Owner/Developer and the City shall contact consulting tribes to provide an electronic copy of the revised plans for review. Additional consultation shall occur between the City, Property Owner/Developer, and consulting tribes to discuss any proposed changes and review any new impacts and/or potential avoidance/preservation of the cultural resources on the project site. The City and the Property Owner/Developer shall make all attempts to avoid and/or preserve in place as many cultural and paleontological resources as possible that are located on the project site if the site design and/or proposed grades should be revised. In the event of inadvertent discoveries of archaeological resources, work shall temporarily halt until agreements are executed with consulting tribe, to provide tribal monitoring for ground disturbing activities.

MM CUL 2: On call Project Archaeologist: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall provide a letter from a County certified Archaeologist stating that the Property Owner/Developer has retained such individual, and that the Archaeologist shall be on call during all grading and other significant ground-disturbing activities in native sediments.

MM CUL 3: Treatment and Disposition of Cultural Resources: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall include the following note on the plans: In the event that Native American archaeological cultural resources are inadvertently discovered during the course of grading for this project, the following procedures will be carried out for treatment and disposition of the discoveries:

1. Consulting Tribes and On Call Project Archaeologist Notified: Within 24 hours of

discovery, the Property Owner/Developer shall notify the City, the on-call Project Archaeologist, and the consulting tribe(s) via email and phone. Consulting tribe(s) will be allowed access to the discovery, in order to assist with the significance evaluation. The Property Owner/Developer shall provide the City with evidence of an established monitoring agreement between the Property Owner/Developer and the consulting tribe(s), prior the recommencement of work.

2. Temporary Curation and Storage: During the course of construction, all discovered resources shall be temporarily curated in a secure location on site or at the offices of the project archaeologist. The removal of any artifacts from the project site will need to be thoroughly inventoried with tribal monitor oversight of the process; and

3. Treatment and Final Disposition: The Property Owner shall relinquish ownership of

all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods, and all archaeological artifacts and non-human remains as part of the required mitigation for impacts to


45 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact cultural resources. The Property Owner shall relinquish the artifacts through one or more of the following methods and provide the City of Riverside Community and Economic Development Department with evidence of same:

a. Accommodate the process for on-site reburial of the discovered items with the consulting Native American tribes or bands. This shall include measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts. Reburial shall not occur until all cataloguing and basic recordation have been completed;

b. A curation agreement with an appropriate qualified repository within Riverside County that meets federal standards per 36 CFR Part 79 and therefore will be professionally curated and made available to other archaeologists/researchers for further study. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to an appropriate curation facility within Riverside County, to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation;

c. If more than one Native American tribe or band is involved with the project

and cannot come to a consensus as to the disposition of cultural materials, they shall be curated at the Western Science Center or Riverside Metropolitan Museum by default; and

d. At the completion of grading, excavation, and ground-disturbing activities on the site, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit a Phase IV Monitoring Report to the City documenting monitoring activities conducted by the project archaeologist and Native Tribal Monitors within 60 days of completion of grading. This report shall document the impacts to the known resources on the property; describe how each mitigation measure was fulfilled; document the type of cultural resources recovered and the disposition of such resources; provide evidence of the required cultural sensitivity training for the construction staff held during the required pre-grade meeting; and, in a confidential appendix, include the daily/weekly monitoring notes from the archaeologist. All reports produced will be submitted to the City of Riverside, Eastern Information Center, and interested tribes.

MM CUL 4: Cultural Sensitivity Training: Prior to ground disturbing activities, the Property Owner/Developer shall conduct Cultural Sensitivity Training for all construction personnel. The pre-grading meeting shall be led by a Secretary of Interior Standards and County-certified archaeologist and a Native American representative. The training shall include the procedures to be followed during ground disturbance in sensitive areas and protocols that apply in the event that unanticipated resources are


46 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact discovered. Only construction personnel who have received this training can conduct construction and disturbance activities in sensitive areas. A sign-in sheet for attendees of this training shall be included in the Phase IV Monitoring Report.

Source: GP 2025 FPEIR – Figure 5.5-1 - Archaeological Sensitivity

GP 2025 FPEIR – Figure 5.5-2 - Prehistoric Cultural Resources Sensitivity


Appendix C – Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Dixieline Lumber Yard Project, VCS Environmental, September 19, 2019 (Revised October 31, 2019)

c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Less Than Significant Impact. Where construction is proposed in undeveloped areas, disturbance on vacant lands could have the potential to disturb or destroy buried Native American human remains as well as other human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. In the unexpected event human remains are found, those remains would require proper treatment, in accordance with applicable laws. Procedures of conduct following the discovery of human remains on non-federal lands have been mandated by California Health and Safety Code (CHSC) §7050.5, PRC §5097.98 and the California Code of Regulations (CCR) §15064.5(e). According the provisions in CEQA, should human remains be encountered, all work in the immediate vicinity of the burial must cease, and any necessary steps to ensure the integrity of the immediate area must be taken. The Construction Contractor shall notify the County Coroner of the find immediately and no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has decided origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98 (State of California 2006). If human remains are found during grading, all work in the immediate area (a radius of at least 100 feet) shall stop, and all parties shall follow all applicable state laws regarding human remains. If the remains are Native American, the coroner is responsible for contacting the NAHC within 24 hours. The NAHC, pursuant to Section 5097.98, shall immediately notify those persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the Project Site within 48 hours of being allowed access to the Project Site and shall recommend preservation in place, reburial, or the scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. With compliance with existing regulations and procedures outlined in the CHSC and the CCR, potential impacts associated with disturbance of human remains would be less than significant.

Source: GP 2025 FPEIR – Figure 5.5-1 - Archaeological Sensitivity

GP 2025 FPEIR – Figure 5.5-2 - Prehistoric Cultural Resources Sensitivity


47 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact GP 2025 FPEIR Appendix D – Cultural Resources Study

Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Dixieline Lumber Yard Project, VCS Environmental, September 19, 2019 (Revised October 31, 2019)


48 | P a g e

6) Energy


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?

No Impact: The Property Owner/Developer would comply with all applicable regulations related to construction and operation of the Proposed Project, including RMC Title 16 – Chapter 16.07 – Green Code that refers to the California Green Building Standards Code of the 2016 Edition of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, which regulates the planning, design, operation, use and occupancy of every newly constructed building or structure. Therefore, no potential impacts associated with wasteful energy use during construction or operation.


Source: RMC Title 16 – Chapter 16.07 – Green Code

b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?

No Impact: The Property Owner/Developer would comply with the City of Riverside Building Code, which is consistent with the State of California Energy Commission 2016 Building Energy Efficient Standards for Non-Residential Buildings. Therefore, no potential impacts associated with obstructing a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency would occur


Source: https://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/

RMC Title 16 – Building Code

https://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/


49 | P a g e

7) Geology and Soils


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Less Than Significant Impact: Seismic activity is to be expected in Southern California. In the City of Riverside, there are no Alquist-Priolo zones. The Project Site does not contain any known fault lines and the potential for fault rupture or seismic shaking is low. The Proposed Project would be required to comply with California Building Code regulations. Therefore, potential impacts associated with people or structures from a surface rupture would be less than significant.


Source: GP 2025 – Figure PS-1 – Regional Fault Zones

GP 2025 FPEIR Appendix E – Geotechnical Report


California Building Code

ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?

Less Than Significant Impact: The San Jacinto Fault Zone located in the northeastern portion of the City, or the Elsinore Fault Zone, located in the southern portion of the City’s Sphere of Influence, have the potential to cause moderate to large earthquakes that would cause intense ground shaking. The Proposed Project would comply with California Building Code regulations. Therefore, potential impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.


Source: GP 2025 FPEIR Appendix E – Geotechnical Report




50 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

Less Than Significant Impact: Liquefaction is the phenomenon in which loosely deposited soils located within the water table undergo rapid loss of shear strength due to excess pore pressure generation when subjected to strong earthquake induced ground shaking. Liquefaction is known generally to occur in saturated or near-saturated cohesion- less soil at depths shallower than 50-feet below the ground surface. According to the GP 2025 Figure PS-2 – Liquefaction Zones Map, the Project Site is in an area with a low to moderate risk potential for liquefaction. Through compliance with the California Building Code and implementation of standard engineering and construction protocols, impacts associated with seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, would be less than significant.



GP 2025 – Figure PS-2 – Liquefaction Zones

GP 2025 FPEIR – Figure PS-3 – Soils with High Shrink-Swell Potential

GP 2025 FPEIR Appendix E – Geotechnical Report



iv. Landslides?

No Impact: The GP 2025 Public Safety Element states that steep topography, fractured and consolidated bedrock conditions, and expansive soils make many hillside areas unstable. Portions of the City susceptible to landslides and rockfalls include areas in the west and northeast, whereas the Project Site and its surroundings have generally flat topography and are not located in an area prone to landslides per Figure 3 - Areas Underlain by Steep Slopes of Appendix E. Therefore, no potential direct, indirect, or cumulatively considerable impacts associated with landslides would occur.


Source: GP 2025 FPEIR – Appendix E – Geotechnical Report – Figure 3 – Areas Underlain by Steep Slopes

RMC Title 18 – Subdivision Code

RMC Title 17 – Grading Code

Storm Water Quality Management Plan, 2012


51 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

Less Than Significant Impact: Erosion and loss of topsoil could occur as a result of the Proposed Project. State and Federal requirements call for the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) establishing erosion and sediment controls for construction activities. The Proposed Project must also comply with NPDES regulations. In addition, with the erosion control standards for which all development activity must comply (Title 18), the Grading Code (Title 17) also requires the implementation of measures designed to minimize soil erosion. The Proposed Project would be required to comply with State and Federal requirements as well as with Titles 18 and 17. Therefore, potential impacts associated with soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be less than significant.


Source: GP 2025 FPEIR – Figure 5.6-1 – Areas Underlain by Steep Slope

GP 2025 FPEIR – Figure 5.6-4 – Soils

GP 2025 FPEIR – Table 5.6-B – Soil Types



Storm Water Quality Management Plan, 2012

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

Less Than Significant Impact: The general topography of the subject site is flat, with no significant slopes or steep topography, as shown in Figure 3 - Areas Underlain by Steep Slopes of Appendix E of the GP 2025 FPEIR. Therefore, potential impacts regarding on- or offsite- occurrence of landslides would be less than significant.

Adherence to the City’s Grading and Subdivision Codes as well as the California Building Code in the design of the Proposed Project will prevent lateral spreading, liquefaction, and collapse. The Proposed Project would be required to comply with the City’s existing codes and the policies contained in the General Plan 2025. Therefore, potential impacts related to unstable geologic conditions would be less than significant.



GP 2025 - Figure PS-2 – Liquefaction Zones


52 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact GP 2025 FPEIR – Figure PS-3 – Soils with High Shrink-Swell Potential

GP 2025 FPEIR – Figure 5.6-4 – Soils, Table 5.6-B – Soil Types

GP 2025 FPEIR – Appendix E – Geotechnical Report - Figure 3 - Areas Underlain by Steep Slopes

Conceptual Grading Plan




d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?

Less Than Significant Impact: Expansive soil is defined under California Building Code. The soil type of the subject site are Arlington and Hanford (GP 2025 FPEIR Figure 5.64 – Soils) Based on Table 5.6-B – Soil Types, these two soil types have low to moderate and low shrink swell potential. The Proposed Project would be required to comply with applicable provisions of the City’s Subdivision Code- Title 18 and the California Building Code regarding soil hazards related to the expansive soils. Therefore, potential impacts associated with expansive soils would be less than significant.


Source: GP 2025 FPEIR – Figure 5.6-4 – Soils

GP 2025 FPEIR – Table 5.6-B – Soil Types

GP 2025 FPEIR – Figure 5.6-5 – Soils with High Shrink-Swell Potential

GP 2025 FPEIR – Appendix E – Geotechnical Report




e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

No Impact: The Proposed Project would be served by sewer infrastructure. Therefore, no impact associated with septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems would occur.


53 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No


Source: GP 2025 FPEIR – Figure 5.6-4 – Soils

GP 2025 FPEIR – Table 5.6-B – Soil

f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: Activities including construction-related and earth-disturbing actions could damage or destroy fossils in rock units. As with archaeological resources, paleontological resources are generally considered to be historical resources, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3)(D). Consequently, damage or destruction to these resources could cause a significant impact. A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment was prepared by VCS Environmental on September 19, 2019 (Revised October 31, 2019) for the Project Site. The paleontological records search revealed that, while there were no fossil localities on the Project Site, there are fossils recorded nearby from similar sedimentary deposits as those on the Project Site. Surficial deposits at the surface in the Project Site consist of Quaternary alluvial fan deposits that are not paleontologically sensitive; however, excavations into the deeper, finer grained older Quaternary Alluvium may encounter significant vertebrate fossils. In order to mitigate a potentially significant impact, these deeper excavations should be monitored by a qualified paleontologist to identify and recover any significant fossil remains. The precise depth of these sensitive sediments is not known, and it can be difficult to differentiate the sediments. Therefore, the proposed measure includes an estimated depth of ground disturbance greater than three to five feet that may vary across the Project Site. Sediment samples should be recovered to determine the small-fossil potential of the Project Site. Therefore, with implementation of MM GEO 1, potential impacts associated with a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature would be less than significant.


MM GEO 1: Prior to the issuance of grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit to the City of Riverside Planning Division evidence that a qualified paleontologist has been retained for monitoring of all ground-disturbing activities occurring at a depth of approximately three to five feet or greater below ground surface or wherever the finer-grained, older Quaternary Alluvial deposits that are mapped at the site are excavated. If no grading, excavation, and/or ground disturbing activities on the Project site occur in the finer-grained, older Quaternary Alluvium, then the Property Owner/Developer shall not be required to retain a qualified paleontological monitor prior to the issuance of a grading permit(s). The Property Owner/Developer shall include a note on the Grading Plans that if paleontological resources are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities associated with the Proposed Project, the Contractor shall cease all earth-disturbing activities within 50 feet of the discovery while construction activities may continue in other areas. The paleontologist shall collect and process sediment samples as necessary to determine the small fossil potential on the Project site. The paleontologist shall evaluate the resource and determine if the discovery is significant. If the discovery proves to be significant, additional work such as salvage excavation


54 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact and recovery may be warranted and shall be discussed in consultation with the appropriate regulatory agency. Any significant fossils recovered during mitigation should be deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific institution for the benefit of current and future generations.

Source: Appendix C – Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Dixieline Lumber Yard Project, VCS Environmental, September 19, 2019 (Revised October 31, 2019)


55 | P a g e

8) Greenhouse Gas Emissions


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

Less Than Significant Impact: The City of Riverside has adopted the Riverside Restorative Growth Print, including the Climate Action Plan (RRG-CAP). The City implements policies and measures outlined in the RGG-CAP to achieve GHG reduction goals required by AB 32. The California Building Code (Title 24) includes CalGreen requirements that also incorporate statewide GHG reduction goals. The SCAQMD’s Tier 3 thresholds used the Executive Order S-3-05 goal as the basis for deriving the screening level. The California Governor issued Executive Order S-3-05, GHG Emission, in June 2005, which established the following targets:

• 2010: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels • 2020: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels • 2050: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

Atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHG) trap infrared radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface which otherwise would have escaped into the atmosphere. Prominent greenhouse gases contributing to this process include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone, water vapor, nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). This phenomenon, known as the Greenhouse Effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate. Anthropogenic (caused or produced by humans) emissions of these greenhouse gases in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for the enhancement of the Greenhouse Effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the Earth’s natural climate, known as global warming or climate change. Emissions of gases that induce global warming are attributable to human activities associated with industrial/manufacturing, agriculture, utilities, transportation, and residential land uses. Transportation is responsible for 41 percent of the State’s greenhouse gas emissions, followed by electricity generation. Emissions of CO2 and nitrous oxide (NOx) are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, results from off gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Sinks of CO2, where CO2 is stored outside of the atmosphere, include uptake by vegetation and dissolution into the ocean.

Greenhouse Gas emissions resulting from the Proposed Project would be below the threshold for compliance with Executive Order S-3-05, and in compliance with the goals of AB 32 and the City’s RRG-CAP. The Proposed Project would be below current interim emissions targets/thresholds established by SCAQMD. The Proposed Project would meet the reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 mandated by SB-32.

The SCAQMD GHG emissions threshold for industrial uses is 10,000 MTCO2E per year. As shown in Table 4 – Project Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Proposed Project would result in 983.6217 MTCO2e per year.


56 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

Table 4 – Project Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Category Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons/Year)1 Bio CO2 NonBioCO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Area2 0.0000 9.3000e- 004

9.3000e- 004

0.0000 0.0000 9.9000e- 004

Energy3 0.0000 292.7132 292.7132 6.2300e- 003

2.2200e- 003

293.5301

Mobile4 0.0000 378.2246 378.2246 0.0187 0.0000 378.6918 Waste5 9.4005 0.0000 9.4005 0.5556 0.0000 23.2894 Water6 2.7402 67.6256 70.2658 0.2829 6.9500e-

003 79.5104

Construction 0.0000 197.30 197.30 0.06 0.0000 198.70 Total 12.1407 945.1634 957.2014 7.1472 9.1700e-

006 983.6217

Table Notes (1) Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 (2) Area source consist of GHG emissions from consumer products, architectural coating, and landscape equipment. (3) Energy usage consist of GHG emissions from electricity and natural gas usage. (4) Mobile sources consist of GHG emissions from vehicles. (5) Solid waste includes the CO 2 and CH4 emissions created from the solid waste placed in landfills. (6) Water includes GHG emissions from electricity used for transport of water and processing of wastewater.

The Proposed Project would comply with the reduction goals of the City of Riverside Draft CAP, AB-32, and SB-32 by adhering to applicable policies, goals and guidelines for GHG. AB 32 enacted in 2006 mandates that CARB develop a framework and the associated regulations to limit the GHG emissions in California to 1990 levels by the year 2020. Neither the SCAQMD nor City of Riverside have drafted a quantitative significance threshold for GHG. Several local policies and programs have been enacted to reduce GHG emissions such as Sustainable Riverside, Tree Power, and UCR IntelliShare Program. The Proposed Project would comply with applicable Green Building Standards and City of Riverside’s policies regarding sustainability (Title 16 Chapter 17.07.020). The Proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Therefore, potential impacts associated with direct or indirect greenhouse gas emissions would be less than significant.


Source: Appendix A - Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report Dixieline Lumber Project, Sagecrest Planning+Environmental, July 2019 (Revised September 2019, November 2019)


57 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

b) b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Less Than Significant Impact: The SCAQMD supports State, Federal and international policies to reduce levels of ozone depleting gases through its Global Warming Policy and rules and has established an interim Greenhouse Gas (GHG) threshold. The Proposed Project would comply with the City’s General Plan policies and State Building Code provisions designed to reduce GHG emissions. In addition, the Proposed Project would comply with all applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations during construction and would not interfere with the State’s goals of reducing GHG emission to 1990 levels by the year 2020 (AB 32) and an 80 percent reduction in GHG emissions below 1990 levels by 2050 (Executive Order S-3-05).

The City adopted its Riverside Restorative Growth Print (RRG) Economic Prosperity Action Plan (RRGEPAP) and Climate Action Plan (RRGCAP) in January 2016. The City of Riverside is a participant in the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Sub-regional Climate Action Plan (CAP) Project, whereby Riverside and 11 additional local jurisdictions prepared baseline inventories to quantify GHG emissions from community contributors and government operations. The City of Riverside is one of 10 of the 12 participating jurisdictions within the WRCOG subregion that chose 2010 as the inventory base year.

The local Riverside Climate Action Plan (CAP), while consistent with the WRCOG sub-regional CAP, is customized to meet the specific needs of the City and designed to be integrated with the many planning projects that are currently underway in the City. In order to show a more comprehensive and locally-focused picture of the City’s emissions profile, the local CAP uses 2007 as the baseline emissions year, which recognizes important accomplishments the City has already taken to reduce communitywide GHG emissions. Most notably, the City has shifted from coal-generated electricity to renewable sources, and it ensures that those accomplishments are accounted for in assessing progress toward future goals.

In 2006, the California State Legislature adopted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires CARB to adopt rules and regulations that would achieve GHG emissions equivalent to statewide levels in 1990 by 2020, which through an enforceable statewide emission cap, was phased in starting in 2012. In addition, the City of Riverside General Plan Air Quality Element outlines specific objectives related to GHG. The Air Quality Element of the City of Riverside General Plan includes the following objectives:

• Objective AQ1: Adopt land use policies that site polluting facilities away from sensitive receptors and vice versa; improve job housing balance; reduce vehicle miles traveled and length of work trips; and improve the flow of traffic.

• Objective AQ2: Reduce air pollution by reducing emissions from mobile sources. • Objective AQ3: Prevent and reduce pollution from stationary sources, including point sources (such

as power plants and refinery boilers) and area sources (including small emission sources such as residential water heaters and architectural coatings).


58 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact • Objective AQ4: Reduce particulate matter, as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), as either airborne photochemical precipitates or windborne dust. • Objective AQ5: Increase energy efficiency and conservation in an effort to reduce air pollution. • Objective AQ6: Develop a public education program committed to educating the general public on

the issues of air pollution and mitigation measures that can be undertaken by businesses and residents to improve air quality.

• Objective AQ7: Support a regional approach to improving air quality through multijurisdictional cooperation.

• Objective AQ8: Make sustainability and global warming education a priority for the City’s effort to protect public health and achieve state and federal clean air standards.

The Proposed Project would be consistent with the Air Quality Element of the City of Riverside General Plan objectives AQ1-AQ8 through compliance with the WRCOG CAP. The Proposed Project's GHG emissions of 983.6217 MTCO2e per year do not exceed the SCAQMD industrial threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e per year and complies with the reduction goals of the City of Riverside Draft CAP and AB32. Furthermore, the Proposed Project would comply with applicable Green Building Standards and City of Riverside’s policies regarding sustainability.

Therefore, potential direct, indirect, or cumulatively considerable impacts associated with conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation related to the reduction in the emissions of GHG would be less than significant.


Source: Appendix A - Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report Dixieline Lumber Project, Sagecrest Planning+Environmental, July 2019 (Revised September 2019, November 2019)

GP 2025 – Air Quality Element


59 | P a g e

9) Hazards and Hazardous Materials


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project entails construction of a 37,350-sf industrial building for office, manufacturing, and warehouse uses, with ancillary outdoor storage of approximately 65,574 sf. The Proposed Project also entails the construction of the cul-de-sac located at the end of Durahart Street. The industrial-manufacturing use of lumber trusses in and of itself would not pose a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. However, the construction facilitated by this development has the potential to create a hazard to the public or environment through the routine transportation, use and disposal of construction related hazardous materials as the Proposed Project would include the delivery and disposal of hazardous materials such as fuels, oils, solvents, and other materials. These materials are typical of materials delivered to construction sites.

The proposed outdoor storage is for the storing of raw and finished products (e.g. lumber, and finished trusses) associated with the industrial manufacturing use and would typically include the incidental storage and use of hazardous materials such as fuels, oils, solvents, electronic waste, and other materials. These materials would be stored on site in small quantities, and therefore would not pose a significant threat to the public. The Proposed Project Transport of products and materials would require semi-truck transportation to and from the Project Site. Any potential materials transported to and from the Project Site by the proposed use are subject to the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Office of Hazardous Materials Safety strict regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials, as described in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and implemented by Title 13 of the CCR. Therefore, potential impacts associated with the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant.


Source: GP 2025 – Public Safety Element

GP 2025 FPEIR

California Health and Safety Code

Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations


Riverside Operational Area – Multi-Jurisdictional LHMP, 2018



60 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

Less Than Significant Impact: A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was completed for the Project Site on June 29, 2018. The Project Site consisted of vacant land at the time of the Phase I ESA (Appendix D), with a small section of asphalt-paved road installed to access a now-inactive soil vapor extraction system (SVE). The SVE was used in the remediation of the soil impacted by historical releases from underground storage tanks (USTs). Small debris piles and evidence of former paint operations were observed during the ESA as well. The historical use of the Project Site involved agricultural purposes between 1952-53, and then involved the development of the property and manufacturing of paint in 1953. The paint manufacturing use was operated until 1999, and the development demolished in 2000. The Project Site was restricted to the operation of remediation-related activities to address contamination in soil from former paint manufacturing operations from 2000 to 2016. Remediation efforts undertaken include action related to the former UST raw materials storage area; solvent reclamation area located in the northwest corner of the Project Site; and suspected paint waste dumping area in the northern center of the Project Site.

USTs:

Six USTs were used to store solvents and resins used in formulating paint. The USTs are in the center of the Site by the rail spur. The tanks were in use from the early 1950s until they were taken out of service in 1983. The USTs were closed in-place in 1986. Following initial assessment and remedial actions in the 1986-1997 timeframe, the RWQCB issued a “No Further Action” (NFA) letter for the UST cleanup on June 17, 1997. On May 2, 2018, RWQCB confirmed that the case related to the USTs is still considered closed; however, NFA letters are subject to reopeners based on new discovered or change in land use. The Proposed Project does not involve a change in land use, therefore, the NFA letter would be subject to reopening based on any new discovery. Remedial action on site resulted in a reduction in petroleum-related volatile organic compounds in soil to a 100-foot depth. Therefore, soil conditions from grade to 100-feet deep do not pose a potentially significant threat to public health. Therefore, potential impacts associated with grading, excavation, and/or ground disturbing activities would be less than significant.

Solvent Reclamation Area:

The solvent reclamation area contained a still to recover usable spent solvents from the paint mixing process. Wastes no longer recoverable were drummed and stored in the former hazardous waste storage areas for eventual off-site disposal. In 1999, evidence of stained and “odorous soil” was discovered in the solvent reclamation area, which resulted in a total of 150 tons of soil removal from the solvent reclamation area. In 2015, soil and soil vapor sampling were conducted and concluded that the solvent reclamation area had been adequately addressed. Therefore, potential impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Proposed Project would be less than significant.


61 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact Paint Waste Dumping Area:

In 2000, the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health identified the possible presence of a waste disposal pit. In 2015, this area was assessed with the principal focus on the presence of metals from paint wastes in the uppermost soil. During this task, field evidence noted demolition debris, paint wastes, discoloration, etc., in the soil. Paint wastes containing lead and hexavalent chromium in a soil layer at approximately 1.5-2.9 feet thick were observed. Other soil samples analyzed for metals produced detections of chromium, lead, cadmium, copper, all indicative of pigment wastes. In 2016, excavation was conducted of metals-containing soils to approximately 4-feet deep along an approximately 320-foot section by the northern property line. Additionally, shallow soil vapor probes were installed north of the spur near the former paint filling room (in the now demolished main building) and north of the spur end by the former septic system. No VOCs were detected at or above a harmful level. Therefore, potential impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Proposed Project would be less than significant.

Furthermore, the Proposed Project may involve the use of hazardous materials but shall comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations pertaining to the transport, use, disposal, handling, and storage of hazardous waste, including but not limited to Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations implemented by Title 13 of the CCR, which describes strict regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials. Compliance with all applicable Federal, State and local laws related to the transportation, use and storage of hazardous materials would reduce the likelihood and severity of accidents during transit, use and storage to a less than significant impact directly, indirectly and cumulatively. The Proposed Project would be required to comply with existing regulations to ensure the public would not be exposed to any unusual or excessive risks related to hazardous materials as a result of the Proposed Project. Therefore, potential impacts associated with the upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be less than significant.



GP 2025 FPEIR – Tables 5.7 A – D




Riverside Fire Department – Emergency Operations Plan, 2002

Riverside Operational Area – Multi-Jurisdictional LHMP, 2018



62 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

Less Than Significant Impact: The nearest school facility to the Project Site is the Springs Charter School Riverside Student Center, located .19 miles (1,000 feet) southeast. There are no other school sites located within one-quarter mile of the Project Site. Section 9(b) includes a discussion of hazardous emissions and hazardous materials, substances, or waste associated with the Proposed Project.

Hazardous materials and waste generated from the proposed construction of an industrial building for office, manufacturing, warehouse uses, with ancillary outdoor storage and construction of the cul-de-sac located at the end of Durahart Street, such as fuels, oils, solvents, electronic waste, and other materials may pose a health risk to nearby existing or proposed schools; however, all businesses that handle or have on-site transportation of hazardous materials are required to comply with the provisions of the City’s Fire Code and any additional regulations as required in the California Health and Safety Code Article 1 Chapter 6.95 for the Business Emergency Plan. Therefore, with compliance with existing local, State and Federal regulations, potential impacts associated with hazardous emissions and/or the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school would be less than significant.



GP 2025 – Education Element

GP 2025 FPEIR – Table 5.7-D – CalARP RMP Facilities in the Project Area

GP 2025 FPEIR – Figure 5.13-2 – RUSD Boundaries

GP 2025 FPEIR – Table 5.13-D – RUSD Schools

GP 2025 FPEIR – Figure 5.13-4 – Other School District Boundaries






63 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

No Impact: A review of hazardous materials site lists compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, known as Cortese List, found that the Project Site is not included on any such lists. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impacts associated with creating any significant hazard to the public or environment.


Source: GP 2025 – Figure PS-5 – Hazardous Waste Sites

GP 2025 FPEIR – Table 5.7-A – CERCLIS Facility Information

GP 2025 FPEIR – Figure 5.7-B – Regulated Facilities in TRI Information

GP 2025 FPEIR – Table 5.7-C – DTSC EnviroStor Database Listed Sites

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?

Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project is located within Airport Compatibility Zone E as depicted on Map MA-1 of the March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (MARB), adopted November 13, 2014. Airport Compatibility Zone E is the least restrictive zone classification within the plan and is considered as “other airport environs” with no limit on residential development, other use types, and no requirement for open land. Airport Compatibility Zone E only prohibits hazards to flight, which include, but are not limited to, tall objects, and visual and electronic forms of interference. The Proposed Project involves the construction of a 24’-3” industrial building for office, manufacturing, warehouse uses, with ancillary outdoor storage and construction of the cul-de-sac located at the end of Durahart Street. There are no objects proposed that are greater than the allowed height permitted by the Industrial zoning designation. The Proposed Project was reviewed by City planning staff to ensure that the Proposed Project is consistent with the compatibility zone as well as in compliance with the land use standards in the March Air Reserve Base/March Inland Port Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Proposed Project would be consistent with the March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Therefore, potential impacts associated with hazards and noise from airports would be less than significant.


64 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No


Source: GP 2025 – Figure PS-6 – Airport Safety Zones and Influence Areas

Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, 2004

March Air Reserve Base/March Inland Port Comprehensive Land Use Plan, 1999

Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Study for March Air Reserve Base, 2005

f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project would be served by existing, fully improved streets, including arterials (Chicago Avenue, Spruce Street, and Third Street) and collectors (Kansas Avenue), as well as a local street (Massachusetts Avenue). All streets have been designed to meet the Public Works and Fire Departments’ specifications. The Proposed Project proposes to take access off Durahart Street, which requires construction of the cul-de-sac at the end of Durahart Street. The Proposed Project would entail the construction of the cul-de-sac be built to City standards, which would meet the Public Works and Fire Departments’ specifications. As part of the Proposed Project’s construction, a temporary street closing would be necessary. Any street closing would be of short duration so as not to interfere or impede with any emergency response or evacuation plan. Furthermore, any street closure, such as what would be required for the cul-de-sac improvement, is subject to a Street Opening Permit through the Public Works Department to ensure no adverse impacts occur as a result of the temporary street closure. Therefore, potential impacts associated with an emergency response or evacuation plan would be less than significant.


Source: GP 2025 FPEIR – Chapter 7.5.7 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials

City of Riverside’s Emergency Operations Plan, 2002

Riverside Operational Area – Multi-Jurisdictional LHMP – Part 1, 2018

g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?

No Impact: The Proposed Project is in an urbanized area where no wildlands exist, and the property is not located within a Very High Fire Severity Zone (VHFSZ) or adjacent to wildland areas or a VHFSZ. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impacts associated with wildland fires either directly, indirectly or cumulatively.



65 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact Source: GP 2025 – Figure PS-7 – Fire Hazard Areas

Riverside Operational Area – Multi-Jurisdictional LHMP – Part 1/Part 2, 2018


66 | P a g e

10) Hydrology and Water Quality


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?

Less Than Significant Impact: The City requires that each individual development project comply with existing State Water Quality Control Board and City stormwater regulations, including compliance with NPDES requirements related to construction and operation measures to prevent erosion, siltation and transport of urban pollutants. The Santa Ana Drainage Area Management Plan provides a selection of Best Management Practices (BMPs), as required by NPDES. All new developments will undergo individual City review and would be required to comply with the RWQCB NPDES Permit No. CAG998001, which sets forth BMPs for new development and redevelopment projects. These regulations and permits were designed to protect the beneficial uses of receiving waters. All individual projects implemented under the General Plan would be required to comply with applicable Federal, State, and local water quality regulations. Currently, the City of Riverside follows State standards for water quality and does not have their own specific standards. During construction, projects would be required to obtain coverage under the State’s General Permit for Construction Activities that is administered by the Santa Ana RWQCB. Storm water management measures would be required to be identified and implemented that will effectively control erosion and sedimentation and other construction-related pollutants during construction.

The Proposed Project involves the construction of a 37,350-sf industrial building for office, manufacturing, and warehouse uses, with ancillary outdoor storage of approximately 65,574 sf, on a 7.24-acre site. The Proposed Project also entails the construction of the cul-de-sac located at the end of Durahart Street. A preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) (Appendix E) has been submitted and reviewed by the Public Works Department. The Property Owner/Developer must implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as the Proposed Project involves more than one acre of ground disturbance. The SWPPP must identify potential onsite pollutants, identify and implement an effective combination of erosion control and sediment control measures to reduce or eliminate discharge of pollutants to surface water from storm water and non-storm water discharges. Best management practices (BMPs) described in the SWPPP must meet the Best Available Technology and Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BAT/BCT) performance standard.

The preliminary WQMP states the volume and time of concentration of storm water runoff for the post-development conditions of the Project Site are not significantly different from the pre-development conditions of the Project Site, therefore resulting in a less than significant change. Urban runoff is currently and will continue to be conveyed by local drainage facilities developed throughout the City to regional drainage facilities, which are regularly maintained to ensure design flow capacity, and then ultimately to the receiving waters.

To address potential water contaminants, the Proposed Project is required to comply with applicable Federal, State, and local water quality regulations. There are no sensitive stream habitat areas that would


67 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact be adversely affected by the Proposed Project. Groundwater was not encountered within 20-feet from the existing grade surface and would not be adversely impacted due to best management practices implemented throughout construction and operation of the Proposed Project.

A Water Course (WC) overlay designation is located on a portion of the Project Site in the southwest corner (Figure 4 – Site Plan). According to the City’s Municipal Code, Title 19 – Article VI - Chapter 19.230, the WC overlay is established to clearly identify and designate areas of the City as floodways, stream channels and area that are subject to periodic flooding and accompanying hazards that should be kept free from particular structures or improvements that may endanger life or property or significantly restrict the carrying capacity of the designated floodway or stream channel. No structures or outdoor storage are proposed within any WC area of the Project Site. The Proposed Project would not have any direct impacts on a stream or river through the addition of impervious surfaces. The area of the Project Site designated with the WC Overlay is proposed as pervious aggregate base material surface.

During the construction phase, a final approved WQMP would be required for the Proposed Project, as well as coverage under the State’s General Permit for Construction Activities, administered by the Santa Ana RWQCB. Storm water management measures would be required to be implemented to effectively control erosion and sedimentation and other construction-related pollutants during construction. The Proposed Project would be required to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws regulating surface water quality. Further, the Proposed Project would not result in a net increase of surface water runoff, Therefore, potential impacts associated with water quality standards or waste discharge would be less than significant.


Source: GP 2025 FPEIR – Section 5.8 – Hydrology and Water Quality

GP 2025 FPEIR – Table 5.8-A – Beneficial Uses Receiving Water

Appendix E - Water Quality Management Plan, B&W Consulting Engineers, INC., June 2019 (Revised August 2019)

b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?

Less Than Significant Impact: Potable drinking water supplies are provided to the City by Riverside Public Utilities (RPU). Domestic water for the City is mostly supplied from local groundwater. Approximately 97% of the water supplied by RPU is supplied from Bunker Hill, Riverside North and South, and the Gage Exchange groundwater basins, making these basins the primary source of RPU’s water supply. None of these basins are over drafted, nor are they projected to become so, and the quality of the groundwater is generally very good and reliable.


68 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact The Proposed Project is located within the Riverside South Water Supply. This Proposed Project involves the construction of a 37,350-sf industrial building for office, manufacturing, and warehouse uses, with ancillary outdoor storage of approximately 65,574 sf, on a 7.24-acre site. The Proposed Project also entails the construction of the cul-de-sac located at the end of Durahart. The Proposed Project is required to connect to the City’s sewer system and comply with all NPDES and WQMP requirements that will ensure the Proposed Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The Proposed Project would be consistent with the General Plan growth projection. Therefore, impacts associated with groundwater supplies and recharge would be less than significant.


Source: GP 2025 – Table PF-1 – RPU Projected Domestic Water Supply (AC-FT/YR)

GP 2025 – Table PF-2 – RPU Projected Water Demand

Riverside Public Utilities - Map of Water Supply Basins

Riverside Public Utilities – Urban Water Management Plan


c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:

i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or-off-site?

Less Than Significant Impact: A Water Course (WC) overlay designation is located on a portion of the Project Site in the southwest corner (Figure 3 – Site Plan). According to the City’s Municipal Code, Title 19 – Article VI - Chapter 19.230, the WC overlay is established to clearly identify and designate areas of the City as floodways, stream channels and area that are subject to periodic flooding and accompanying hazards that should be kept free from particular structures or improvements that may endanger life or property or significantly restrict the carrying capacity of the designated floodway or stream channel. No structures or outdoor storage are proposed within any WC area of the Project Site. The Proposed Project would not have any direct impacts on a stream or river through the addition of impervious surfaces. The area of the Project Site designated with the WC Overlay is proposed as a pervious aggregate base material surface.

Additionally, the Proposed Project is subject to NPDES requirements; areas of one acre or more of disturbance are subject to preparing and implementing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)


69 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact for the prevention of runoff during construction. Erosion, siltation and other possible pollutants associated with long-term implementation of projects are addressed as part of the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and grading permit process. Further, the drainage patterns on the Project Site currently fall to the southwest at approximately 1-percent slope. The proposed grading on-site will mimic the existing drainage patterns where feasible and will generally fall to the southwest. Therefore, potential impacts associated with existing drainage patterns would be less than significant.


Source: Preliminary grading plan



ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or-off-site?

Less Than Significant Impact: A Water Course (WC) overlay designation is located on a portion of the Project Site in the southwest corner. According to the City’s Municipal Code, Title 19 – Article VI - Chapter 19.230, the WC overlay is established to clearly identify and designate areas of the City as floodways, stream channels and area that are subject to periodic flooding and accompanying hazards that should be kept free from particular structures or improvements that may endanger life or property or significantly restrict the carrying capacity of the designated floodway or stream channel. No structures or outdoor storage are proposed within any WC area of the Project Site. The area of the Project Site designated with the WC Overlay is proposed as a pervious aggregate base material surface. The Project Site is relatively flat, and proposed drainage and grading for the Project Site would be maintained consistent with existing conditions. A bioretention basin is proposed generally in the center of the Project Site, which would retain runoff on-site, and ensure flooding does not occur. Therefore, potential impacts associated with the rate or amount of surface runoff resulting in flooding on- or off-site would be less than significant.




iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide


70 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or

Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project is over one acre in size and is required to have coverage under the State’s General Permit for Construction Activities (SWPPP). As stated in this Permit, during and after construction, best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented to reduce/eliminate adverse water quality impacts resulting from development. Furthermore, the City has ensured that the proposed development does not cause adverse water quality impacts, pursuant to its Municipal Separate Storm System (MS4) permit through the Proposed Project’s WQMP. Since the proposed development will increase the amount of impervious surface area in the City, through the development of impervious areas, such as paved parking areas, sidewalks, and building rooftops, the Proposed Project is required to prepare and implement a WQMP. Preliminary BMP’s, in compliance with the WQMP, have been approved by Public Works. Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs are incorporated into the site design to fully address drainage management areas. Therefore, potential impacts associated with creating or contributing to runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide additional sources of polluted runoff would be less than significant.




iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?

Less Than Significant Impact: A Water Course (WC) overlay designation is located on a portion of the Project Site in the southwest corner (Figure 3 – Site Plan). According to the City’s Municipal Code, Title 19 – Article VI - Chapter 19.230, the WC overlay is established to clearly identify and designate areas of the City as floodways, stream channels and area that are subject to periodic flooding and accompanying hazards that should be kept free from particular structures or improvements that may endanger life or property or significantly restrict the carrying capacity of the designated floodway or stream channel. No structures or outdoor storage are proposed within any WC area of the Project Site. The Proposed Project would not have any direct impacts on a stream or river through the addition of impervious surfaces. The area of the Project Site designated with the WC Overlay is proposed as a pervious aggregate base material surface.

The Proposed Project would not have any direct impacts on a stream or river through the addition of impervious surfaces. The area of the Project Site designated with the WC Overlay is proposed as a pervious aggregate base material surface. Additionally, the Proposed Project is subject to NPDES requirements; areas of one acre or more of disturbance are subject to preparing and implementing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the prevention of runoff during construction. Erosion, siltation and other possible pollutants associated with long-term implementation of projects are addressed as part of


71 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and grading permit process. Further, the drainage patterns on the Project Site currently fall to the southwest at approximately 1-percent slope. The proposed grading on-site will mimic the existing drainage patterns where feasible and will generally fall to the southwest. Therefore, potential impacts associated with impeding or redirecting flood flows would be less than significant.




d) In floor hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?

Less Than Significant Impact: Tsunamis are large waves that occur in coastal areas; therefore, since the City is not located in a coastal area, no impacts due to tsunamis will occur directly, indirectly or cumulatively. Additionally, The Project Site and its surroundings have generally flat topography and is within an urbanized area not within proximity to Lake Mathews, Lake Evans, the Santa Ana River, Lake Hills, Norco Hills, Box Springs Mountain Area or any of the 6 arroyos which transverse the City and its sphere of influence. Therefore, no impact potential for seiche or mudflow exists either directly, indirectly or cumulatively. A Water Course (WC) overlay designation is located on a portion of the Project Site in the southwest corner, (Figure 3 – Site Plan). According to the City’s Municipal Code, Title 19 – Article VI - Chapter 19.230, the WC overlay is established to clearly identify and designate areas of the City as floodways, stream channels and area that are subject to periodic flooding and accompanying hazards that should be kept free from particular structures or improvements that may endanger life or property or significantly restrict the carrying capacity of the designated floodway or stream channel. No structures or outdoor storage are proposed within any WC area of the Project Site. The Proposed Project would not have any direct impacts on a stream or river through the addition of impervious surfaces. The area of the Project Site designated with the WC Overlay is proposed as a pervious aggregate base material surface. Therefore, potential impacts associated with inundation from flood hazards would be less than significant.


Source: GP 2025 FPEIR – Chapter 5.8 – Hydrology and Water Quality



72 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?

Less Than Significant Impact: The City requires that each individual development project comply with existing State Water Quality Control Board and City stormwater regulations, including compliance with NPDES requirements related to construction and operation measures to prevent erosion, siltation and transport of urban pollutants. The Santa Ana Drainage Area Management Plan provides a selection of Best Management Practices (BMPs), as required by NPDES. All new developments will undergo individual City review and would be required to comply with the RWQCB NPDES Permit No. CAG998001, which sets forth BMPs for new development and redevelopment projects. These regulations and permits were designed to protect the beneficial uses of receiving waters. All individual projects implemented under the General Plan would be required to comply with applicable Federal, State, and local water quality regulations.

The Proposed Project is over one acre in size and is required to have coverage under the State’s General Permit for Construction Activities (SWPPP). As stated in this Permit, during and after construction, best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented to reduce/eliminate adverse water quality impacts resulting from development. Furthermore, the City has ensured that the proposed development does not cause adverse water quality impacts, pursuant to its Municipal Separate Storm System (MS4) permit through the Proposed Project’s WQMP. Since the proposed development will increase the amount of impervious surface area in the City, through the development of impervious areas such as paved parking areas, sidewalks, and building rooftops, the Proposed Project is required to prepare and implement a WQMP. Therefore, potential impacts associated with conflicts with or obstruction of implementing a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan would be less than significant.


Source: GP 2025 FPEIR – Section 5.8 – Hydrology and Water Quality

Riverside Public Utilities – Urban Water Management Plan



73 | P a g e

11) Land Use and Planning


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

a) Physically divide an established community?

No Impact: The Project Site is in the northern portion of the City, in an area characterized by a broad mix of industrial uses, such as manufacturing, wholesale/warehousing, and outdoor storage. The Proposed Project is an infill project currently served by public streets and other infrastructure and does not involve the subdivision of land or the creation of streets that could alter the existing surrounding pattern of development or an established community. The General Plan and zoning designation for the Project Site is Industrial (I). The Proposed Project is consistent with the GP 2025, the Zoning Code, the Subdivision Code and the Citywide Design and Sign Guidelines and is commensurate with surrounding land uses to the north, south, east, and west, which are industrial in nature. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impacts associated with physically dividing an established community.


Source: GP 2025 – Land Use Element

GP 2025 – Urban Design Element

Project site plan

b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

No Impact: The Proposed Project involves the request to construct a 37,350 sf industrial building for office, manufacturing, and warehouse uses, with ancillary outdoor storage of approximately 65,574 sf, and construction of the cul-de-sac located at the end of Durahart Street, located in a developed portion of an urbanized area on previously disturbed land. The General Plan and zoning designation for the Project Site is Industrial (I). The Proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan and is commensurate with surrounding land uses to the north, south, east, and west, which are industrial in nature. It is not located within other plan areas and it is not a project of Statewide, Regional or Areawide Significance. Therefore, there are no impacts associated with an applicable land use plan, policy or regulation would occur.


Source: GP 2025 – Figure LU-10 – Land Use Policy Map

GP 2025 – Table LU-5 – Zoning/General Plan Consistency Matrix

RMC Title 19 – Zoning



74 | P a g e

12) Mineral Resources


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

Less Than Significant Impact: Historically, the quarrying of granitic rock was a significant industry in Riverside. However, these operations have not been active for decades and most extraction sites are now beyond the urban periphery. While mineral extraction no longer plays a major role in Riverside's economy, the area between Market Street and Mission Boulevard between the Santa Ana River and Lake Evans is a state-classified mineral resource zone (MRZ-2). Areas in the Sphere of Influence and areas located generally within the eastern half of the City are designated MRZ-3, indicating that the area contains known or inferred mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource significance. The Project Site is located within the MRZ-3 area. No mineral resources have been identified on the Project Site and there is no historical use of the Project Site or surrounding area for mineral extraction purposes. The Project Site is not, nor is it adjacent to, a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated in the General Plan. Therefore, potential impacts associated with known mineral resources would be less than significant.


Source: GP 2025 – Figure OS-1 – Mineral Resources

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

No Impact: The Proposed Project involves the request to construct a 37,350 sf industrial building for office, manufacturing, and warehouse uses, with ancillary outdoor storage of approximately 65,574 sf, and construction of the cul-de-sac located at the end of Durahart Street, located in a developed portion of an urbanized area on previously disturbed land. The GP 2025 FPEIR determined that there are no specific areas with the City which have locally important mineral resource recovery sites and that the implementation of the GP 2025 would not significantly preclude the ability to extract state-designated resources. The Proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan in that the proposed use is considered an allowed industrial use pursuant to Title 19 – Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impacts associated with the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on the City’s General Plan.


Source: GP 2025 – Figure OS-1 – Mineral Resources


75 | P a g e

13) Noise


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project involves the request to construct a 37,350 sf industrial building for office, manufacturing, and warehouse uses, with ancillary outdoor storage of approximately 65,574 sf, and construction of the cul-de-sac located at the end of Durahart Street, located in a developed portion of an urbanized area on previously disturbed land that is currently vacant. The nearest sensitive receptor to the Project Site is Path of Life Ministries, which operates an emergency homeless shelter, access center and health clinic immediately adjacent to the southwest of the Project Site. The operation of the Proposed Project would range from interior noise associated with the office and manufacturing use to exterior noise from delivery of materials and pick-up of product from diesel trucks.

The GP 2025, Figures N-1 through N-3 outline the community noise equivalent levels (CNEL) for major noise generators in proximity to the Project Site. The BNSF railroad is located to the south, directly adjacent to the Project Site. The SR-60/I-215 freeway and arterial street Chicago Avenue are located approximately 750 feet to the northeast and east, respectively, of the Project Site. Operational noise as a result of the industrial use is not anticipated to have a significant impact because large ambient noise generators, such as the SR-60/I-215 freeway, BNSF railroad, and arterial street Chicago Avenue are within the vicinity of the Project Site.

Construction noise typically involves the loudest common urban noise events associated with building demolition, grading, construction, large diesel engines and truck deliveries and hauling. Construction activity, although temporary at any given location, can be substantially disruptive to adjacent uses during the construction period. Riverside Municipal Code Section 7.35.010(B)(5) regulates the allowable hours of construction activity to 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. on weekdays and 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. on Saturdays, with no construction activities allowed on Sunday or Federal holidays. Infrastructure improvements such as street widenings can also be a source of noise. Street improvement projects will incorporate the City’s acoustical assessment procedure to minimize noise impacts. Therefore, potential impacts associated with the exposure of persons to or the generation of noise levels in excess of established City standards would be less than significant.


Source: GP 2025 – Figure N-1 – 2003 Roadway Noise

GP 2025 – Figure N-2 – 2003 Freeway Noise

GP 2025 – Figure N-3 – 2003 Railway Noise


76 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact GP 2025 – Figure N-5 – 2025 Roadway Noise


GP 2025 – Figure N-7 – 2025 Railroad Noise

GP 2025 – Figure N-10 – Noise/Land Use Noise Compatibility Criteria

GP 2025 FPEIR – Table 5.11-I – Existing and Future Noise Contour Comparison

GP 2025 FPEIR – Table 5.11-E – Interior and Exterior Noise Standards

GP 2025 FPEIR Appendix G – Noise Existing Conditions Report

RMC Title 7 – Noise Control

b) Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?

Less Than Significant Impact: Construction related activities although short term, are the most common source of ground borne noise and vibration that could affect occupants of neighboring uses. Common construction related vibration sources are large bulldozers, loaded trucks, jackhammers, and small bulldozers. Based on the GP 2025 Table 5.11-G – Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment, of the types of construction equipment to be used for the Proposed Project, the maximum anticipated vibration (VdB) at 25-feet is 87 VdB for large bulldozers. Loaded trucks, jackhammers, and small bulldozers have approximate VdB values at 25-feet of 86, 79, and 58 respectively. Operation of the Proposed Project would not involve any vibration sources, as compared to those from construction equipment, which would cause exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels. Surrounding land uses to the Project Site are all industrial manufacturing, with the exception Path of Life Ministries, which operates an access center and health clinic immediately adjacent to the southwest of the Project Site. Therefore, potential impacts associated with ground borne vibration and ground borne noise levels would be less than significant.


Source: GP 2025 – Figure N-1 – 2003 Roadway Noise


GP 2025 – Figure N-3 – 2003 Railway Noise

GP 2025 – Figure N-5 – 2025 Roadway Noise


GP 2025 – Figure N-7 – 2025 Railroad Noise



77 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact GP 2025 FPEIR – Table 5.11-G – Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment

GP 2025 FPEIR Appendix G – Noise Existing Conditions Report

c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project is located within the Airport Compatibility Zone E as depicted on Map MA-1 – Compatibility Map of the March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, adopted November 13, 2014. Airport Compatibility Zone E is the least restrictive zone classification within the plan and is considered as “other airport environs” with no limit on residential development, other use types, and no requirement for open land. Airport Compatibility Zone E only prohibits hazards to flight, which include, but are not limited to, tall objects, and visual and electronic forms of interference. The Proposed Project is not located within any of the airport noise contour areas as depicted on Figure N-9 of the Noise Element of the General Plan 2025. The Proposed Project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels related to airport noise. Therefore, potential direct, indirect, or cumulatively considerable impacts on people residing or working in the Proposed Project area associated with excessive noise levels would be less than significant.


Source: GP 2025 – Figure N-9 – March ARB Noise Contour


March Air Reserve Base/March inland Port Comprehensive Land Use Plan – Map MA-1 – Compatibility Map, 2014



78 | P a g e

14) Population and Housing


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

Less Than Significant Impact: The CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(e) stipulates what growth inducing impacts entail. This section states growth inducing impacts should discuss the ways in which the Proposed Project fosters economic or population growth and impacts the construction of additional housing either directly or indirectly in the surrounding environment. New employees from industrial development represent direct forms of growth. These direct forms of growth have a secondary effect of expanding the size of local markets and inducing additional economic activity in the area; however, the Proposed Project is in an urbanized area and does not propose new homes or businesses that would directly induce substantial population growth. The Proposed Project is consistent with the Industrial (I) land use designation in the General Plan 2025. The GP 2025 FPEIR determined that Citywide, future development anticipated under the General Plan 2025 typical scenario would not have significant population growth impacts. The Proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan 2025 typical growth scenario and population growth impacts were previously evaluated in the GP 2025 FPEIR and would not result in new impacts beyond those previously evaluated in the GP 2025 FPEIR. Therefore, potential impacts associated with substantial unplanned population growth directly or indirectly would be less than significant.


Source: GP 2025 – Table LU-3 – Land Use Designations

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

No Impact: The Proposed Project involves the request to construct a 37,350 sf industrial building for office, manufacturing, and warehouse uses, with ancillary outdoor storage of approximately 65,574 sf, and construction of the cul-de-sac located at the end of Durahart Street, located in a developed portion of an urbanized area on previously disturbed land that is currently vacant. The Proposed Project would not displace existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, no potential impacts associated with existing housing would occur.


Source: Photographs from site visit, 2019

Google imaging, 2019


79 | P a g e

15) Public Services


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

a) Fire protection?

Less Than Significant Impact: Structural and automobile fires represent the most common types of fire in urbanized areas and can be caused by a variety of human, mechanical and natural factors. Urban fires have the potential to spread to other structures or areas, particularly if not extinguished promptly. Proactive efforts, such as fire sprinkler systems, fire alarms, fire resistant roofing and construction methods, can collectively lessen the likelihood and reduce the severity of urban fires.

The Proposed Project is subject to the requirements outlined in the California Building Code and will require subsequent review by the City’s Fire and Building Divisions. The Proposed Project involves the request to construct a 37,350-sf industrial building for office, manufacturing, and warehouse uses, with ancillary outdoor storage of approximately 65,574 sf on previously disturbed land that is currently vacant. Adequate fire facilities and services are provided by the Station No. 4 located at 3510 Cranford Avenue, approximately one mile from the Project Site, to serve the Proposed Project.

The Proposed Project is not located in state responsibility areas maintained by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection or lands classified as moderate, high, or very high fire hazard severity zones. The nearest state responsibility area and fire hazard severity zone is located east in the Box Springs Mountain Reserve, approximately 1.1 miles from the Project Site.

With implementation of General Plan 2025 policies, compliance with existing codes and standards, and through Fire Department practices, potential impacts associated with the demand for additional fire facilities or services would be less than significant.


Source: GP 2025 FPEIR – Table 5.13-B – Fire Station Locations

GP 2025 FPEIR – Table 5.13-C – Riverside Fire Department Statistics

RMC Title 16 – Chapter 16.52 – Development Fees for Fire Station

b) Police protection?

Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project involves the request to construct a 37,350-sf industrial building for office, manufacturing, and warehouse uses, with ancillary outdoor storage of approximately 65,574 sf on previously disturbed land that is currently vacant. Adequate police facilities and services are provided by the Downtown Station located at 4102 Orange Street, located approximately 2.3 miles to the southwest of the Project Site. With implementation of General Plan 2025 policies, compliance with existing


80 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact codes and standards, and through Police Department practices, potential impacts associated with the demand for additional police facilities of services would be less than significant.


Source: GP 2025 – Figure PS-8 – Neighborhood Policing Centers

c) Schools?

No Impact: City of Riverside residents are served by three public school districts: Riverside Unified School District, Alvord Unified School District, and Moreno Valley School District. The Proposed Project is located within the Riverside Unified School District, with adequate school facilities and services provided within the district. The Proposed Project is non-residential use that would not involve the addition of any housing units that would increase numbers of school age children. With implementation of General Plan 2025 policies, compliance with existing codes and standards, and through Riverside Unified School District impact fees used to offset the impact of new development, no potential impacts associated the demand for school facilities or services would occur.


Source: GP 2025 FPEIR – Figure 5.13-2 – RUSD Boundaries

GP 2025 FPEIR – Table 5.13-D – RUSD

GP 2025 FPEIR – Figure 5.13-3 – AUSD Boundaries

GP 2025 FPEIR – Table 5.13-E – AUSD

GP 2025 FPEIR – Table 5.13-G – Student Generation for RUSD and AUSD By Education Level

d) Parks?

No Impact: The City maintains fifty-two public parks and additional open space areas encompassing more than 2,300 acres. Larger parks contain features such as sports facilities, picnic areas, restrooms and playgrounds. Smaller parks typically include basic landscaping, playgrounds and picnic facilities. The closest public park to the Project Site is the 4.27-acre Patterson Park, located less than one-mile from the Project Site. The Proposed Project involves the request to construct a 37,350 sf industrial building for office, manufacturing, and warehouse uses, with ancillary outdoor storage of approximately 65,574 sf, and construction of the cul-de-sac located at the end of Durahart Street, located in a developed portion of an urbanized area on previously disturbed land, and does not propose any residential dwelling units as a part of the Proposed Project. The permanent population of the City is not expected to increase as a result of the Proposed Project. The City’s adopted standard for developed park acreage of three acres per 1,000 residents would not be negatively impacted, and the Project Site is not located within an area designated as a parkland shortage. In accordance with the City’s Parks, Recreation, and Community Services-Park


81 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact Planning Department, the Property Owner/Developer would pay all applicable Park Development Impact Fees (local, aquatic, regional/reserve, and trail fees) for privately developed areas. Therefore, no potential impacts associated with the demand for additional public facilities or services would occur.


Source: GP 2025 – Figure PR-1 – Parks, Open Spaces and Trails

GP 2025 – Table PR-4 – Park and Recreation Facilities

GP 2025 FPEIR – Table 5.14-A – Park and Recreation Facility Types

GP 2025 FPEIR – Table 5.14-C – Park and Recreation Facilities Funded in the Riverside Renaissance Initiative

Parks Master Plan, 2003

e) Other public facilities?

Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project involves the request to construct a 37,350 sf industrial building for office, manufacturing, and warehouse uses, with ancillary outdoor storage of approximately 65,574 sf, and construction of the cul-de-sac located at the end of Durahart Street, located in a developed portion of an urbanized area on previously disturbed land. Adequate public facilities and service such as libraries and community centers and are provided in the vicinity of the Project Site. The nearest libraries are the Eastside Library and the Main Library, located approximately one-mile and two-miles from the Project Site, respectively. The nearest community center to the Project Site is at Bobby Bonds Park (2060 University Avenue), located approximately one mile to the southwest of the Project Site. The Proposed Project does not involve any residential dwelling units which would permanently increase the population. With implementation of General Plan 2025 policies, compliance with existing codes and standards, and through Park and Recreation and Community Services and Library practices, potential impacts associated with the demand for additional public facilities or services would be less than significant.


Source: GP 2025 – Figure LU-8 – Community Facilities

GP 2025 FPEIR – Table 5.3-F – Riverside Community Centers

GP 2025 FPEIR – Figure 5.13-5 – Library Facilities

GP 2025 FPEIR – Figure 5.13-6 – Community Centers

GP 2025 FPEIR – Table 5.13-H – Riverside Public Library Service Standards


82 | P a g e

16) Recreation


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

No Impact: The Proposed Project involves the request to construct a 37,350 sf industrial building for office, manufacturing, and warehouse uses, with ancillary outdoor storage of approximately 65,574 sf, and construction of the cul-de-sac located at the end of Durahart Street, located in a developed portion of an urbanized area on previously disturbed land. The Proposed Project does not include any residential dwelling units therefore no facet of the Proposed Project is anticipated to permanently increase the population. The City’s adopted standard for developed park acreage of three acres per 1,000 residents would not be negatively impacted. The GP 2025 analyzed the proposed Industrial (I) General Plan Land Use for the Project Site. The Proposed Project would not result in an intensification of land use and therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impacts associated with the demand for additional recreational facilities.


Source: GP 2025 – Figure PR-1 – Parks, Open Spaces and Trails

GP 2025 – Table PR-4 – Park and Recreation Facilities

GP 2025 – Figure CCM-6 – Master plan of Trails and Bikeways

GP 2025 FPEIR – Table 5.14-A – Park and Recreation Facility Types

GP 2025 FPEIR – Table 5.14-C – Park and Recreation Facilities Funded in the Riverside Renaissance Initiative

GP 2025 FPEIR – Table 5.14-D – Inventory of Existing Community Centers

RMC Chapter 16.60 - Local Park Development Fees

Bicycle Master Plan, 2007

Parks Master Plan, 2003

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

No Impact: The Proposed Project would not include new recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. The Proposed Project involves the request to construct a 37,350 sf industrial building for office, manufacturing, and warehouse uses, with ancillary outdoor storage of


83 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact approximately 65,574 sf, and construction of the cul-de-sac located at the end of Durahart Street, located in a developed portion of an urbanized area on previously disturbed land, with no portion of the Proposed Project proposing residential dwelling units that would result in a permanent increase in the population. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impacts associated with the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.


Source: Project Site Plan


84 | P a g e

17) Transportation


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?

Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan 2025 typical densities and the traffic model prepared for the General Plan 2025, which found Third Street and Spruce Street to operate at a LOS of A-C when constructed to typical buildout densities (GP 2025 PFEIR - Figure 5.15-4 - Volume to Capacity (V/C) Ratio and Level of Service (LOS) (Typical 2025)). The Proposed Project is an industrial use consistent with the zoning and General Plan land use designations of Industrial (I) and therefore is within the range for the typical buildout densities analyzed. Therefore, potential impacts associated with capacity of the existing circulation system would be less than significant.


Source: GP 2025 – Figure CCM-4 – Master Plan of Roadways

GP 2025 FPEIR – Figure 5.15-4 – Volume to Capacity (V/C) Ratio and Level of Service (LOS) (Typical 2025)

GP 2025 FPEIR – Table 5.15-D – Existing and Future Trip Generation Estimates

GP 2025 FPEIR – Table 5.15-H – Existing and Typical Density Scenario Intersection Levels of Service

GP 2025 FPEIR – Table 5.15-I – Conceptual General Plan Intersection Improvement Recommendations

GP 2025 FPEIR – Table 5.15-J – Current Status of Roadways Projected to Operate at LOS E or F in 2025

GP 2025 FPEIR – Table 5.15.-K – Freeway Analysis Proposed General Plan

GP 2025 FPEIR Appendix H – Circulation Element Traffic Study and Traffic Study

SCAG RTP/SCS

b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?

Less Than Significant Impact: On December 28, 2018, updates to the CEQA Guidelines were approved by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). As part of the updates to the CEQA Guidelines, thresholds of significance for evaluation of impacts to transportation have changed. The CEQA Guidelines update eliminated the threshold of significance for evaluating impacts due to changes to air traffic patterns and consolidated the evaluation of impacts due to a conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs into an analysis of impacts due to a conflict with programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing the circulation system (i.e., new Threshold a.). However, new Threshold b. of the CEQA Guidelines for Transportation and Traffic requires an evaluation of impacts due to Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMTs), instead of evaluating impacts based on Level of Service (LOS) criteria, as required by California Senate Bill (SB) 743. LOS has been


85 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact used as the basis for determining the significance of traffic impacts as standard practice in CEQA documents for decades. In 2013, SB 743 was passed, which is intended to balance the need for LOS for traffic planning with the need to build infill housing and mixed-use commercial developments within walking distance of mass transit facilities, downtowns, and town centers and to provide greater flexibility to local governments to balance these sometimes-competing needs. At full implementation of SB 743, the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) is expected to replace LOS as the metric against which traffic impacts are evaluated, with a metric based on VMTs. As a component of OPR’s revisions to the CEQA Guidelines in December 2018, lead agencies would be required to adopt VMT thresholds of significance by July 2020. At the time this Initial Study/MND was prepared, a VMT metric was not published by OPR, and the City of Riverside in its capacity as Lead Agency, as well as surrounding local agencies in which the Proposed Project’s traffic would circulate, use LOS as the significance criteria for evaluating a project’s traffic impacts. For this reason, a LOS metric and not a VMT metric is appropriately referenced in this Initial Study/MND.

Section 15064.3(b) of the CEQA Guidelines establishes criteria for analyzing transportation impacts. Section 15064.3(b)(1) states land use projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high-quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Chapter 2.5 – Definitions of the CEQA Guidelines define a major transit stop to be a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) adopted the Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy 2012-2035 (RTP/SCS) which designates high quality transit areas. Exhibit 4.9 – High Quality Transit Areas (HQTA) SCAG Region, designates the intersection area of the SR-91 and SR-60/I-215 as a HQTA. The Project Site is located within one-half mile of the HQTA, and therefore, potential impacts as a result of any conflict or inconsistency with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) would be less than significant.


Source: SCAG RTP/SCS – Exhibit 4.9 – High Quality Transit Areas (HQTA) SCAG Region

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

Less Than Significant Impact: The Project Site is located more than 9 miles northwest of the March Air Reserve Base and is located within Compatibility zone E as depicted in Figure PS-6B - Airport Safety and Compatibility Zones of the General Plan 2025. Airport Compatibility Zone E is the least restrictive zone classification within the plan and is considered as “other airport environs” with no limit on residential development, other use types, and no requirement for open land. Airport Compatibility Zone E only prohibits hazards to flight, which include, but are not limited to, tall objects, and visual and electronic forms of interference. The Proposed Project involves the construction of a 24’-3” industrial building for office,


86 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact manufacturing, warehouse uses, with ancillary outdoor storage and construction of the cul-de-sac located at the end of Durahart Street. There are no objects proposed that are greater than the allowed height permitted by the Industrial zoning designation. The Proposed Project was reviewed by City planning staff to ensure that the Proposed Project is consistent with the compatibility zone as well as in compliance with the land use standards in the March Air Reserve Base/March Inland Port Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Therefore, potential impacts associated with a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks, would be less than significant.


Source: GP 2025 – Figure PS-6 – Airport Safety Zones and Influence Areas

March Air Reserve Base/March Inland Port Comprehensive Land Use Plan, 2014


d) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project involves the request to construct a 37,350-sf industrial building for office, manufacturing, and warehouse uses, with ancillary outdoor storage of approximately 65,574 sf, and construction of the cul-de-sac located at the end of Durahart Street, located in a developed portion of an urbanized area. Public right-of-way improvements such as the improved cul-de-sac are subject to permits through the City’s Public Works Department and required to meet City and state engineering standards. In addition, the proposed use is compatible with surrounding uses. Therefore, potential impacts associated with the increasing of hazards through design or incompatible uses would be less than significant.



e) Result in inadequate emergency access?

No Impact: The Proposed Project has been developed in compliance with the City Municipal Code, Title 18, Section 18.210.030 – Streets, and Title 16, Section 16.32.285 – Section 503.4 amended – Obstruction of Fire Apparatus Access Roads. Therefore, no potential impacts associated with emergency access would occur.


Source: RMC Title 18 – Article V – Section 18.210.030 – Streets


87 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact RMC Title 16 – Chapter 16.32 – Section 16.32.285 – Section 503.4 amended – Obstruction of Fire Apparatus Access Roads

Project Site Plan


88 | P a g e

18) Tribal Cultural Resources


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or

Less Than Significant Impact: The Project Site is vacant, and there are no historical structures on the Project Site. As noted in Appendix C, neither the records search nor an intensive pedestrian survey recorded any cultural resources at the Project Site. Therefore, potential impacts associated with historical resources would be less than significant.


Source: Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Dixieline Lumber Yard Project, VCS Environmental, September 19, 2019 (Revised November 14, 2019)

b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), signed into law in 2014, amended CEQA and established new requirements for tribal notification and consultation. AB 52 applies to all projects for which a notice of preparation or notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration/mitigated negative declaration is issued after July 1, 2015. AB 52 also broadly defines a new resource category of tribal cultural resources and established a more robust process for meaningful consultation that includes:

• Prescribed notification and response timelines; • Consultation on alternatives, resource identification, significance determinations, impact

evaluation, and mitigation measures; and • Documentation of all consultation efforts to support CEQA findings.

A tribe must submit a written request to the relevant lead agency if it wishes to be notified of projects within its traditionally and culturally affiliated area. The lead agency must provide written, formal


89 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact notification to the tribes that have requested it within 14 days of determining that a project application is complete or deciding to undertake a project. The tribe must respond to the lead agency within 30 days of receipt of the notification if it wishes to engage in consultation on the project, and the lead agency must begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving the request for consultation. Consultation concludes when either 1) the parties agree to mitigation measures to avoid a significant effect, if one exists, on a tribal cultural resource, or 2) a party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached. AB 52 also addresses confidentiality during tribal consultation per Public Resources Code §21082.3(c).

On June 12, 2019, the City provided written notification of the Project in accordance with AB 52 to all the Native American tribes that requested to receive such notification from the City. Of the tribes notified, three requested formal government-to-government consultation under AB 52:

• Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians (consultation requested on August 5, 2019 and concluded on November 7, 2019)

• Morongo Band of Mission Indians (consultation requested on July 30, 2019 and concluded on September 24, 2019)

• Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (consultation requested on August 16, 2019 and concluded on October 4, 2019)

The City sent recommended mitigation measures to the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians on October 10, 2019 and consultation was concluded on November 7, 2019. As a result of these consultations, with implementation of MM CUL 1 through MM CUL 4 in Section 5 – Cultural Resources, AB52 consultation with the above Native American tribes has been concluded and potential impacts associated with Tribal Cultural Resources would be less than significant.


MM CUL 1, MM CUL 2, MM CUL 3, and MM CUL 4

Source: AB52 Consultation


90 | P a g e

19) Utilities and System Services


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?

Less Than Significant Impact: The Project Site is zoned I-WC – Industrial and Water Course Overlay Zones and has a general plan designation of Industrial (I), as designated in the General Plan 2025. The Proposed Project is consistent with the Typical Growth Scenario of the General Plan 2025, as the Project Site’s zoning and land use designations are not proposed to be changed from what was assessed under the GP 2025 FPEIR. The Proposed Project would result in the development of a single industrial building, including restrooms and a bioretention basin which would require connections to the City’s water and wastewater infrastructure. The Proposed Project would not result in the construction of new or expanded water or wastewater treatment facilities, or in electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, in that it will connect to existing systems established by the City. Therefore, potential impacts associated with the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities would be less than significant.


Source: GP 2025 – Table PF-1 – RPU Projected Domestic Water Supply (AC-FT/YR)

GP 2025 – Table PF-2 – RPU Projected Water Demand

GP 2025 FPEIR – Table 5.16-G – General Plan Projected Water Demand for RPU Including Water Reliability for 2025

GP 2025 FPEIR – Table 5.16-K - Estimated Future Wastewater Generation for the City of Riverside’s Sewer Service Area

GP 2025 FPEIR – Figure 5.16-4 – Water Facilities

GP 2025 FPEIR – Figure 5.16-6 – Sewer Infrastructure

Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities Integrated Master Plan, 2008


91 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?

Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project is located within the Riverside Public Utilities (RPU) Service Area, which services a large swath of northern Riverside. The Proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan 2025 Typical Growth Scenario where future water supplies were determined to be adequate (see Tables t.16-E, 5.16-F, 5.16-G, 5.16-H, 5.16-I and 5.16-J of the GP 2025 FPEIR); however, the GP 2025 FPEIR found that water demand within RPU boundaries may exceed supply under the “worst case” analysis of Maximum Population and Maximum Population with PRD. However, WMWD can sell water to RPU, and as shown on Table 5.16-I of the GP 2025 FPEIR, WMWD will have 123,784 acre-feet annually to sell to other agencies like RPU. Therefore, even at the higher levels of development anticipated under the General Plan, water supply would be available. Water supplies were determined to be adequate for development anticipated under the GP 2025 at Typical development levels, and therefore the water supply impact associated with RPU and WMWD water service was not found to cause these suppliers to have insufficient water supplies available.

The Proposed Project does not involve any residential dwelling units and as a result, the permanent population is not expected to increase. Operations of the Proposed Project are not anticipated to require 24-hour use of water supplies and will typically operate within standard business hours. The Proposed Project would not exceed expected water supplies. Therefore, potential impacts associated with water supplies would be less than significant.


Source: GP 2025 – Figure PF-1 – Water Service Areas

GP 2025 FPEIR – Figure 5.16-3 – Water Service Areas

GP 2025 FPEIR – Figure 5.16-4 – Water Facilities

GP 2025 FPEIR – Table 5.16-E – RPU Projected Domestic Water Supply (AC-FT/YR)

GP 2025 FPEIR – Table 5.16-F – Projected Water Demand

GP 2025 FPEIR – Table 5.16-G – General Plan Projected Water Demand for RPU including Water Reliability for 2025

GP 2025 FPEIR – Table 5.16-H – Current and Projected Domestic Water Supply (acre-ft/year) WMWD

GP 2025 FPEIR – Table 5.16-I – Current and Projected Water Use WMWD

GP 2025 FPEIR – Table 5.16-J – General Plan Projected Water Demand for WMWD Including Water Reliability 2025


92 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact Riverside Public Utilities Master Plan

c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan 2025 Typical Growth Scenario where future wastewater generation was determined to be adequate (see Table 5.16-K of the GP 2025 FPEIR). Further, the current Wastewater Treatment Master Plan anticipates and provides for this type of project. Therefore, potential impacts associated with wastewater treatment would be less than significant.


Source: GP 2025 FPEIR – Figure 5.16-5 – Sewer Service Areas

GP 2025 FPEIR – Figure 5.16-6 – Sewer Infrastructure

GP 2025 FPEIR – Table 5.16-K – Estimated Future Wastewater Generation for the City of Riverside’s Sewer Service Area

Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities Integrated Master Plan, 2008

d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?

Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan 2025 Typical Build-out Project level where future landfill capacity was determined to be adequate (see Tables 5.16-A and 5.16-M of the GP 2025 FPEIR). Therefore, potential impacts associated with landfill capacity would be less than significant.


Source: GP 2025 FPEIR – Table 5.16-A – Existing Landfills

GP 2025 FPEIR – Table 5.16-M – Estimated Future Solid Waste Generation from the Planning Area


93 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

No Impact: The California Integrated Waste Management Act under the Public Resource Code requires that local jurisdictions divert at least 50% of all solid waste generated by January 1, 2000. The City is currently achieving a 60% diversion rate, well above State requirements. In addition, the California Green Building Code requires all developments to divert 50% of non-hazardous construction and demolition debris for all projects and 100% of excavated soil and land clearing debris for all non-residential projects beginning January 1, 2011. The Proposed Project must comply with the City’s waste disposal requirements as well as the California Green Building Code, and as such, would not conflict with any Federal, State, or local regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impacts associated with solid waste statutes.


Source: GP 2025 – Public Facilities and Infrastructure Element


94 | P a g e

20) Wildfire


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

No Impact: The Proposed Project involves the construction of a 37,350-sf industrial building for office, manufacturing, and warehouse uses, with ancillary outdoor storage of approximately 65,574 sf. Off-site improvements include the build out of the Durahart Street cul-de-sac, including curb, gutter, and sidewalk, to City standards. The Project Site is in a developed portion of an urbanized area. The Proposed Project is not located in state responsibility areas maintained by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection or lands classified as moderate, high, or very high fire hazard severity zones. The nearest state responsibility area and fire hazard severity zone is located east in the Box Springs Mountain Reserve, approximately 1.1 miles from the Project Site. Furthermore, the Proposed Project does not involve the closure of any major arterial roads within the City. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impacts associated with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan.


Source: GP 2025 – Figure PS-7 – Fire Hazard Areas

GP 2025 – Figure PS 8.1 – Evacuation Routes

Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, https://bofdata.fire.ca.gov/projects-and-programs/state-responsibility-area-viewer/ (Accessed 6.28.19)

b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?

No Impact: The Project Site is a vacant 7.24-acre area that was previously graded and is generally flat. There are no significant slopes, such as those over 40% in grade, located on the Project Site. The Project Site is in an urbanized and developed area of the City, where generally flat topography exists, making it unlikely that prevailing winds associated with topographic variation would occur. The nearest state responsibility area and fire hazard severity zone is located east in the Box Springs Mountain Reserve, approximately 1.1 miles to the northeast of the Project Site, which would be the closest potential area for large, uncontrolled wildfire. Between the Project Site and this area are large swaths of urbanized development, including large public infrastructure, such as SR-60/I-215, that would inhibit the ability for mass spreading of wildfire. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impacts associated with uncontrolled spread of wildfire.


https://bofdata.fire.ca.gov/projects-and-programs/state-responsibility-area-viewer/



95 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact Source: GP 2025 – Figure PS-7 – Fire Hazard Areas

GP 2025 – Figure PS 8.1 – Evacuation Routes

Project Site Plan

c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?

Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project involves the construction of a 37,350-sf industrial building for office, manufacturing, and warehouse uses, with ancillary outdoor storage of approximately 65,574 sf. Off-site improvements include the build out of the Durahart Street cul-de-sac, including curb, gutter, and sidewalk, to City standards. The Project Site is in a developed portion of an urbanized area, previously graded and is generally flat in an area of the City with established public infrastructure such as roads and power lines. During construction, temporary power pole(s) may be used until permanent means of electricity is established to connect the Project Site with that of the existing infrastructure. Any request for temporary power is required to comply with the building code and would be subject to a building permit through the City’s Building Division. The Proposed Project involves the public improvement of creating a cul-de-sac bulb at the terminus of Durahart Street; however, Durahart Street is already an established, albeit dead ended, street. Proposed public right-of-way improvements such as this are subject to permits through the City’s Public Works Department and required to meet City and state engineering standards. Therefore, potential impacts associated with installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure would be less than significant.



d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?

No Impact: The Project Site is a vacant 7.24-acre area that was previously graded and is generally flat. There are no significant slopes, such as those over 40% in grade, located on the Project Site. The Project Site is in an urbanized and developed area of the City, where generally flat topography exists. The flat topography of the Project Site results in minimal to no risk of potential landslide movement or post-fire slope instability. A Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan is provided as a part of the Proposed Project, which identifies best management practices for on-site drainage and is subject to review by the


96 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact City’s Public Works Department for consistency with required federal, state, and local drainage requirements in order to comply with storm water requirements. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impacts associated with exposing people or structures to significant risks, including downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.



Appendix E – Water Quality Management Plan, B&W Consulting Engineers, INC., June 2019 (Revised August 2019)


97 | P a g e

21) Mandatory Findings of Significance


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or an endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

Less Than Significant with Mitigation: Potential impacts related to habitat of fish or wildlife species were discussed in the Biological Resources Section of this Initial Study and were all found to be less than significant. Additionally, potential impacts associated with cultural, archaeological and paleontological resources related to major periods of California and the City of Riverside’s history or prehistory were discussed in the Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, and Tribal Cultural Resources Sections of this Initial Study and were found to be less than significant with implementation of MM CUL 1, MM CUL 2, MM CUL 3, MM CUL 4, and MM GEO 1.










Source: GP 2025 FPEIR – Table 5.5-A – Historical Districts and Neighborhood Conservation Areas


RMC Title 20 – Cultural Resources


98 | P a g e


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact Appendix C – Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Dixieline Lumber Yard Project, VCS Environmental, September 19, 2019 (Revised November 14, 2019)

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan 2025. No new cumulative impacts are anticipated beyond those previously considered in the GP 2025 FPEIR. Therefore, potential cumulatively considerable impacts would be less than significant.

Source: GP 2025 FPEIR Section 6 – Long-Term Effects/ Cumulative Impacts for the General Plan 2025 Program

c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Less Than Significant Impact: Effects on human beings were evaluated as part of the aesthetics, air quality, hydrology & water quality, noise, population and housing, hazards and hazardous materials, and traffic sections of this Initial Study and found to be less than significant for each of the above sections. Based on the analysis and conclusions in this Initial Study, the Proposed Project would not cause substantial adverse effects, directly or indirectly to human beings. Therefore, potential direct and indirect impacts on human beings associated with implementation of the Proposed Project would be less than significant.

Source: GP 2025 FPEIR Section 5 – Environmental Impact Analysis for the General Plan 2025 Program

Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21080(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 21094, 21151, Public Resources Code; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal.App.3d 296 (1988); Leonoff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal.App.3d 1337 (1990).


99 | P a g e

Section 4 - Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program

Impact Category Mitigation Measures Implementation

Timing Responsible

Monitoring Party Monitoring/Reporting

Method

Cultural Resources

MM CUL 1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, if there are any changes to project site design and/or proposed grades, the Property Owner/Developer and the City shall contact consulting tribes to provide an electronic copy of the revised plans for review. Additional consultation shall occur between the City, Property Owner/Developer, and consulting tribes to discuss any proposed changes and review any new impacts and/or potential avoidance/preservation of the cultural resources on the project site. The City and the Property Owner/Developer shall make all attempts to avoid and/or preserve in place as many cultural and paleontological resources as possible that are located on the project site if the site design and/or proposed grades should be revised. In the event of inadvertent discoveries of archaeological resources, work shall temporarily halt until agreements are executed with consulting tribe, to provide tribal monitoring for ground disturbing activities.

Prior to issuance of grading permit.

Community and Economic Development Department, Planning Division

Property Owner

Developer

Consultation logs showing Applicant’s effort to contact interested tribes and the outcome of any such consultation


100 | P a g e


Timing Responsible


Method

Cultural Resources

MM CUL 2: On call Project Archaeologist: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall provide a letter from a County certified Archaeologist stating that the Property Owner/Developer has retained such individual, and that the Archaeologist shall be on call during all grading and other significant ground-disturbing activities in native sediments.



Property Owner

Developer

Letter from a County certified Archeologist stating the Property Owner/Developer has been retained.

Cultural Resources

MM CUL 3: Treatment and Disposition of Cultural Resources: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall include the following note on the plans: In the event that Native American archaeological cultural resources are inadvertently discovered during the course of grading for this project, the following procedures will be carried out for treatment and disposition of the discoveries: 1. Consulting Tribes and On Call Project

Archaeologist Notified: Within 24 hours of discovery, the Property Owner/Developer shall notify the City, the on-call Project Archaeologist, and the consulting tribe(s) via email and phone. Consulting tribe(s) will be allowed access to the discovery, in order to assist with the significance evaluation. The Property Owner/Developer shall provide the



Property Owner

Developer

Project Archeologist

Mitigation Measure shall be included as a note on the Grading Plans.

If resources are found and curated, a copy of the curation agreement shall be provided to the City.

Submission of a Phase IV Monitoring Report.


101 | P a g e


Timing Responsible


Method

City with evidence of an established monitoring agreement between the Property Owner/Developer and the consulting tribe(s), prior the recommencement of work.

2. Temporary Curation and Storage: During the

course of construction, all discovered resources shall be temporarily curated in a secure location on site or at the offices of the project archaeologist. The removal of any artifacts from the project site will need to be thoroughly inventoried with tribal monitor oversight of the process; and

3. Treatment and Final Disposition: The

Property Owner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods, and all archaeological artifacts and non-human remains as part of the required mitigation for impacts to cultural resources. The Property Owner shall relinquish the artifacts through one or more of the following methods and provide the City of Riverside Community and Economic Development Department with evidence of same:


102 | P a g e


Timing Responsible


Method

a. Accommodate the process for on-site reburial of the discovered items with the consulting Native American tribes or bands. This shall include measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts. Reburial shall not occur until all cataloguing and basic recordation have been completed;

b. A curation agreement with an appropriate qualified repository within Riverside County that meets federal standards per 36 CFR Part 79 and therefore will be professionally curated and made available to other archaeologists/researchers for further study. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to an appropriate curation facility within Riverside County, to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation;

c. If more than one Native American tribe or band is involved with the project and cannot come to a consensus as to the disposition of


103 | P a g e


Timing Responsible


Method

cultural materials, they shall be curated at the Western Science Center or Riverside Metropolitan Museum by default; and

d. At the completion of grading, excavation, and ground-disturbing activities on the site, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit a Phase IV Monitoring Report to the City documenting monitoring activities conducted by the project archaeologist and Native Tribal Monitors within 60 days of completion of grading. This report shall document the impacts to the known resources on the property; describe how each mitigation measure was fulfilled; document the type of cultural resources recovered and the disposition of such resources; provide evidence of the required cultural sensitivity training for the construction staff held during the required pre-grade meeting; and, in a confidential appendix, include the daily/weekly monitoring notes from the archaeologist. All reports produced


104 | P a g e


Timing Responsible


Method

will be submitted to the City of Riverside, Eastern Information Center, and interested tribes.

Cultural Resources

MM CUL 4: Cultural Sensitivity Training: Prior to ground disturbance, the Property Owner/Developer shall conduct Cultural Sensitivity Training for all construction personnel. The pre-grading meeting shall be led by a Secretary of Interior Standards and County-certified archaeologist and a Native American representative. The training shall include the procedures to be followed during ground disturbance in sensitive areas and protocols that apply in the event that unanticipated resources are discovered. Only construction personnel who have received this training can conduct construction and disturbance activities in sensitive areas. A sign-in sheet for attendees of this training shall be included in the Phase IV Monitoring Report.

Prior to ground disturbance.


Property Owner

Developer

Precise Grading Plan Review and Issuance of Grading Permits.

Geology and Soils

MM GEO 1: Prior to the issuance of grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit to the City of Riverside Planning Division evidence that a qualified paleontologist has been retained for monitoring of all ground-disturbing activities occurring at a depth of approximately three to five feet or greater below ground surface

Prior to the issuance of grading permit and on-going through grading and/or ground disturbing activities.


Provide evidence that a qualified Paleontologist has been retained.


105 | P a g e


Timing Responsible


Method

or wherever the finer-grained, older Quaternary Alluvial deposits that are mapped at the site are excavated. If no grading, excavation, and/or ground disturbing activities on the Project site occur in the finer-grained, older Quaternary Alluvium, then the Property Owner/Developer shall not be required to retain a qualified paleontological monitor prior to the issuance of a grading permit(s).

The Property Owner/Developer shall include a note on the Grading Plans that if paleontological resources are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities associated with the Proposed Project, the Contractor shall cease all earth-disturbing activities within 50 feet of the discovery while construction activities may continue in other areas. The paleontologist shall collect and process sediment samples as necessary to determine the small fossil potential on the Project site. The paleontologist shall evaluate the resource and determine if the discovery is significant. If the discovery proves to be significant, additional work such as salvage excavation and recovery may be warranted and shall be discussed in consultation with the appropriate regulatory agency. Any significant fossils recovered during mitigation should be deposited in an accredited and permanent

Public Works Department

Property Owner

Developer

Qualified Paleontologist


106 | P a g e


Timing Responsible


Method

scientific institution for the benefit of current and future generations.


107 | P a g e

Section 5 – Organizations and Persons Consulted This section identifies those persons who prepared or contributed to the preparation of this document. This section is prepared in accordance with Section 15129 of the CEQA Guidelines. City of Riverside Patricia Brenes, Principal Planner Candice Assadzadeh, Senior Planner Alyssa Berlino, Associate Planner Scott Watson, Historic Preservation Sagecrest Planning and Environmental Christine Saunders, Principal Veronica Morones, Planning Consultant VCS Environmental Patrick Maxon, RPA B&W Consulting Engineers, Inc. Andrew C. Woodard, P.E. Cody Ehlers Group Michael J. Cody GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Haytham Nabilsi, G.E. Art Martinez, Staff Engineer


108 | P a g e

Section 6 – References The following documents were used as information sources during preparation of this document. Appendix A - Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report Dixieline Lumber Project, Sagecrest Planning+Environmental, July 2019 (Revised September 2019, November 2019) Appendix B – General Biology and Habitat Assessment for Burrowing Owl, Osborne Biological Consulting, October 16, 2018 Appendix C - Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Dixieline Lumber Yard Project, VCS Environmental, September 19, 2019 (Revised October 31, 2019) Appendix D – Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Cody Ehlers Group, June 29, 2018 Appendix E – Water Quality Management Plan, B&W Consulting Engineers, INC., June 2019 (Revised August 2019) Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, (https://bofdata.fire.ca.gov/projects-and-programs/state-responsibility-area-viewer/) accessed on June 28, 2019

California Department of Transportation, California Scenic Highway Mapping System-Riverside County

California Legislative Information, California Health and Safety Code, 2019 (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=18938.5.&lawCode=HSC) accessed July 11, 2019

City of Riverside, Bicycle Master Plan, 2007 (https://riversideca.gov/pworks/pdf/masterplan-bicycle/Bicycle_Master_Plan.pdf) accessed on July 11, 2019 City of Riverside, Code of Ordinances, 2019 (https://library.municode.com/ca/riverside/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=14596) accessed on July 5, 2019 City of Riverside, General Plan 2025, 2007 (https://www.riversideca.gov/planning/gp2025program/general-plan.asp) accessed July 5, 2019 City of Riverside, General Plan 2025 Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report, 2007 (https://www.riversideca.gov/planning/gp2025program/) accessed July 5, 2019 City of Riverside, Parks Master Plan, 2003 (https://riversideca.gov/park_rec/sites/riversideca.gov.park_rec/files/pdf/Parks-MP/2003-PARK-



http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=18938.5.&lawCode=HSC

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=18938.5.&lawCode=HSC

https://riversideca.gov/pworks/pdf/masterplan-bicycle/Bicycle_Master_Plan.pdf

https://riversideca.gov/pworks/pdf/masterplan-bicycle/Bicycle_Master_Plan.pdf

https://library.municode.com/ca/riverside/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=14596

https://www.riversideca.gov/planning/gp2025program/general-plan.asp

https://www.riversideca.gov/planning/gp2025program/

https://riversideca.gov/park_rec/sites/riversideca.gov.park_rec/files/pdf/Parks-MP/2003-PARK-MASTER-PLAN.pdf


109 | P a g e

MASTER-PLAN.pdf) accessed on July 11, 2019 City of Riverside, Riverside Citywide Design and Sign Guidelines, 2007 (https://www.riversideca.gov/planning/2008-0909/DG/Citywide_Design_and_Sign_Guidelines-OK.pdf) accessed July 11, 2019 City of Riverside, Urban Forestry Policy Manual, 2015 (https://www.riversideca.gov/publicworks/trees/pdf/UrbanForestry-TOC.pdf) accessed July 11, 2019 City of Riverside, Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities Integrated Master Plan, 2008 (https://www.riversideca.gov/pworks/pdf/masterplan-wastewater/Vol%2010%20-%20Ch%2001%20-%20Capital%20Costs%20and%20Implementation%20Schedule.pdf) accessed on July 5, 2019 National Archives and Records Administration - Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49 – Transportation Parts 100 to 177, 2012 (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2012-title49-vol2/pdf/CFR-2012-title49-vol2.pdf) accessed on July 11, 2019 Google, Map Data Google, 2019 (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9874585,-117.3516844,18z) accessed July 5, 2019 March Air Reserve Base, Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Study for March Air Reserve Base, 2005 (https://www.marchjpa.com/documents/docs_forms/aicuz_2005.pdf) accessed July 11, 2019 Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, March Air Reserve Base/March Inland Port Comprehensive Land Use Plan, 2014 (http://www.rcaluc.org/Portals/13/17%20-%20Vol.%201%20March%20Air%20Reserve%20Base%20Final.pdf?ver=2016-08-15-145812-700) accessed on July 5, 2019 Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, 2004 (http://www.rcaluc.org/Portals/13/PDFGeneral/plan/newplan/01-%20Cover%20&%20Title%20Page%20Vol%201.pdf) accessed on July 5, 2019 Riverside County, Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2018 (https://www.rivcoemd.org/Portals/0/FINAL%20PUBLIC%20VERSION%20Riv_Co_%202018%20Multi%20Jurisdictional%20Local%20Hazard%20Mitigation%20Plan.pdf) accessed on July 11, 2019 Riverside Public Utilities - Map of Water Supply Basins, 2010 (https://riversideca.gov/utilities/water-mapofbasins.asp) accessed on July 5, 2019 Riverside Public Utilities – Urban Water Management Plan, 2015 (https://www.riversideca.gov/utilities/about-rpu/pdf/RPU_2015_UWMP_June.pdf) accessed July 11, 2019

https://riversideca.gov/park_rec/sites/riversideca.gov.park_rec/files/pdf/Parks-MP/2003-PARK-MASTER-PLAN.pdf

https://www.riversideca.gov/planning/2008-0909/DG/Citywide_Design_and_Sign_Guidelines-OK.pdf

https://www.riversideca.gov/publicworks/trees/pdf/UrbanForestry-TOC.pdf

https://www.riversideca.gov/pworks/pdf/masterplan-wastewater/Vol%2010%20-%20Ch%2001%20-%20Capital%20Costs%20and%20Implementation%20Schedule.pdf

https://www.riversideca.gov/pworks/pdf/masterplan-wastewater/Vol%2010%20-%20Ch%2001%20-%20Capital%20Costs%20and%20Implementation%20Schedule.pdf

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2012-title49-vol2/pdf/CFR-2012-title49-vol2.pdf

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2012-title49-vol2/pdf/CFR-2012-title49-vol2.pdf

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9874585,-117.3516844,18z

https://www.marchjpa.com/documents/docs_forms/aicuz_2005.pdf

http://www.rcaluc.org/Portals/13/17%20-%20Vol.%201%20March%20Air%20Reserve%20Base%20Final.pdf?ver=2016-08-15-145812-700

http://www.rcaluc.org/Portals/13/17%20-%20Vol.%201%20March%20Air%20Reserve%20Base%20Final.pdf?ver=2016-08-15-145812-700

http://www.rcaluc.org/Portals/13/PDFGeneral/plan/newplan/01-%20Cover%20&%20Title%20Page%20Vol%201.pdf

http://www.rcaluc.org/Portals/13/PDFGeneral/plan/newplan/01-%20Cover%20&%20Title%20Page%20Vol%201.pdf

https://www.rivcoemd.org/Portals/0/FINAL%20PUBLIC%20VERSION%20Riv_Co_%202018%20Multi%20Jurisdictional%20Local%20Hazard%20Mitigation%20Plan.pdf

https://www.rivcoemd.org/Portals/0/FINAL%20PUBLIC%20VERSION%20Riv_Co_%202018%20Multi%20Jurisdictional%20Local%20Hazard%20Mitigation%20Plan.pdf

https://riversideca.gov/utilities/water-mapofbasins.asp

https://riversideca.gov/utilities/water-mapofbasins.asp

https://www.riversideca.gov/utilities/about-rpu/pdf/RPU_2015_UWMP_June.pdf


110 | P a g e

Southern California Association of Governments, Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy 2012-2035, 2012(http://rtpscs.scag.ca.gov/Documents/2012/final/f2012RTPSCS.pdf) accessed July 5, 2019 Water Quality Management Plan for the Santa Ana Region of Riverside County, 2012 (http://rcflood.org/downloads/NPDES/Documents/SA_WQMP/SantaAnaWQMPGuidance.pdf) accessed July 9, 2019 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, 2003 (http://www.wrc-rca.org/about-rca/multiple-species-habitat-conservation-plan/) accessed on July 5, 2019

http://rtpscs.scag.ca.gov/Documents/2012/final/f2012RTPSCS.pdf

http://rcflood.org/downloads/NPDES/Documents/SA_WQMP/SantaAnaWQMPGuidance.pdf

http://www.wrc-rca.org/about-rca/multiple-species-habitat-conservation-plan/

http://www.wrc-rca.org/about-rca/multiple-species-habitat-conservation-plan/


111 | P a g e

Appendix A

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report Dixieline Lumber Project

Sagecrest Planning+Environmental, July 2019 (Revised September 2019, November 2019)


112 | P a g e

Appendix B

General Biology and Habitat Assessment for Burrowing Owl

Osborne Biological Consulting, October 16, 2018


113 | P a g e

Appendix C

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Dixieline Lumber Yard Project

VCS Environmental, September 19, 2019 (Revised October 31, 2019)


114 | P a g e

Appendix D

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment

Cody Ehlers Group, June 29, 2018


115 | P a g e

Appendix E

Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan

B&W Consulting Engineers, INC., June 2019 (Revised August 2019)

Dixieline Lumber Yard Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative … · 2019-11-22 · Dixieline Lumber...

Documents

Transcript of Dixieline Lumber Yard Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative … · 2019-11-22 · Dixieline Lumber...