BACK TO GENERAL PLAN HOME PAGE
| RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT |  |
| GENERAL PLAN FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VOLUME I |
|
| RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA | |
| Comprehensive General Plan Amendment No. 618 (GPA00618) Environmental Assessment (EA) No. 38614 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 441 State Clearinghouse No. 2002051143 Prepared By: County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Riverside, California 92502 (909) 955-3200 With Technical Assistance From: LSA Associates, Inc. 1650 Spruce Street, Suite 500 Riverside, California 92507 (909) 781-9310 TransCore (Traffic) 300 South Harbor Boulevard, Suite 516 Anaheim, California 92805 (714) 758-0019 |
|
| The County of Riverside has independently reviewed, analyzed, and exercised its judgement in the analysis contained in this Environmental Impact Report and supporting documentation pursuant to Section 21082 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) |
|
|
|
|
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.1 Riverside County Integrated Project
1.3 Contents of the Final Program EIR
1.34 Areas of Controversy and Issues to Be Resolved
1.3.1 1.4.1 Public Scoping Meetings
1.45 Public Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report
1.56 Summary of Alternatives, Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
1.5.2 1.6.2 Impacts and Mitigation of Proposed General Plan
2.1 Purpose of the Program Environmental Impact Report
2.1.1 Contents of the Final Program EIR
2.1.2 Findings of the Final Program EIR
2.1.1 2.1.3 California Environmental Quality Act
2.1.2 2.1.4 Program Environmental Impact Report
2.2 Intended Use of the Program Environmental Impact Report
2.2.1 Previous Environmental Documentation
2.2.2 Environmental Procedures
2.3 Program Environmental Impact Report Focus
2.5 Public Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 3.0 - General Plan Project Description
3.1 Introduction to the Riverside County Integrated Project
3.3 General Plan Characteristics
3.4 Analysis Assumptions and Methodology
Section 4.0 - Impacts and Mitigation Measures
4.1 Environmental Analysis Assumptions
4.2 Land Use/Agricultural Resources
4.2.1 Land Use/Agricultural Resources Existing Setting
4.2.2 Land Use/Agricultural Resources Thresholds of Significance
4.2.3 Land Use/Agricultural Resources Impacts and Mitigation
4.2.4 Land Use/Agricultural Resources Level of Significance after Mitigation
4.3.1 Population and Housing Existing Setting
4.3.2 Population and Housing Thresholds of Significance
4.3.3 Population and Housing Impacts and Mitigation
4.3.4 Population and Housing Level of Significance after Mitigation
4.4 Aesthetics/Visual Resources
4.4.1 Aesthetics/Visual Resources Existing Setting
4.4.2 Aesthetics/Visual Resources Thresholds of Significance
4.4.3 Aesthetics/Visual Resources Impacts and Mitigation
4.4.4 Aesthetics/Visual Resources Levels of Significance after Mitigation
4.5.1 Air Quality Existing Setting
4.5.2 Air Quality Thresholds of Significance
4.5.3 Air Quality Impacts and Mitigation
4.5.4 Air Quality Level of Significance After Mitigation
4.6.1 Biological Resources Existing Setting
4.6.2 Biological Resources Thresholds of Significance
4.6.3 Biological Resources Impacts and Mitigation
4.6.4 Biological Resources Level of Significance after Mitigation
4.7.1 Cultural Resources Existing Setting
4.7.2 Cultural Resources Thresholds of Significance
4.7.3 Cultural Resources Impacts and Mitigation
4.7.4 Cultural Resources Level of Significance after Mitigation
4.8.2 Energy Thresholds of Significance
4.8.3 Energy Impacts and Mitigation
4.8.4 Energy Level of Significance after Mitigation
4.9 Flood and Dam Inundation Hazards
4.9.1 Flood and Dam Inundation Hazards Existing Setting
4.9.2 Flood and Dam Inundation Hazards Thresholds of Significance
4.9.3 Flood and Dam Inundation Hazards Impacts and Mitigation
4.9.4 Flood and Dam Inundation Hazards Level of Significance after Mitigation
4.10 Geology and Slope Stability
4.10.1 Geology and Slope Stability Existing Setting
4.10.2 Geology and Slope Stability Thresholds of Significance
4.10.3 Geology and Slope Stability Impacts and Mitigation
4.10.4 Geology and Slope Stability Level of Significance after Mitigation
4.11.1 Hazardous Materials Existing Setting
4.11.2 Hazardous Materials Thresholds of Significance
4.11.3 Hazardous Materials Impacts and Mitigation
4.11.4 Hazardous Materials Level of Significance after Mitigation
4.12.1 Mineral Resources Existing Setting
4.12.2 Mineral Resources Thresholds of Significance
4.12.3 Mineral Resources Impacts and Mitigation
4.12.4 Mineral Resources Level of Significance after Mitigation
4.13.2 Noise Thresholds of Significance
4.13.3 Noise Impacts and Mitigation
4.13.4 Noise Level of Significance after Mitigation
4.14.1 Parks and Recreation Existing Setting
4.14.2 Parks and Recreation Thresholds of Significance
4.14.3 Parks and Recreation Impacts and Mitigation
4.14.4 Parks and Recreation Level of Significance after Mitigation
Fire Protection Existing Setting
Fire Protection Thresholds of Significance
Fire Protection Impacts and Mitigation
Fire Protection Level of Significance after Mitigation
Sheriff Protection Existing Setting
Sheriff Protection Thresholds of Significance
Sheriff Protection Impacts and Mitigation
Sheriff Protection Level of Significance after Mitigation
Solid Waste Management Existing Setting
Solid Waste Management Thresholds of Significance
Solid Waste Management Impacts and Mitigation
Solid Waste Management Level of Significance after Mitigation
Wastewater Thresholds of Significance
Wastewater Impacts and Mitigation
Wastewater Level of Significance after Mitigation
Schools Thresholds of Significance
Schools Impacts and Mitigation
Schools Level of Significance after Mitigation
Libraries Thresholds of Significance
Libraries Impacts and Mitigation
Libraries Level of Significance after Mitigation
Medical Facilities Existing Setting
Medical Facilities Thresholds of Significance
Medical Facilities Impacts and Mitigation
Medical Facilities Level of Significance after Mitigation
4.16 Transportation and Circulation
4.16.1 Transportation and Circulation Existing Setting
4.16.2 Transportation and Circulation Thresholds of Significance
4.16.3 Transportation and Circulation Impacts and Mitigation
4.16.4 Transportation and Circulation Levels of Significance after Mitigation
4.17.1 Water Resources Existing Setting
4.17.2 Water Resources Thresholds of Significance
4.17.3 Water Resources Impacts and Mitigation
4.17.4 Water Resources Level of Significance after Mitigation
Section 5.0 - Additional Topics Required by CEQA
5.1 Significant Environmental Effects That Cannot Be Avoided
5.1.3 Transportation/Circulation
5.1.6 Aesthetics/Visual Resources
5.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects
5.3.1 Population, Dwelling Units, and Jobs
5.5 Consistency with Regional Plans
5.5.1 Regional Comprehensive Plan
5.5.2 Regional Transportation Plan
5.5.3 Regional Plan Consistency Conclusions
6.1 Alternatives Considered But Not Carried Further for Analysis
6.1.1 Increase Residential/Decrease Commercial and Industrial Alternative
6.1.2 Decrease Residential/Increase Agricultural Alternative
6.1.3 Increase Open Space/Conservation/Habitat Alternative
6.2 Alternatives Under Consideration
6.2.3 Rural Emphasis Alternative
6.2.4 Less Intense Community Centers Alternative
6.2.5 More Intense Community Centers Alternative
6.2.6 Density Bonus Alternative
6.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative
Section 7.0 - Organizations and Persons Consulted
Section 8.0 - Report Preparation Personnel
Section 10.0 - Glossary and Acronyms
Appendix B -Riverside County General Plan Vision Statement
List of Figures
3.2 Riverside County Proposed General Plan Land Use
3.3 Riverside County Area Plans
3.4 Final Draft Eastvale Area Plan Land Use Plan
3.5 Final Draft Elsinore Area Plan Land Use Plan
3.6 Final Draft Harvest Valley/Winchester Valley Area Plan Land Use Plan
3.7 Final Draft Highgrove Area Plan Land Use Plan
3.8 Final Draft Jurupa Area Plan Land Use Plan
3.9 Final Draft Lake Mathews/Woodcrest Area Plan Land Use Plan
3.10 Final Draft Lakeview/Nuevo Area Plan Land Use Plan
3.11 Final Draft Mead Valley Area Plan Land Use Plan
3.12 Final Draft The Pass Area Plan Land Use Plan
3.13 Final Draft Reche Canyon/Badlands Area Plan Land Use Plan
3.14 Final Draft REMAP Area Plan Land Use Plan
3.15 Final Draft San Jacinto Valley Area Plan Land Use Plan
3.16 Final Draft Southwest Area Plan Land Use Plan
3.17 Final Draft Sun City/Menifee Area Plan Land Use Plan
3.18 Final Draft Temescal Area Plan Land Use Plan
3.19 Final Draft Desert Center Area Plan Land Use Plan
3.20 Final Draft Eastern Coachella Valley Area Plan Land Use Plan
3.21 Final Draft Palo Verde Area Plan Land Use Plan
3.22 Final Draft Western Coachella Valley Area Plan Land Use Plan
4.5.1 Riverside County Air Quality Basins
4.6.2 Total Natural Habitats Types in Proposed General Plan Foundation Components
4.6.3 Total Sensitive Habitat Types in Proposed General Plan Foundation Components
4.6.4 Sensitive Habitat Types in Proposed General Plan Foundation Components
4.7.1 Archaeological Sensitivity Areas
4.7.2 Paleontological Sensitivity Areas
4.9.1 100- and 500-Year Flood Hazard Zones
4.9.2 Dam Failure Inundation Zones
4.10.1 Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Hazard Zone Map
4.10.3 Areas Susceptible to Liquefaction
4.10.5 Areas of Documented or Susceptible to Subsidence
4.10.7 Near Source Zone Regions Impacting Riverside County and UBC Zone Boundary
4.13.1 Common Noise Sources and Noise Levels
4.13.2 Noise Monitoring Locations
4.13.3 Projected Noise Contours Along Freeways and Major Highways (Collector Street - 2 Lanes)
4.13.4 Projected Noise Contours Along Freeways and Major Highways (Mountain Arterial - 4 Lanes)
4.13.5 Projected Noise Contours Along Freeways and Major Highways (Arterial Highway - 4 Lanes)
4.13.6 Projected Noise Contours Along Freeways and Major Highways (Secondary Highway - 4 Lanes)
4.13.7 Projected Noise Contours Along Freeways and Major Highway (Major Highway - 4 Lanes)
4.13.8 Projected Noise Contours Along Freeways and Major Highways (Urban Arterial - 6 Lanes)
4.13.9 Projected Noise Contours Along Freeways and Major Highways (Freeway - 6 Lanes)
4.13.10 Projected Noise Contours Along Freeways and Major Highways (Expressway - 6 Lanes)
4.13.11 Projected Noise Contours Along Freeways and Major Highways (Freeway - 10 Lanes)
4.13.17 Existing Noise Contours Along Freeways and Major Highways (Highway 60 - West of Beaumont)
4.13.20 Existing Noise Contours Along Freeways and Major Highways (Interstate 10 at Date Palm Drive)
4.13.25 Existing Noise Contours Around Airports
4.13.26 Corona Municipal Airport Future CNEL Contours
4.13.27 Chino Municipal Airport Future CNEL Contours
4.13.28 Riverside Municipal Airport Future CNEL Contours
4.13.29 Flabob Airport Future CNEL Contours
4.13.30 French Valley Airport Future CNEL Contours
4.13.31 Hemet-Ryan Airport Future CNEL Contours
4.13.32 Banning Municipal Airport Future CNEL Contours
4.13.33 Palm Springs Regional Airport Future CNEL Contours
4.13.34 Bermuda Dunes Airport Future CNEL Contours
4.13.35 Desert Resorts Regional Airport Future CNEL Contours
4.13.36 Chiriaco Summit Airport Future CNEL Contours
4.13.37 Desert Center Airport Future CNEL Contours
4.13.38 Blythe Airport Future CNEL Contours
4.13.39 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Exposure
4.14.1 Parks and Recreation Areas
4.16.1 Daily Volume/Capacity Ratios for Buildout of Proposed General Plan, Western Riverside County
4.16.2 Daily Volume/Capacity Ratios for Buildout of Proposed General Plan, Coachella Valley
4.16.13 Express Routes and Possible Transit Oasis Locations
4.16.14 Approximate Reductions in Traffic Due to Transit Oasis
List of Tables
1.A Environmental Summary of the Proposed Riverside County General Plan EIR
3.B Unincorporated Riverside County Proposed Land Use in Acres
3.C Foundation Component and Area Plan Designations
3.D Land Use Designations Summary Table
4.1.A Projections at Proposed Plan Build Out by Area Plan
4.2.A Distribution of Existing Land Use Cities and Unincorporated Areas
4.2.B Riverside County Specific Plan Developments - February 2003
4.2.C Proposed Specific Plans In Riverside County
4.2.BD Crop Valuation (in millions)
4.3.A Population Growth Trends 1990-2000
4.3.B Population, Households and Employment within Unincorporated Riverside County, 1997
4.3.C Unincorporated Riverside County Projections
4.4.A Summary of Visual Character
4.5.A Ambient Air Quality Standards
4.5.B Health Effects Summary of the Major Criteria Air Pollutants
4.5.C Ambient Air Quality at Norco Air Monitoring Station
4.5.D Ambient Air Quality at Riverside-Rubidoux Air Monitoring Station
4.5.E Ambient Air Quality at Riverside-Magnolia Air Monitoring Station
4.5.F Ambient Air Quality at Banning-Alessandro Air Monitoring Station
4.5.G Ambient Air Quality at Banning Airport Air Monitoring Station
4.5.H Ambient Air Quality at Perris Air Monitoring Station
4.5.I Ambient Air Quality at Lake Elsinore Air Monitoring Station
4.5.J Ambient Air Quality at Palm Springs Air Monitoring Station
4.5.K Ambient Air Quality at Indio Air Monitoring Station
4.5.L Construction Emissions for a 50-Acre Site 5.
4.5.M Daily Emissions of the Proposed General Plan for Western Riverside County
4.5.N Daily Emissions of the Proposed General Plan for the Central Mountains Area
4.5.O Daily Emissions of the Proposed General Plan for the Eastern Desert Area
4.5.P Daily Emissions of the Proposed General Plan for the Coachella Valley Area
4.6.B Generalized Natural Communities of Eastern Riverside County
4.6.C Proposed General Plan Impacts to Habitat and Vegetation Types
4.6.D Potential Impacts and Retention of Sensitive Habitat Types
4.6.E Applicable Mitigation Measures
4.7.A Historical Resources of Riverside County
4.7.B Riverside County Properties Listed on the National Register of Historic Places
4.7.C Paleontological Resources by Age, Formation, and Location
4.8.A Demand of Natural Gas at Build Out of Proposed General Plan
4.8.B Demand of Electricity at Build Out of Proposed General Plan
4.10.A Probable Earthquake Scenarios Fault Source Parameters for Riverside County
4.10.B General Liquefaction Potential Zones for Riverside County
4.13.A Ambient Noise Monitoring Results
4.13.B Existing Traffic Noise Levels
4.13.C Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels
4.14.A County of Riverside Existing Parks and Facilities
4.15.A Fire Stations Needed at General Plan Build Out
4.15.B Active Landfills in Riverside County
4.15.C Generation of Solid Wastes at General Plan Build Out
4.15.D Disposal Capacity for Riverside County (Tons), 2001-2016
4.15.E Number of Students at Build Out
4.16.A Uninterrupted Traffic Flow Facilities Level of Service
4.16.B Interrupted Traffic Flow Facilities Level of Service
4.16.C Existing Roadway Capacity Analysis (Interstate and State Routes)
4.16.D Existing Roadway Capacity Analysis (Classified Local Facilities)
4.16.E Daily Truck Volumes on Freeways in Riverside County (Bi-Directional)
4.16.F Traffic Analysis of the Proposed General Plan and Alternatives for the Central Mountain Area
4.16.G Traffic Analysis of the Proposed General Plan and Alternatives for the Blythe Area
4.16.H Area-Wide Travel Statistics for the Proposed General Plan and Alternatives Build Out
4.17.A South Coast Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs
4.17.B Colorado River Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs
5.A Unincorporated Riverside County Projections
5.C SCAG Regional Growth Projections
5.D County Population Projections in SCAG Region
6.F Difference in Daily Emissions with Proposed General Plan and the No Build Alternative
6.I Difference in Daily Emissions with Proposed General Plan and the No Project Alternative
6.K Comparison of Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed General Plan
SECTION 1.0 SUMMARY
1.1 Riverside County Integrated Project
In 2020, Riverside County (See Figure 1.1) will be home to approximately 2.8 million people, who will occupy approximately 918,000 dwelling units (Hoffman, 2001). This represents a doubling of the present population and housing stock of Riverside County. Other studies by the California Department of Finance estimate that the County will continue to grow to 3.5 million people by 2030 and 4.5 million people by 2040. These population figures include residents that live within unincorporated areas as well as those that live within the boundaries of the 24 incorporated cities within the County. Projections contained in the 2002 Riverside County General Plan indicate that approximately 1.77 1.67 million persons would reside within the unincorporated areas of the County in nearly 591,209 558,000 dwelling units in 2040.
The challenge of balancing the housing, transportation, and economic needs of existing and future populations with limited natural resources and the sensitivity of the natural environment has led Riverside County to develop the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP). The RCIP, which consists of three coordinated plans, will determine future planning, transportation, and conservation needs for Riverside County. These three plans include the following:
• The 2002 Riverside County General Plan (Comprehensive General Plan Amendment No. GPA00618)
• The creation of a Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) for the western portion of Riverside County, and the integration of an ongoing Coachella Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan effort (which is not a part of RCIP but is a related program) into the fabric of comprehensive planning for the County.
• The identification of transportation corridors to meet the future transportation needs of Western Riverside County through the Community Environmental and Transportation Acceptability Program (CETAP).
Each of the plans has independent utility, and each can be approved without approval of the others. They will, however, be coordinated such that if all three are adopted, no conflicts between the plans will occur. This document focuses on the 2002 Riverside County General Plan, which is the proposed project.
1.2 Proposed Project
The 2002 Riverside County General Plan is intended to be a blueprint for the future of Riverside County. It describes anticipated future growth, development, and environmental management programs over the long term. It is intended to act as a "constitution" for public and private development, and to serve as the foundation for growth and land-use-related decision-making within unincorporated Riverside County. Most of the unincorporated portions of Western Riverside County and some of Eastern Riverside
Figure 1.1
REGIONAL LOCATION
County are divided into 19 Area Plans to provide more detailed land use and policy direction regarding local issues, such as land use, circulation, and open space.
The General Plan is meant to express the community's goals with respect to the man-made and natural environments, and to set forth the policies and implementation measures needed to achieve those goals for the welfare of those who live, work, and do business in Riverside County.
The following discretionary actions are anticipated to be taken by Riverside County as part of the proposed project:
• Adoption of the 2002 Riverside County General Plan, which incorporates 19 Area Plans as part of the Riverside County General Plan, and
• Adoption of proposed boundary changes to zoning districts to coincide with the 19 Area Plan boundaries.
This EIR (EIR No. 441) has been prepared according to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed 2002 Riverside County General Plan (General Plan). This EIR is intended to serve as an informational document for public agency decision-makers and the general public regarding the objectives and components of the proposed General Plan, which is the proposed project for the purpose of CEQA.
1.3 Contents of the Final Program EIR
The Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the County of Riverside General Plan (State of California Clearinghouse No. 2002051143) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the guidelines for the implementation of CEQA. The Final EIR consists of two volumes containing the following contents:
• Revisions made to the Draft EIR (August 20, 2002), State of California Clearinghouse No. 2002051143 - Volume I;
• A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR (Section 1.4 of Volume II);
• The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the public review and consultation process (Section 2.0 of Volume II);
• An addendum to the Draft EIR as a result of responses to comments on the Draft EIR (Section 3.0 of Volume II); and
• The Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP) (Section 4.0 of Volume II).
The Final EIR (Volume I) also contains an analysis of revisions/changes made to the General Plan Land Use Map, land use designations and general plan components, 19 Area Plan Maps, and General Plan policies as a result of the County of Riverside Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor's public hearings on proposed General Plan through September 9, 2003.
The Final EIR incorporates by reference the Riverside County General Plan Program Draft EIR, August 20, 2002, and the Riverside County Integrated Plan Existing Setting Report (March 2000).
1.34 Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Resolved
Pursuant to Section 15123(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, a summary section must address areas of controversy known to the Lead Agency, including issues raised by agencies and the public. In addition, pursuant to Section 15123(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a summary section must also address issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate the significant effects. Each of these issues is discussed below:
The Initial Study (IS) (Environmental Assessment No. 38614) prepared for the proposed General Plan identified potential environmental impacts related to the following issues:
• Aesthetics
• Land Use and Planning
• Agricultural Resources
• Mineral Resources
• Air Quality
• Noise
• Biological Resources
• Population and Housing
• Cultural Resources
• Public Services
• Geology and Soils
• Recreation
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Transportation/Traffic
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Utilities and Service Systems
Based on the IS, it was determined that potential impacts associated with the aforementioned issues required further evaluation in the Program EIR for the proposed General Plan. Additionally, the IS determined that an evaluation of potential cumulative impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed General Plan be included in the EIR.
Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the proposed project was prepared and distributed with the IS on May 28, 2002. The IS/NOP, describing the project and issues to be addressed in the EIR, was distributed to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies, and other interested parties for a 30-day public review period that extended from May 28 to June 30, 2002.
The objective of distributing a NOP is to solicit public comment in order to identify and determine the full range and scope of issues of concern so that these issues might be fully examined in the EIR. Twenty-one Forty-seven comments responses responding to the NOP and IS were received and are summarized below. The IS/NOP, distribution list, and comments on the NOP received by the County of Riverside are included in Appendix A.
• Governor's Office of Planning and Research (May 28, 2002) - This comment confirmed receipt of the IS/NOP and assigned the project a State Clearinghouse number (SCH No. 2002051143).
• Rob Wood, Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) (May 31, 2002) - This comment letter requests the following to adequately assess and mitigate impacts on archaeological resources: Perform a record search, prepare a professional finding report if an archaeological inventory survey is required, contact the NAHC for Sacred Lands File Check and appropriate contacts, and understand that lack of surface archeological evidence does not preclude existence.
• City of Canyon Lake (received June 2, 2002) - This comment requested that the name and address of the City Manager be recorded as corrected on facsimile transmission.
• Timothy N. Stanton, P.E., Ramona Municipal Water District (June 3, 2002) - This comment letter acknowledged receipt of the IS/NOP and stated the proposed General Plan would have no impact on the Ramona Municipal Water District.
• Kathleen McNamara, Ed. D., Banning Unified School District (June 6, 2002) - This comment letter requested clarification of the term "The Pass" used in the NOP.
• Dan Wood, Menifee Union School District (June 6, 2002) - This comment letter expressed concerns that build out of the proposed General Plan would significantly impact the provision of school facilities within the District. The commentor provided site requirements and general school population figures and requested that the needs of the Menifee Union School District be provided for in the proposed General Plan.
• Tom Hawkins, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (June 7, 2002) - This comment letter stated that the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences is a non-regulatory agency and is not involved in the review of Environmental Impact Reports.
• Robert J. Brucato, California Institute of Technology (June 7, 2002) - This commentor requests that the General Plan EIR address the potential proliferation of light pollution that may affect the operation of Palomar Observatory.
• Jeffrey M. Smith, AICP, Southern California Association of Governments (June 11, 2002) - The commentor requests that the EIR for the proposed General Plan specifically cite SCAG policies and addresses the manner in which the proposed General Plan is consistent with the applicable core policies or supportive of applicable ancillary policies.
• Ann L. Turner-McKibben, Friends of Northern San Jacinto Valley (June 11, 2002) - This comment letter requested that the EIR for the proposed General Plan address the following issues: the growth inducing impacts of proposed General Plan; the environmental impacts associated with global climate change; the reason why the San Jacinto Valley was split into two planning areas; a reassessment of how the San Jacinto River and the San Jacinto Wildlife Area are depicted in all planning documents; the EIR accurately depict Mystic Lake; the accurate delineation and designation of Davis Road; how the upgrade of Davis Road will affect the San Jacinto Wildlife area; the development of Gillman Springs Road as a major transportation corridor; the thorough assessment of geotechnical and hazards in the north San Jacinto Valley; potential impacts associated with the proposed channelization of the San Jacinto River; and how the proposed General Plan will impact floodplains and wetlands. Ms. Turner-McKibben requested to be kept informed of all notices, meetings, and actions regarding the proposed General Plan.
• Michael A. McKibben, Ph.D. (September 26, 2000) - This comment letter was attached to Ann L. Turner-McKibben's letter dated June 11, 2002, and detailed specific scientific comments on the absence of significant geotechnical hazards that are not addressed by the County's draft hazard map and proposed General Plan, including: seismic shaking zones and building codes; the status of the Casa Loma fault; the existence of the Farm Road fault; the existence of a slowly-moving landslide along Gilman Springs Road; chronic subsidence and liquefaction in San Jacinto Valley; the growing size of Mystic Lake; and the State's existing emergency response plans for a major earthquake. Dr. McKibben requested to be kept informed of all notices, meetings, and actions regarding the proposed General Plan.
• James E. Cohen, California Indian Legal Services (June 21, 2002) - The commentor requests that copies of all environmental documentation related to the proposed General Plan be forwarded to Mr. John Macarro, Office of Tribal Attorney, Pechanga Indian Reservation.
• William J. Liebhauser, United States Department of the Interior/Bureau of Reclamation (received June 21, 2002) - The commentor requests that copies of future environmental documentation related to the proposed General Plan be forwarded to Ms. Deanna J. Miller, Director, Resource Management, and Mr. William J. Steele, Area Manager, Southern California Area Office.
• Susan L. Nash, San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society (June 21, 2002) - This comment letter requested that Board of Supervisors consider the health of County residents when planning and approving a General Plan; expressed concern that development of housing sufficient to "accommodate" future population would adversely affect the health of residents of County and surrounding areas; and suggested that the proposed Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), the proposed General Plan, and all transportation plans be integrated.
• Peggy Temple, City of Corona (June 24, 2002) - The commentor requested that the EIR include analysis of the following issues: the analysis in the EIR should be for the worst case scenario to adequately identify and address potential environmental impacts; the Density Bonus Alternative needs to be better explained; the EIR must explain the use of baseline data that is two years old; the EIR must distinguish between the MSHCP Conservation Unit Area and reserve area; how the analysis of biological resources will be accomplished when the MSHCP environmental document is being prepared separately; an analysis of existing and planned landfills in the County, and potential impacts and land uses surrounding such facilities, especially areas adjacent to El Sobrante landfill; an adequate analysis of water supply for the level of development envisioned in the proposed General Plan; and the inclusion of the proposed Orange County corridor in the analysis of potential transportation impacts.
• Lori A. Ludi, City of Loma Linda (June 25, 2002) - The commentor requests that the General Plan EIR address the long-term effects of the areas surrounding the County of Riverside, specifically the Bi-County corridor plan.
• Andrew L. Webster, P.E., Rancho California Water District (June 25, 2002) - This comment letter suggested potential water supply and water quality mitigation measures.
• Joseph W. Wright, City of Anaheim (June 25, 2002) - This comment letter acknowledged receipt of the IS/NOP. While no comments were noted, copies of subsequent environmental documents were requested as they were available for review.
• George Hague, Sierra Club, San Gorgonio Chapter (June 25, 2002) - This comment letter requested that the EIR for the proposed General Plan include an analysis of the supply of and demand for water and how the use of water will affect plant, insect, or animal life. Additionally, the commentor states that potential air quality impacts associated with buildout of the proposed General Plan must be included in the EIR. The commentor also requests that the EIR address: how sprawl will be prevented; why very-low density housing is not provided for in the Lakeview area; why the channelization of the San Jacinto will be permitted; why wildlife corridors are not shown in adjacent counties; the level of protection given to vernal pools; and how connectivity between reserves will be analyzed through the multi-species plan. The commentor requested subsequent environmental documents related to the proposed General Plan as they become available for public review.
• Laura J Simonek, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD Metropolitan) (June 25, 2002) - This comment letter requested that MWD Metropolitan projects within the Planning Area need to be considered in sufficient detail and evaluated to determine potential impacts. Furthermore, Metropolitan requests that all of its "core" properties (those facilities which are in existence or are proposed) be excluded from any conservation land use designation.
• Michael Kellner, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (June 25, 2002) - This comment letter suggests that the County meets with each Indian Tribe or Band to discuss the proposed General Plan. In addition this comment suggests that Indian land should be identified by individual reservations. Comment letter also contains specific individual revisions to the proposed General Plan.
• Michel D. Remington, Imperial Irrigation District (IID) (June 26, 2002) - This commentor requests that the IID utility area, corridors and facilities for Riverside County is considered in the General Plan document.
• Robert S. Hewitt, Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) (June 26, 2002) - This comment letter states the NRCS's opinion pertaining to the conversion of farmland resulting from the implementation of the proposed General Plan. This comment also provides recommended changes associated with this issue. In addition, this letter states their opinion pertaining to the ability to amend the Plan and request zone changes. In conclusion, this comment letter includes positive incentives to encourage agriculture and assist farmers to stay in business.
• Steve Chaffer, California Department of Food and Agriculture (June 26, 2002) This commentor requested that the EIR for the proposed General Plan address the following issues: the impacts of growth on the County on the demand for water and how the increased demand will be met with respect to supplies expected to be needed for future agricultural production; the need to mitigate for the impacts of urban development on adjacent agricultural lands; the cumulative impact of past and projected growth on agricultural resources throughout the County; and the potential to utilize agricultural land conservation banks to mitigate for the loss of agricultural land. This comment letter recommended the use of California Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) to address the significance of agricultural land conversion impacts in particular areas of the County.
• Gary Pryor, County of San Diego (June 26, 2002) - This comment letter stated that aesthetic, air quality, biological resource, cultural resource, noise, transportation and circulation, and cumulative impacts are important issues to the County of San Diego in relationship to Riverside County because of the population that is working in San Diego County and living in Riverside County. Equally, the County of San Diego needs to take the Riverside County's growth, as well as current needs, particularly the circulation system, into account while updating its own General Plan.
• Penny Newman, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice (June 27, 2002) - This comment letter requested that in addition to the issues already addressed in the EIR, all feasible, environmentally friendly solutions to the problems of growth be assessed, and compared to traditional development in terms of cost, efficiency, environmental, and health impacts. The commentor provided specific suggestions for mitigation for some of the issue areas included in the EIR.
• Charles E Coe, City of Chino (June 27, 2002) - This comment letter expresses concern with the Prado Dam project and the elevated flood inundation line. This comment letter recommends reviewing advantages and disadvantages of allowing development in this area.
• Gary Watts, State of California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR) (June 27, 2002) - This comment letter requests that CDPR maintains jurisdictional authority over the State Park System. This agency also requests a copy of the RCIP Existing Setting Report.
• Jeffery S. Adams, City of Chino Hills (June 28, 2002) - This comment letter expresses concern regarding lack of coordination of transportation planning and programming, development within flood plain areas, and the conservation of biological resources.
• Margaret Strachan (June 28, 2002) - This comment letter suggests that the San Jacinto River should be left in its natural state to protect the natural integrity of the flood plain. In addition, this comment letter expresses concern regarding the projected population increase of the Lakeview/Nuevo area and the loss of agriculture resources. Implications resulting from the potential implementation of the Rural Emphasis Alternative and the Density Bonus Alternative on the Lakeview/Nuevo area.
• Bill Figge, Department of Transportation (June 28, 2002) - This comment letter provides objectives and suggestions to create more efficient and livable communities.
• David G. Woelfel, California Regional Water Quality Control Board (June 28, 2002) - This comment letter states that construction activity over five acres requires a General Construction Activity Storm Water Runoff Permit. This comment letter also provides principals and policies that should be considered for the proposed General Plan.
• T.A. Manfred, United States Maine Corps (June 28, 2002) - This comment letter states that the proposed General Plan should meet the requirements of the 40CFR1500 series.
• Randal K. Bynder, City of Rancho Mirage (June 28, 2002) - This comment letter lists particular impacts that the city would like addressed. The letter requests that the EIR compare the "City Centers" to the policies recommended by the Transportation and Land Use Agency. The City requests that impacts to air quality, biology, water, and transportation be addressed at the Area Plan level.
• Stanley Riddell, Cherry Valley Unincorporated Community Committee - This comment letter states that the residents of Cherry Valley are concerned with the preservation of the character of the community. Specific areas of concern are water and agricultural resources.
• Marc Miller, Menifee Valley Community Economic Development Council (June 30, 2002) - This comment letter states specific areas of concern to this community, they include: water quality and quantity, traffic and circulation, air quality, scenic corridors, biological resources, agricultural resources, and biological waste.
• Robert Wheeler, Elsinore-Murrieta-Anza Resource Conservation District (June 30, 2002) - This comment letter states that the DEIR should address the lack of coordination between the EIR, MSHCP, and CETAP.
• Timothy Neely, County of Orange Planning & Development Services Department (July 1, 2002) - This comment letter states that the DEIR should supply a description of the CETAP project, the DEIR needs to specify statistics relating to the full build out of the proposed General plan to the existing General Plan. The project description should also include comparisons between the different alternatives. A discussion of the Santa Ana River Trail and the Santa Ana River Bikeway should be included.
• Earnest Quintana, United States Department of the Interior National Park Service (July 1, 2002) - This comment states that the EIR understates the importance of Joshua Tree National Park to the County. Maps within the various plans are inconsistent in depicting the park and its boundaries. The comment letter also states that there is a need to address impacts of the plan and the area plans specifically on the resources of the park.
• Debbie M. Brazill, City of Fontana (July 3, 2002) - This commentor respectfully requests a copy of the Draft Environmental Report when the document becomes available. The city has no further comment at this time.
• James C. Dice, Senior State Park Resource Ecologist, State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Colorado Desert District (June 26, 2002) - This comment letter states that the Department supports a buffer area of low density zoning around the boarder of all State Parks, and opposes any zoning change that would increase development density adjacent to or within State Park boundaries. Also, the comment letter states that the EIR should address any impacts to natural resources within and adjacent to State Park lands.
• Naresh P. Varma, P.E. Chief Environmental Management Division, County of San Bernardino Department of Public Works (June 27, 2002) - This comment letter states that the San Bernardino County Flood Control District requests to be notified if the new Riverside County General Plan proposes any changes in zoning for the area around Reche Canyon Creek.
• Patrick M. Egle, Planner, County of San Bernardino Land Use Services Department (June 28, 2002) - This comment letter states that the department has reviewed the document and would like to receive a copy of the Draft EIR when it becomes available.
• Shawn Nelson, City Manager, City of Temecula (July 1, 2002) - This comment letter states that the City would like the transportation analysis to include intersection LOS. The letter also requests that recently approved land uses be included in the General Plan traffic analysis and that the County perform analysis regarding the link between proposed General Plan land uses, their relationship to the circulation system and the anticipated revenue sources to support the circulation system. The letter also requests that a smaller population/employment level should be considered in the alternatives analysis in the EIR.
• Robert Lopez, Regional Manager Public Affairs, Southern California Edison (July 5, 2002) - This comment letter states that Southern California Edison would like to see an Energy Element included in the EIR. This element would help SCE prioritize its resources to continue to deliver affordable energy to county residences and businesses. Southern California Edison states that it has plans to meet the electricity needs of its customers in Riverside County.
• Shirley Richter, Coordinator Facilities Planning, Temecula Valley Unified School District (July 8, 2002) - This comment letter requests County assistance in locating a 50+ acre site in the French Valley area for a future High School. The letter also requests that major freeway corridors and utility power lines be kept away from existing or proposed school sites. Additionally, the comment letter requests that the proposed General Plan include language that states the County will be proactive in working with school districts in ensuring new development mitigates its school impacts to the fullest extent under State Law.
• Ike Burr, Deputy Director, Installations and Logistics, Marine Air Ground Task Force Training Command (MCAGCC), Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center (July 9, 2002) - This comment letter states that all of the elements of the proposed General Plan and all of the alternatives of the Plan will either directly or indirectly impact the readiness of local DoD ranges and bases by increasing the demand for resources through levels of development and adversely impacting water and air resources. Therefore, the MCAGCC requests an evaluation of each alternative's potential to directly and indirectly encroach on local military installations.
1.34.1 Public Scoping Meetings
In addition to responses to the NOP, two public scoping meetings were held to solicit input from the general public on what analysis should be included in the EIR. These scoping meeting were held on Thursday, June 20, 2002, at the Lake Perris Fairgrounds and Tuesday, June 25, 2002, at the Riverside County Fair and National Date Festival. Both meetings were open for public comment from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Attendees were given the option of providing oral or written comments. The time, place and intent of these public scoping meetings was advertised (in English and Spanish) in the following publications:
• The Press-Enterprise (Page B-2): Tuesday, June 11, 2002.
• The Desert Sun (Page F-10): Tuesday, June 11, 2002.
• The Californian (Page B-3): Wednesday, June 12, 2002.
• La Prensa (Page A-5): Week of June 14-20, 2002.
The comments received at each public scoping meeting are summarized below. Copies of the public notices and complete transcripts of each public scoping meeting are provided in Appendix A.
Public Scoping Comments: Thursday, June 20, 2002
A total of four speakers offered public comment. Comments generally addressed the need to adequately identify potential air quality impacts within the County (with specific references to the Mira Loma area) and potential impacts resulting from increased use of water resources. A question was raised as to why the proposed General Plan separates established communities or otherwise ignores "historical" community boundaries. Commentors requested that environmentally friendly solutions to the problems of growth be assessed in the EIR, and compared to traditional development in terms of cost, efficiency, environmental, and health impacts.
Additional questions speakers requested to be addressed in the EIR included: impacts resulting from the loss of agricultural land and open space; the effect of increased usage of Colorado River water; a need for an analysis of groundwater, contaminated wells, and water supply; the reduced lung capacity of children in Mira Loma; impacts associated with the designation of the Mira Loma area as a transportation hub; and permitting an increase in population with a corresponding increase in the provision of services. Speakers stressed that the rural emphasis of the County should be maintained and that the aesthetic value of open space and natural features be considered during preparation of the EIR.
Public Scoping Comments: Tuesday, June 25, 2002
A total of two speakers offered public comment. Comments were limited to: a request that the EIR consider the unique economic, social and cultural contributions and needs of the Coachella Valley equestrian community; and an inquiry as to when and in what manner the Santa Rosa Community Plan would be integrated into the Riverside County General Plan.
1.45 Public Review of the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
The Riverside County Existing Setting Report has been provided, in CD ROM format, and is located in the front pocket of the Draft Program EIR binder. In addition, a hard copy of the Existing Setting Report, Draft Program EIR and Technical Appendices and
the Draft Riverside County General Plan Volumes I-III are were made available for review at the following County facilities and library locations:
| County Administrative Center (Riverside) 4080 Lemon Street Public Counter, 2nd Floor Planning Department, 9th Floor Riverside, California 92502 Hours of Operation: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday |
County Administrative Center (Indio) 82-675 Highway 111, Room 209 Indio, California 92201 Hours of Operation: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday |
| Riverside County Permit Assistance Center (Murrieta) 39493 Los Alamos Road Murrieta, California 92563 Hours of Operation: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday |
| Libraries in Riverside County | |
|---|---|
| Anza Public Library Anza 57430 Mitchell Road Anza, California 92539 |
Beaumont Library District Beaumont 125 East 8th Street Beaumont, California 92223 |
| Palo Verde Valley District Library Blythe 125 West Chanslorway Blythe, California 92225 |
Corona Public Library Corona 650 South Main Street Corona, California 92882-3417 |
| Riverside County Public Library Desert Hot Springs 11691 West Drive Desert Hot Springs, California 92240 |
Riverside County Public Library Glen Avon 9244 Galena Riverside, California 92509 |
| Riverside County Public Library Idyllwild 54185 Pinecrest Idyllwild, California 92549 |
Riverside County Public Library Indio 200 Civic Center Mall Indio, California 92201 |
| Riverside County Public Library Lake Tamarisk 43880 Lake Tamarisk Desert Center, California 92239 |
Riverside County Public Library Mecca 65-250 A Coahuilla Mecca, California 92254 |
| Riverside County Public Library Mission Trail 34303 Mission Trail Wildomar, California 92595 |
Riverside County Public Library Moreno Valley 25480 Alessandro Moreno Valley, California 92553 |
| Riverside County Public Library Nuview 29990 Lakeview Nuevo, California 92567 |
Riverside County Public Library Perris 163 East San Jacinto Perris, California 92570 |
| Riverside County Public Library Riverside Main Library 3581 Mission Inn Ave Riverside, California 92501 |
Riverside County Public Library San Jacinto 500 Idyllwild Dr. San Jacinto, California 92583 |
| Riverside County Public Library Sun City 26982 Cherry Hills Boulevard Sun City, California 92586 |
Riverside County Public Library Temecula 41000 County Center Temecula, California 92591 |
| Riverside County Public Library Thousand Palms 72-715 La Canada Way Thousand Palms, California 92276 |
Riverside County Public Library Woodcrest 17024 Van Buren Boulevard Riverside, California 92504 |
This Program EIR was distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, and interested parties, as well as to parties who requested a copy of the Draft Program EIR in accordance with Public Resources Code 21092(b)(3) for a 45-day public review period (August 20 through October 4, 2002). The Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR has been distributed as required by CEQA.
Written comments on this Draft Program EIR should be addressed to:
Mr. Jerry Jolliffe
County of Riverside
Transportation Land Management Agency
Planning Department
4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor
Riverside, California 92502
Tel: (909) 955-3200
Fax: (909) 955-3157
1.56 Summary of Alternatives, Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
1.56.1 Alternatives
CEQA mandates that an EIR analyze feasible alternatives to the proposed project, including a "No Project" alternative. This analysis can be found in Chapter 6 of this EIR, and is summarized here. The following provides a brief description of the alternatives to the proposed General Plan that were considered in this analysis.
Under the No Build Alternative, the proposed General Plan would not be adopted, and no further growth would be permitted in the unincorporated County. The Western Riverside County MSHCP, Coachella Valley MSHCP, CETAP corridors, and circulation system improvements are assumed not to occur. City annexations are assumed not to occur, and development within incorporated cities is assumed to continue as outlined in the General Plans.
Under the No Project Alternative, the proposed General Plan would not be adopted, and growth would continue as described in the existing General Plan. The Western Riverside County MSHCP, Coachella Valley MSHCP and CETAP corridors are assumed not to occur. City annexations are assumed not to occur, but development of existing General Plan circulation system and development within incorporated cities are assumed to continue.
Under the Rural Emphasis Alternative, the proposed General Plan would not be adopted, and the County would adopt a General Plan that would, to the extent feasible, eliminate further urban development within unincorporated areas. The adoption of a smaller version of the Western Riverside County and Coachella Valley MSHCPs is assumed. Development of CETAP corridors is assumed not to occur, though development of existing General Plan circulation system where it does not conflict with MSHCP areas is assumed to continue. City annexation and continued development according to city General Plans is assumed to continue.
Under the Less Intense Community Centers Alternative, the proposed General Plan would be adopted, but the scale, intensity, and numbers of community centers would be reduced. The Western Riverside County MSHCP and four CETAP corridors are assumed to occur, but the Coachella Valley MSHCP is assumed not to occur. City annexations are assumed not to occur, but city build out is assumed, and an enhanced arterial circulation system would be developed.
Under the More Intense Community Centers Alternative, the proposed General Plan would be adopted, but scale and intensity of community centers would be increased while the number of community centers would be reduced. The Western Riverside County MSHCP and four CETAP corridors are assumed to occur, although the Coachella Valley MSHCP is assumed not to occur. City annexations and city build out is assumed according to city General Plans, and an enhanced arterial circulation system would be developed.
Under the Density Bonus Alternative, a General Plan similar to the proposed General Plan would be adopted, but would allow a 100 percent density bonus in residential development within community centers and up to a 50 percent density bonus in community development areas. The Western Riverside County MSHCP and four CETAP corridors are assumed to occur, but the Coachella Valley MSHCP is assumed not to occur. City annexations are assumed not to occur, but city build out is assumed, and an enhanced arterial circulation system would be developed.
1.56.2 Impacts and Mitigation of Proposed General Plan
For the proposed project (2002 Riverside County General Plan), a summary of environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and the level of significance after mitigation is provided on the following pages (Table 1.A). The information in this summary is presented in a matrix format and briefly summarizes each of the General Plan's potentially significant environmental impacts, the proposed policies and mitigation measures recommended to reduce or avoid each potentially significant environmental impact, and the level to which the policies and mitigation measures are expected to reduce the potentially significant environmental impacts.
| Table 1.A - Environmental Summary of the Proposed Riverside County General Plan EIR | ||
|---|---|---|
| Issues/Impacts | Policies and/or Mitigation Measures | Level of Significance After Mitigation |
| 4.2 Land Use/Agriculture | ||
| Less than Significant Impacts | ||
| Physically Divide an Established Community Unique settings, features, and communities are identified within each Area Plan. Where applicable, Policy Areas have been designated within Area Plans. These Policy Areas are important locales that have special significance to the residents of the County, or will have when their development potential is realized. The physical arrangement of proposed land use designations within unincorporated lands is proposed to be changed with implementation of the proposed General Plan. The General Plan is designed to protect existing communities. The proposed General Plan (including the Area Plans) will guide where and in what manner future development will occur. Because the proposed General Plan (in general) and each Area Plan (specifically) provide policies reflective of the unique combination of conditions in each Area Plan, implementation of the proposed General Plan will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of any established communities. No significant impact related to this issue will occur. | No mitigation required. | Less than significant. |
| Conflict with any Applicable Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan Policies aimed at protecting biological resources will be are contained in the proposed General Plan. These policies will acknowledge existing habitat conservation plans within the County and ensure that land use plans be are consistent with the provisions of applicable conservation plans, including the Habitat Conservation Plan for the Stephens' kangaroo rat. Because the proposed General Plan includes policies accommodating existing habitat conservation plans within the County, no significant impact associated with this issue will occur upon implementation of the proposed General Plan. | No mitigation required. | Less than significant. |
| Conflict with any Applicable Airport Land Use Plan Under the proposed General Plan, economic development and population growth will continue to increase, requiring the construction of additional places of business and housing. As the land suitable for development becomes increasingly scarce, urban development may be forced to exploit land occur adjacent to airports. Such encroaching development may result in conflicts between new development and the goals and policies outlined in local Airport Land Use Plans. In addition to the discussion of airports provided in the proposed General Plan, specific areas influenced by airports, located in the County and/or in adjacent cities, are identified in the proposed Area Plans. Area Plans which identify specific areas influenced by airports provide policies to protect flight paths and minimize impacts to residents and employees within that area. These policies provided in the Area Plans are consistent with and support policies identified in the proposed General Plan. | Policies: LU 1.9, 14.1-14.9 |
Less than significant. |
| Potentially Significant Impacts | ||
| Impact 4.2.1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan would alter the amount of land designated for community development, rural, and open space uses. Changes in the pattern of land uses would result in the development of structures or facilities within areas that are currently undeveloped. Relative to adjacent land uses, this intensification of development may contribute to or create significant land use impacts. | Policies: LU 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.5, LU 2.1, LU 3.1-3.4, 3.5, LU 6.1, LU 6.36.5, LU 17.4, LU 22.6, LU 26.10. | Less than significant. |
| Impact 4.2.2 The proposed General Plan update will result in the conversion of prime farmlands, unique farmlands, or farmlands of statewide importance or land actively utilized for agricultural production to a variety of non-agricultural uses. | Policies: LU 16.1-16.2, LU 16.4-16.10, 16.11, OS 7.1-7.5. 4.2.2B Subsequent to the establishment of an Agricultural Land Mitigation Bank, any development within any unincorporated area of the County resulting in the conversion of more than 160 acres (the approximate size of an average farm in Riverside County) of Prime, Unique, or Statewide Important farmland (farmland) as designated by the most recent version of the Important Farmland Map (as prepared by the California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program) shall purchase credits in the Agricultural Land Mitigation Bank at the rate of 1 acre (credit) for every four acres (or portion thereof) of farmland converted to non-agricultural uses. The 160-acre threshold shall be met by any combination of Prime, Unique, or State Important Farmland acreage. All farmland within a project site shall be included in the threshold computation, regardless of the size, location within the project site, or current status (fallow or farmed). Development applications received by the County prior to operational date of the Agricultural Land Mitigation Bank shall be exempt from the provisions of this mitigation. In determining the amount of farmland converted to non-agricultural use, the total effect of the development shall be considered, including the total amount of farmland within the limits of the project site and any off-site land directly required for the construction and operation of the proposed development. The project proponent shall submit evidence to the County that all appropriate credits have been purchased prior to the issuance of grading permits. |
Significant and unavoidable. |
| 4.3 Population and Housing | ||
| Less than Significant Impacts | ||
| The policies of the General Plan do not cause significant impacts to population and housing. Implementation of the policies presented in the proposed General Plan will achieve the housing goals outlined in the Housing Element. Subsequent amendments to the General Plan will be reviewed to ensure consistency is maintained between General Plan and the Housing Element. The Housing Element and implementation of its policies will ensure that adequate housing opportunities are provided to County residents. This in addition to adherence to applicable County, State and Federal regulations will reduce potential impacts associated with the provision of adequate housing opportunities to a less than significant level. | No mitigation required. | Less than significant. |
| 4.4 Aesthetics/Visual Resources | ||
| Potentially Significant Impacts | ||
| Affected Views to Scenic Vistas and Visual Resources Impact 4.4.1 The proposed General Plan would increase the development of urban uses, causing a substantial loss in open space and aesthetic resources. This could significantly alter existing and future public views and view corridors, which include State and County designated Scenic Highways. |
Policies: LU 2.1, LU 4.1, LU 8.1, LU 8.3-8.4, LU 11.1, LU 13.1-13.8, LU 16.1, LU 16.3, LU 17.1, LU 17.3, LU 17.6, LU 19.4, LU 21.2, LU 22.10, LU 22.11, LU 26.1, LU 26.3, LU 26.10, OS 21.1, 4.4.1A Development projects shall be subject to the requirements of all relevant guidelines, including the community center guidelines (Appendix J of the proposed General Plan), Riverside County supervisorial district design and landscape guidelines, and all applicable standards, policies, guidelines, and/or regulations of the County of Riverside or other affected entities pertaining to scenic vistas/aesthetic resources. Factors considered in these guidelines include the scale, extent, height, bulk, or intensity of development; the location of development; the type, style, and intensity of adjacent land uses; the manner and method of construction, including materials, coatings, and landscaping; the interim and/or final use of the development; the type, location, and manner of illumination and signage; the nature and extent of terrain modification required; and the potential effects to the established visual characteristic of the project site and/or an identified scenic vista/aesthetic resource. |
Less than significant. |
| Light and Glare Impacts Impact 4.4.2 Implementation of the proposed General Plan would increase the effects of light and glare upon existing residential uses, as well as the Mount Palomar Observatory. New light and glare would be created by the addition of residences and commercial establishments within the proposed General Plan. The most significant glare would be generated by commercial uses throughout the proposed General Plan area, especially in association with outdoor parking that may be lit at night and that would be visible from roadways. This is a potentially significant impact. |
County of Riverside Ordinance No. 655 4.4.2A Riverside County shall require that sources of lighting within the General Plan area be limited to the minimum standard required to ensure safe circulation and visibility. 4.4.2B Riverside County shall require street lighting to be limited to intersections and other locations that are needed to maintain safe access (e.g., sharp curves). 4.4.2C Riverside County shall require exterior lighting for buildings to be of a low profile and intensity. 4.4.2D The County shall establish a liaison with California Institute of Technology to ensure "dark skies" preservation procedures are incorporated, as necessary, to future County ordinances. 4.4.2E The County shall participate in Palomar Observatory's "dark sky" conservation area. |
Less than significant. |
| Open Space Conversion Impacts Impact 4.4.3 Implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in conversion of open space areas to urban land use. |
No feasible mitigation is available. | Significant and unavoidable. |
| 4.5 Air Quality | ||
| Less than Significant Impacts | ||
| Consistency with Air Quality Management Plan The proposed General Plan is consistent with SCAG's Regional Growth Management Plan and SCAQMD's Air Quality Management Plan, and the vehicle miles traveled growth rate under the proposed General Plan is consistent with SCAG's projected population growth. In addition, with the planning and implementation of the proposed General Plan Circulation Element, it is anticipated that the proposed General Plan will be consistent with SCAG's Regional Mobility Plan, locally adopted Congestion Management Plan, as well as the Coachella Valley PM10 Plan. |
Policies: AQ 1.1-1.11 No mitigation required. |
Less than significant. |
| Potentially Significant Impacts | ||
| Particulate Emissions Impact 4.5.1 Air quality impacts would occur during site preparation, including grading and equipment exhaust. Major sources of fugitive dust are a result of grading and site preparation during construction vehicles and equipment and generated by construction vehicles and equipment traveling over exposed surfaces, as well as by soil disturbances from grading and filling. Blowing dust is also of concern in the dry desert areas where PM10 standards are exceeded by soil disturbance during grading, and vehicular travel over unpaved roads. |
Policies: AQ 4.9 -4.10, 17.2-17.5 4.5.1A Applicable Rule 403 Measures: Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). • Water active sites at least twice daily. (Locations where grading is to occur will be thoroughly watered prior to earth moving). • All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered, or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23114 (freeboard means vertical space between the top of the load and top of the trailer). • Pave construction access roads at least 100 feet onto the site from main road. • Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads shall be reduced to 15 mph or less. 4.5.1B Additional SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook Dust Measures: • Revegetate disturbed areas as quickly as possible. • All excavating and grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph. • All streets shall be swept once a day if visible soil materials are carried to adjacent streets (recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water). • Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads, or wash trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip. 4.5.1C Mitigation Measures for Construction Equipment and Vehicles Exhaust Emissions: • The Construction Contractor shall select the construction equipment used on site based on low emission factors and high energy efficiency. • The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. • The Construction Contractor shall utilize electric- or diesel-powered equipment, in lieu of gasoline-powered engines, where feasible. • The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. During smog season (May through October), the overall length of the construction period will be extended, thereby decreasing the size of the area prepared each day, to minimize vehicles and equipment operating at the same time. • The Construction Contractor shall time the construction activities so as to not interfere with peak hour traffic and minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site; if necessary, a flagperson shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways. • The Construction Contractor shall support and encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew. • Dust generated by the development activities shall be retained on-site, and kept to a minimum by following the dust control measures listed below. a. During clearing, grading, earthmoving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's activities cease. b. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the late morning, after work is completed for the day, and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour. c. Immediately after clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation is completed, the entire area of disturbed soil shall be treated until the area is paved or otherwise developed so that dust generation will not occur. d. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. e. Trucks transporting soil, sand, cut or fill materials, and/or construction debris to or from the site shall be tarped from the point of origin. |
Significant and unavoidable. |
| Long-Term Air Emission Impacts: Stationary Emissions Impact 4.5.2 Long-term air emission impacts will occur from stationary sources related to the estimated development proposed through implementation of the proposed General Plan. |
Policies: AQ 4.1-4.8, AQ 5.1-5.3. | Significant and unavoidable. |
| Long-Term Air Emission Impacts: Operational Emissions Impact 4.5.3 The proposed General Plan would result in changes in regional vehicular traffic trips and associated VMT. |
Policies: AQ 3.1-3.4, AQ 10.1-10.4, AQ 11.1-11.4, AQ 12.1-12.5, AQ 13.1-13.3, AQ 14.1-14.4 | Significant and unavoidable. |
| Sensitive Receptors Impact 4.5.4 Development under the proposed General Plan may produce air pollution that may significantly affect sensitive receptors. |
Policies: AQ 2.1-2.4 | Less than significant. |
| 4.6 Biological Resources | ||
| Potentially Significant Impacts | ||
| Impact 4.6.1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan will result in the direct mortality of individuals of listed, proposed, or candidate species or loss of habitat occupied by such species. | Policies: OS 5.1-5.3, OS 5.5-5.7, OS 6.1-6.2, OS 8.1, OS 9.3, OS 17.117.3, OS 18.1-18.2 4.6.1A Comply with Riverside County Planning Department Biological Report Guidelines to include an analysis of the potential for a proposed project to result in direct mortality of individuals of listed, proposed, or candidate species or loss of habitat occupied by such species and sensitive habitats. Under the Planning Department Guidelines, biological reports must be conducted as follows: a. Reports must be prepared by a biologist on the County's list of qualified consultants. b. The County Planning Department must be notified in advance that a report will be prepared for a specific project. c. The report must include a signed certification attesting to the report contents. d. The report must include specific information as to the type of survey (e.g., General Biological Resources Assessment, Habitat Assessment, etc.), site location, property owner, principal investigator, and contact information for participants in the field surveys. e. The report must include specified attachments (summary sheet, level of significance checklist, biological resources/project footprint map, and site photos). f. The report must include information on literature sources (e.g., California Natural Diversity Data Base, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and environmental documents for nearby projects). g. The report must include a description of surveys, including timing, personnel, and weather conditions. h. The report must include a description of site conditions including plant and wildlife habitat, disturbances, and sensitive elements. i. The report must include an assessment of anticipated project impacts and a discussion of mitigation. j. The report must include a list of all species observed or detected and a recommendation for any additional focused surveys that may be necessary. The above list is a summary of the County's guidelines, the actual guidelines available from the Planning Department shall be used in determining requirements for, and adequacy of, biological reports. 4.6.1B Preserve habitat at minimum of 1:1 replacement ratio in locations that provide long-term conservation value for impacted resource. This could involve acquisition of habitat occupied by the affected species, acquiring a key parcel that fills in a missing link or gap in a reserve that provides conservation for the species, or acquisition of credits in a mitigation bank (endorsed by the USFWS and/or CDFG) that has been established to provide conservation value for the species. Implementation of the mitigation measure shall include provisions for the preservation of such areas in perpetuity. 4.6.1C Comply with applicable HCPs. |
Significant and unavoidable. |
| Impact 4.6.2 Alteration or loss of habitat of listed proposed, or candidate species that inhibits or compromises recovery efforts that could otherwise lead or contribute to the delisting of the species. | Policies: OS 5.1-5.3, OS 5.5-5.7, OS 6.1-6.2, OS 8.1, OS 9.3, OS 17.117.3, OS 18.1-18.2 Implement Mitigation Measures 4.6.1B and 4.6.1C, above, along with the following mitigation measure. 4.6.2A Comply with Riverside County Planning Department Biological Report Guidelines to include an analysis of the potential for a proposed project to result in alteration or loss of habitat of listed proposed, or candidate species that inhibits or compromises recovery efforts that could otherwise lead or contribute to the delisting of the species. Under the Planning Department Guidelines, biological reports must be conducted as follows: a. Reports must be prepared by a biologist on the County's list of qualified consultants. b. The County Planning Department must be notified in advance that a report will be prepared for a specific project. c. The report must include a signed certification attesting to the report contents. d. The report must include specific information as to the type of survey (e.g., General Biological Resources Assessment, Habitat Assessment, etc.), site location, property owner, principal investigator, and contact information for participants in the field surveys. e. The report must include specified attachments (summary sheet, level of significance checklist, biological resources/project footprint map, and site photos). f. The report must include information on literature sources (e.g., California Natural Diversity Data Base, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and environmental documents for nearby projects). g. The report must include a description of surveys, including timing, personnel, and weather conditions. h. The report must include a description of site conditions including plant and wildlife habitat, disturbances, and sensitive elements. i. The report must include an assessment of anticipated project impacts and a discussion of mitigation. j. The report must include a list of all species observed or detected and a recommendation for any additional focused surveys that may be necessary. The above list is a summary of the County's guidelines, the actual guidelines available from the Planning Department shall be used in determining requirements for, and adequacy of, biological reports. |
Significant and unavoidable. |
| Impact 4.6.3 Implementation of the proposed General Plan would cause direct loss of sensitive habitat. | Policies: OS 5.1-5.3, OS 5.5-5.7, OS 6.1-6.2, OS 8.1, OS 9.3-9.4, OS 17.117.3, OS 18.1-18.2 Implement Mitigation Measures 4.6.1A and 4.6.1B, above, along with the following mitigation measure. 4.6.3A Construct treatment wetlands outside of natural wetlands, allowing treatment of runoff from developed surfaces prior to entering natural stream systems. |
Significant and unavoidable. |
| Impact 4.6.4 Implementation of the proposed General Plan would cause habitat fragmentation resulting in isolation of sensitive habitat patches creating a "checkerboard" pattern of small habitat patches of limited biological value. | Policies: OS 5.1-5.7, OS 6.1-6.2, OS 8.1, OS 9.3-9.4, OS 17.1-17.3,OS 18.1-18.2 Implement Mitigation Measure 4.6.1C, above, along with the following mitigation measures. 4.6.4A Comply with Riverside County Planning Department Biological Report Guidelines to include an analysis of the potential for a proposed project to result in habitat fragmentation leading to the isolation of sensitive habitat patches. Under the Planning Department Guidelines, biological reports must be conducted as follows: a. Reports must be prepared by a biologist on the County's list of qualified consultants. b. The County Planning Department must be notified in advance that a report will be prepared for a specific project. c. The report must include a signed certification attesting to the report contents. d. The report must include specific information as to the type of survey (e.g., General Biological Resources Assessment, Habitat Assessment, etc.), site location, property owner, principal investigator, and contact information for participants in the field surveys. e. The report must include specified attachments (summary sheet, level of significance checklist, biological resources/project footprint map, and site photos). f. The report must include information on literature sources (e.g., California Natural Diversity Data Base, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and environmental documents for nearby projects). g. The report must include a description of surveys, including timing, personnel, and weather conditions. h. The report must include a description of site conditions including plant and wildlife habitat, disturbances, and sensitive elements. i. The report must include an assessment of anticipated project impacts and a discussion of mitigation. j. The report must include a list of all species observed or detected and a recommendation for any additional focused surveys that may be necessary. The above list is a summary of the County's guidelines, the actual guidelines available from the Planning Department shall be used in determining requirements for, and adequacy of, biological reports. 4.6.4B Identify local and regional habitat patterns whereby sensitive habitats are connected or where opportunities exist to reconnect isolated patches of sensitive habitat. The baseline data of the Western Riverside County MSHCP provides a biologically sound depiction of habitat linkages that would provide regional connections between existing biological reserves and other conservation lands. Avoid impacts that would fragment sensitive habitat, or acquire land that would reconnect isolated habitat patches and create or restore habitat to reestablish the connection. Where on-site habitat preservation would not provide meaningful mitigation either for an affected sensitive species or for habitat connectivity, off-site mitigation shall be implemented through the acquisition of lands that provide for regional habitat connectivity. Implementation of the mitigation measure shall include provisions for the preservation of such areas in perpetuity. |
Significant and unavoidable. |
| Impact 4.6.5 Implementation of the proposed General Plan would cause fragmentation of habitat that constricts, inhibits, or eliminates wildlife movement. | Policies: OS 5.1-5.7, OS 6.1-6.2, OS 8.1, OS 9.3-9.4, OS 17.1-17.3, OS 18.1-18.2 Implement Mitigation Measure 4.6.1C, above, along with the following mitigation measures. 4.6.5A Comply with Riverside County Planning Department Biological Report Guidelines to include an analysis of the potential for a proposed project to result in fragmentation of habitat that constricts, inhibits, or eliminates wildlife movement. Under the Planning Department Guidelines, biological reports must be conducted as follows: a. Reports must be prepared by a biologist on the County's list of qualified consultants. b. The County Planning Department must be notified in advance that a report will be prepared for a specific project. c. The report must include a signed certification attesting to the report contents. d. The report must include specific information as to the type of survey (e.g., General Biological Resources Assessment, Habitat Assessment, etc.), site location, property owner, principal investigator, and contact information for participants in the field surveys. e. The report must include specified attachments (summary sheet, level of significance checklist, biological resources/project footprint map, and site photos). f. The report must include information on literature sources (e.g., California Natural Diversity Data Base, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and environmental documents for nearby projects). g. The report must include a description of surveys, including timing, personnel, and weather conditions. h. The report must include a description of site conditions including plant and wildlife habitat, disturbances, and sensitive elements. i. The report must include an assessment of anticipated project impacts and a discussion of mitigation. j. The report must include a list of all species observed or detected and a recommendation for any additional focused surveys that may be necessary. The above list is a summary of the County's guidelines, the actual guidelines available from the Planning Department shall be used in determining requirements for, and adequacy of, biological reports. 4.6.5B Identify local and regional habitat patterns that provide movement routes for wildlife or where opportunities exist to establish movement routes between isolated habitat patches. The baseline data of the Western Riverside County MSHCP provides a biologically sound depiction of habitat linkages that would provide wildlife movement routes between existing biological reserves and other conservation lands. Avoid impacts that would eliminate, substantially constrict, or substantially inhibit wildlife movement, or acquire land that would establish movement routes between isolated habitat patches and create or restore habitat to reestablish the connection. Where on-site habitat preservation would not provide meaningful mitigation either for affected species or for habitat connectivity, off-site mitigation shall be implemented through the acquisition of lands that provide for regional habitat connectivity. Implementation of the mitigation measure shall include provisions for the preservation of such areas in perpetuity. |
Significant and unavoidable. |
| Impact 4.6.6 Implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in direct loss of oak trees or alteration of natural processes (e.g., hydrology) resulting in indirect loss of oak trees. | Policies: OS 5.1-5.7, OS 6.1-6.2, OS 8.1, OS 9.3-9.4, OS 17.1-17.3, OS 18.1-18.2 4.6.6A Comply with Riverside County Planning Department Biological Report Guidelines to include an analysis of the potential for a proposed project to result in direct loss of oak trees or alteration of natural processes (e.g., hydrology) resulting in indirect loss of oak trees. Under the Planning Department Guidelines, biological reports must be conducted as follows: a. Reports must be prepared by a biologist on the County's list of qualified consultants. b. The County Planning Department must be notified in advance that a report will be prepared for a specific project. c. The report must include a signed certification attesting to the report contents. d. The report must include specific information as to the type of survey (e.g., General Biological Resources Assessment, Habitat Assessment, etc.), site location, property owner, principal investigator, and contact information for participants in the field surveys. e. The report must include specified attachments (summary sheet, level of significance checklist, biological resources/project footprint map, and site photos). f. The report must include information on literature sources (e.g., California Natural Diversity Data Base, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and environmental documents for nearby projects). g. The report must include a description of surveys, including timing, personnel, and weather conditions. h. The report must include a description of site conditions including plant and wildlife habitat, disturbances, and sensitive elements. i. The report must include an assessment of anticipated project impacts and a discussion of mitigation. j. The report must include a list of all species observed or detected and a recommendation for any additional focused surveys that may be necessary. The above list is a summary of the County's guidelines, the actual guidelines available from the Planning Department shall be used in determining requirements for, and adequacy of, biological reports. 4.6.6B Comply with Oak Tree Management Guidelines, including the use of replacement plantings with acorns or oak saplings when it is determined to be biologically sound and appropriate to do so. |
Less than significant. |
| Impact 4.6.7 Implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in alteration of habitat or natural processes that would result in the direct or indirect mortality of listed, proposed, or candidate species or that would result in loss, fragmentation, or isolation of sensitive habitat(s). | Policies: OS 5.1-5.3, OS 5.5-5.7, OS 6.1-6.2, OS 8.1, OS 9.3-9.4, OS 17.117.3, OS 18.1-18.2 Implement Mitigation Measures 4.6.1C and 4.6.6B, above, along with the following mitigation measures. 4.6.7A Comply with Riverside County Planning Department Biological Report Guidelines to include analysis of the potential for a proposed project to result in alteration of habitat or natural processes that would result in the direct or indirect mortality of listed, proposed, or candidate species or that would result in loss, fragmentation, or isolation of sensitive habitat(s). Under the Planning Department Guidelines, biological reports must be conducted as follows: a. Reports must be prepared by a biologist on the County's list of qualified consultants. b. The County Planning Department must be notified in advance that a report will be prepared for a specific project. c. The report must include a signed certification attesting to the report contents. d. The report must include specific information as to the type of survey (e.g., General Biological Resources Assessment, Habitat Assessment, etc.), site location, property owner, principal investigator, and contact information for participants in the field surveys. e. The report must include specified attachments (summary sheet, level of significance checklist, biological resources/project footprint map, and site photos). d. f. The report must include information on literature sources (e.g., California Natural Diversity Data Base, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and environmental documents for nearby projects). g. The report must include a description of surveys, including timing, personnel, and weather conditions. h. The report must include a description of site conditions including plant and wildlife habitat, disturbances, and sensitive elements. i. The report must include an assessment of anticipated project impacts and a discussion of mitigation. j. The report must include a list of all species observed or detected and a recommendation for any additional focused surveys that may be necessary. The above list is a summary of the County's guidelines, the actual guidelines available from the Planning Department shall be used in determining requirements for, and adequacy of, biological reports. 4.6.7B Avoid or minimize interruption of natural processes in local ecosystems. 4.6.7C Identify local and regional habitat patterns whereby sensitive habitats are connected or where opportunities exist to reconnect isolated patches of sensitive habitat. Avoid impacts that would fragment sensitive habitat, or acquire land that would reconnect isolated habitat patches and create or restore habitat to reestablish the connection. Implementation of the mitigation measure shall include provisions for the preservation of such areas in perpetuity. 4.6.7D Construct facilities to treat non-point source runoff outside natural stream systems thereby allowing only treated runoff to enter natural stream systems. Treatment facilities may be mechanical (i.e., filtration devices within storm drain systems), biological (i.e., constructed wetlands at storm drain outfalls), or a combination of the two means. 4.6.7E The following measures will be implemented to mitigate the potential spread of invasive plant species from construction areas: • Soil exposed during construction and maintenance activities shall be landscaped utilizing seeds, cuttings, and/or plant material from locally adapted species to preclude the invasion of noxious weeds. The use of site-specific materials, which are adapted to local conditions, increases the likelihood that revegetation will be successful and maintains the genetic integrity of the local ecosystem. Arrangements will be made well in advance of planting (nine months, if possible) to ensure that plant materials are located and available for the scheduled planting time. Sufficient time should be allocated for a qualified specialist to visit the project site during the appropriate season and collect the native plant material. If local propagules are not available or cannot be collected in sufficient quantities, materials collected or grown from other sources within Southern California shall be substituted. For widespread native herbaceous species that are more likely to be genetically homogeneous, site specificity is a less important consideration, and seed from commercial sources may be used. • Seed purity shall be certified by planting seeds labeled under the California Food and Agricultural Code, or that have been tested within a year by a seed laboratory certified by the Association of Official Seed Analysts or by a seed technologist certified by the Society of Commercial Seed Technologists. • Construction equipment will be cleaned of mud or other debris that may contain invasive plants and/or seeds and inspected to reduce the potential of spreading noxious weeds (before mobilizing to arrive at the site and before leaving the site). • Vehicles with loads carrying vegetation shall be covered and vegetative materials removed from the site shall be disposed of in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. |
Significant and unavoidable. |
| 4.7 Cultural Resources | ||
| Potentially Significant Impacts | ||
| Impact 4.7.1 Build out within now vacant unincorporated areas of the County will result in a substantial increase in population and residential and non-residential structures, and associated infrastructure. Development associated with the proposed General Plan would require disturbance of vacant lands. Development allowed by implementation of the General Plan could have the potential to disturb buried human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, and buried cultural resources. | Policies: OS 19.2-19.4, OS 19.8, OS 19.10 4.7.1A If human remains are encountered during a public or private construction activity, State Health and Safety Code 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The Riverside County Coroner must be notified within 24 hours. a. If the coroner determines that the burial is not historic, but prehistoric, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) must be contacted to determine the most likely descendent (MLD) for this area. The MLD may become involved with the disposition of the burial following scientific analysis. 4.7.1B Avoidance is the preferred treatment for cultural resources. Where feasible, project plans shall be developed to allow avoidance of cultural resources. Where avoidance of construction impacts is possible, capping of the cultural resource site and avoidance planting (e.g., planting of prickly pear cactus) shall be employed to ensure that indirect impacts from increased public availability to the site are avoided. Where avoidance is selected, cultural resource sites shall be placed within permanent conservation easements or dedicated open space. 4.7.1C If avoidance and/or preservation in place of cultural resources is not possible, the following mitigation measures shall be initiated for each impacted site: a. A participant-observer from the appropriate Indian Band or Tribe shall be used during archaeological testing or excavation in the project site. b. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the project, the project proponent shall develop a test level research design detailing how the cultural resource investigation shall be executed and providing specific research questions that shall be addressed through the excavation program. In particular, the testing program shall characterize the site constituents, horizontal and vertical extent, and, if possible, period of use. The testing program shall also address the California Register and National Register eligibility of the cultural resource and make recommendations as to the suitability of the resource for listing on either Register. The research design shall be submitted to the County of Riverside Regional Park and Open-Space District for review and comment. For sites determined, through the Testing Program, to be ineligible for listing on either the California or National Register, execution of the Testing Program will suffice as mitigation of project impacts to this resource. c. After approval of the research design and prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent shall complete the excavation program as specified in the research design. The results of this excavation program shall be presented in a technical report that follows the County of Riverside outline for Archaeological Testing. The Test Level Report shall be submitted to the County of Riverside Regional Park and Open-Space District for review and comment. If cultural resources that shall be affected by the project are found ineligible for listing on the California or National Register, test level investigations will have depleted the scientific value of the sites and the project can proceed. d. If the resource is identified as being potentially eligible for either the California or National Register, and project designs cannot be altered to avoid impacting the site, a treatment program to mitigate project effects shall be initiated. A Treatment Plan detailing the objectives of the Treatment Program shall be developed. The Treatment Plan shall contain specific, testable hypotheses relative to the sites under study and shall attempt to address the potential of the sites to address these research questions. The Treatment Plan shall be submitted to the County of Riverside Regional Park and Open-Space District for review and comment. e. After approval of the Treatment Plan, the Treatment Program for affected, eligible sites shall be initiated. Typically a treatment program involves excavation of a statistically those resource values that qualify the site as being eligible for the California or National Register. At the conclusion of the excavation or research program, a Treatment Report, following the outline of the County of Riverside for Archaeological Mitigation or Data Recovery, shall be developed. This data recovery report shall be submitted to the County of Riverside Regional Park and Open-Space District for review and comment. |
Less than significant. |
| Impact 4.7.2 Build out within now vacant unincorporated areas of the County will result in a substantial increase in population and residential and non-residential structures, and associated infrastructure. Development associated with the proposed General Plan would require disturbance of vacant lands and possible conversion of existing structures into various land uses (e.g., historic homes into office space). Development allowed by implementation of the General Plan could cause the destruction of or loss of an historical resource, as defined in CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5. | Policies: OS 19.5-19.7 Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.7.1B and 4.7.1C. |
Less than significant. |
| Impact 4.7.3 Build out within now vacant unincorporated areas of the County will result in a substantial increase in population and residential and non-residential structures, and associated infrastructure. Development associated with the proposed General Plan would require disturbance of vacant lands. Development allowed by implementation of the General Plan could cause the destruction of known archaeological resources, as defined in CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5. | Policies: OS 19.2-19.4, 19.8, 19.10 Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.7.1B and 4.7.1C. |
Less than significant. |
| Impact 4.7.4 Build out within now vacant unincorporated areas of the County will result in a substantial increase in population and residential and non-residential structures, and associated infrastructure. Development associated with the proposed General Plan would require disturbance of vacant lands. Therefore, development as a result of implementation of the proposed General Plan could potentially destroy directly or indirectly an unique paleontological resource or site. | Policy: OS 19.9 | Less than significant. |
| 4.8 Energy | ||
| Potentially Significant Impacts | ||
| Impact 4.8.1 Build out within now vacant unincorporated areas of the County will result in a substantial increase in population and residential and non-residential structures, potentially increasing the use of and need for natural gas. Due to the growth involved in the proposed General Plan, this increase may potentially result in an impact on existing natural gas facilities. | Policies: OS 10.1-10.2, OS 11.1-11.3, OS 12.1-12.4, OS 16.1-16.5, OS 16.7-16.10 4.8.1A The County shall review all development proposals prior to the approval of development plans to guarantee that sufficient energy resources and facilities are available to supply adequate energy to the proposed project and associated uses. 4.8.1B The County shall review all development plans prior to approval to guarantee that energy conservation and efficiency standards of Title 24 are met and are incorporated into the design of the proposed project. |
Less than significant. |
| Impact 4.8.2 Build out within now vacant unincorporated areas of the County will result in a substantial increase in population and residential and non-residential structures, potentially increasing the use of and need for electricity. Due to the growth involved in the proposed General Plan, this increase may potentially result in an impact on existing electrical generating facilities. | Policies: OS 10.1-10.2, OS 11.1-11.3, OS 12.1-12.4, OS 16.1-16.5, OS 16.7-16.10 Implement Mitigation Measures 4.8.1A and 4.8.1B. | |
| 4.9 Flood and Dam Inundation Hazards | ||
| Potentially Significant Impacts | ||
| Impact 4.9.1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in the development of a significant amount of vacant unincorporated lands within the County. The addition of impervious surfaces would substantially increase the potential stormwater runoff from areas throughout the County. Existing drainage facilities may not be adequate to accommodate the future potential increase in stormwater runoff. Therefore, the implementation of development in accordance with the proposed General Plan may result in significant impacts related to existing drainage facilities. | Policies: S 4.4-4.6, 4.9.1A LOMA and LOMR-F are documents issued by FEMA that officially remove a property and/or structure from a special flood hazard area of a Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). These letters shall be accepted by Riverside County where applicable. 4.9.1B Riverside County shall prohibit alteration of floodways and channelization unless alternative methods of flood control are 4.9.1C Riverside County shall not necessarily require all land uses to withstand flooding. These may include land uses such as agricultural, golf courses, and trails. For these land uses, flows shall not be obstructed and upstream and downstream properties shall not be adversely affected by increased velocities, erosion backwater effects, or concentration of flows, and adverse impacts to water quality from point and non-point sources of pollution. 4.9.1.D Riverside County shall require the 10-year flood flows to be contained within the top of curbs and the 100-year flood flows within the street rights-of-way. |
Less than significant. |
| Impact 4.9.2 Implementation of the proposed General Plan would contribute to an increase in development in vacant areas of unincorporated Riverside County. Development has the potential to increase the risk of flooding, which leads to damage to structures and risk to the health and safety of people. This is a potentially significant impact of the implementation of the proposed General Plan. | Policies: S 4.1-4.3, S 4.9, S 4.20-4.23 4.9.2A Riverside County shall require that all structures (residential, commercial, and industrial) be flood-proofed from the 100-year storm flows. In some cases this may involve elevating the finished floor more than 1 foot. 4.9.2B Riverside County shall require that fully enclosed areas that are below finished floors have openings to equalize the forces on both sides of the walls. 4.9.2C Riverside County shall require that for agricultural, recreation, or other low-density uses, flows are not obstructed and that upstream and downstream properties are not adversely affected by increased velocities, erosion backwater effects, or concentration of flows. 4.9.2D Provided the applicant does hydrological studies, engineers structures to be safe from flooding, and provides evidence that the structures will not adversely impact the floodplain, Riverside County |
Less than significant. |
| Impact 4.9.3 The implementation of the proposed General Plan may place habitable structures within dam inundation areas. This is a potentially significant impact of the implementation of the proposed General Plan. | Policies: S 4.1, S 4.12, S 4.17-4.18 Existing County of Riverside Requirements The following existing County requirements will also reduce the risk of flood hazards on future development within the unincorporated areas of the County. •Riverside County shall work with property owners and FEMA to revise the FIRM to correctly show the limits of the 100-year flood zone. Revisions to the FIRM will eliminate the need for flood insurance on properties that are protected from flood-related hazards. • Riverside County shall continue to adopt and promote flood safety standards set forth by FEMA in areas susceptible to flooding and to identify and map areas that are prone to flooding and dam inundation. |
Less than significant. |
| 4.10 Geology and Soils | ||
| Potentially Significant Impacts | ||
| Impact 4.10.1 Future development permitted by the proposed General Plan may increase the potential for property loss, injury, or death resulting from development on or adjacent to known and/or as of yet undetected earthquake fault zones. Impacts associated with this issue are potentially significant. | Policies: S 2.1, S 3.3, S 7.7d 4.10.1A Before a project is approved or otherwise permitted within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Hazard Zone, County Fault Zone, within 150 feet of any other active or potentially active fault mapped in a published United State Geologic Survey (USGS) or California Geologic Survey (CGS) reports, or within other potential earthquake hazard area (as determined by the County Geologist), a site-specific geologic investigation shall be prepared to assess potential seismic hazards resulting from development of the project site. Where and when required, the geotechnical investigation shall address the issue(s), hazard(s), and geographic area(s) determined by the County Geologist to be relevant to each development. The site-specific geotechnical investigation shall incorporate up-to-date data from government and non-government sources. Based on the site-specific geotechnical investigation, no structures intended for human occupancy shall be constructed across active faults. This site-specific evaluation and written report shall be prepared by a licensed geologist and shall be submitted to the County Geologist for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. If an active fault is discovered, any structure intended for human occupancy shall be set back at least 50 feet from the fault. A larger or smaller setback may be established if such a setback is supported by adequate evidence as presented to and accepted by the County Geologist. |
Less than significant. |
| Impact 4.10.2 Like all of Southern California, Riverside County has and will continue to be subject to ground shaking resulting from activity on local and regional faults. Future development permitted by the proposed Riverside County General Plan may increase the potential for property loss, injury, or death resulting from this ground shaking hazard. Impacts associated with this issue are potentially significant. | Policies: S 7.7-7.9, S 7.11, S 7.13, S 7.16, S 7.19. 4.10.2A The design and construction of structures and facilities shall adhere to the standards and requirement detailed in the California Building Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24), County Building Code, and/or professional engineering standards appropriate for the seismic zone in which such construction may occur. Conformance with these design standards shall be enforced through building plan review and approval by the Riverside County Department of Building and Safety prior to the issuance of building permits for any structure or facility. 4.10.2B As determined by the County Geologist, a site-specific assessment shall be prepared to ascertain potential ground shaking impacts resulting from development. The site-specific ground shaking assessment shall incorporate up-to-date data from government and non-government sources and may be included as part of any site-specific geotechnical investigation required in Mitigation Measure 4.10.1A. The site-specific ground shaking assessment shall include specific measures to reduce the significance of potential ground shaking hazards. This site-specific ground shaking assessment shall be prepared by a licensed geologist and shall be submitted to the County Geologist for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 4.10.2C The standards stated in Mitigation Measures 4.10.2A and 4.10.2B shall apply to any structure or facility that undergoes, expansion, remodeling, renovation, refurbishment or other modification. |
Less than significant. |
| Impact 4.10.3 Portions of unincorporated Riverside County are susceptible to liquefaction, a destructive secondary effect of strong seismic shaking. Future proposed General Plan development within Riverside County would increase the potential for the placement of structures and facilities in or near areas susceptible to liquefaction. Impacts associated with this issue are potentially significant. | Policies: S 2.2-2.4, S 7.7b 4.10.3A As determined by the County Geologist, a site-specific assessment shall be prepared to ascertain potential liquefaction impacts resulting from development. The site-specific liquefaction assessment shall incorporate up-to-date data from government and non-government sources and may be included as part of any site-specific geotechnical investigation required in Mitigation Measure 4.10.1A. This site-specific ground shaking assessment shall be prepared by a licensed geologist and shall be submitted to the County Geologist for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 4.10.3B Where development is proposed within an identified or potential liquefaction hazard area (as determined by the County Geologist), adequate and appropriate measures such as (but not limited to) design foundations in a manner which limits the effects of liquefaction, the placement of an engineered fill with low liquefaction potential, and the alternative siting of structures in areas with a lower liquefaction risk, shall be implemented to reduce potential liquefaction hazards. Any such measures shall be submitted to the Riverside County Geologist and the County Department of Building and Safety for review prior to the approval of the building permits. |
Less than significant. |
| Impact 4.10.4 Landslides and rockfalls can be expected to occur throughout Riverside County, as a result of seismic activity and other natural processes, or as the result of human activity. Future proposed General Plan development within the County would increase the potential for the placement of structures and facilities in areas susceptible landslides or rockfalls. Impacts associated with this issue are potentially significant. | Policies: S 2.5, S 3.1-3.2, S 3.4-3.7, LU 11.1c, LU 11.1e, LU 11.1f. No mitigation required |
Less than significant. |
| Impact 4.10.5 Strong ground shaking can cause the densification of soils, resulting in local or regional settlement of the ground surface. Local differential settlement of soils can damage structures. Future proposed General Plan development within Riverside County would increase the potential for the placement of structures and facilities (including infrastructure) in areas susceptible to seismically induced settlement. Impacts related to this issue are potentially significant. | Policies: S 2.2, S 2.6-2.8 No mitigation required. |
Less than significant. |
| Impact 4.10.6 Soils susceptible to subsidence, hydroconsolidation, or soil collapse may be affected by a variety of natural or human activities, including earthquakes and the withdrawal of subsurface fluids. Future proposed General Plan development within Riverside County would increase the potential for the placement of structures and facilities in areas susceptible to subsidence and soil collapse. Impacts related to this issue are potentially significant. | Policies: S 3.8-3.10, S 7.12 No mitigation required. |
Less than significant. |
| Impact 4.10.7 Expansive soils are widely distributed throughout Riverside County. Future development within Riverside County would increase the potential for the placement of structures and facilities in areas susceptible to damage resulting from expansive soils. Impacts associated with expansive soils are considered potentially significant. | 4.10.7A Proponents of new development within Riverside County shall adhere to applicable policies and standards contained in the most recent version of the Uniform Building Code related to the construction of structures and facilities on expansive soils. | Less than significant. |
| Impact 4.10.8 Erosion of soils by winds and windblown sand are an environmentally limiting factor throughout much of Riverside County, especially in the Coachella Valley and Eastern Riverside County. Future development within Riverside County would increase the potential for the placement of structures and facilities in areas susceptible to windblown erosion and blow-sand hazards. Impacts related to this issue are potentially significant. | Policies: S 3.11-3.14 4.10.8A New development within identified or potential (as determined by the County Geologist) wind hazard areas shall adhere to applicable provisions of County of Riverside Ordinance 484.2 or other local, state, or federal requirements established to control or limit the windborne erosion of soil. Prior to the approval of development permits, the County Building and Safety Department shall confirm that the design of any proposed structure, facility, or use incorporates appropriate features to control and/or limit the windborne erosion of soil. |
Less than significant. |
| Impact 4.10.9 Areas exposed during development activities would be prone to erosion and/or the loss of topsoil. The potential for substantial soil erosion of the loss of topsoil is considered potentially significant. | 4.10.9A Riverside County, where required, and in accordance with issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, shall require the construction and/or grading contractor for individual developments to establish and implement specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) at time of project implementation. 4.10.9B Prior to any development within the County, a Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Riverside County Building and Safety Department and/or Riverside County Geologist for review and approval. As required by the County, the grading plan shall include erosion and sediment control plans. Measures included in individual erosion control plans may include, but shall not be limited to, the following: • Grading and development plans shall be designed in a manner which minimizes the amount of terrain modification. • Surface water shall be controlled and diverted around potential landslide areas to prevent erosion and saturation of slopes. • Structures shall not be sited on or below identified landslides unless slides are stabilized. • The extent and duration of ground disturbing activities during and immediately following periods of rain shall be limited, to avoid the potential for erosion which may be accelerated by rainfall on exposed soils. • To the extent possible, the amount of cut and fill shall be balanced. • The amount of water entering and exiting a graded site shall be limited though the placement of interceptor trenches or other erosion control devices. • Erosion and sediment control plans shall be submitted to the County for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. 4.10.9C Where required, drainage design measures shall be incorporated into the final design of individual projects on-site. These measures shall include, but will not be limited to: • Runoff entering developing areas shall be collected into surface and subsurface drains for removal to nearby drainages. • Runoff generated above steep slopes or poorly vegetated areas shall be captured and conveyed to nearby drainages. • Runoff generated on paved or covered areas shall be conveyed via swales and drains to natural drainage courses. • Disturbed areas that have been identified as highly erosive shall be (re)vegetated. • Irrigation systems shall be designed, installed, and maintained in a manner which minimizes runoff. • The landscape scheme for projects within the project site shall utilize drought-tolerant plants. • Erosion control devices such as rip-rap, gabions, small check dams, etc., may be utilized in gullies and active stream channels to reduce erosion. |
Less than significant. |
| 4.11 Hazardous Materials | ||
| Less than Significant Impacts | ||
| Historical Use of Hazardous Materials and Waste Implementation of the proposed General Plan would not result in impacts associated with known and/or suspected hazardous materials. However, there is a potential that previously unknown hazardous materials contamination from historical use of a property may be encountered during future development activities. Should such contamination be found or disturbance occur, existing federal, state, and local policies and procedures would require action by the designated local enforcement agency. It is unlikely that any such contamination or disturbance would be extensive beyond the capacities of typical remediation measures. Therefore, no significant impacts from former uses of properties within Riverside County are anticipated as a result of implementation of the proposed General Plan. Generation of Hazardous Waste Implementation of the proposed General Plan would introduce new land uses to the unincorporated areas of Riverside County that may result in the use of hazardous materials and the potential generation of hazardous waste. However, compliance with regulations, standards, and guidelines established by the EPA, State, Riverside County, and local agencies relating to the storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials will reduce the potential risk of hazardous materials exposure to a level that is less than significant and no further mitigation is required. |
Policies: S 6.1 S 7.1-7.3 No mitigation required. |
Less than significant. |
| 4.12 Mineral Resources | ||
| Less than Significant Impact | ||
| The increased growth and development associated with the implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact mineral resources located within the unincorporated Riverside County. | Policies: LU 21.1-21.5, OS 14.1-14.6 | Less than significant. |
| 4.13 Noise | ||
| Potentially Significant Impacts | ||
| Impact 4.13.1 Noise levels from grading and other construction activities would potentially result in noise levels reaching 91 dBA Lmax at off-site locations 50 feet from the site boundary. This would result in potentially significant noise impacts to off-site sensitive receptors adjacent to the individual construction site. Compliance with the County's noise ordinance construction hours would be required to reduce construction-related noise impacts to a less than significant level. | Compliance with the County's noise ordinance construction hours. Policies: N 12.1-12.4 4.13.1A Prior to the issuance of any grading plans, the County shall condition approval of subdivisions adjacent to any developed/occupied noise-sensitive land uses by requiring applicants to submit a construction-related noise mitigation plan to the County for review and approval. The plan should depict the location of construction equipment and how the noise from this equipment will be mitigated during construction of the project through the use of such methods as: • The construction contractor shall use temporary noise attenuation fences where feasible, to reduce construction noise impacts on adjacent noise-sensitive land uses. • During all project site excavation and grading on site, the construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers' standards. The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site. • The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. • The construction contractor shall limit all construction-related activities that would result in high noise levels to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. No construction shall be allowed on Sundays and public holidays. 4.13.1B The construction-related noise mitigation plan required shall also specify that haul truck deliveries be subject to the same hours specified for construction equipment. Additionally, the plan shall denote any construction traffic haul routes where heavy trucks would exceed 100 daily trips (counting those both to and from the construction site). To the extent feasible, the plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. Lastly, the construction-related noise mitigation plan shall incorporate any other restrictions imposed by County staff. |
Less than significant. |
| Impact 4.13.2 The implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in potential project-related long-term vehicular noise than would affect sensitive land uses along the roads. New development, particularly residential uses along and adjacent to major transit corridors, could be exposed to excessive traffic-related noise levels. To ensure that all new noise-sensitive proposals are carefully reviewed with respect to potential noise impacts, the County shall review new development using noise guidelines in combination with the land use compatibility standards. | Policies: N 6.1-6.4, N 8.1-8.7 4.13.2A All new residential developments within the County shall conform to a noise exposure standard of 65 dBA Ldn for outdoor noise in noise-sensitive outdoor activity areas and 45 dBA Ldn for indoor noise in bedrooms and living/family rooms. New development, which does not and cannot be made to conform to this standard, shall not be permitted. 4.13.2B Acoustical studies, describing how the exterior and interior noise standards will be met, shall be required for all new residential developments with a noise exposure greater than 65 dBA Ldn. The studies shall also satisfy the requirements set forth in Title 24, Part 2, or the California Administrative Code, Noise Insulation Standards, for multiple family attached homes, hotels, motels, etc., regulated by Title 24. No development permits or approval of land use applications shall be issued until an acoustic analysis is received and approved by the County Planning Department. 4.13.2C The County shall require that proposed new commercial and industrial developments prepare acoustical studies, analyzing potential noise impacts on adjacent properties, when these developments abut noise-sensitive land uses. The County will require that all identified impacts to noise-sensitive land uses be mitigated to a less than significant level. 4.13.2D Ensure that all new schools, particularly in subdivisions and specific plans, are sited more than two miles away from an airport. |
Less than significant. |
| Impact 4.13.3 New development associated with implementation of the proposed General Plan could expose existing and/or new sensitive uses to stationary noise sources, such as industrial and/or commercial uses. | Policies: N 1.1-1.8, N 2.1-2.3, N 3.1-3.7, N 4.1-4.8, N 11.1-11.2 4.13.3A Acoustical studies shall be required for all new noise-sensitive projects that may be affected by existing noise from stationary sources. 4.13.3B To permit new development of residential and noise-sensitive land uses where existing stationary noise sources exceed the County's noise standards, effective mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce noise exposure to or below the allowable levels of the zoning code/noise control ordinance. 4.13.3C No industrial facilities shall be constructed within 500 feet of any commercial land uses or within 2,800 feet of any residential uses without the preparation of a noise impact analysis. This analysis shall document the nature of the industrial facility as well as "noise producing" operations associated with that facility. Furthermore, the analysis shall document the placement of any existing or proposed commercial or residential land uses situated within the noted distances. The analysis shall determine the potential noise levels that could be received at these commercial and/or residential land uses and specify measures to be employed by the industrial facility to ensure that these levels do not exceed County noise requirements. Such measures could include, but are not limited to, the use of enclosures for noisy pieces of equipment, the use of noise walls and/or berms for exterior equipment and/or on-site truck operations, and/or restrictions on hours of operations. No development permits or approval of land use applications shall be issued until an acoustic analysis is received and approved by the County staff. |
Less than significant. |
| Impact 4.13.4 Although the proposed General Plan update would not necessarily result in potential project-related increases in railroad noise, there could be new proposed sensitive land uses along and adjacent to the railroads that would be affected by high railroad noise. | Policies: N 10.1-10.5 4.13.4A All new residential developments within the County shall conform to a noise exposure standard of 65 dBA Ldn for outdoor noise in noise-sensitive outdoor activity areas and 45 dBA Ldn for indoor noise in bedrooms and living/family rooms. New development, which does not and cannot be made to conform to this standard, shall not be permitted. 4.13.4B Acoustical studies, describing how the exterior and interior noise standards will be met, shall be required for all new residential developments with a noise exposure greater than 65 dBA Ldn. The studies should also satisfy the requirements set forth in Title 24, Part 2, of the California Administrative Code, Noise Insulation Standards, for multiple family attached homes, hotels, motels, etc., regulated by Title 24. |
Less than significant. |
| 4.14 Parks and Recreation | ||
| Potentially Significant Impacts | ||
| Impact 4.14.1 Build out within now vacant unincorporated areas of the County will result in a substantial increase in population and residential and non-residential structures, potentially increasing the use of existing parks and recreation facilities. Based on increased population figures and current staffing levels, development associated with the proposed General Plan would require additional neighborhood or community parkland and recreational facilities. Therefore, the proposed General Plan could result in significant impacts on existing parks and recreations services and facilities and will require the expansion of existing facilities and recreation programs or the construction of new parks and recreational facilities. An increase in staff and/or equipment will be needed to maintain the new parkland and recreational facilities. | Policies: OS 20.3, OS 20.5-20.6, LU 19.1-19.3, LU 19.5 | Less than significant. |
| 4.15 Public Services | ||
| Potentially Significant Impacts | ||
| Fire Protection Impact 4.15.1 Build out of unincorporated areas of the County will result in a substantial increase in population and residential and non-residential structures, increasing the need for fire emergency services and facilities. Based on increased population figures and current staffing levels, development associated with the proposed General Plan would require additional on-duty firefighters. Therefore, the proposed General Plan could result in significant impacts on existing fire protection services and require expansion of fire protection services. |
Policies: S 5.2, S 5.4- |
Less than significant. |
| Sheriff Protection Impact 4.15.2 Increases in population and employment anticipated with the proposed General Plan would increase the need for sheriff protection and sheriff services, requiring additional emergency responses and the need for additional sheriff personnel and related support facilities. This increased demand for officers and facilities is considered a significant impact. |
Policies: LU 5.1-5.2, LU 9.1 4.15.2A The County shall require as a part of the development review process, proponents of new businesses, recreational, and commercial land uses such as shopping centers, health clubs, large hotels over 200 rooms, convention centers, and commercial recreational activities be required to provide on-site security. 4.15.2B The TLMA shall inform the Riverside County Sheriff's Department of the existence of all new homeowner associations within the County. The Riverside County Sheriff's Department shall coordinate with homeowners associations to establish a Neighborhood Watch Program. 4.15.2C Riverside County shall meet and maintain a goal of 1.5 sworn officers per 1,000 population, as recommended by the International City Managers' Association. 4.15.2D The County shall require the development applicant to pay the County Sheriff's established development mitigation fee prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy on any structure as they are developed. The fees are for the acquisition and construction of public facilities. |
Less than significant. |
| Solid Waste Management Impact 4.15.3 Increases in population and employment with the proposed General Plan could result in the incremental increase of solid waste throughout unincorporated Riverside County. This could increase the need for solid waste disposal, requiring additional landfill capacity and related support facilities. This increase is considered substantial and could result in a significant impact on existing solid waste facilities. |
Policies: LU 5.1, LU 5.2 4.15.3A Riverside County shall work with its franchise hauling companies to expand curbside and commercial recycling services throughout the unincorporated area of the County. 4.15.3B Riverside County shall follow State regulations in implementing the goals, policies, and programs identified in the Riverside County Integrated Waste Management Plan in order to achieve and maintain a 50 percent reduction in solid waste disposal through source reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting. 4.15.3.C In accordance with State regulations, Riverside County shall prepare an annual report of progress for the CIWMB to determine the County's progress toward meeting its diversion goals and objectives, to project the County's waste disposal needs, and to determine if any of the elements that comprise the Riverside CIWMP require revision to include additional disposal capacity, reflect new or changed local and regional solid waste management issues, or reflect new or changed goals and objectives. 4.15.3D In accordance with CCR Section 18788, Riverside County shall review the Riverside CIWMP every five years to determine if the County's waste management practices remain consistent with waste diversion goals and objectives and to assess if revision is required. 4.15.3E The County shall require all future commercial, industrial and multifamily residential development to provide for adequate areas for the collection and loading of recyclable materials (i.e., paper products, glass, and other recyclables) in compliance with the State Model Ordinance, implemented on September 1, 1994, in accordance with AB 1327, Chapter 18, California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991. 4.15.3F The County shall require all development projects to coordinate with appropriate County departments and/or agencies to ensure that there is adequate waste disposal capacity to meet the waste disposal requirements of the project, and the County shall recommend that all development projects incorporate measures to promote waste reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting. |
Less than significant. |
| Wastewater Impact 4.15.4.1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan would generate increases in population and housing, in addition to increases of commercial, and industrial land uses. This growth would incrementally generate wastewater, which will necessitate increased wastewater treatment capacity. Due to the large-scale projected growth, this increase is considered substantial and may result in a significant impact on existing wastewater service and facilities. |
Policies: LU 5.1-5.2, LU 9.1, OS 3.1 No mitigation required. |
Less than significant. |
| Impact 4.15.4.2 The proliferation of septic systems in rural communities may potentially contaminate groundwater with nitrates, ammonia, salts, metals, organic solvents, grease and oil, and other substances, impairing the beneficial uses of local water supplies. This is a potentially significant impact. | Policy: OS 3.2 4.15.4A Conventional septic tanks/subsurface disposal systems shall be prohibited within any designated Zone A of an EPA wellhead protection area. Where a difference between Riverside County and EPA septic tank setback requirements exists, the EPA standard shall apply. |
Less than significant. |
| Schools Impact 4.15.5 Implementation of the proposed General Plan will result in increased development and associated student population throughout the unincorporated areas of the County. Most school districts either cannot meet their current need or will be unable to meet future needs resulting from projected growth. |
Policy: LU 5.2 Implementation of Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 (SB 50). |
Less than significant. |
| Libraries Impact 4.15.6 The population increase anticipated in the proposed Riverside County General Plan would potentially increase the use of existing library facilities and services to the extent that the construction and/or expansion of facilities would be required. |
Policy: LU 5.1 4.15.6A Riverside County shall provide a minimum of approximately 0.5 square foot of library space and 2.5 volumes per County resident. |
Less than significant. |
| Medical Facilities Impact 4.15.7 The population increase to 1.67 1.77 million people in the County over the next 40 years anticipated with the implementation of the proposed General Plan would increase the demand of existing medical facilities and services beyond what is currently available. Projected growth may have a significant impact to medical facilities and services in Riverside County. |
Policies: LU 5.1 4.15.7A Riverside County shall perform a periodic medical needs assessment to evaluate the current medical demand and level of medical service provided within each Area Plan. A periodic medical needs assessment shall be conducted every three years. 4.15.7B Riverside County shall fund the new construction and/or expansion of existing medical facilities according to the level of demand for medical services. The level of demand will be based on and determined by the outcome of the periodic medical needs assessments. |
Less than significant. |
| 4.16 Transportation and Circulation | ||
| Potentially Significant Impacts | ||
| Impact 4.16.1 Future growth occurring as the result of implementing the proposed |
Policies: C.1.1-1.7, C 2.1-2.8, C 3.2, C 3.5-3.6, C 3.10, C 3.20, C 4.1-4.10, C 6.1-6.7, C 7.1, C 7.2-7.8 4.16.1A As part of its review of land development proposals, the County shall require project proponents to make a "fair share" contribution to required intersection and/or roadway improvements. The required intersection and/or roadway improvements shall be based on maintaining the appropriate level of service (LOS D within Community Development Areas designated by the 2002 Riverside County General Plan and within adjacent jurisdictions; LOS C within those portions of unincorporated Riverside County outside of Community Development Areas). The fair share contribution shall be based on the percentage of project-related traffic to the total future traffic. 4.16.1B As part of its review of land development proposals, the County shall ensure sufficient right-of-way is reserved on critical roadways and at critical intersections to implement the approach lane geometrics necessary to provide the appropriate levels of services. 4.16.1C The County shall add a transportation corridor to its General Plan Circulation Element, if feasible, showing a connection between I-15 and the Orange County freeway system, and complete that portion of the CETAP program involving the bi-County corridor to Orange County as a means of relieving traffic congestion along State Route 91. The transportation corridor shall provide an alternative route for traffic on State Route 91 between I-15 and State Route 241. |
Significant and unavoidable. |
| 4.17 Water Resources | ||
| Potentially Significant Impacts | ||
| Impact 4.17.1 The population increases projected for Riverside County will increase the demand for water beyond that which currently exists. A significant impact will occur when and where the demand for water exceeds supply. | Policies: OS 1.1-1.3, OS 2.1-2.5, LU 5.3, LU 17.2 4.17.1A Proponents of new development within unincorporated areas of Riverside County that consist of: a residential development of more than 500 dwelling units; a shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space; a commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space; a hotel/motel development of more than 5,000 rooms; an industrial, manufacturing/processing plant, or industrial park employing more than 1,000 persons or occupying more than 650,000 square feet of floor space or 40 acres of land; a mixed-use development that includes any of the previously referenced projects; or a project with a water demand equivalent to that used by 500 residential units • Project description; • Water resources environmental setting; • Conservation and water recycling measures included in the project; • The identification of existing water entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts relevant to the water supply identified for a proposed project, and the amount of water received pursuant to such entitlements, rights, or contracts; • Project water demand; • Water supply alternatives; • Preferred water supply alternative; • Impacts associated with use of the preferred water supply alternative; • A evaluation of compliance with the applicable Urban Water Management Plan; • Summary and conclusions; and • Technical appendices and attachment of supporting documents. Said water supply assessment report shall be submitted to the County and applicable water supply agencies for review. Development shall not be permitted unless an adequate supply of water, available for use and sufficient to supply a proposed project, in wet and drought years, has been identified. Where water supply adequate to supply a project in its entirety does not exist, development of only those portions of a project with an adequate and available water supply shall be permitted. Evidence of the availability of adequate water supply shall be submitted to the County for review and approval prior to the issuance of development permits. 4.17.1B For projects smaller than those stated in Mitigation Measure 4.17.1A, with an estimated annual water use of 250 af or less, the County shall require evidence that the project is in compliance with the Urban Water Management Plan for the area in which the development is located, prior to the issuance of development permits. Evidence of such compliance shall take the form of written verification by the water provider that the project is in compliance with said plan. As determined necessary by the County, preparation of a water supply plan (as required in Mitigation Measure 4.17.1A, above) shall be required for a project that does not meet the aforementioned thresholds, is estimated to use less than 250 af per year, prior to the issuance of development permits. 4.17.1C Development within unincorporated areas of the County shall not use water of any source of quality suitable for potable domestic use for nonpotable uses, including cemeteries, golf courses, parks, highway landscaped areas, industrial and irrigation uses, or other non-domestic use if suitable water is available as provided in Sections 13550-13566 of the State Water Code and/or Sections 65591-65600 and 65601-65607 of the State Public Resource Code. Prior to the issuance of any land use permit, the County shall determine to what extent and in which manner the use of recycled water is required for individual water projects. Future development shall be designed, constructed, and maintained accordance with the recycled water measures mandated by the County. 4.17.1D Riverside County shall enforce compliance with federal, State, and local standards for water conservation within residential, commercial, or industrial projects. Prior to approval of any development within the County, the applicant shall submit evidence to Riverside County that all applicable water conservation measures have been met. 4.17.1E For any development within the Palo Verde Planning Area supplied with water from the Colorado River, the project applicant shall enter into a contract with the City of Needles, pursuant to the "Lower Colorado Water Supply Project" program. Evidence of such a contractual agreement shall be submitted to the County prior to the approval of any development entitlement for the project. |
Significant and unavoidable. |
| Impact 4.17.2 Accommodation of the population increase anticipated at build out of the General Plan will likely require the increased reliance on groundwater sources. This is especially likely in the western part of Riverside County where most of the population growth is expected to occur. Increased and new uses may conflict with a groundwater management plan, monitoring program, or lead to groundwater extraction that either individually or cumulatively exceed the safe yields of groundwater basins and/or cause a net deficit in the aquifer volume or reduction in the local groundwater table level. Any such condition would be potentially significant. | Policies: OS 1.1-1.3, OS 2.1-2.5, OS 4.1-4.7, LU 5.3, LU 17.2 4.17.2A In areas where it is not practical to conserve soils suitable for recharge (as determined by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District), water harvesting and recharge facilities shall be built within the same groundwater basin in which the recharge area is lost. The construction of "replacement" recharge areas shall equal the amount of recharge area lost and/or shall incorporate equipment or facilities capable of replacing (at an equal volume) the amount of groundwater recharge capacity lost as a result of development. The identification, designation, location, or installation of "replacement" groundwater recharge capacity shall be reviewed and approved by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District prior to the issuance of grading permits. |
Less than significant. |
| Impact 4.17.3 The proposed General Plan will accommodate development in vacant areas that are currently available for groundwater recharge. Development of such areas will reduce the area available for aquifer recharge and could substantially interfere with the process of groundwater recharge. This is a potentially significant impact. | Policies: OS 4.1-4.7 4.17.2A (above) 4.17.3A New development that includes more than one acre of impervious surface area (including roofs, parking areas, streets, sidewalk, etc.), shall incorporate features to facilitate the on-site infiltration of precipitation and/or runoff into groundwater basins. Such features shall include |
Less than significant. |
| Impact 4.17.4 The proposed General Plan has the potential to threaten or damage unique hydrologic characteristics or will change hydrologic baseline conditions over an extensive area or period of time, so that resultant conditions are highly controversial, highly uncertain, or involve unique or unknown risks. | Policies: OS 5.1-5.3, OS 5.5, LU 28.1 4.17.4A Where development may interfere with, disrupt, or otherwise affect surface or subsurface hydrologic baseline conditions (as determined by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Game, and/or the Regional Water Quality Control Board), preparation of a project specific hydrologic study shall be required. The hydrologic study shall include (but shall not be limited to): an inventory 4.17.4B The project applicant shall submit to the County for review and approval, evidence that the specific measures to limit or eliminate the disruption or interference to the hydrologic process resulting from the entire development process, will be implemented as set forth in the hydrologic study. Such evidence may take the form of (but shall not be limited to): a development agreement; land banking; the provision of adequate funds to guarantee the construction, maintenance or restoration of hydrologic features; or any other mechanism that will achieve said goals. Said evidence shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of any entitlement that would result in the physical modification of the project site. 4.17.4C Where determined feasible by the County or responsible entity, bioengineering measures shall be incorporated into any project that may alter the hydrologic process. |
Less than significant. |
| Impact 4.17.5 Implementation of the proposed General Plan will result in reliance on a higher percentage of lower quality water sources either from the Colorado River or from marginal groundwater sources, and/or may increase the level of pollutants that occur in local/regional ground water reserves and/or local/regional surface water. Either of these conditions would result in the deterioration of the quality of |
Policies: OS 3.1-3.3, OS 6.3 4.17.5A The development of septic systems shall be in accordance with applicable standards established by Riverside County and other responsible authorities. 4.17.5B Point source pollution reduction programs shall fully adhere to applicable standards required by federal, State, and local agencies. Prior to the approval of individual projects, Riverside County shall verify that the provisions of applicable point source pollution programs have been satisfied. 4.17.5C Where development may contribute to a worsening of local or regional ground or surface water quality (as determined by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and/or RWQCB), a water quality analysis shall be prepared. The water quality analysis shall include (but shall not be limited to): an analysis of existing surface and subsurface water quality; an assessment of how the proposed development would affect 4.17.5D The project applicant shall submit to the County and the RWQCB, for review and approval, evidence that the specific measures to limit or eliminate potential water quality impacts resulting from the entire development process, will be implemented as set forth in the water quality analysis. Said evidence shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any entitlement that would result in the physical modification of the project site. 4.17.5E For each new development project, the following principles and policies shall be considered and implemented: (1) Avoid or limit disturbance to natural water bodies and drainage systems (including ephemeral drainage systems) when feasible. Provide adequate buffers of native vegetation along drainage systems to lessen erosion and protect water quality. (2) Appropriate best management practices (BMPs) must be implemented to lessen impacts to waters of the United States and/or waters of the State of California resulting from development. Drainages should be left in a natural condition or modified in a way that preserves all existing water quality standards where feasible. Any discharges of sediment or other wastes, including wastewater, to waters of the United States or waters of the State must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. All such discharges will require an NPDES permit issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). (3) Small drainages shall be preserved and incorporated into new development, along with adequate buffer zones of native vegetation, to the maximum extent practicable. (4) Any impacts to waters of the United States require a Section 401 Water Quality Standards Certification from the RWQCB. Impacts to these waters shall be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. Where avoidance is not practicable, impacts to these waters shall be minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Mitigation of unavoidable impacts must, at a minimum, replace the full function and value of the affected water body. Impacts to waters of the United States also require a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers and a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game. (5) The County shall encourage the use of pervious materials in development to retain absorption and allow more percolation of stormwater into the ground. The use of pervious materials, such as grass, permeable/porous pavement, etc., for runoff channels and parking areas shall also be encouraged. Lining runoff channels with impermeable surfaces, such as concrete or grouted rip-rap, will be discouraged. (6) The County shall encourage construction of detention basins or holding ponds and/or constructed wetlands within a project site to capture and treat dry weather urban runoff and the first flush of rainfall runoff. These basins should be designed to detain runoff for a minimum time, such as 24 hours, to allow particles and associated pollutants to settle and to provide for natural treatment. (7) The County shall encourage development to retain areas of open space as natural or landscaped to aid in the recharge and retention of runoff. Native plant materials shall be used in replanting and hydroseeding operations, where feasible. (8) The County shall require that environmental documents for proposed projects in areas tributary to Canyon Lake Reservoir, Lake Elsinore, sections of the Santa Ana River, Fulmar Lake, and Mill Creek (as a result of the proposed 2002 303 (d) listing of these water bodies) include discharge prohibitions, revisions to discharge permits, or management plans to address water quality impacts in accordance with the controls that may be applied pursuant to State and Federal regulation. Environmental documents shall acknowledge that additional requirements may be imposed in the future for projects in areas tributary to the water bodies listed above. (9) The County shall ensure that in new development, post-development stormwater runoff flow rates do not differ from the pre-development stormwater runoff flow rates. (10) All construction projects should be designed and implemented to protect, and if at all possible, to improve the quality of the underlying groundwater. (11) The County shall encourage the enhancement of groundwater recharge wherever possible. Measures such as keeping stream/river channels and floodplains in natural conditions or with pervious surfaces, as well as keeping areas of high recharge as open space will be considered. (12) The County shall prohibit the discharge of waste material resulting from any type of construction into any drainage areas, channels, streambeds, streams, lakes, wetlands, or rivers. Spoil sites shall be prohibited within any streams or areas where spoil material could be washed into a water body. (13) The County shall require that appropriate BMPs be developed and implemented during construction efforts to control the discharge of pollutants, prevent sewage spills, and to avoid discharge of sediments into the streets, stormwater conveyance channels, or waterways. |
Less than significant. |
SECTION 2.0 - INTRODUCTION
2.1 Purpose of the Program Environmental Impact Report
This Program EIR (EIR No. 441, State Clearinghouse No. 2002051143) has been prepared according to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed 2002 Riverside County General Plan (proposed General Plan, Comprehensive General Plan Amendment No. GPA00618), which covers the entire unincorporated portion of the County. It also discusses alternatives to the proposed General Plan, and proposes mitigation measures that will offset, minimize, or otherwise avoid significant environmental impacts. This EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, California Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; the Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3); and the rules, regulations, and procedures for implementing CEQA as adopted by the County of Riverside.
The objective of the Program EIR is to inform County of Riverside decision-makers, representatives of other affected/responsible agencies, the public, and other interested parties of the potential environmental effects that may be associated with the proposed General Plan. This Program EIR describes potential impacts relating to a wide variety of environmental issues and methods in which these impacts can be mitigated or avoided. It further analyzes the level of impact remaining after mitigation. Some impacts cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance.
2.1.1 Contents of the Final Program EIR
The Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the County of Riverside General Plan (State of California Clearinghouse No. 2002051143) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the guidelines for the implementation of CEQA. The Final EIR consists of two volumes containing following contents:
• Revisions made to the Draft EIR (August 20, 2002), State of California Clearinghouse No. 2002051143 - Volume I;
• A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR (Section 1.4 of Volume II);
• The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the public review and consultation process (Section 2.0 of Volume II);
• An addendum to the Draft EIR as a result of responses to comments on the Draft EIR (Section 3.0 of Volume II); and
• The Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP) (Section 4.0 of Volume II).
The Final EIR (Volume I) also contains an analysis of revisions/changes made to the General Plan Land Use Map, land use designations and general plan components, 19 Area Plan Maps, and General Plan policies as a result of the County of Riverside Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor's public hearings on proposed General Plan through September 9, 2003.
The Final EIR incorporates by reference the Riverside County General Plan Program Draft EIR, August 20, 2002, and the Riverside County Integrated Plan Existing Setting Report (March 2000).
2.1.2 Findings of the Final Program EIR
As stated above, text and map changes have been made to the proposed General Plan since the Public Hearing Draft of the document was released in April 2002. The changes resulted from public review of the document and input to the Riverside County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.
The Final Program EIR (Volume I) evaluated the changes made to the land use designations, the County Land Use Map, 19 Area Plans, and General Plan policies as of September 26, 2003. As a result of the changes to the prosed General Plan, the traffic model was rerun and the outcome of the general plan traffic is analyzed in Volume I, Section 4.16 of the Final Program EIR. Changes to the General Plan policies and the Draft EIR are shown in strikeout (strikeout) and double underline (double underline) in the Final Program EIR.
The analysis in the Final EIR (Volume 1) determined that Section 15088.5(1)(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines have been met that states "recirculation of a Draft EIR is not required where new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR." Section 15088.5(1)(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines identifies the conditions that require recirculation of a Draft EIR if the following occurs:
• A new significant environmental impact. A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
• A substantial increase in the severity of an impact. A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
• New mitigation measures and alternatives. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives.
• Draft EIR is fundamentally inadequate. The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.
If none of the above conditions is met, the County is not required to recirculate the Draft EIR.
The Final EIR evaluated the changes to the General Plan as an outcome of the public hearing process and determined that, although there were changes made to the Draft EIR, those changes did not result in a new significant environmental impact that was not disclosed in the Draft EIR; that there was not an increase in the severity of an impact that could not be mitigated; and that there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously found to be infeasible that are now feasible that would reduce one or more significant effects of the General Plan. As discussed for each topic area analyzed in the Draft EIR, the resulting changes to the General Plan did not change the conclusions of the Draft EIR. Implementation of the County's General Plan will have significant unavoidable adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance for:
• Conversion of State designated and/or land currently utilized for agricultural production to non-agricultural uses;
• Conversion of open space to urban uses resulting in an obstruction of views and loss of existing visual character;
• Air quality both short-term construction and long-term operational impacts;
• Water supply;
• Traffic impacts to the freeways; and
• Biological Resources as follows:
- A direct loss of sensitive natural communities, especially coastal sage scrub and meadow and marsh habitats;
- Fragmentation of sensitive habitats, resulting in isolation of habitat patches and creating a "checkerboard" pattern of small habitat patches of limited biological value; and
- The fragmentation of habitat that constricts, inhibits, or eliminates wildlife movement.
The Mitigation Monitoring Program in Volume II of the Final Program EIR reflects changes made to mitigation measures as a result of the analysis of the General Plan as of September 26, 2003.
2.1.1 2.1.3 California Environmental Quality Act
According to Section 15002 of CEQA Guidelines, the basic purposes of CEQA are to:
• Inform government decision-makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of proposed activities;
• Identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced;
• Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governing agency finds the changes to be feasible; and
• Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved.
This EIR is intended to serve as an informational document for public agency decision-makers and the general public regarding the objectives and components of the proposed General Plan, which is the proposed project for the purpose of CEQA. This document will address the potential significant adverse environmental impacts that may be associated with build out of the proposed General Plan, as well as identify feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that may be adopted to reduce or eliminate these impacts.
This EIR is the primary reference document for the formulation and implementation of a mitigation monitoring program for the proposed General Plan. Environmental impacts cannot always be mitigated to a level that is considered less than significant. In accordance with Section 15093(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, if a lead agency approves a project that has significant impacts that are not substantially mitigated (i.e., significant unavoidable impacts), the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons for approving the project based on the final CEQA documents and any other information in the public record for the project. This is defined in Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines as a "statement of overriding considerations."
2.1.2 2.1.4 Program Environmental Impact Report
This EIR is a "Program EIR," which evaluates the broad-scale impacts of the proposed General Plan. Program EIRs are typically prepared for an agency plan program, or series of actions that can be characterized as one large project, such as a general plan. Tiering refers to the concept of a multilevel approach to preparing environmental documents (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15152). A General Plan EIR, addressing the impacts of countywide and local policy decisions, can be thought of as a "first tier" document. It evaluates the large-scale impacts on the environment that can be expected to result from the adoption of the General Plan, but does not necessarily address the site-specific impacts that each of the thousands of individual development projects that will follow and implement the General Plan may have. CEQA requires each of those subsequent development projects be evaluated for their particular site-specific impacts. These site-specific analyses are typically encompassed in second-tier documents, such as Project EIRs, Focused EIRs, or Negative Declarations on individual development projects subject to the General Plan, which typically evaluate the impacts of a single activity undertaken to implement the overall plan.
According to the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15168(a)), a State or local agency should prepare a Program EIR, rather than a Project EIR, when the lead agency proposes the following:
• Series of related actions that are linked geographically;
• Logical parts of a chain of contemplated events, rules, regulations, or plans that govern the conduct of a continuing program; or
• Individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects that can be mitigated in similar ways.
In this case, the Program EIR will address the General Plan, which is the proposed project. This EIR considers anticipates a series of actions needed to achieve the implementation of the proposed General Plan. Further actions or procedures required to allow implementation of the proposed General Plan include the processing of zoning plans, specific plans, tentative tract maps, site design plans, building permits, and grading permits.
In a Program EIR, CEQA allows the general analysis of broad environmental effects of the program with the acknowledgment that subsequent site-specific environmental review may be required for particular aspects of portions of the program at the time of project implementation. The Program EIR would serve a valuable purpose as a first-tier environmental analysis. The Program EIR can be incorporated by reference into subsequently prepared environmental documents to address issues, such as cumulative impacts and growth inducing impacts, allowing the subsequent documents to focus on new or site-specific impacts (CEQA Guidelines, Section 151168(d)).
Although the legally required contents of a Program EIR are the same as those of a Project EIR, in practice there are considerable differences in level of detail. Program EIRs are typically more conceptual and abstract. They contain a more general discussion of impacts, alternatives, and mitigation measures.
To keep the analysis of impacts in this Program EIR in perspective, the County of Riverside is approximately the size of the State of New Jersey (approximately 7,295 square miles). It includes well-established urban, suburban, and rural communities. It has an extensive array of agricultural lands, lands devoted to mineral extraction, and recreational areas. There are rugged mountains, flat valley areas, open desert, and expansive natural open space areas. The variety of geographic zones has an influence on climate which, in turn, affects biodiversity, energy usage (for air conditioning and heating), water usage (for agriculture and landscaping), wild fire hazards, flood hazards, air quality (heat, wind patterns, topography), water quality (natural salinity), and soil types (prime farmland) within the County. In addition, the County contains vast expanses of federal and Native American lands and 24 incorporated cities that are not under the land use control of the County. The analysis in a Program EIR for a county this size is not intended to be site-specific (e.g., determining the level of service for intersections within the County), but is a more broad analysis. For instance, the traffic analysis determines whether the roadway widths proposed in the General Plan Circulation Element will accommodate the planned land uses. The Program EIR does not, however, determine fair share roadway improvements for individual future development projects. These fair share improvements that development will be responsible to build or pay for will be determined during subsequent environmental review on a case-by-case basis.
Therefore, the Program EIR will help determine the need for subsequent environmental documentation. Parameters by which a lead agency can determine the need for additional environmental documentation are contained in the CEQA Guidelines (Sections 15160 to 15170).
2.2 Intended Use of the Program Environmental Impact Report
This Program EIR addresses the potential environmental effects of the implementation of the proposed General Plan. Riverside County is the Lead Agency for the purposes of CEQA because it has the principal responsibility for deciding whether or not to approve the General Plan, and how it will be implemented. As the Lead Agency, Riverside County is responsible for preparing the environmental documentation for the proposed project in compliance with CEQA.
The County of Riverside, as the Lead Agency, has the responsibility for preparing the General Plan Program EIR as well as the General Plan. The following discretionary actions are anticipated to be taken by Riverside County as part of the proposed project:
• Adoption of the 2020 Riverside County General Plan, which incorporates 19 Area Plans as part of the Riverside County General Plan, and
• Adoption of proposed boundary changes to zoning districts to coincide with the 19 Area Plan boundaries.
2.2.1 Previous Environmental Documentation
As stated in Section 15150 of the State CEQA Guidelines, "An EIR or negative declaration may incorporate by reference all or portions of another document which is a matter of public record or is generally available to the public." Section 15150(b) further states that all documents incorporated by reference shall be made available to the public for inspection at a public place or public building and requires that the EIR state where the incorporated documents will be made available for public inspection. Section 15150(d) requires the EIR to include the state identification number of any previous EIR or negative declaration which has been incorporated by reference. The following document has been incorporated by reference:
Riverside County Integrated Plan Existing Setting Report (LSA Associates, March 2000).
The Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP) Existing Setting Report is intended to provide a common factual basis for the preparation of the three components of the County's integrated planning effort: Riverside County General Plan, Western Riverside County MSHCP, and the Western Riverside County CETAP. This report also provides a single environmental baseline inventory that will be used in the preparation of subsequent environmental documents for each of the three plans comprising the RCIP.
The Existing Setting Report presents the results of an intensive research effort aimed at identifying the physical, social, and economic characteristics of Riverside County which need to be understood in order to formulate goals, objectives, and policies for the integrated planning effort. Along with the preparation of this report, an extensive and detailed computerized database was constructed. The Riverside County Integrated Plan Existing Setting Report has been provided, in CD-ROM format, along with the EIR and is located in the front pocket of the EIR folder. In addition, the hard copy of the report may be viewed at these locations:
| County Administrative Center (Riverside) 4080 Lemon Street Public Counter, 2nd Floor Planning Department, 9th Floor Riverside, California 92502 Hours of Operation: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday |
County Administrative Center (Indio) 82-675 Highway 111, Room 209 Indio, California 92201 Hours of Operation: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday |
| Riverside County Permit Assistance Center (Murrieta) 39493 Los Alamos Road Murrieta, California 92563 Hours of Operation: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday |
| Libraries in Riverside County | |
|---|---|
| Anza Public Library Anza 57430 Mitchell Road Anza, California 92539 |
Beaumont Library District Beaumont 125 East 8th Street Beaumont, California 92223 |
| Palo Verde Valley District Library Blythe 125 West Chanslorway Blythe, California 92225 |
Corona Public Library Corona 650 South Main Street Corona, California 92882-3417 |
| Riverside County Public Library Desert Hot Springs 11691 West Drive Desert Hot Springs, California 92240 |
Riverside County Public Library Glen Avon 9244 Galena Riverside, California 92509 |
| Riverside County Public Library Idyllwild 54185 Pinecrest Idyllwild, California 92549 |
Riverside County Public Library Indio 200 Civic Center Mall Indio, California 92201 |
| Riverside County Public Library Lake Tamarisk 43880 Lake Tamarisk Desert Center, California 92239 |
Riverside County Public Library Mecca 65-250 A Coahuilla Mecca, California 92254 |
| Riverside County Public Library Mission Trail 34303 Mission Trail Wildomar, California 92595 |
Riverside County Public Library Moreno Valley 25480 Alessandro Moreno Valley, California 92553 |
| Riverside County Public Library Nuview 29990 Lakeview Nuevo, California 92567 |
Riverside County Public Library Perris 163 East San Jacinto Perris, California 92570 |
| Riverside County Public Library Riverside Main Library 3581 Mission Inn Ave Riverside, California 92501 |
Riverside County Public Library San Jacinto 500 Idyllwild Dr. San Jacinto, California 92583 |
| Riverside County Public Library Sun City 26982 Cherry Hills Boulevard Sun City, California 92586 |
Riverside County Public Library Temecula 41000 County Center Temecula, California 92591 |
| Riverside County Public Library Thousand Palms 72-715 La Canada Way Thousand Palms, California 92276 |
Riverside County Public Library Woodcrest 17024 Van Buren Boulevard Riverside, California 92504 |
2.2.2 Environmental Procedures
To further the basic purposes of CEQA, the environmental review process requires the preparation and public circulation of several documents. These include, in addition to the General Plan Program EIR, a Notice of Preparation (NOP), and an Initial Study (IS).
Riverside County formally initiated the environmental process with circulation of an NOP, which was sent to responsible agencies and interested individuals for a 30-day review period from May 28, 2002 to June 30, 2002. An NOP is a brief notice that the Lead Agency plans to prepare an EIR for a project. The purpose of the NOP is to solicit guidance from agencies and individuals as to the scope and content of the environmental information to be included in the EIR. Within 30 days after receiving the NOP, responsible agencies are to provide the Lead Agency with specific detail about the scope and content of the environmental information related to the responsible agency's area of statutory responsibility. This information must be included in the draft Program EIR. The NOP and the responses to the NOP from agencies and individuals are included in Appendix A. Responses to the NOP are summarized in Section 1.3.
An IS for the proposed General Plan was presented to the public on May 28, 2002 and circulated with the NOP. If, as here, it is known that an EIR will be prepared, an IS, although not required, is helpful in identifying the likely potential environmental impacts that should be studied in the EIR. The full range of potential environmental effects associated with the implementation of the General Plan, as identified in the IS, is contained in Appendix A.
The public review period for the Draft EIR began on August 20, 2002, and ended on October 4, 2002, covering the CEQA-mandated 45-day public review period. A Notice of Completion of a Draft EIR was filed with the State Clearinghouse along with the required number of copies of the document for circulation to various State agencies. Copies of the Draft EIR were also mailed directly to local agencies, groups, and individuals for review (refer to Appendix A of the Draft EIR for the mailing list). In addition, copies of the document were made available to the public at various libraries and County offices.
The Riverside County Planning Commission held public hearings regarding the proposed Riverside County General Plan on April 27, May 8, May 21, June 5, June 19, September 12, September 25, October 10, October 30, November 13, December 4, December 11, and December 18, 2002, and January 8, 2003. Most of the hearings were held in Riverside, but hearings were also held in Indio on May 8 and September 12, in
Temecula on May 21, and in Hemet on October 10 in order to provide opportunity for comment from residents and landowners in southern and eastern Riverside County.
In addition to considering testimony regarding the designations of individual properties and the character of Riverside County's unincorporated communities, the Planning Commission considered and extensively discussed a number of the tenets and underlying principles that distinguish the proposed General Plan from the existing Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. As a result of the Planning Commission hearings, the Commission made recommendations to the County Board of Supervisors for land use changes on individual parcels as well as changes to the certain policies in the proposed General Plan. Furthermore, the County Planning Staff in its report to the County of Board of Supervisors (March 6, 2003) recommended policy and land use designation changes to the proposed General Plan in addition to the recommendations made by the Planning Commission.
The Board of Supervisors conducted a three-day public hearing on March 10, 11, and 13, 2003, regarding the proposed adoption of the new General Plan for Riverside County and recommendations of the Planning Commission and staff. On March 13, the Board closed the public hearing. Since then, the Board has provided policy direction to staff regarding its intent for the content of the General Plan. Also, individual Board members and members of their staffs have provided Transportation and Land Management Agency (TLMA) staff with direction regarding policy matters and land use map changes affecting their supervisorial districts. Exhibits I and II and the 19 Area Plan maps attached to the County Board of Supervisors public hearing packet dated September 4, 2003, contained all proposed changes, to date, to the Public Hearing Draft of the General Plan, dated April 5, 2002.
Many text and map changes have been made to the proposed General Plan since the Public Hearing Draft of the document was released in April 2002. The changes resulted from public review of the document and input to the Riverside County Planning Commission during the course of the 14 public hearings conducted by that body between April 2002 and January 2003, and from public review and input during the three-day public hearing held by the Board in March 2003. On September 9, 2003, the County Board of Supervisors reopened the public hearing on the proposed General Plan to consider cumulatively all the changes made, to date, by the Board as a whole, or by individual Board members. It has been determined by staff and the RCIP consultant team that the changes can be accommodated in the General Plan and maintain internal consistency between the General Plan elements.
The Final Program EIR (Volume I) evaluates the changes made to the land use designations, the County Land Use Map, 19 Area Plans, and General Plan policies as of September 26, 2003. Changes to the General Plan policies are shown in strikeout (strikeout)and double underline (double underline) in the Final Program EIR.
2.2.3 Scoping Process
In compliance with State CEQA Guidelines, the County of Riverside has taken steps to optimize opportunities to participate in the environmental process. During the preparation of the Draft EIR, various Federal, State, regional, and local government agencies, and other interested parties were contacted to solicit comments and to inform the public of the proposed General Plan. Two public scoping meetings were held to solicit public comment on the General Plan EIR. These meetings were held on June 20, 2002 at the Perris Fairgrounds, and June 25, 2002 at the Riverside County Fairgrounds in Indio.
Public comments made at the two public scoping meetings are summarized in Section 1.3 and a copy of the hearing transcript is provided in Appendix A.
2.3 Program Environmental Impact Report Focus
Riverside County has determined, based on findings of the IS/NOP, that an EIR is required to address potentially significant effects that may result from implementation of the proposed General Plan. The scope of the EIR also includes environmental issues identified by agencies and the general public in response to the IS/NOP. The following issues are addressed in this EIR:
• Land Use/Agricultural Resources
• Geology and Slope Stability
• Housing and Population
• Hazardous Materials
• Aesthetics/Visual Resources
• Mineral Resources
• Air Quality
• Noise
• Biological Resources
• Parks and Recreation
• Cultural Resources
• Public Services
• Energy
• Transportation and Circulation
• Flood and Dam Inundation Hazards
• Water Resources
2.4 Final EIR Document Format
To assist the reader's review of the document, the following describes the format of this Program EIR.
Section 1.0 is primarily a summary and contains an introduction to the Riverside County Integrated Plan process and related projects. It also contains a description of the proposed project, areas of controversy, public review procedures, and a summary table listing all project impacts, mitigation measures that have been recommended to reduce any significant impacts of the proposed General Plan, and the level of significance of each impact following mitigation. This section also provides a summary of the alternatives.
Section 2.0 describes this EIR's purpose and legal requirements, as well as its intended use. It contains an outline of the document and a list of the environmental issues that are discussed in this Program EIR.
Section 3.0 details the description for the proposed General Plan, including location and proposed General Plan objectives.
Section 4.0 elaborates on the environmental analysis of the proposed General Plan. Discussion of existing setting, impacts, and mitigation measures by environmental topic (e.g., aesthetics, air quality, noise) is organized according to the following framework:
• Existing Setting. Information in the existing setting contains a discussion of the local and regional environment conditions (environmental and man-made) in existence at the time this Program EIR was prepared. Existing setting information provides the reader with the "baseline" from which future impacts are analyzed, and provides a standard against which to measure these impacts. More detailed discussion of the existing setting can be found in the Riverside County Existing Setting Report.
• Thresholds of Significance. Determinations regarding the significance of potential impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed General Plan are provided. These thresholds represent the criteria used in this EIR to determine whether identified impacts are significant.
• Impacts. An analysis of potential impacts of the proposed General Plan is presented in this section. This discussion focuses on the impacts of implementation of the proposed General Plan, and includes potential short-term/long-term and direct/indirect project impacts, and consistency with applicable planning documents or regulations.1
• Proposed General Plan Policies. A list of the proposed General Plan policies are provided in this section and an analysis of the effectiveness of the policies contained in the proposed General Plan to reduce environmental impacts is discussed.
• Mitigation Measures. The measures proposed to mitigate any potential impacts of the proposed General Plan are identified.
• Revised General Plan Finding. Following preparation of the Draft EIR, changes were made to the policies and land use designations of the proposed General Plan. An additional discussion has been added to each impact analysis that discusses any effects these revisions may have had.
• Level of Significance after Mitigation. Provides a conclusion as to whether implementation of the proposed General Plan policies and mitigation will reduce the proposed General Plan's impacts to a level that is less than significant.
Section 5.0 contains discussions of additional topics required by CEQA, including unavoidable effects of the proposed General Plan, significant irreversible environmental changes, growth inducing impacts, cumulative impacts, and consistency with regional plans.
Section 6.0 contains discussion of alternatives to development of the proposed General Plan. As allowed by CEQA, most of the impacts of these alternatives are evaluated at a more general level than the analyses of the proposed General Plan that is contained in Section 4.0. This section also evaluates the proposed effects of the No Build Alternative and the No Project Alternative (build out of the existing General Plan), and identifies the environmentally superior alternative.
Sections 7.0 through 10.0 contain listings of organizations and persons consulted in preparation of the EIR, the EIR preparers, references, and glossary and acronyms.
1 Analysis of the consistency of the proposed General Plan with Southern California's regional planning programs is provided in Chapter 5.
The Appendices to the Draft EIR contain copies of the IS, NOP, and NOP comment letters, technical reports, and other relevant correspondence received during the course of the analysis of the proposed General Plan.
2.5 Public Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report
This The Draft Program EIR was distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, and interested parties, as well as to parties who requested a copy of the draft Program EIR in accordance with Public Resources Code 21092(b)(3). The Notice of Completion and Availability of the Draft EIR has been distributed as required by CEQA. During the 45-day public review period (August 20 through October 4, 2002), the Draft EIR and technical appendices have been made available for review.
Written comments on this Draft Program EIR should be were addressed to:
Mr. Jerry Jolliffe
County of Riverside
Transportation Land Management Agency
Planning Department
4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor
Riverside, California 92502
Tel: (909) 955-3200
Fax: (909) 955-3157
After the 45-day public review period, written responses to all significant environmental issues raised will be were prepared and made available for review for a minimum of 10 days prior to the public hearing before the Riverside County Board of Supervisors in March, at which time the certification of the Final EIR will be considered. The Draft EIR, comments on and responses to the Draft EIR, the Final EIR, and findings will be are included as part of the environmental record for consideration by the decision-makers for the 2002 Riverside County General Plan.
SECTION 3.0 - GENERAL PLAN PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Introduction to the Riverside County Integrated Project
In 2020, Riverside County will be home to approximately 2.8 million people, who will occupy approximately 918,000 dwelling units (Hoffman, 2001). This represents a doubling of the present population and housing stock of Riverside County. A study by the California Department of Finance estimates that Riverside County will continue to grow to 3.5 million people by 2030 and 4.5 million people by 2040. These residents will be located within 24 incorporated cities, as well as within numerous unincorporated areas.
Riverside County is large, encompassing 7,295 square miles, stretching across 200 miles from the eastern portion of the Los Angeles metropolitan area to the Colorado River. Bounded by Orange County on the west, San Bernardino County to the north, the State of Arizona to the east, and San Diego and Imperial Counties to the south, Riverside County is the fourth largest county in California (Figure 3.1).
Riverside is one of the most diverse counties in California. It includes well-established urban, suburban, and rural communities. It has an extensive array of agricultural lands, lands devoted to mineral extraction, and recreational areas. There are rugged mountains, flat valley areas, open desert, and expansive natural open space areas. The western portion of the County contains most of the County's non-desert areas, as well as most of its urbanized areas. Elevations within this area range from about 755 feet in the northwestern corner of the County to about 10,800 feet at San Jacinto Peak. Eastern Riverside County, which lies east of the crest of the San Jacinto Mountains, contains almost all the County's desert regions. Elevations in eastern Riverside County range from about 230 feet below mean sea level at the Salton Sea to about 9,800 feet in the San Jacinto Mountains.
The challenge of balancing the housing, transportation, and economic needs of existing and future populations with limited natural resources and the sensitivity of the natural environment required Riverside County to develop the Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP), which consists of three coordinated plans to determine future planning, transportation, and conservation needs for Riverside County. These plans include the 2002 Riverside County General Plan, the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), and the Community Environmental and Transportation Acceptability Program (CETAP). Each of the plans has independent utility, and each can be approved without approval of the others. They will, however, be coordinated such that if all three are adopted, no conflicts between the plans will occur.
2002 Riverside County General Plan
The 2002 Riverside County General Plan describes anticipated future growth over the long-term and is the subject of this Program EIR. The General Plan is meant to express the community's goals with respect to the man-made and natural environments, and to set forth the policies and implementation measures needed to achieve those goals for the welfare of those who live, work, and do business in Riverside County. The proposed General Plan is discussed in detail later in this Chapter.
State law requires all counties and cities in the State to prepare and maintain a general plan for the long-term growth, development, and management of the community. The general plan acts as a "constitution" for development, and is the County's lead legal document in relation to growth, development, and resource management issues. The County's development regulations (e.g., zoning subdivision standards) are required by law to be consistent with its General Plan. The 2002 Riverside County General Plan provides, in the form of text and maps, identification of County policy regarding the appropriate type and intensity of land use for every parcel within unincorporated Riverside County. In doing so, the proposed General Plan identifies lands for housing, business, industry, public facilities, recreation, and other uses.
The proposed General Plan also provides plans for a multi-model transportation system, including intensive improvements to the existing roadway and highway system, to facilitate mobility of people and goods throughout unincorporated Riverside County. The proposed General Plan also incorporates a detailed program to ensure adequate housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community, including provisions for the County to accept its "fair share" of its regional housing needs of low and moderate income households.
Other portions of the 2002 Riverside County General Plan are aimed at protecting open space and other environmental resources. These portions of the proposed General Plan aim at preserving lands needed for the managed production of resources (e.g., agricultural lands), protection of public health and safety (e.g., floodplains), outdoor recreation (e.g., parks), and protection of environmental resources (e.g., sensitive natural habitat areas). The proposed General Plan also addresses management of key environmental resources such as wildlife habitats, water resources, and air quality.
Portions of the proposed General Plan address issues of public health and safety in relation to such environmental hazards as earthquakes and associated seismically-induced hazards, flooding, wildland fire, soil erosion, and blow sand. The proposed General Plan sets standards for the protection of the public from these hazards. Finally, the proposed General Plan addresses noise-related hazards, and establishes standards to achieve and maintain noise-compatible land use relationships.
The proposed General Plan covers all unincorporated portions of the County. Lands within unincorporated areas that are owned by the federal government (e.g., Joshua Tree National Monument, military reservations, BLM lands, Indian Reservations, and lands owned by State government [e.g, Lake Perris]) are not subject to County jurisdiction.
The 2002 Riverside County General Plan describes anticipated future growth over the long-term and is the subject of this Program EIR. The proposed General Plan is meant to express the community's goals with respect to the man-made and natural environments, and to set forth the policies and implementation measures needed to achieve those goals for the welfare of those who live, work, and do business in Riverside County.
Western Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)
The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) involves the assembly and management of a reserve system for the conservation of natural habitats and their constituent wildlife populations. The MSHCP establishes a framework for complying with State and federal endangered species regulations, while accommodating future growth within the cities and unincorporated portions of western Riverside County. Thus, unlike the proposed General Plan, the MSHCP covers only
the western portion of the County, and covers not only unincorporated areas, but cities as well. The MSHCP is designed to be complementary to the Riverside County General Plan, but could also be adopted in the event that the Riverside County General Plan were not.
The MSHCP will serve as a habitat conservation plan (HCP) pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Endangered Species Act, as well as a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) under the California NCCP Act of 1991. The provisions of the MSHCP will provide mitigation for future impacts of planned urban and rural development on the species identified in the MSHCP. The MSHCP will allow participating jurisdictions (Riverside County and each of the cities in the western County) to "take" (permit the loss of) the plant and animal species identified in the MSHCP through the agencies' local land use planning and development review processes. The intent of the MSHCP is to permit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) to grant "take authorizations" pursuant to the federal and State endangered species acts for otherwise lawful actions (e.g., permitted development that may incidentally take or harm individuals of the species or their habitats covered by the MSHCP). These take authorizations would be granted in recognition of the mitigating effects of the coordinated reserve system planned by the MSHCP.
The MSHCP envisions habitat conservation within approximately 357,000 acres, and establishes land use and conservation criteria sufficient to ensure additional conservation on approximately 153,000 acres of land currently in private ownership. The MSHCP plans the assembly of this reserve through a combination of the following methods:
• Continued conservation of lands already within public ownership.
• Public acquisition of private lands from willing sellers.
• Private actions to conserve habitat within proposed development projects.
• Implementation of off-site mitigation for the impacts or proposed development projects.
• Public actions to conserve habitats or otherwise mitigate the direct habitat impacts of public works projects.
The County of Riverside Board of Supervisors approved and certified the Western Riverside County MSHCP and associated Final EIR/EIS on June 17, 2003. However, the USFWS and CDFG must make independent findings prior to issuing permits for take authorization and certifying the plan. At the time the Final EIR for the General Plan was completed, the USFWS and CDFG had not issued take permits and had not certified the Final EIS for the Western Riverside County MSHCP.
Community Environmental and Transportation Acceptability Program (CETAP)
The 2002 Riverside County General Plan describes anticipated future growth over the long-term and is the subject of this Program EIR. The General Plan is meant to express the community's goals with respect to the man-made and natural environments, and to set forth the policies and implementation measures needed to achieve those goals for the welfare of those who live, work, and do business in Riverside County.
The CETAP component of RCIP identifies transportation corridors to meet the future transportation needs of Riverside County. CETAP is a multi-modal planning effort that considers highway options, and also looks at transit and other forms of travel demand management and goods movement. CETAP is designed to be complementary to the
Riverside County General Plan, but could also be adopted in the event that the Riverside County General Plan were not.
CETAP corridors are intended to provide a four-lane freeway facility, along with rights-of-way for transit lines and utility corridors. The CETAP program proposes two different corridors within Riverside County and two "bi-County" corridors connecting Riverside County to adjacent counties. The two in-County CETAP corridors include a Winchester to Temecula corridor and a Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore corridor. At the time of this writing, selection of a specific alignment alternative for these corridors has not yet been made.
The two bi-County corridors include a connection to San Bernardino County and a connection to Orange County. Selection of a specific alignment for the San Bernardino County corridor has not been undertaken as of this writing. Current alternatives focus on a connection from the SR-60 freeway in the western portion of Moreno Valley to the I-10 freeway in the Loma Linda/Redlands area of San Bernardino County. Alternative alignments for an Orange County corridor have not been formulated at this time.
Relationships and Differences Between RCIP Components
The 2002 Riverside County General Plan recognizes the Western Riverside County MSHCP, and incorporates the MSHCP into its Area Plans as mitigation for the biological impacts that will result from development permitted by the proposed General Plan. The proposed General Plan also incorporates by reference the Coachella Valley MSHCP being prepared by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments parallel to, but separate from, RCIP. The proposed General Plan Circulation Element includes proposed CETAP corridors as part of its proposed roadway and highway system.
The MSHCP provides comprehensive mitigation for the development impacts that will result from development of the proposed General Plan land uses and transportation facilities (including CETAP corridors) within the western portion of the County, including development of proposed CETAP corridors. The MSHCP also includes CETAP corridors as permitted activities where they cross MSHCP preserve areas.
The RCIP consists of three coordinated plans: the Riverside County General Plan (which is the subject of this Program EIR), the Western Riverside County MSHCP, and the CETAP. Although coordinated, these three plans are independent components of RCIP. As an independent plan, the Riverside County General Plan is not reliant upon the approval of either MSHCP or CETAP. The proposed General Plan is, however, coordinated with the MSHCP and the CETAP, so that no substantive conflicts or inconsistencies exist among the three plans. The General Plan is consistent with the draftMSHCP in that some of the draft MSHCP policies for biological resource preservation and mitigation are incorporated into the proposed General Plan's Area Plans. The biological resource policies incorporated into the Area Plans provide partial mitigation for development impacts that would result from development proposed by the General Plan's identified land uses, infrastructure, and transportation facilities. The proposed General Plan also is consistent with the draft CETAP in that the proposed General Plan Circulation Element recognizes the potential for proposed CETAP corridors as part of its proposed roadway and highway system.
The three components of RCIP each cover different area areas of the County. The proposed General Plan covers unincorporated lands throughout Riverside County, but does not have jurisdiction over March Air Reserve Base (ARB)1 , Indian lands, and lands owned by the State and federal governments. The MSHCP covers all of western Riverside County, including County and City jurisdictions, since western County cities are participating in the program. CETAP addresses specific corridors only.
The 2002 Riverside County General Plan has been prepared pursuant to the provisions of the California Government Code, and requires approval only of the County of Riverside. Environmental documentation for the proposed General Plan is subject only to the provisions of CEQA. Certain actions and developments undertaken pursuant to the proposed General Plan may require approvals of outside agencies. The MSHCP is being prepared pursuant to both State and federal law, and requires approval of the County, each participating city, the CDFG, and the USFWS. Environmental documentation for the MSHCP is subject to the provisions of both CEQA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Riverside County is the lead agency for CEQA purposes, while the USFWS is the lead agency for NEPA purposes. The CETAP program proposes using local, State, and federal sources to fund right-of-way acquisition and ultimate construction of CETAP corridors. Thus, environmental documentation for CETAP must comply with the provisions of both CEQA and NEPA. Riverside County is the lead agency for CEQA purposes, while the Federal Highway Administration is the lead agency for NEPA purposes.
Although they are clearly related projects, and are each part of an integrated planning program, as described above, each RCIP component covers a different physical area, is being prepared pursuant to different State and federal laws, involves different agencies in their approval, and has different lead agencies for their environmental documentation. In addition, each RCIP component is on a slightly different schedule. As a result of these differences, preparation of a single environmental document was found to be impractical. Such a document would prove to be overly complex and impossible difficult to understand. Instead, each environmental document prepared from components of the RCIP program contains a cumulative impact analysis, summarizing the overall impacts of RCIP. Finally, each RCIP component has independent utility, and could be adopted in the absence of adoption of the other components.
3.2 General Plan Organization
State law requires each city and County to adopt a General Plan that contains, at a minimum, the following seven "elements:"
• The LAND USE ELEMENT designates the general distribution and intensity of uses of the land for housing, business, industry, open space, education, public buildings and grounds, waste disposal facilities, and other categories of public and private uses.
• The CIRCULATION ELEMENT is correlated with the land use element, and identifies the general locations and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, and other local public utilities and facilities.
• The HOUSING ELEMENT is a comprehensive assessment of current and projected housing needs for all economic segments of the community, as well as groups having special housing needs (e.g., homeless, farm workers, elderly, handicapped). In addition, it embodies policy for providing adequate housing and includes action programs for this purpose.
1 Although it is located within unincorporated territory, land use jurisdiction for March Air Reserve Base rests with a joint powers agency, of which Riverside County is a member. Lands within the March Air Reserve Base are subject to a General Plan prepared by the joint powers agency, and not to the Riverside County General Plan.
• The CONSERVATION ELEMENT addresses the conservation, development, and use of natural resources, including water, forests, soils, rivers, and mineral deposits.
• The OPEN SPACE ELEMENT details plans and measures for preserving open space for natural resources, the managed production of resources, outdoor recreation, public health and safety, and the identification of agricultural land.
• The NOISE ELEMENT identifies and appraises noise problems within the community and forms the basis for land use distribution.
• The SAFETY ELEMENT establishes policies and programs to protect the community from risk associated with seismic, geologic, flood, and fire hazards.
In the proposed General Plan, the Conservation and Open Space Elements have been combined into a Multipurpose Open Space Element. In addition to the seven mandatory General Plan elements, the proposed General Plan includes an Air Quality Element that addresses means to achieve and maintain good quality air throughout the County.
3.3 General Plan Characteristics
This Program EIR addresses the potential environmental effects associated with implementation of the proposed General Plan. The proposed General Plan is an attempt to promote a more focused and balanced pattern of growth that accommodates the demand for housing, employment opportunities, and public facilities and services while minimizing the potential adverse impacts that may result from increased urban development. The policies and land use design of the proposed General Plan have been developed using a set of key land use concepts. These key concepts fall under ten general categories and are summarized in Table 3.A.
| Table 3.A - Key Land Use Concepts | |
|---|---|
| Category | Key Land Use Concepts |
| Agriculture | Agricultural uses are expected to continue playing a vital role in the economy and character of Riverside County. Significant agricultural areas in the Coachella Valley, Palo Verde Valley, Southwest Area and smaller areas throughout western Riverside County will remain designated as such to help maintain the vitality and viability of agricultural operations in Riverside County. |
| Compact Development | A number of areas will be designated for higher density residential development as well as mixed-use activity centers with a combination of residential, employment, and civic uses. Additionally, development incentive areas will be identified that encourage the creation of higher density residential uses. Infill development will also be encouraged. The provision of compact development will increase the viability of transit facilities, make more efficient use of public infrastructure and services, and help conserve open space. |
| Economic Development | More numerous employment centers will be established throughout Riverside County. These centers will be located near transportation facilities and higher density residential uses. |
| Housing | A mix of diverse residential areas, ranging from large-lot rural estates to high-density residential uses within mixed-use areas will be available. This mix will provide housing opportunities for households of various sizes and income levels and a greater mix within neighborhoods and communities. Much of the residentially designated land will be near job centers, reducing the commuting distance to work. |
| Jobs and Housing Balance | To reverse the present imbalance between jobs and housing, and address the traffic and air quality concerns associated with long commutes, a number of employment centers either within mixed-use centers or close to significant areas of low-density to high-density housing will be provided. |
| Mixed-Use and Activity Centers | Mixed-use and activity centers will provide a combination of employment, residential, commercial, and civic opportunities in immediate proximity to one another. These centers will be categorized as Neighborhood, Village, Town, Job, or Tourist/Entertainment. |
| Multi-Purpose Open Space | There will be an extensive multipurpose open space network preserved for perpetuity. These areas will conserve multiple species habitat, buffer development areas, conserve drainage areas, provide recreational opportunities, preserve visual character, and define communities. |
| Rural Preservation | The nature of rural communities and other outlying rural areas will be preserved by maintaining rural densities and improving development standards. The Rural Village designation will be applied to those unique rural communities. |
| Service Provision | Employment and residential uses will be focused in areas that can easily be served by public facilities and services. Employment centers, higher density residential, and mixed-use activity centers will be located along existing or proposed infrastructure corridors. |
| Variety of Communities | A variety of neighborhoods and communities from rural enclaves to suburban neighborhoods and sophisticated mixed-use urban villages will be encouraged. A network of residential neighborhoods will be provided, with a mix of varied-density residential areas, and community centers with a mix of uses. |
Figure 3.2 illustrates the generalized land uses proposed by the General Plan, which include Agriculture, Rural, Open Space, Rural Community and Community Development. These land uses, considered to be the first tier of land uses, make up the General Plan Foundation Components and describe the overall nature and intent of the plan. These Foundation Components are general in nature and do not determine the specific land use on individual properties.
Land uses are further divided into the 19 Area Plans and the remaining unincorporated areas (Table 3.B). The locations of the Area Plans are depicted in Figure 3.3 and further detailed in Figures 3.4 through 3.22. The Area Plan land use designations are further divided into a second tier of land uses and include 24 30 land use designations, four Policy Area Overlays, and five land use overlays, each containing a specific description of allowable uses and development standards. Tables 3.C and 3.D provide allowable uses for each land use category. The majority of western Riverside County and a portion of eastern Riverside County are in Area Plans. For that area of eastern Riverside County that is not in an Area Plan the overlying Foundation Components of the General Plan are the land use designations. It should be noted that Riverside County does not have land use jurisdiction over the portion of western Riverside County referred to as March Air Reserve Base and federalized Indian lands. Each of the 19 Area Plans is described below.
| Table 3.B - Unincorporated Riverside County Proposed Land Use in Acres (Revised) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| General Plan Foundation Component | Area Plan Land Use Category | Western Riverside County | Eastern Riverside County | Total | |||||||||||||||||||
| Area Plans | Remaining Unincor- porated |
Area Plans | Remaining Unincor- porated |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Eastvale | Elsinore | Harvest Valley/ Winchester | High- grove |
Jurupa | Lake Mathews / Woodcrest | Lakeview/ Nuevo | Mead Valley | The Pass | Reche Canyon/ Badlands | REMAP1 | San Jacinto Valley | South- West |
Sun City / Menifee | Temescal | Outside of Area Plans |
Desert Center | Eastern Coachella Valley | Palo Verde | Western Coachella Valley | Outside of Area Plans |
|||
| Agriculture | Agriculture | 122 | - | - | 2 | 20 | 66 | 2,031 | - | 2,261 | 762 | 7,513 | 8,678 | 475 | 179 | 492 | - | 865 | 41,403 | 114,613 | 695 | - | 180,178 |
| Rural | Rural Residential | - | 2,898 | 1,408 | 40 | 97 | 8,833 | 4,873 | 5,523 | 64,30 | 1,914 | 66,977 | 2,178 | 57,180 | 1,574 | 580 | - | 62 | 4,843 | 1,874 | 20,170 | - | 185,326 |
| Rural Mountainous | - | 14,934 | 3,396 | 590 | - | 3,283 | 4,122 | 715 | 22,971 | 7,888 | 21,803 | 13,054 | 18,915 | 2,670 | 3,226 | - | 21 | - | - | 760 | - | 118,349 | |
| Rural Desert | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2,969 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 4,849 | 2,192 | 12,609 | - | 22,619 | |
| Rural Community | Estate Density Residential | - | 1,876 | 1,732 | - | - | 4,844 | 1,044 | 79 | 700 | 1,269 | 9,729 | 522 | 3,693 | 2,448 | 910 | - | - | 266 | 965 | 105 | - | 30,181 |
| Very Low Density Residential | - | 101 | - | - | - | 10,584 | 2,091 | 8,093 | 3,841 | 247 | 202 | 153 | 203 | 2,450 | 296 | - | - | 8 | 1,867 | 718 | - | 30,853 | |
| Low Density Residential | - | 402 | 380 | - | 6,292 | 1,403 | 3,009 | 1,031 | 197 | 59 | - | 1,001 | 234 | 701 | 601 | - | - | 60 | 32 | - | - | 15,400 | |
| Estate Density Residential 2 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 406 | - | - | - | - | - | 162 | 164 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 732 | |
| Rural Village Overlay | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1,500 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 674 | - | 116 | - | 2,290 | |
| Rural Village Study Area Overlay | - | 986 | - | - | - | - | - | 265 | - | - | 6,369 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 7,620 | |
| Open Space | Open Space Conservation | 657 | 234 | 915 | 1,190 | 465 | 1,785 | 794 | 46 | 23,216 | 4,194 | 704 | 6,458 | 3,812 | 689 | 5,474 | - | 2 | 447 | 57 | 2,727 | - | 53,867 |
| Open Space Conservation Habitat | - | 51,338 | 3,010 | - | 1,442 | 9,756 | 947 | 1,428 | - | 15,755 | 286,197 | 3,272 | 32,688 | - | 20,610 | - | - | 200,678 | - | 107,941 | 468,172 | 1,203,233 | |
| Open Space Water | 399 | 341 | 2,705 | 22 | 1,247 | 2,805 | 212 | - | 16 | 2,284 | 1,196 | 3,866 | 1,367 | 60 | 661 | - | - | 50,726 | 416 | 4,415 | 2,084 | 74,821 | |
| Open Space Recreation | 636 | 398 | 1,929 | 299 | 1,090 | 77 | 100 | 15 | 2,105 | 1,305 | 2,249 | 1,480 | 1,488 | 1,221 | 794 | - | 213 | 2,333 | 134 | 2,524 | - | 20,388 | |
| Open Space Rural | - | 7,462 | - | - | 1,309 | 1,101 | - | - | - | 10,211 | 108,477 | 4,984 | 7,610 | - | 2,251 | - | 173,530 | 94,524 | 154,080 | 69,126 | 1,302,361 | 1,937,024 | |
| Open Space Mineral Resources | - | 1,398 | - | - | 224 | - | 148 | - | - | 290 | - | 511 | - | - | 2,565 | - | 613 | 737 | - | 2,174 | - | 8,660 | |
| Community Development | Estate Density Residential | - | 251 | - | - | 414 | - | 126 | - | 23 | - | 237 | 7 | 993 | 864 | 36 | - | 36 | 288 | - | 1,905 | - | 5,179 |
| Very Low Density Residential | - | 4,725 | 2,442 | 97 | 127 | 968 | 494 | - | 1,295 | - | 3,651 | 1,286 | 93 | 45 | 165 | - | 267 | 288 | 29 | 446 | - | 16,418 | |
| Low Density Residential | 432 | 2,451 | 1,147 | 265 | 1,953 | 1,135 | 1,031 | - | 1,079 | 163 | 8 | 1,190 | 562 | 479 | 175 | - | 115 | 72 | - | 335 | - | 12,593 | |
| Glen Eden Policy Area | - | 728 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 728 | |
| Policy Area - Medium Density Residential | - | - | - | - | - | - | 558 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 558 | |
| Vista Santa Rosa Policy Area | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 3,941 | - | 1 | - | 3,942 | |
| Medium Density Residential | 4,360 | 5,026 | 7,150 | 1,173 | 3,352 | 1,551 | 3,388 | 414 | 1,542 | - | 1,432 | 3,909 | 8,127 | 11,259 | 2,413 | - | 400 | 6,438 | 597 | 8,713 | - | 71,241 | |
| Medium High Density Residential | 242 | 339 | 970 | 5 | 859 | 391 | 370 | - | 178 | - | - | 251 | 1,771 | 1,693 | 748 | - | 75 | 1,384 | 128 | 1,499 | - | 10,904 | |
| High Density Residential | 61 | 20 | 188 | 21 | 303 | - | - | - | 104 | - | 13 | 177 | 200 | 106 | 134 | - | 22 | 669 | 31 | 1,143 | - | 3,190 | |
| Very High Density Residential | - | 220 | 2 | 17 | 70 | - | 66 | - | 3 | - | - | 91 | 171 | 205 | 26 | - | 7 | 322 | - | 128 | - | 1,328 | |
| Highest Density Residential | 28 | - | - | 2 | 19 | - | - | - | 1 | - | - | 24 | 6 | - | 5 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 85 | |
| Commercial Retail | 229 | 1,106 | 913 | 142 | 1,342 | 212 | 448 | 110 | 394 | 39 | 369 | 459 | 781 | 958 | 356 | - | 116 | 1,260 | 151 | 1,174 | - | 10,559 | |
| Commercial Tourist | - | 17 | 400 | - | 9 | - | 8 | - | 5 | 16 | 3 | 242 | 260 | 1 | 97 | - | 137 | 1,416 | 123 | 398 | - | 3,132 | |
| Commercial Office | - | 150 | 2 | 5 | 13 | 51 | - | - | 12 | - | - | 193 | 185 | 99 | 5 | - | - | 57 | - | 14 | - | 787 | |
| Light Industrial | 468 | 1,082 | 846 | 306 | 3,811 | 100 | 1,141 | 479 | 176 | 74 | 59 | - | 592 | 602 | 1,251 | - | 177 | 3,193 | 895 | 4,507 | - | 19,759 | |
| Heavy Industrial | - | - | 253 | - | 1,253 | - | 8 | - | 12 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 10 | 433 | 54 | 36 | - | 2,059 | |
| Business Park | 78 | 69 | 257 | 39 | 1,313 | - | 25 | 793 | 5 | - | - | - | 515 | 224 | 106 | - | 1,291 | 578 | 280 | 180 | - | 5,752 | |
| Public Facility (over 60 acres) | 74 | 181 | 1,644 | 49 | 544 | 2,358 | 174 | 300 | 168 | 1,615 | 1,036 | 1,353 | 1,468 | 297 | 366 | - | 7,800 | 2,415 | 3,703 | 2,314 | - | 27,857 | |
| Community Center | - | 171 | - | - | - | - | 131 | 327 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 51 | - | - | 41 | - | - | - | 721 | |
| Community Center Overlays | 460 | 100 | 457 | - | 276 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 51 | 1,286 | - | - | - | 466 | - | - | - | 3,096 | |
| Business Park Overlay | - | - | - | - | 374 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 374 | |
| Commercial Retail Overlay | - | - | - | - | 43 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 43 | |
| City | - | 27,781 | - | - | - | - | - | 20,431 | 41,157 | 32,707 | - | 32,334 | 34,964 | - | 24,187 | - | - | 13,443 | 16,521 | 165,539 | - | 409,083 | |
| Major Roadways | 139 | 507 | - | 129 | 627 | - | - | - | 690 | 249 | - | 151 | 153 | 325 | 400 | - | 1,084 | 1,465 | 241 | 1,780 | - | 7,938 | |
| March ARB2 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 7,591 | - | - | - | - | - | 7,591 | |
| Indian Lands | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 30,718 | - | 36,701 | 4,729 | 4,146 | - | - | - | - | 14,538 | 1,058 | 9,228 | 2,740 | 103,858 | |
| Total | 8,385 | 126,306 | 32,145 | 4,391 | 28,887 | 51,301 | 27,747 | 39,784 | 140,138 | 81,040 | 548,555 | 92,553 | 182,862 | 30,600 | 68,978 | 7,579 | 186,841 | 453,580 | 300,040 | 423,304 | 1,775,357 | 4,610,406 | |
| Notes: 1 REMAP = Riverside Extended Mountain Area Plan. 2 March ARB = March Air Reserve Base. The 2002 Riverside County General Plan does not include the land use planning of March ARB. A land use plan that is part of the adopted March Reuse Plan is already in place. The acreage numbers and land uses in this table reflect the interpretation of land uses at March ARB into the County's proposed land uses classification system. Though March ARB is Riverside County unincorporated land, it is under the direction of the March Joint Powers Authority. Land use policy will not be crafted for this area. The total acreage numbers for the County include March ARB to give a more complete picture of the County, especially in terms of employment. Source: The Planning Center Riverside County Buildout Projections Statistical Land Use Tables dated 9-24-03. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
| Table 3.C - Foundation Component and Area Plan Designations | ||
|---|---|---|
| General Plan Foundation Component |
Area Plan Land Use Designation |
|
| Agriculture | Agriculture | |
| Rural | Rural Residential Rural Mountainous Rural Desert |
|
| Open Space | Open Space Conservation Open Space Conservation Habitat Open Space Water Open Space Recreation Open Space Rural Open Space Mineral Resources |
|
| Rural Community | Rural Community Estate Rural Community Very Low Density Residential Rural Community Low Density Residential Rural Community Estate Density Residential 2 Rural Village Overlay & Rural Village Study Area Overlay |
|
| Community Development | Estate Density Residential Very Low Density Residential Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Medium High Density Residential High Density Residential Very High Density Residential Highest Density Residential Commercial Retail Commercial Tourist Commercial Office Light Industrial Heavy Industrial Business Park & Business Park Overlay Public Facilities (over 60 acres) Community Centers & Community Centers Overlay Glen Eden Policy Area Medium Density Residential Policy Area Vista Santa Rosa Policy Area |
|
| Table 3.D - Land Use Designations Summary Table | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| General Plan Foundation |
Component Area Plan Land Use |
Designation Building Intensity Range |
Notes1,2 |
| Agriculture | Agriculture (AG) | < 0.1 du/ac |
• Agricultural land including row crops, groves, nurseries, dairies, poultry Farms, processing plants, and other agricultural related uses. • One (1) single-family residence allowed per 10 acres. |
| Rural | Rural Residential (RR) | du/ac |
• One (1) single-family residence allowed with a minimum lot size of 5 acres. • Limited animal keeping and agricultural uses are allowed. |
| Rural | Rural Mountainous (RM) | < 0.1 du/ac |
• Single-family residential uses, limited animal keeping and agricultural uses are allowed, with a minimum lot size of 10 acres required for residential uses. • Areas of at least 10 acres where a minimum 70% of the area has slopes of 25% or greater. |
| Rural | Rural Desert (RD) | < 0.1 du/ac |
• Single-family residential uses, limited animal keeping and agricultural uses are allowed, with a minimum lot size of 10 acres required for residential uses. • Allows limited recreational uses, |
| Rural Community | Estate Density Residential (EDR-RC) | 0.2 - 0.5 du/ac |
• Allows development of detached single-family residences and ancillary structures on large parcels, equestrian and other animal keeping is encouraged. Agriculture is permitted. • 2-acre min lot size. |
| Rural Community | Very Low Residential (VLDR-RC) | 0.3 - 1 du/ac |
• Allows development of detached single-family residences and ancillary structures on large parcels, equestrian and other animal keeping is encouraged. Agriculture is permitted. • 1-acre min lot size |
| Rural Community | Low Density Residential (LDR-RC) | 0.4 - 2 du/ac |
• Provides for the development of detached single-family residential dwelling units and ancillary structures on large parcels. Equestrian and other animal - keeping uses are expected and encouraged. Agriculture is per mitted in this designation. The density range is from 2 dwelling units per acre to 1 dwelling unit per acre. • ½ acre min lot size. |
| Rural Community | Rural Village Overlay (RV) and Rural Village Study Area Overlay (RVSA) | up to 8 du/ac |
• Allow concentration of development within areas of rural character. • Allow a mixture of uses including residential, commercial retail, and commercial office. |
| Open Space | OS-Conservation (OS-C) | N/A | • The protection of open space for natural hazard protection, and natural and scenic resource preservation. • Existing agriculture is a permitted use. |
| Open Space | OS-Conservation Habitat (OS-CH) | N/A | • Applies to public and private lands conserved and managed in accordance with adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, such as the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). |
| Open Space | OS-Water (OS-W) | N/A | • Includes bodies of water and natural drainage corridors (i.e., lakes, reservoirs, rivers). |
| Open Space | OS-Recreation (OS-R) | N/A | • Active or passive recreational uses such as parks, trails, athletic fields, golf courses. ,br>• Neighborhood parks are permitted within residential land use designations. |
| Open Space | OS-Rural (OS-RUR) | <0.05 du/ac |
• One (1) single-family residence allowed per 20 acres, |
| Open Space | OS-Mineral Resources | N/A | • Mineral extraction and processing facilities. • Areas held in reserve for future mineral extraction and processing. |
| Community Development | Estate Density Residential (EDR) | 0.2 - 0.5 du/ac |
• Provides for the development of detached single family residential dwelling units and ancillary structures on large parcels. • Intensive animal-keeping uses are discouraged or limited. • Limited agriculture is permitted. |
| Community Development | Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) | 0.3 - 1 du/ac |
• Single-family detached residences with suburban amenities and services, and rural visual character. • Limited animal keeping and agriculture is allowed. • Lot sizes range from |
| Community Development | Low Density Residential (LDR) | 0.4 - 2 du/ac |
• Single-family detached residences. • Limited animal keeping and agriculture is allowed. • Minimum lot sizes is ½ -acre. |
| Community Development | Glen Eden Policy Area - Low Density Residential (LDR2) | 2 - 2.5 du/ac |
• Encourages clustering of development where such clustering will help preserve open space. • Located in Elsinore Area Plan. |
| Community Development | Policy Area - Medium Density Residential (MDR2-4) | 2 - 4 du/ac |
• Located in Lakeview/Nuevo Area Plan. • Restricts density in the 100-year floodplain of the San Jacinto River. • Provides transition from higher density to Very Low Density residential. |
| Community Development | Vista Santa Rosa Policy Area Medium Density Residential 3 (MDR3) | 2 - 3 du/ac |
• Provide a transition between Agriculture to Community Development. • Possible future Village Center. • Located in Eastern Coachella Valley Area Plan. |
| Community Development | Medium Density Residential (MDR) | 2 - 5 du/ac |
• Single-family detached residences. |
| Community Development | Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) | 5 - 8 du/ac |
• Single-family attached residences, including townhouses, stacked flats, courtyard homes. |
| Community Development | High Density Residential (HDR) | 8 - 14 du/ac |
• Single-family attached residences and multi-family dwellings. |
| Community Development | Very High Density Residential (VHDR) | 14 - 20 du/ac |
• Multifamily dwellings includes apartments |
| Community Development | Highest Density Residential (HHDR) | 20 - 40 du/ac |
• Intense multifamily dwellings includes apartments and condominiums. |
| Community Development | Commercial Retail (CR) | 0.20 - 0.35 FAR |
• Local and regional serving retail and service uses. |
| Community Development | Commercial Tourist (CT) | 0.20 - 0.35 FAR |
• Includes hotels, golf courses, recreation/ amusement facilities. |
| Community Development | Commercial Office (CO) | 0.30-1.0 FAR |
• Includes financial, legal, insurance, other office services. |
| Community Development | Light Industrial (LI) | 0.25 - 0.60 FAR |
• Variety of industrial and related uses, including warehousing/distribution, assembly and light manufacturing, and repair facilities. |
| Community Development | Heavy Industrial (HI) | 0.15 - 0.50 FAR |
• Allows more intense industrial activities that generate significant impacts such as excessive noise, dust, and other nuisances. |
| Community Development | Business Park (BP) and Business Park Overlay (BPO) | 0.25 - 0.60 FAR |
• Allows for more employee-intensive employment uses, including research & development, technology centers, corporate offices, and “clean” industry. |
| Community Development | Public Facilities (PF) | < 0.60 FAR |
• Public/quasi-public uses such as landfills, airports, utilities, and other civic uses. |
| Community Development | Community Center (CC) and Community Center Overlay (CCO) | 5 - 40 du/ac 0.10 - 3.0 FAR |
• Includes some combination of smalllot single family residences, multifamily residences, commercial retail, office and business park uses, civic uses, transit facilities, and recreational open space within a unified planned development area. |
| NOTES: 1 The building intensity range noted is exclusive, that is the range noted provides a minimum and maximum building intensity. 2 Clustering of residential development is permitted per the Area Plan land use designation descriptions and policies. |
|||
Area Plans
Eastvale Area Plan
The unincorporated Eastvale area ranges in character from urban development to agricultural and open space uses. Recognizing that dairy activities are not likely to be viable long-term uses in Eastvale, the Eastvale Area Plan Land Use Plan seeks to provide new areas for development throughout the planning area, while preserving the open space character of the Santa Ana River corridor. Figure 3.4 shows the geographic distribution of land uses for Eastvale.
The Eastvale Area Plan Land Use Plan consists primarily of Community Development land uses, with Low Density Residential being the predominant land use designation. Commercial Retail, Commercial Office, Business Park, Light Industrial, and residential uses ranging from Very Low Density Residential to Medium High Density Residential, are depicted on the Plan. It allows for up to five Community Centers, providing activity centers with a mix of employment, civic and residential uses. The Santa Ana River corridor contains a mix of Open Space-Conservation, Open Space-Recreation, Open Space-Water, and Very Low Density Residential uses.
Agriculture uses are designated in the southwest corner of the planning area, north of the Prado Dam Basin. Light Industrial uses are designated in the northwest corner of Eastvale, reflecting appropriate uses allowed within the Chino Airport Safety Zone.
Elsinore Area Plan
The Elsinore Area Plan (Figure 3.5) reflects the proposed General Plan objectives for Riverside County in several ways. It does so by intensifying and mixing uses at nodes adjacent to transportation corridors, by more accurately reflecting topography and natural resources in land use designations, by avoiding high intensity development in natural hazard areas, and by considering compatibility with adjacent communities' land use plans as well as the desires of residents in the plan area. The land use designations maintain the predominantly rural character of the Meadowbrook and Warm Springs communities, the natural and recreational characteristics of the Cleveland National Forest, and mix of Rural and Community Development uses in Cleveland Ridge. Multipurpose Open Space should be incorporated into the design of new and existing communities. In addition to providing habitat and recreational value, the conservation linkages within the Area Plan help provide a separation between communities and provide additional definition for existing communities.
Harvest Valley/Winchester Area Plan
This Area Plan reflects a significant shift from the existing rural character to a more urban/suburban/rural mix focused around unique cores (Figure 3.6). The impetus for this shift is the Diamond Valley Lake and the recreational opportunities it presents. In addition, the transit opportunities presented by the rail line, State Route 74 (SR-74), and State Route 79 (SR-79) create natural crossroads to expand upon.
The communities of Romoland, Homeland, and Green Acres, together called Harvest Valley, make up the northern portion of the Harvest Valley/Winchester planning area. They contain dispersed commercial, business, and residential uses along SR-74. A Village Center is planned to be located at the intersection of SR-74 and Briggs Road to act as a focus for the communities of Homeland and Romoland. The Village Center is intended to be a pedestrian-oriented area that serves adjacent and nearby neighborhoods. This Village Center should reflect, in scale, a small town atmosphere and include parks, local serving retail, recreational uses, offices, and some higher density residential development in the core. The Village Center, in effect, becomes an additional focal point at the heart of Harvest Valley along SR-74 to serve as a local gathering spot for area residents. Low and Very Low Density Residential uses surround the more intense uses along the highway, with Rural and Mountainous designations extending north and south toward the Lakeview Mountains and Double Butte, respectively.
The community of Green Acres, located in the eastern portion of the planning area, is a Low Density Residential community that is buffered from the City of Hemet by rural and mountainous terrain. To the southeast of this community, a series of building restrictions apply due to the proximity to the Hemet Ryan Airport. The Rural and Mountainous land use designations east of Green Acres serve to separate and buffer the Green Acres community, as well as the rest of the planning area, from the City of Hemet. Green Acres also includes a policy area that allows for continued equestrian and animal keeping uses.
Western Riverside County has a special visual quality created by the numerous land forms at varying scales that rise from the valley floors. Such is the case with Double Butte. The Open Space-Recreation designated area is surrounded by mountainous terrain, which is a quality that characterizes much of the visual character within the Harvest Valley/Winchester area. Double Butte is also a separator between the lower density residential uses to the north and the higher density residential uses to the south.
The community of Winchester is located immediately south of Double Butte and north of Salt Creek. Winchester is ideally situated to become the "gateway to the Diamond Valley" and accommodate significant intensification of land usage. Winchester has the potential to serve as an important tourist and transit hub for the region due to its proximity to the Diamond Valley Lake, as well as the presence of the rail line, SR-79, and the Domenigoni Parkway. To most effectively take advantage of these opportunities, future development in Winchester should reflect a distinct character and identity. Typical strip commercial uses would diminish the community's potential significantly. Instead, a compact downtown core designed in an Old West Theme is envisioned. To help make this vision become a reality, the Community Center Overlay allows a mixture of commercial, office, and residential uses to be developed and provides guidance for future community design. Contrary to typical zoning that separates uses, the Community Center Overlay allows a mixture of commercial, office, and residential uses within the same project. Like a western town, Winchester should be developed around a series of walkable blocks with buildings oriented to the street. Western-themed building facades with detailed touches, such as covered and wooden sidewalks, could further enhance the theme experience.
A core of retail, shopping, office, and residential uses should stretch along Winchester Road from the rail line to Olive Avenue. Higher density residential uses should be located within and around the core area to provide convenient pedestrian access to services, shopping, and employment uses. Residential density should transition to a relatively lower density as one moves further from the core.
A transit station on the rail line should be incorporated into the fabric of Winchester and act as the northern anchor for the community. This transit station would act as the regional connection to the Diamond Valley Lake and its surrounding entertainment and recreational uses, as well as Temecula farther to the south.
Another Community Center Overlay can be found in the Winchester Hills Specific Plan that lies directly south of Salt Creek, west of SR-79. This Community Center Designation seeks changes in the adopted specific plan to intensify its commercial center and add a mixture of retail, office, and residential uses. The intent is to create a local-serving, intimate village core that acts as the focus for the surrounding community. The community center should employ a consistent design theme that establishes this core as a distinct place. The design must stimulate pedestrian use by employing sidewalks, reduced building setbacks, "safescape" features to provide security, and street trees and furniture to achieve a special environment. The use of automobiles in the core itself should be minimized by narrowing streets, and placing parking behind buildings and in parking structures.
The Diamond Valley Lake and surrounding recreation area provides a major tourist attraction and is the key to future growth in the area. The land uses that surround the Diamond Valley Lake are intended to preserve this facility's long-term outdoor recreational opportunities and to attract visitors by providing a quality experience for them.
To the south of the Diamond Valley Lake, the Open Space-Conservation Habitat and Open Space-Recreation Land Use Designations preserve the natural habitat of the Dawson Mountains and Shipley Reserve as well as providing areas for permanent outdoor recreation. To the west of the lake, the Open Space-Recreation Land Use Designation accommodates the intensive water-oriented recreation plans of the Metropolitan Water District, which include water sports and camping.
The Community Center land use designation immediately west of the Diamond Valley Lake accommodates an Entertainment Center that is intended to capitalize on the proximity of the lake and its intensive recreational opportunities. The Entertainment Center land use designation provides the opportunity to develop regional entertainment, recreation, and tourist related uses such as movie theaters, hotels, spas, and restaurants. The Domenigoni Community Center is classified as an Entertainment Center in the proposed General Plan and is not envisioned as a collection of strip commercial uses and big box retail, but instead a unified and themed pedestrian-oriented village. It should have a common design theme and be integrated with the active recreation uses to the east. The center should be designed to accommodate pedestrian movement, and the presence of the automobile should be minimized by reducing street widths, locating parking behind buildings, and/or combining parking in structures. Sidewalks should be wide with ample street furniture and shade trees to create a pleasant pedestrian environment.
A transit station should be incorporated into the Domenigoni Entertainment Center. This transit station can be connected to the Winchester Transit Station through a transit system. The transit line would then follow Winchester Avenue south into the Temecula Valley, providing a convenient tourism connection for the major attractions of the region.
Highgrove Area Plan
The primary purpose of the Highgrove Area Plan is to preserve the remote, rural, and small-town nature of the Highgrove area. Slope, habitat and other natural constraints severely limit opportunities to provide substantial areas for population or employment growth. Conservation of habitat, preservation of existing communities, and provision of areas for lower density residential areas in keeping with the rural character of the planning area are the primary objectives of this Land Use Plan (Figure 3.7).
West of Interstate 215 (I-215), in the vicinity of Main Street, the Land Use Plan designates the land as Light Industrial. Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Commercial Retail, and Light Industrial lands are designated immediately west of I-215 in keeping with the area's existing patterns of development. The portion of Highgrove located immediately east of I-215 contains a mix of urban uses, including Low Density, Medium Density, and High Density Residential, Commercial Retail, and Light Industrial uses. The eastern half of this area contains land uses designed to preserve the rural nature of this area. These uses include Very Low Density Residential, Rural Residential, and Rural Mountainous. Light Industrial uses are designated for the area south of Palmyrita Avenue, which is compatible with adjacent industrial and distribution uses in the City of Riverside.
The central portion of the planning area, south of Highgrove, contains Open Space-Conservation areas associated with the Box Springs Mountains Park, along with Rural Mountainous, Rural Residential, and Very Low Density Residential uses. In the southern portion of the planning area, a mix of urban uses is planned in close proximity to SR-60, including a range of residential, employment-generating, and public land uses.
Jurupa Area Plan
The Jurupa Area Plan, Figure 3.8, provides for substantial areas devoted to rural and equestrian uses, as allowed by the Very Low Density Residential designation. The land use plan also allows for traditional urban residential densities as reflected by the Low Density and Medium Density Residential designations. Complementing these residential land uses are several Commercial Retail corridors, two Community Centers, several scattered Open Space-Conservation and Recreation areas, large chunks of Open Space-Conservation Habitat land in the Santa Ana River corridor and the Jurupa Mountains, and an abundance of employment opportunities within the Light Industrial and Business Park designations along Interstate 15 (I-15), State Route (SR-60), and Van Buren Boulevard. Mining uses are also identified within the Jurupa Mountains.
To help provide a focus for this entire sector of the County, the Community Center designation is applied adjacent to the Pedley Metrolink station on Limonite Avenue and Van Buren Boulevard, and within Rubidoux Village Center along Mission Boulevard. These designations are intended to function as Village Centers, with a mixture of residential, retail, office, and public uses in close proximity. The strategic location of these centers offers compelling reasons to focus attention on such a valuable economic resource. In Pedley, the concept draws heavily on establishing a typical transit-oriented development, taking advantage of the proximity to the Metrolink station. The Community Center land use designation in Rubidoux takes advantage of the existing pattern of development on Mission Boulevard by allowing for residential units next to commercial uses, thereby increasing the vitality of the Rubidoux Village core area.
The employment centers envisioned at the I-15/SR-60 junction, along Van Buren Boulevard, and in the Agua Mansa area would provide regional services with a mixture of business park and industrial uses. Typical employment uses within Business Park and Light Industrial designated areas include research and development, manufacturing, assembling, research institutions, academic institutions, medical facilities, and support commercial uses. Heavy Industrial designated areas would accommodate the most intensive types of industrial activities, including heavy manufacturing and processing plants. The proximity to a major freeway and railroad provides an opportunity for regional multi-modal transportation connections. Combined with the relatively compact activities envisioned in the Community Centers, these highly valuable access facilities offer the long-term potential to accommodate improved transit access.
Future multi-modal transportation options are a part of this Plan because of the need to ultimately take some of the pressure from the highway and freeway systems. This is particularly critical here because of the extensive truck traffic, which complicates vehicle flow despite its obvious linkage to economic development.
Large swaths of open space line the Santa Ana River corridor, providing an expansive natural buffer between Jurupa and the City of Riverside. Portions of the Jurupa Mountains also contain Open Space designations intended to preserve the rugged nature of this area and protect sensitive habitat areas. Recreational open space areas designed for relatively heavy use, such as golf courses and athletic fields, are located throughout Jurupa. The pattern and types of land uses described above are an extension of the existing land use patterns for Jurupa, and consequently help maintain the identity and character of its many distinctive communities. Selective additions to the land use choices refine the potential here without changing the basic character of these local communities. Additionally, preserving the natural features and unique landscape helps to distinguish this area from surrounding communities.
Lake Mathews/Woodcrest Area Plan
The Lake Mathews/Woodcrest Area Plan, Figure 3.9, provides for substantial areas devoted to rural and equestrian uses, as allowed by the Rural Residential, Rural Mountainous, and Very Low Density Residential designations. The land use plan also allows for traditional urban residential densities as reflected by the Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential designations. Complementing these residential land uses are scattered commercial retail uses, including a commercial corridor along Van Buren Boulevard, a small community center, light industrial and office uses, several recreational areas, large chunks of habitat land in the Lake Mathews/Estelle Reserve area and the Gavilan Hills, and public facility uses associated with the Metropolitan Water District operations at the Lake Mathews facility. Continued agricultural uses are also designated within the Woodcrest area.
To help provide a focus for this sector of the County, the Community Center designation is applied at the intersection of Washington Street and Van Buren Boulevard, in the heart of the Woodcrest community. This designation is intended to function as a Village Center, with a mixture of residential, retail, office and public uses in close proximity to one another. The strategic location of this center offers compelling reasons to focus attention on such a valuable economic resource.
Large swaths of open space border Lake Mathews, providing an expansive natural buffer between the lake and adjacent development. Recreational open space areas designed for relatively active use, such as golf courses and athletic fields, are located throughout the Area Plan. The pattern and types of land uses described above are an extension of the existing land use patterns for Lake Mathews, and consequently help maintain the identity and character of its distinctive communities. Selective additions to the land use choices refine the potential here without changing the basic character of these local communities. Additionally, preserving the natural features and unique landscape helps to distinguish this area from surrounding communities.
Lakeview/Nuevo Area Plan
The Lakeview/Nuevo Area Plan reflects significant growth in its western half, near the City of Perris. Residential density gradually decreases east of the San Jacinto River until the Lakeview Mountains, where the Mountainous and Rural land use designations reflect the area's rugged nature (Figure 3.10). A series of adopted specific plans, concentrated east of the San Jacinto River, have influenced land use patterns and residential densities in this area. East of the San Jacinto River, the Area Plan generally reflects a pattern of predominantly very low density residential character with pockets of commercial uses interspersed within the communities of Lakeview and Nuevo. Continuing east past Lakeview Avenue, the land use pattern is primarily large lot and rural in nature with clusters of residential neighborhoods, public facilities, and commercial establishments.
Mead Valley Area Plan
The Mead Valley Area Plan, Figure 3.11, provides for a predominantly rural residential character with an equestrian focus. This is reflected by the Rural Residential and Very Low Density Residential land use designations that dominate the planning area. Pockets of open space, including the Motte-Rimrock Reserve and Steele Peak, are designated as Open Space Conservation Habitat to preserve their scenic and natural qualities.
A Rural Village Overlay is designated along a portion of the present alignment of the SR-74, which is located in the southern portion of the planning area. The Rural Village would serve as a focal point for the surrounding Good Hope community. This special overlay designation allows for a mixture of local serving commercial uses, educational, recreational/cultural opportunities, and limited residential development at a higher density than the underlying land use. The Land Use Element provides a further description of this land use designation and its intent.
Mobility within the open space system is not ignored, either. Multi-use trails are conceptually located throughout the planning area, providing the framework for future trail improvements and connections. Thus, there is a strong relationship in the Area Plan between land uses and associated transportation and mobility systems, no matter what the intensity of uses may be.
The Pass Area Plan
The Pass Area Plan, Figure 3.12, generally reflects the predominantly rural character of the unincorporated area. The considerable amount of natural open space historically provided by Riverside County plans over the years within the Pass is maintained. Most of the proposed development within the Pass remains focused within the cities.
Outlying areas such as Cherry Valley and the San Timoteo Canyon generally maintain their rural character, although Cherry Valley would continue its focus around an existing retail and service-oriented community core on Beaumont Avenue. Cabazon retains its tourist identity along Interstate 10 (I-10), as well as its existing residential and desert-oriented uses. The rugged terrain, open space, and scenic qualities of the San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains that are so prominent in the area would continue to be preserved through the Mountainous, Open Space, and Rural land use designations. An interchange is proposed and funded at I-10 and Apache Trail. The exact location of this interchange is unknown at this time; however, the potential for tourist-serving commercial uses at this intersection is acknowledged as a policy area.
Reche Canyon/Badlands Area Plan
The primary purpose of this Area Plan, Figure 3.13, is to preserve the remote, rural nature of the Reche Canyon/Badlands area. Slope, habitat and other natural constraints severely limit opportunities to provide substantial areas for population or employment growth. Conservation of habitat, preservation of existing rural enclaves, and provision of areas for lower density residential areas in keeping with the rural character of the planning area are the primary objectives of this Area Plan.
The Reche Canyon/Badlands Area Plan designates much of the land in the northern portion of the planning area as Rural Mountainous and Open Space Rural, in keeping with the mountainous character of the region. Lands designated for Very Low Density Residential and Rural Residential are applied to areas adjacent to the City of Moreno Valley and along some of the area's major roadway corridors, including San Timoteo Canyon Road, Gilman Springs Road, Reche Canyon Road, and Pigeon Pass Road.
Open space areas for the preservation of publicly owned habitat and park land are designated for the Lake Perris State Recreational Area, the San Jacinto Wildlife Reserve, the Norton Younglove Reserve, and the Box Springs Mountains Reserve. Areas designated for Agriculture uses are located adjacent to the San Jacinto Wildlife Reserve. The Riverside County Badlands Landfill facility is designated for Public Facility use. Additional areas have been designated for Open Space Mining, Open Space Recreation, and Commercial Tourist, primarily reflecting those corresponding existing uses.
Riverside Extended Mountain Area Plan
The majority of the Riverside Extended Mountain Area Plan (REMAP) lies within Rural and Open Space Foundation Components (Figure 3.14). The amount of acreage already under public ownership (i.e., U.S. Forest Service, State of California, Bureau of Land Management) together with the constraints imposed by natural hazards, remoteness, and lack of infrastructure, preclude significant new growth in the area.
Rural Village overlays have been applied in strategic locations. These overlays allow a focused community core providing a mixture (however limited) of urban-type services and Community Development land uses complementing and blending with the natural environment and reinforcing existing community character.
Scattered rural residential areas are also present in the planning area, usually consisting of large lot residential homes with limited utilities and community services. REMAP reflects the desire by these communities to maintain the lifestyle currently associated with this predominantly remote and rugged territory. Limited development would be focused in established communities according to policies and guidelines that would sustain the special character of these places.
San Jacinto Valley Area Plan
The Area Plan, Figure 3.15, is designed to maintain the predominantly rural, agrarian, and open space character of the unincorporated portions of the San Jacinto Valley and to focus growth in ways that respect the existing urban fabric, slope, and natural hazard considerations. This is accomplished by providing an opportunity for community development in the East Hemet and Valle Vista areas, by preserving selected natural features (especially riparian), and protecting residents from natural hazards.
The East Hemet and Valle Vista areas are a mix of Low, Medium and Medium-High Density Residential development. Commercial and office uses dominate along Florida Avenue. This area steps down in density to Agriculture, Rural-Mountainous, and Open Space-Conservation designated areas. San Jacinto Valley contains numerous significant natural features and hazards. Land near the San Jacinto River in the northern portion of the plan is severely constrained for development due to steep slopes, the 100year floodplain, dam inundation hazards, seismic zones, and existing habitat. As such, the area within the flood plain along the river is designated as Open Space-Conservation. The truly limited development potential on the steep, inaccessible slopes of the San Jacinto Mountains is also recognized by the Open Space-Conservation designation.
This Area Plan has several consequences and benefits. Severely constrained lands subject to natural hazards are slated primarily for preservation. Community separators and greenbelts are provided by many of these conservation oriented designations. Finally, Community Development land uses are generally focused on areas adjacent to the existing urban fabric, while rural, agriculture and open space uses lie on the periphery.
Southwest Area Plan
The Southwest Area Plan Land Use Plan generally reflects the predominantly rural character of the area. In fact, approximately 80 percent of the Southwest Area Plan is devoted to Open Space, Agricultural, and Rural designations. The remaining 20 percent of the land is devoted to a variety of urban uses (Figure 3.16). Most of this urban development is focused near existing urban areas and the Cities of Temecula and Murrieta. By concentrating development patterns in this manner, future growth would be accommodated, and the unique rural and agricultural lifestyle found elsewhere in the Southwest Area Plan would be maintained. For the most part, the Open Space and Rural designations are applied in the mountains and foothills surrounding the Cities of Murrieta and Temecula. The Agricultural designation is largely applied to the existing vineyards and wineries east of Temecula and the groves in the Santa Rosa Plateau.
The Santa Rosa Ecological Reserve, the Cleveland National Forest, and Vail Lake are designated for open space uses to reflect the rich and significant habitat these areas provide. Glen Oaks Hills and the Santa Rosa Plateau are designated for rural uses to maintain the existing rural residential character of these areas. These Open Space, Agricultural, and Rural area plan land use designations reflect the existing and intended long-term land use patterns for these areas and help maintain the historic identity and character of the Southwest Area Plan. Such designations also provide an edge to urban development and a separation between the adjoining area plans and San Diego County. This edge strengthens the identity of the Southwest Area Plan and helps to distinguish it from other communities.
Future growth is largely accommodated northeast of the existing Cities of Temecula and Murrieta in the French Valley. Proposed land uses reflect, or are influenced by, adopted specific plans. These specific plans depict a largely residential community with local-serving commercial and employment uses located along the major roadways. The residential community is focused around SR-79 North (Winchester Road). Within that residential pattern the French Valley Airport acts as a hub for surrounding business and industrial park development, which contributes significantly to an employment and economic focus for the Southwest Area Plan. SR-79 North is the chief circulation route in the valley other than the I-15 and I-215 freeways. The adjacent areas accommodate regional uses and a large segment of potential commercial development. Despite this rather focused development, significant watercourses in the valley are maintained in adopted and proposed specific plans through open space designations. This stream system is depicted on the Southwest Area Plan Land Use Plan Watercourse Overlay designation.
Sun City/Menifee Valley Area Plan
The Sun City/Menifee Valley Area Plan reflects much of the existing Community Plan. To the extent possible, Community Development areas extend outward from the existing urbanized community areas (Figure 3.17). Furthermore, an effort is made, wherever existing and already approved land uses permit, to enhance existing concentrations of activity and distinguish them from other concentrations in and around the Area Plan.
For example, a Rural Mountainous designation in the northeast quadrant separates the McCall corridor from the developed Menifee Village north of Newport Road. The McCall corridor is anchored by Commercial Retail and Business Park designations near I-215, with Commercial Office, and Medium and High Density Residential designations to the east.
Light Industrial uses along the north edge of the Plan Area both east and west of I-215 relate to transportation corridors, including a rail corridor along the diagonal edge of the Area Plan in the north. To the west of I-215, the Low Density Residential designation extends the character of the existing Sun City development toward the edges of the Plan. At that point, a Rural Mountainous designation sets Quail Valley, with its rural character, apart from Sun City. The potential for Commercial Retail development serving Quail Valley is recognized along Goetz Road, allowing for a different scale of focus in keeping with the needs of this specialized community.
Both the channelized and natural portions of Salt Creek are designated Open Space-Recreation to allow the potential for the channel to serve both flood control and recreation purposes. This dominant feature offers another opportunity to distinguish development sectors from each other. Residential subdivisions characterize the area south of Salt Creek along Newport Road. Low, Medium, and Medium High Density Residential designations dominate here, together with Commercial Retail.
Temescal Area Plan
Open Space Foundation Component land uses comprise nearly 75 percent of the unincorporated planning area in th Temescal Area Plan (Figure 3.18). The Cleveland National Forest and Prado Basin account for much of this acreage. This emphasizes the importance of the remaining 25 percent of the land area to house and employ the existing population, to accommodate the growth pressures in Western Riverside County, to respect local interests, as well as observe hazard and circulation constraints.
The Area Plan focuses on preserving the integrity of existing communities and preserving irreplaceable open space resources, while recognizing this area's transition to urban uses by stimulating targeted infill development, as well as redevelopment projects. The land use plan also focuses on achieving a more balanced relationship between workers and jobs, offering options to the prevailing extended commute patterns to coastal job centers.
The Cleveland National Forest, as a priceless, natural open space resource area, is generally treated as a permanent open space preserve, with the exception of a few large-lot residential areas reflecting current uses or approved development. The Prado Basin will remain a significant habitat area and critical piece of the Santa Ana River Watershed, with its numerous critical functions in support of development within four counties.
Land use designations and policies maintain the general suburban character of Coronita and Home Gardens and the very low density residential character of El Cerrito. The I15 corridor represents the greatest opportunity for community development while achieving the RCIP objectives. Residential and employment uses would continue to be focused within this corridor through the extensive, though not exclusive, use of specific plans. Preserving the Temescal Wash, enhancing local and regional traffic conditions along I-15, and achieving a satisfactory interface with mineral extraction operations are of utmost importance in the guidance for this strategic area. The Community Center designation at Temescal Canyon Road and I-15 would provide a focused area for the development of a Job Center comprised of supporting retail services and residential units within this light industrial area.
Desert Center Area Plan
The Desert Center Land Use Plan generally reflects the very limited development potential here. As shown on Figure 3.19, the vast majority of land uses within the Area Plan are designated with the Open Space-Rural designation. These lands are generally remote, inaccessible, subject to natural hazards, or unable to support development due to the lack of facilities and necessary services for accommodating development. The uninhabited and natural character of the open space lands is expected to continue throughout the life of the plan.
Agricultural production areas are identified with the Agriculture land use designation. Land uses within the Community Development Foundation Component comprise only a small percentage (3%) of the total acreage within the planning area. Future development should be focused on infill and redevelopment of the existing communities at Desert Center, Lake Tamarisk, and Eagle Mountain. The distinct community separation between the highway commercial uses and the Lake Tamarisk community should be maintained. The Eagle Mountain landfill and townsite are designated to accommodate the proposed Class III non-hazardous waste landfill and nearby housing and services for its workers and their families.
Eastern Coachella Valley Area Plan
The Eastern Coachella Valley Area Plan is designed to maintain the predominantly rural, agricultural, and open space character of the Eastern Coachella Valley and to focus growth adjacent to where it currently exists. The plan integrates the existing urban fabric together with slope and natural hazard considerations. Importantly, the plan seeks to retain the agricultural practices and lands in the area that are so intrinsic to the character of this area and important to the County's economy.
As shown on Figure 3.20, the majority of the area within the Salton Trough, surrounding the Salton Sea to the west and stretching north toward the City of Coachella, is designated Agriculture. The majority of the area east of the All-American Canal is designated Open Space-Conservation Habitat and Open Space-Rural to reflect the area's remoteness and lack of services. At the same time, the Commercial Tourist designation northeast of the City of Coachella is retained. This allows for some development adjacent to the City of Coachella, while concurrently preserving open space, resulting in a coherent pattern of development.
In the Thermal area, the actual planned extent of the Light Industrial uses adjacent to the airport is depicted on the land use plan. The Heavy Industrial use proposed north of the airport has been replaced on the land use plan with Light Industrial, in keeping with the existing policy direction for the area. Higher density residential designations have been shown in this area that more correctly reflect the existing and potential land use.
Opportunities for Commercial Tourist development are shown around the State Route 111/State Route 86 (SR-111/SR-86) intersection, as well as west of SR-111, south of Mecca. Areas of potential residential development have been expanded around Mecca. Another Commercial Tourist designation is located adjacent to the Salton Sea, west of SR-111, and is intended to capitalize on the scenic and recreational opportunities of both the Salton Sea and the surrounding desert area. Its location near the North Shore allows for contiguous development in an effort to preserve the area's natural attributes and assets, and at the same time, avoids the areas of potential liquefaction north of the sea, which remain designated agriculture. Only those parcels currently in commercial use are designated Commercial Retail in this area.
The Open Space-Rural land use designation in the southwest corner of the Eastern Coachella Valley area is a compatible land use designation with the surrounding Agriculture and Open Space-Conservation Habitat designations. This land use designation is appropriate in this arid, under-serviced area in the coves along the Santa Rosa Mountains, which is subject to blowsand and flash flood hazards.
Palo Verde Area Plan
The eastern portion of the Palo Verde Area Plan is intended to preserve the agricultural character and the rich economic base of the Palo Verde Valley. Development patterns here are limited to portions of I-10, a few small pockets adjacent to the City of Blythe, and the community of Ripley (Figure 3.21). The Area Plan also allows for limited development of appropriately designed recreational resorts along the Colorado River to respond to expanded tourist and recreational draw.
The western half of the Area Plan maintains the sparsely populated, rugged desert and mountain character of the Palo Verde Mesa. There is some potential for limited commercial uses at the intersection of I-10 and Wiley's Well Road, which is the main access to the prisons. Blythe Airport is accommodated and enhanced to provide an economic magnet with the inclusion of the Business Park and Commercial Retail land use designations. The Nicholls Warm Springs/Mesa Verde community is accommodated immediately south of the airport.
Western Coachella Valley Area Plan
The Western Coachella Valley Area Plan ranges in character from suburban style development found in Bermuda Dunes, Thousand Palms, and Sun City, to remote rural enclaves such as Sky Valley and Indio Hills, to agricultural areas east of La Quinta and north of Bermuda Dunes, to the outlying mountainous and desert terrain typical of the Valley area. The Area Plan seeks to maintain the character of these areas, while allowing additional urban development in areas adjacent to the I-10 corridor and preserving the desert character of the Valley's remote desert and mountainous areas.
Figure 3.22 illustrates the geographic distribution of land uses in Western Coachella Valley. The Area Plan proposes a mix of lower density residential land uses ranging from Rural Residential to Low Density Residential uses near urban centers, except along Washington Street and Avenue 42 in Bermuda Dunes, which will continue to provide for areas of Medium High Density Residential development.
Ample land exists within Coachella Valley cities to accommodate most of the residential and commercial growth through the 2040. The Area Plan focuses Community Development land uses, including residential, commercial and industrial uses, along Interstate 10 and the Pierson Boulevard and Dillon Road corridors, while maintaining a mix of urban uses in Bermuda Dunes, Sun City, and Thousand Palms.
The Western Coachella Valley Area Plan identifies the area within the sphere of influence of the City of Rancho Mirage as having significant development potential, due in large part to the area's centralized Valley location, proximity to I-10, and large amount of vacant land, much of which is Indian-owned. This Area Plan creates a policy area designed to establish policies and guidelines for development in this area, in concert with a joint planning effort involving the City of Rancho Mirage and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians.
Also identified within this Area Plan is the location of a Rural Village within the community of Sky Valley. With the Rural Village Overlay designation on the Area Plan, this village is designed to allow for a concentration of rural residential uses, a small neighborhood commercial center, public, and open space uses, thus allowing Sky Valley residents access to localized commercial and public services.
The vast majority of the Western Coachella Valley area is designated for rural and open space uses, reflective of the remote desert and mountainous nature of the area. These uses separate Community Development areas, creating distinct community edges and enhancing community identity. Open space areas for habitat conservation occupy approximately 25 percent of the total unincorporated area. These areas are predominant in the SR-74/Santa Rosa Mountains area south of Palm Desert and Indian Wells, along the eastern edge of the San Gorgonio Pass north and south of I-10, and north of Desert Hot Springs, throughout the Indio Hills and Coachella Valley Preserve, and areas east of Dillon Road.
Modifications to Zoning District Boundaries
Concurrent with the proposed General Plan, Riverside County proposed to modify the boundaries of existing zoning districts to correspond to the Area Plan boundaries contained in the proposed General Plan. Zoning Districts are a means used by Riverside County to organize its zoning maps. Whereas small and medium-sized cities, such as those within Riverside County, can typically display zoning throughout their jurisdictions on a single map, the County's large size (7,200 square miles) means that zoning must be presented on several different maps for zoning designations on individual properties to be readable. Each of these individual maps is identified as a zoning district area.
The actions proposed by Riverside County would reorganize the individual zoning maps (zoning districts) to correspond to the Area Plan boundaries proposed in the General Plan. If approved, the boundaries of individual zoning maps (zoning districts) would be co-terminus with the General Plan's Area Plan boundaries.
Although the County does not purpose to change the existing zoning of any individual property at this time, because each zoning district was adopted by separate ordinances by the County Board of Supervisors, modification of zoning district boundaries requires a discretionary action to be taken by the Board of Supervisors, even if zoning designations on individual properties are not affected by the County's action. As a result, the proposed modification of zoning district boundaries constitutes a "project" under CEQA, requiring environmental documentation.
As stated previously, although the County does not purpose to change the existing zoning of any individual property at this time, state law requires zoning to be consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, there will be changes to zoning subsequent to General Plan adoption.
3.4 Analysis Assumptions and Methodology
The 2002 Riverside County General Plan is intended to be a blueprint for the County's future. It describes the future growth and development within the County over the long-term. It acts as a constitution for public and private development, the foundation upon which County authorities will make growth and land use-related decisions. The proposed General Plan is meant to express the community's goals with respect to human-made and natural environments, and to set forth the policies and implementation measures to achieve them for the welfare of those who live, work, and do business in Riverside County.
The projections developed for the proposed General Plan estimate potential population, dwelling units, and employment for unincorporated areas of the County. It is projected that, at build out, a population of 1.67 1.77 million persons will reside in unincorporated areas of Riverside County. Based on past growth rates in Riverside County, population increases are anticipated to continue to average approximately 3.38 percent annually. Assuming a SCAG-projected population of 985,945 persons in 2025, the build out population of unincorporated Riverside County would be reached in 2040. About 79 69 percent of this population is projected for unincorporated western Riverside County with the remaining 21 31 percent projected for unincorporated eastern Riverside County. The proposed General Plan land uses serve as the basis for these projections. A key assumption in understanding the magnitude of these projections is that the projections reflect a theoretical build out of all unincorporated areas, rather than what is actually developed over the next 40 years. The actual rate of development is driven by the economy and is not under the total control of government officials.
While minimum, midrange, and maximum projections were prepared, for the purposes of environmental analysis, the midrange projections for population, dwelling units, and employment were utilized. Midrange projections were utilized because the installation of required infrastructure (e.g., roads and utilities) as well as the presence of environmental constraints (e.g., fault hazard zones, floodways, steep slopes, high fire hazard areas) generally preclude maximum development of vacant lands. Midrange projections are a more realistic approximation of the population, dwelling unit, and employment growth that will result from implementation of the proposed General Plan, while still reflecting a conservative approach that will not underestimate impacts. The methodology used for the generation of these projections and the assumptions are provided below.
The EIR analysis relies on GIS data, which is based on the proposed General Plan description. However, because of the nature of GIS calculations, some acreages reported in the EIR may be slightly different from those indicated in the Riverside County General Plan Area Plans. These minor discrepancies do not affect the adequacy or accuracy of the EIR's environmental analysis.
Dwelling Units
Land use designation acres were derived from Geographic Information System (GIS) based calculations for each of the County's proposed 19 Area Plans and the remaining unincorporated areas. A range of dwelling units per acre for each residential land use designation as well as other land use designations that allow for limited residential uses (e.g., Rural Mountainous) was identified. The dwelling unit per acre (du/ac) factor is based on actual product types and accounts for roads, rights-of-way, easements, and public facilities typically found in residential areas (e.g., elementary schools, parks, etc.) To determine the number of dwelling units within each residential land use designation, the number of gross acres was multiplied by the land use designation's respective du/ac factor. For example, 400 acres of Low Density Residential with a density range of 2.0 du/acre, 3.5 du/acre, and 5 du/acre would result in a range of 800 dwelling units, 1,400 dwelling, and 2,000 dwelling units, respectively. Table 3.E identifies the du/ac factors used for the environmental analysis.
| Table 3.E - Dwelling Units per Acre | |
|---|---|
| Land Use Designation | du/acre Factor |
| Agriculture (AG) | .05 |
| Rural Residential (RR) | 0.15 |
| Rural Mountainous (RM) | 0.05 |
| Rural Desert (RD) | 0.05 |
| Open Space - Rural (OS-RUR) | 0.025 |
| Rural Community - Estate Density (EDR-RC) | 0.35 |
| Rural Community - Very Low Density (VLDR-RC) | 0.5 |
| Rural Community - Low Density (LDR-RC) | 1.2 |
| Rural Community - Estate Density Residential 2 (EDR2-RC) | 0.35 |
| Estate Density (EDR) | 0.35 |
| Very Low Density (VLDR) | 0.5 |
| Low Density (LDR) | 1.2 |
| Medium Density (MDR) | 3.5 |
| Medium High Density (MHDR) | 6.5 |
| High Density (HDR) | 11 |
| Very High Density (VHDR) | 17 |
| Highest Density | 30 |
Population
To reflect the variations of household size among different regions of Riverside County, separate average household size figures were used to determine population. Population projections for western Riverside County, with the exception of the Riverside Extended Mountainous Area Plan (REMAP), utilized a factor of 3.01 persons per dwelling unit. A factor of 2.97 was used for REMAP, Western Coachella Valley, Eastern Coachella Valley, Desert Center, and Palo Verde Valley Community Plan areas. Population is determined by multiplying the projected number of dwelling units by the average persons per household. For example, a population projection for 400 acres of Low Medium Density Residential (in western Riverside County) would result in 4,214 (1,400 dwelling units x 3.01 persons per household) persons.
Employment
To determine the number of potential workers from total residential land uses, the estimated population is multiplied by the participation rate. The participation rate is the percent of the population that is either employed or not employed but actively seeking employment. The participation rate for the County, as defined in Riverside County Population and Employment Forecasts, is 44.86 percent. Using this participation rate, a population of 4,214 persons would yield 1,890 potential workers.
Determining the number of jobs resulting from commercial, industrial, office, or business park development is a multitask exercise that requires the computation of net acreage, gross square footage, and permitted square footage. For commercial, industrial, business park, and public facility uses, it was first necessary to determine the amount of land available for development. The net acres of each non-residential land use available for development was derived by subtracting from the gross acres (the total amount of land available) the amount of land required for roadways, rights-of-way, easements, and other required features. For Commercial, Heavy Industrial, and Business Park land uses, 25 percent of the gross acreage was assumed necessary for these features. For Light Industrial land uses, 20 percent of the gross acreage was assumed to be required for necessary infrastructure and other features. Based on this process, 200 gross acres of Commercial Retail land is equal to 150 net acres (200 acres x 0.75 net factor), while 200 gross acres of Light Industrial would equal 160 net acres (200 acres x 0.8 net factor).
To determine the number of net square feet, the net acres is multiplied by 43,560 (the number of square feet per acre). The examples stated above would translate into totals of 6,534,000 and 6,969,600 square feet of Commercial Retail and Light Industrial uses, respectively. Because the complete coverage of land by buildings is not permitted, floor-to-area ratios (FARs) have been developed to establish the total amount of square footage permitted on any particular parcel. The FARs for the various Commercial, Industrial, and Business Park uses identified in the proposed General Plan are shown in Table 3.F.
| Table 3.F - Floor-to-Area Ratios | |
|---|---|
| Land Use Designation | Floor-to-Area Ratios |
| Commercial Retail (CR) | 0.23 |
| Commercial Tourist (CT) | 0.25 |
| Commercial Office (CO) | 0.40 0.35 |
| Light Industrial (LI) | 0.38 |
| Heavy Industrial (HI) | 0.40 |
| Business Park (BP) | 0.30 |
To determine the permitted square footage, the net square footage is multiplied by the FAR. Carrying the previously cited examples forward,1,502,820 square feet (6,534,000 square feet x 0.23 FAR) of Commercial Retail and 2,648,448 square feet (6,969,600 square feet x 0.38 FAR) of Light Industrial would be permitted.
The third step in this process is the identification of the number of jobs generated as a result of specific development. Employment factors for individual land uses vary and are based on the number of employees per square foot of developed use, or the number of employees per acre of designated land use. Factors utilized for the County's proposed General Plan analysis are summarized in Table 3.G.
| Table 3.G - Employment Factors | |
|---|---|
| Land Use Designation | Employment Factor |
| Commercial Retail (CR) | 1 employee/500 square feet |
| Commercial Tourist (CT) | 1 employee/500 square feet |
| Commercial Office (CO) | 1 employee/300 square feet |
| Light Industrial (LI) | 1 employee/1,030 square feet |
| Heavy Industrial (HI) | 1 employee/1,500 square feet |
| Business Park (BP) | 1 employee/600 square feet |
| Agriculture | 0.05 employee/acre |
| Land Use Designation | Employment Factor |
| Open Space - Mineral Resources | 0.03 employee/acre |
| Open Space - Recreation | 0.15 employee/acre |
For the previously cited examples, the 1,502,820 square feet of Commercial Retail and 2,648,448 square feet of Light Industrial uses would generate 3,006 (1,502,820 square feet ÷ 500 employees/square feet) and 2,571 (2,648,448 square feet ÷ 1,030 employees/square feet) employees, respectively.
3.5 General Plan Objectives
The primary goal of the 2002 Riverside County General Plan is to provide residents of the County with a "blueprint" for public and private development. The General Plan will act as the foundation upon which County leaders will make growth and land use-related decisions. The proposed General Plan expresses the community's goals with respect to human-made and natural environments and sets forth the policies and implementation measures to achieve them. The objective of the proposed General Plan is to achieve the Vision Statement of the County residents in conformance with State planning law. The Vision Statement is detailed in Chapter 2 of the proposed General Plan and is provided in Appendix B of the EIR.
SECTION 4.0 - IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
This Program EIR will review the potential environmental effects of the proposed project for each of the following areas:
• Land Use/Agricultural Resources
• Geology and Slope Stability
• Housing and Population
• Hazardous Materials
• Aesthetics/Visual Resources
• Mineral Resources
• Air Quality
• Noise
• Biological Resources
• Parks and Recreation
• Cultural Resources
• Public Services
• Energy
• Transportation and Circulation
• Flood and Dam Inundation Hazards
• Water Resources
Section 4.0 describes existing setting, impacts, effectiveness of General Plan policies, mitigation measures, and the level of significance after mitigation for each resource area. Thresholds of significance are also listed. Thresholds of significance provide criteria for determining the significance of any impacts associated with the 2002 Riverside County General Plan and the subsequent revisions. A discussion of assumptions and methodology used to analyze the proposed General Plan in this Program EIR is provided below.
4.1 Environmental Analysis Assumptions
The 2002 Riverside County General Plan is intended to be a blueprint for the County's future. It describes the future growth and development within the County over the long-term. It acts as a constitution for public and private development, the foundation upon which County authorities will make growth and land use-related decisions. The proposed General Plan is meant to express the community's goals with respect to human-made and natural environments, and to set forth the policies and implementation measures to achieve them for the welfare of those who live, work, and do business in Riverside County.
The environmental impacts that will result from the proposed General Plan will not occur at a single time, nor will they occur in a single location. Proposed General Plan impacts on the environment will occur as the result of thousands of individual private development and public works projects, undertaken in compliance with applicable provisions of the proposed General Plan, over an estimated 40-year period throughout unincorporated Riverside County. Thus, the proposed General Plan EIR summarizes the cumulative impacts that could result from these individual actions and projects. The projections developed for the proposed General Plan upon which the impact analysis contained in this EIR are based, represent an estimate of the population, dwelling units, and employment within unincorporated areas of the County that could exist at build out of the proposed County General Plan.
It is projected that at build out, a population of 1.77 million persons will reside in unincorporated areas of Riverside County. Based on past growth rates in Riverside County, population increases are anticipated to continue to average approximately 3.38 percent annually. Assuming a SCAG projected population of 985,945 persons in 2025, the build out population of unincorporated Riverside County would be reached in 2040. About 69 percent of this population is anticipated to live in unincorporated western Riverside County with the remaining 31 percent projected for unincorporated eastern Riverside County.
A key concept in this EIR General Plan analysis is that projections reflect a theoretical build out of all unincorporated areas, which is estimated to occur in 2040, rather than the 20- to 25-year projections maintained by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The actual rate of development is driven by the economy, and is not under the total control of government officials.
Estimates Utilized in Environmental Analysis
The projections developed for the proposed General Plan estimate potential population, dwelling units, and employment for unincorporated areas of the County. The proposed General Plan land uses serve as the basis for these projections. A key assumption in understanding the magnitude of these projections is that the projections reflect a theoretical build out of all unincorporated areas, rather than what is actually developed over the next 40 years. As stated previously, the actual rate of development is driven by the economy and is not under the total control of government officials.
While minimum, midrange, and maximum projections were prepared, for the purposes of environmental analysis, the midrange projections for population, dwelling units, and employment were utilized. Midrange projections were utilized because the installation of required infrastructure (e.g., roads and utilities) as well as the presence of environmental constraints (e.g., fault hazard zones, floodways, steep slopes, high fire hazard areas) generally preclude maximum development of unincorporated lands. Midrange projections are a more realistic approximation of the population, dwelling unit, and employment growth that will result from implementation of the proposed General Plan, while still reflecting a conservative approach that will not underestimate impacts. Based on the referenced methodologies in Section 3.3, the number of residents, dwelling units, the amount of commercial/industrial space, and the number of jobs within unincorporated Riverside County at build out were identified. These projections are detailed by Area Plan and region, in Table 4.1.A. These projections were utilized throughout the Program EIR. As discussed in further detail below, following the preparation of the Draft EIR, revisions were made to the proposed General Plan which affected policies and land use designations. These revisions are reflected in the following table.
| Table 4.1.A - Projections at Proposed Plan Build Out by Area Plan | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Area Plan | Population | Dwelling Units |
Workers1 | Square Footage2 |
Jobs |
| Western County | |||||
| Eastvale | 63,183 |
20,991 |
28,344 |
11,612,055 |
16,766 |
| Elsinore | 111,004 |
36,878 |
49,796 |
22,364,454 |
32,298 |
| Harvest Valley-Winchester | 123,405 |
40,998 |
55,360 |
31,340,936 |
54,715 |
| Highgrove | 16,242 |
5,396 |
7,286 |
4,918,453 |
5,672 |
| Jurupa | 111,607 |
37,079 |
50,067 |
88,535,580 |
98,907 |
| Lake Mathews-Woodcrest | 61,560 |
20,452 |
27,616 |
2,546,866 |
5,163 |
| Lakeview-Nuevo | 80,602 |
26,778 |
36,158 |
17,242,932 |
19,166 |
| Mead Valley | 23,646 |
7,856 |
10,608 |
18,916,626 |
28,537 |
| The Pass | 45,204 |
15,018 |
20,278 |
3,888,078 |
5,815 |
| Reche Canyon-Badlands | 5,693 |
1,891 |
2,554 |
1,229,734 |
2,125 |
| REMAP | 75,951 |
25,573 |
34,071 |
2,034,895 |
4,260 |
| San Jacinto Valley | 76,965 |
25,570 |
34,527 |
5,565,485 |
15,113 |
| Southwest | 179,731 |
59,711 |
80,627 |
19,611,464 |
33,053 |
| Sun City-Menifee | 197,054 |
65,467 |
88,399 |
35,349,846 |
76,288 |
| Temescal Valley | 53,980 |
17,933 |
24,215 |
20,217,544 |
23,394 |
| Western County Subtotal | 1,227,432 |
408,129 |
549,906 |
283,375,448 |
459,861 |
| Eastern County | |||||
| Desert Center | 21,272 |
7,162 |
9,542 |
16,591,218 |
28,584 |
| Eastern Coachella Valley | 189,437 |
63,744 |
84,891 |
71,066,665 |
94,250 |
| Palo Verde | 44,157 |
14,868 |
19,809 |
16,766,022 |
26,223 |
| Western Coachella Valley | 191,879 |
64,606 |
86,077 |
68,888,352 |
76,457 |
| Non-Area Plan | 96,700 | 32,559 | 43,380 | 0 | 0 |
| Eastern County Subtotal | 543,867 |
183,080 |
243,789 |
173,312,257 |
225,514 |
| Countywide Total | 1,771,299 |
591,209 |
793,695 |
458,687,705 |
685,375 |
| Other | |||||
| March Inland Port | 334 | 111 | — | — | 38,588 |
| — | — | ||||
| Countywide Total with Other | 1,741,960 |
581,286 |
781,242 |
444,240,967 |
657,178 |
| Notes: 1 Based on a Riverside County employment participation rate of 44.86 percent. 2 Includes all projected development within the Commercial Retail, Commercial Tourist, Commercial Office, Light Industrial, Heavy Industrial, Business Park, and Community Center land use designations. Source: Build out Projections County of Riverside General Plan RCIP, The Planning Center, September 24, 2003. |
|||||
Methodology Utilized in the Environmental Analysis
For each issue area analyzed in this EIR, a brief summary of the local and regional environment conditions (environmental and man-made) in existence at the time this Program EIR was prepared has been provided. This data provides the reader with the "baseline" from which future impacts are analyzed, and provides a standard against which to measure these impacts. The existing setting provides a "snap shot" of the environment at a particular point in time.
Determinations regarding the significance of potential impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed General Plan are provided as Thresholds of Significance. These thresholds represent the criteria used in this EIR to determine whether or not the impacts identified are significant. The potential impacts that may result from implementation of the proposed General Plan were measured against the identified thresholds. The discussion of potential impacts focuses on the impacts of implementation of the build out of the proposed General Plan, and includes potential short-term/long-term and direct/indirect project impacts, and consistency with applicable planning documents or regulations. Impacts identified "Less than Significant" were discussed and because of their significance level, the provision of mitigation was not required. An in-depth analysis of potential impacts follows for those impacts identified as "Potentially Significant."
The impact analyzed is the build out of the proposed General Plan, not the difference between the existing setting and build out of the proposed General Plan. For air quality impacts, however, the difference between the existing setting and build out is discussed for construction impacts.
Following the impact analysis, a list of the proposed General Plan Policies relevant to each specific issue area is provided. Following this listing of proposed General Plan policies, a discussion of the effectiveness of the policies contained in the proposed General Plan to reduce environmental impacts is provided. Where the proposed General Plan policies did not provide adequate mitigation for potentially significant impacts, measures have been proposed to mitigate any potential impacts of the proposed General Plan.
Further, following preparation of the Draft EIR, changes were made to the policies and land use designations of the proposed General Plan. An additional discussion has been added to each impact analysis and other places within the EIR where appropriate that describes the effect, if any, these changes to the proposed General Plan have had on the analysis, conclusions, and significance of each impact.
A concluding statement as to whether implementation of the proposed General Plan policies and mitigation will reduce the proposed General Plan's impacts to a level that is less than significant is provided following the identification of mitigation measures.
4.2 Land Use/Agricultural Resources
4.2.1 Land Use/Agricultural Resources Existing Setting
The existing setting is summarized from the information contained within Sections 2.1 and 4.4 of the Riverside County Existing Setting Report prepared for the Riverside County General Plan (incorporated by reference).
Existing land use within Riverside County is a mosaic of varying types of uses, ownerships, character, and intensity. Figure 4.2.1 identifies generalized 1998 land use throughout Riverside County. This figure defines land uses into six broad categories (Residential, Commercial, Industrial/Office, Open Space, Public and Other), which are further divided in the underlying land use database into 19 land use classifications which more precisely describe land uses within each category.
Approximately 288 square miles of land are currently devoted to residential use in Riverside County, nearly 57 percent of which are within incorporated cities. Commercial land uses account for 15,675 acres of land within the County. A majority of this commercial land is located within cities, and is clustered along, adjacent to, or near major transportation routes, including SR-91, I-15, I-215, SR-60, SR-74, I-10, and SR-111. A total of over 24,000 acres are devoted to industrial uses, which may include heavy industry, warehousing, and mineral extraction. With the exception of land devoted to mineral extraction, (89 percent of which is within unincorporated territories), the majority of industrial land is located within the cities of Riverside County. Owing to the County's collection of physical, biological, and historical resources, a vast amount of land (1,313,073 acres or 28 percent of the County total) is in open space use, and provides for recreation, agriculture, scientific opportunity, and wild land preservation. A variety of public lands exist within Riverside County, and these lands are managed by a multitude of local, County, State, and federal agencies. Approximately 106 square miles of land are devoted to various public facilities (utilities, schools, government offices, police and fire facilities, correctional facilities, military installations, museums, convention centers, libraries, theater facilities, rehabilitation facilities, short-and long-term custodial facilities, cemeteries, etc.) through the County. More detailed descriptions of existing land uses are provided in Sections 2.2.1 through 2.2.3 of the Existing Setting Report.
Existing (1998) land use is summarized in Table 4.2.A, which identifies land uses within the County as a whole, cities and unincorporated areas, as well as the distribution of land uses between cities and unincorporated areas. As shown in this table, the majority of land within Riverside County has not been developed. Vacant and open lands are predominant in the eastern desert areas. Large areas of steep slopes and lands managed by State and Federal agencies also accounts for the predominance of open lands within the County.
| Table 4.2.A Distribution of Existing Land Use Cities and Unincorporated Areas |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Countywide (acres) |
Unincorporated (acres) |
Within Cities (acres) |
|
| Residential | 184,371 | 80,035 | 104,335 |
| Rural Residential | 42,989 | 38,171 | 4,817 |
| Single Family Detached | 104,295 | 32,525 | 71,770 |
| Attached Dwelling Units | 26,925 | 4,335 | 22,589 |
| High Density | 67 | 7 | 60 |
| Mobile Homes | 10,092 | 4,995 | 5,096 |
| Commercial | 15,67 | 2,420 | 13,254 |
| Retail/Office | 13,530 | 1,798 | 11,731 |
| Tourist/Commercial Recreation | 2,144 | 621 | 1,523 |
| Industrial | 24,660 | 15,216 | 9,443 |
| Light Ind./Business Park | 7,496 | 1,578 | 5,918 |
| Heavy Industrial | 457 | 346 | 110 |
| Mineral Extraction | 11,760 | 10,416 | 1,344 |
| Warehouse | 4,945 | 2,875 | 2,070 |
| Recreation/Open Space | 1,263,273 | 1,162,626 | 100,645 |
| Natural | 7,132 | 5,981 | 1,151 |
| Natural (Reserve) | 54,386 | 51,489 | 2,896 |
| Natural (USFS) | 775,987 | 773,834 | 2,151 |
| Recreation | 26,967 | 9,489 | 17,477 |
| Agriculture | 339,261 | 266,926 | 72,335 |
| Water | 59,537 | 54,904 | 4,633 |
| Public Facilities | 67,908 | 36,963 | 30,944 |
| Utilities | 54,502 | 32,117 | 22,385 |
| Other Public Facilities | 5,579 | 3,139 | 2,440 |
| Schools | 7,828 | 1,707 | 6,118 |
| Vacant | 3,071,672 | 2,869,430 | 202,242,67 |
| Other | 311 | 214 | 96 |
| TOTAL | 4,627,871 | 4,166,908 | 460,962 |
Specific Plans
A specific plan is a combined policy statement and implementation tool that can be used to address a single project such as infill development or large multiple use projects. As a result, emphasis is on concrete standards and development criteria in the review of subsequent site plans. The California Government Code (Section 65450) permits the use of specific plans to regulate site development, including permitted uses, density, building size, and building placement. Specific plans are predominantly used in the development of multi-use planned communities. Specific plans also govern the type and extent of open space, landscaping, roadway configuration, and the provision of infrastructure and utilities. Since the development guidelines established in a specific plan focus on the unique needs and characteristics of a specific area, specific plans allow for greater flexibility than is possible with conventional zoning.
In unincorporated Riverside County, 77 76 specific plans had been approved at the time the Existing Setting Report was drafted (Tables 4.2.B and 4.2.C). Specific plans have continued to be approved by the County since 1998. The size of approved specific plans range from a specific plan for a 25-acre commercial center (No. 177, Plaza del Sol near Sun City) to specific plans such as the Eagle Mountain Landfill Specific Plan (No. 305). The location of adopted specific plans is shown in Figure 2.5 of the Existing Setting Document. In 1998, specific plans encompassed 65,470 acres (or 1.4%) of unincorporated Riverside County, clustered primarily in the western and southwestern portions of the County.
| Table 4.2.B Riverside County Specific Plan Developments - February 2003 |
||
|---|---|---|
| Specific Plan | Maximum Dwelling Units | Built Dwelling Units |
| "A" Street Corridor | - | - |
| Highland Springs | 1,630 | 993 |
| Dutch Village | 1,500 | 658 |
| Mission Lakes | 2,358 | 369 |
| Frank Domeno | 71 | - |
| Tract Map | 4437 310 | 259 |
| The Farm | 1,934 | 952 |
| Mission De Anza | 3,458 | 2,249 |
| Red Mountain | 49 | 48 |
| Sky Country | 1,159 | 1,159 |
| Republic | 452 | 216 |
| El Niño | 203 | 155 |
| Sky Mesa | 112 | 92 |
| River City | 461 | - |
| Newport Estates | 856 | - |
| Lake Hills | 1,757 | 1,012 |
| North Star Ranch | 1,666 | - |
| Horsethief Canyon | 2,132 | 1,959 |
| Menifee Village | 5,254 | 2,742 |
| Green River Meadows | 507 | 507 |
| Walker Basin | 1,444 | - |
| Riverview Ranch | 172 | - |
| Wild Rose | 1,181 | 1,013 |
| Four Seasons | 896 | 896 |
| Rancho Nuevo | 508 | - |
| Rancho Bella Vista | 1,998 | 1,137 |
| Countryside | 1,154 | - |
| Belle Meadows | 141 | - |
| Cal Neva | 1,670 | 676 |
| Audie Murphy Ranch | 3,596 | - |
| Agua Mansa | 376 | - |
| Andreas Cove | - | - |
| Mesa Grande | 200 | - |
| Winchester Properties | 2,669 | 1,462 |
| Redhawk | 4,188 | 1,792 |
| Coral Mountain | 1,360 | - |
| Mountain Springs | 1,571 | 392 |
| Woodcrest Country Club | 310 | - |
| Centerpointe | 280 | - |
| HB Ranches | 1,421 | - |
| Adams 34 Ranch | 939 | - |
| Crown Valley Village | 591 | - |
| Stoneridge | 2,236 | - |
| Rio Vista | 1,687 | - |
| Preissman | 3,088 | - |
| Menifee East | 1,283 | - |
| Newport Hub | - | - |
| Gateway Center | 553 | - |
| Lakeview Nuevo | 185 | - |
| Sycamore Creek | 1,733 | - |
| Menifee North | 2,388 | 5 |
| Arbor Creek Estates | 56 | - |
| Borel Airpark | - | - |
| I-15 Corridor | 2,400 | 283 |
| Victoria Grove | 1,144 | 450 |
| Canyon Heights | 775 | - |
| Del Webb | 5,075 | 4,095 |
| Canyon Cove | 485 | - |
| Quinta Do Lago | 1,318 | 291 |
| Winchester 1800 | 5,196 | 486 |
| The Crossroads at Winchester | 795 | - |
| Winchester Hills | 5,633 | - |
| Alta Cresta Ranch | 3,438 | - |
| Eastvale | 2,769 | 1,635 |
| Menifee Ranch | 4,067 | - |
| Kohl Ranch | 7,171 | - |
| Eagle Mountain | - | - |
| Eagle Mountain Townsite | 432 | - |
| Gavilan Hills Golf Course | - | - |
| Domenigoni-Barton | 4,600 | - |
| French Valley | 1,793 | - |
| Morgan Hill | 1,129 | - |
| The Retreat | 545 | - |
| Oak Valley | 4,356 | - |
| BSA Properties | 421 | - |
| Spring Mountain Ranches | 1,518 | - |
| Table 4.2.C - Proposed Specific Plans In Riverside County | |
|---|---|
| Proposed Specific Plan | Dwelling Units in Proposal |
| Dutch Village | 1,450 |
| Dutch Village | 1,550 |
| Walker Basin | 77 |
| Audie Murphy | 2,129 |
| Mesa Grande | 499 |
| Menifee North | 2,677 |
| Canyon Heights | 439 |
| Winchester 1800 | 4,870 |
| Gavilan Hills | 644 |
| The Highlands | 1,440 |
| Sierra Highlands | 65 |
| Murrieta Hills | 1,879 |
| Vail Lake | 5,172 |
| McAllister Hills | 321 |
| Victoria Grove East | 1,345 |
| Temescal Hills | 1,800 |
| Creekside | 1,312 |
| Springbrook Estates | 1,000 |
| Eastvale 2 | 473 |
Agriculture
In terms of dollar value, agriculture is today the largest industry in Riverside County, providing employment for a significant portion of the County's population. Currently, agriculture faces continuing pressure from urbanization, foreign competition, and rising production costs. Despite these pressures, those areas which remain in agricultural production represent a significant open space and economic resource for the County. As defined by State and federal agencies, the various important agricultural lands throughout unincorporated Riverside County area are identified in Figure 4.2.2.
The existing Riverside County General Plan defines productive agricultural lands as land "which is involved in a long-term, substantial investment to agricultural use, and which has a long-term economic viability for agricultural use." Some of the factors affecting the economic viability of these areas include weather, water prices, crop selection, management techniques, commodity prices, new technology, and proximity of developed lands. The total gross valuation of agricultural crops in the County in 2001 1997 was$1,087,920,000.$1,124,908,400. This amount represents an increase of $76,346,800 over the 2000 gross value. Although this represents a$53.9 million decrease from 1996 crop values, Within the Southern California region, the total value of agricultural production in the Riverside County is exceeded only by San Diego County. Statewide, Riverside County is ranked ninth in the value its agricultural production. Riverside County is the leading agricultural county in Southern California.
Agricultural statistics are maintained by the County in four districts: Riverside/ Corona, San Jacinto/Temecula Valley, Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley. The Coachella Valley District recorded highest valuation in non-livestock related agricultural production, followed by the San Jacinto/Temecula Valley District alo Verde Valley District, the Palo Verde Valley District San Jacinto/Temecula Valley District, and the Riverside/Corona District (Table 4.2.B 4.2.D).
| Table 4.2.D - Crop Valuation (in millions) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | |
| Riverside/Corona | $29.0 | $38.4 | $31.5 | $31.2 | $49.70 |
| San Jacinto/Temecula Valley | $97.8 | $112.0 | $94.4 | $102.3 | $138.8 |
| Coachella Valley | $331.7 | $398.1 | $427.6 | $324.7 | $450.7 |
| Palo Verde Valley | $102.9 | $92.0 | $90.4 | $93.9 | $99.0 |
| County Total | $561.4 | $640.5 | $643.9 | $552.1 | $738.2 |
| Note: Crop valuations do no include the value of livestock and poultry produced in the County. Source: Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. | |||||
Existing Policies and Regulations
Land Use
LAFCO The broad mission of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Riverside County is to provide for an orderly pattern of growth that reconciles the varied needs of the County. One of the fundamental principles of LAFCO is to ensure the establishment of an appropriate and logical municipal government structure for the distribution of efficient and appropriate public services. LAFCO Land Use Objectives include:
• The discouragement of urban sprawl;
• The preservation of the physical and economic integrity of agricultural lands;
• The preservation of open space within urban development patterns;
• The orderly formation and development of agencies by shaping local agency boundaries;
• The minimization of agencies providing services to a given area; and
• The utilization of Spheres of Influence to guide future development of agency boundaries.
Agriculture
Williamson Act Land Preserves In 1965, The California Land Conservation Act, also known as the Williamson Act, was adopted. This voluntary program allows property owners to have their property assessed on the basis of its agricultural production rather than at the current market value. The property owner is thus relieved of having to pay higher property taxes, as long as the land remains in agricultural production. The purpose of the Act is to encourage property owners to continue to farm their land, and to prevent the premature conversion of farmland to urban uses. Participation requires that the area consist of 100 contiguous acres of agricultural land under one or more ownerships.
Upon approval of an application by the Board of Supervisors, the agricultural preserve is established, and the land within the preserve is restricted to agricultural and compatible uses for 10 years. Williamson Act contracts are automatically renewed annually for an additional one-year period, unless the property owner applies for non-renewal or early cancellation. The Williamson Act also contains limited provisions for cancellation of contracts. Specific findings regarding the non-viability of the agricultural use must be made, and a substantial penalty for the cancellation is assessed.
Important Farmlands Important farmland maps are compiled by the California Department of Conservation (CDC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), pursuant to the provisions of Section 65570 of the California Government Code. These maps utilize data from the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey and current land use information using eight mapping categories and represent an inventory of agricultural resources within Riverside County. The maps depict currently urbanized lands and a qualitative sequence of agricultural designations. Maps and statistics are produced biannually using a process which integrates aerial photo interpretation, field mapping, a computerized mapping system, and public review.
Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, California Government Code 56377 Policies of the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO):
Through its responsibilities to govern the approval of annexations and Spheres of Influence, LAFCO considers soil quality and the availability of irrigation water when assessing the impacts of annexation proposals on agricultural land. LAFCO policies direct that development or use of land for other than open space shall be guided away from existing prime agricultural lands, unless that action would not promote the planned, orderly, efficient development of an area.
County of Riverside Ordinance No. 509 This ordinance establishes uniform rules which apply to agricultural preserves.
4.2.2 Land Use/Agricultural Resources Thresholds of Significance
The proposed General Plan would result in a significant land use impact if it:
Land Use
• Creates adverse changes in the functional role and/or predominant pattern of uses within a geographical area;
• Results in an intensification of development density that results in a negative change of an area's character;
• Results in an incremental loss of open space;
• Physically divides an established community; or
• Conflicts with any applicable airport land use plan, habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
Agriculture
The proposed General Plan would result in a significant agriculture impact if it:
• Results in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources agency, to non-agricultural use;
• Conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract;
• Involves other changes in the existing environment which, due to its location or nature, could result in conversion of Prime, Unique, or Statewide Important Farmland to non-agricultural use; or
• Expose future residents to nuisances associated with agricultural operations or expose farms to nuisances associated with urban uses.
4.2.3 Land Use/Agricultural Resources Impacts and Mitigation
Less than Significant Impacts
The following are in less than significant impacts associated with the proposed General Plan.
Physically Divide an Established Community
Analysis of Impact Unique settings, features, and communities are identified within each Area Plan. Where applicable, Policy Areas have been designated within Area Plans. These Policy Areas are important locales that have special significance to the residents of the County, or will have when their development potential is realized. The physical arrangement of proposed land use designations within unincorporated lands is proposed to be changed with implementation of the proposed General Plan. The proposed General Plan is designed to protect existing communities. The proposed General Plan (including the Area Plans) will guide where and in what manner future development will occur. Because the proposed General Plan (in general) and each Area Plan (specifically) provide policies reflective of the unique combination of conditions in each Area Plan, implementation of the proposed General Plan will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of any established communities. No significant impact related to this issue will occur.
Conflict with any Applicable Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan
Analysis of Impact Policies aimed at protecting biological resources are contained in the proposed General Plan. These policies acknowledge existing habitat conservation plans within the County and ensure that land use plans be consistent with the provisions of applicable conservation plans, including the Habitat Conservation Plan for the Stephen's kangaroo rat. Because the proposed General Plan includes policies accommodating existing habitat conservation and natural community conservation plans within the County, no significant impact associated with this issue will occur upon implementation of the proposed General Plan.
Conflict with any Regional Plan
Analysis of Impact. CEQA Guidelines, Section 15125(d), requires that any inconsistencies between a regionally significant project and regional plans be discussed. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) regional plans cover the proposed project area and five other counties in Southern California. SCAG's regional plans that require a consistency determination include the Regional Comprehensive Plan and the Regional Transportation Plan administered by SCAG. Discussions of the proposed General Plan's consistency with these two plans is included in Section 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 (respectively) of this EIR.
Airport Land Use Plans
Analysis of Impact Eight public-use general aviation airports are currently in use within unincorporated areas of Riverside County. The characteristics of these airports - Flabob Airport, French Valley Airport, Hemet-Ryan Airport, Bermuda Dunes Airport, Desert Resorts Regional Airport, Chiriaco Summit Airport, Desert Center Airport, and Blythe Airport - are summarized in Section 3.2.5.2 of the Riverside County Existing Setting Report. Additionally, March Air Reserve Base (MARB) (formerly March Air Force Base), located between the Cities of Moreno Valley, Perris, and Riverside, accommodates both military aircraft and civilian aircraft. Runway 14-32 at MARB is one of the longest civilian runways in Southern California at 13,300 feet. While located within the incorporated limits of the City of Palm Springs, Palm Springs International Airport serves both general aviation and commercial aircraft. The primary runway (Runway 13R-31L) measures 8,500 feet long and 75 feet wide. This airport provides many navigational aides to approaching aircraft and is overseen by the airports traffic control tower and terminal approach control facility. Unincorporated areas are further influenced by flight operations at air facilities located in incorporated cities including: Corona Municipal Air (Corona), Chino Airport (Chino, San Bernardino County), Sklylark Airport (Lake Elsinore), Riverside Municipal Airport (Riverside), and Banning Municipal Airport (Banning).
Airports in Riverside County provide an important function for passengers as well as for local and regional economies. Future population increases will create an additional demand for air transportation. The State of California has adopted the Airport Land Use Law (Public Utilities Code, §21670-21679.5) in order to ensure the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards. The proposed General Plan is intended to implement and be consistent with the purposes of the Airport Land Use Law. The Airport Land Use Law provides for the creation of the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and the adoption of airport land use compatibility plans by the Commission to assist the County and affected cities in land use planning in the vicinity of public use airports located in the County. The Commission has adopted land use compatibility plans.
The Riverside Airport Land Use Commission has established guidelines for use in comprehensive land use planning within airport influence areas. These guidelines are intended to provide a common approach for identifying potential areas of incompatibility and for establishing land use criteria at each of the County's airports. While providing a basis for common analytical approach, the guidelines allow for some flexibility in making specific determinations related to airport-specific land use issues.
Under the proposed General Plan, economic development and population growth will continue to increase, requiring the construction of additional places of business and housing. As the land suitable for development becomes increasingly scarce, urban development may be forced to exploit land occur adjacent to airports. Such encroaching development may result in conflicts between new development and the goals and policies outlined in local Airport Land Use Plans.
Aircraft noise is often the most disturbing environmental impact associated with the operation of an airport. Legislative bodies have developed programs and guidelines to promote aircraft noise abatement and compatible development within noise-impacted areas.
Airport height restrictions are required for two reasons. The first is to protect the public health, safety and welfare by ensuring that aircraft can fly safely in the airspace around an airport. Secondly, height limitations are required to protect the operating capability of airports; thereby, preserving an important component of the State's transportation system.
In addition to the discussion of airports provided in the proposed General Plan , specific areas influenced by airports, located in the County and/or in adjacent cities, are identified in the proposed Area Plans. Area Plans which identify specific areas influenced by airports provide policies to protect flight paths and minimize impacts to residents and employees within that area. These policies provided in the Area Plans are consistent with and support policies identified in the proposed General Plan.
Any new development within the General Plan area proposed within two miles of an airport will utilize the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics' Airport Land Use Planning Handbook as a resource in the preparation of environmental documents.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan includes the following policies to reduce or minimize the effects of future development on adjacent airport land use plans. The effectiveness of the policies at reducing the effect of direct and indirect impacts that may result in land use conflicts with airport land use plans is analyzed below. Implementation of the proposed General Plan policies related to airport land use plans would reduce the effects of future development encroaching upon land adjacent to airports.
Land Use Policy 1.9 As required by the Airport Land Use Law, submit certain proposed actions to the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission for review. Such actions includes proposed amendments to the general plan, areas plans, or specific plans, as well as proposed revisions to the zoning ordinance and building codes.
Land Use Policy 14.1 Allow airport facilities to continue operating in order to meet existing and future needs respecting potential noise and safety impacts.
Land Use Policy 14.2 Minimize impacts to those areas surrounding airports by careful planning, including compliance with the following:
a. Airport Land Use Plan for Riverside County;
b. Comprehensive Land Use Plan for adjacent airports; and
c. Relevant Area Plans.
Review all proposed projects and require consistency with any applicable airport land use compatibility plan as set forth in Appendix L and as summarized in the Area Plan's Airport Influence Area section for the airport in question.
Land Use Policy 14.3 Review all subsequent amendments to any airport land use compatibility plan and either adopt the plan as amended or overrule the Airport Land Use Commission as provided by law (Government Code Section 65302.3).
Land Use Policy 14.4 Prior to the adoption or amendment of this General Plan or any specific plan, or the adoption or amendment of a zoning ordinance or building regulation within the planning boundary of any airport land use compatibility plan, refer such proposed actions for determination and processing as provided by the Airport Land Use Law.
Land Use Policy 14.5 Allow the use of development clustering and/or density transfers to meet airport compatibility requirements as set forth in the applicable airport land use compatibility plan.
Land Use Policy 14.6 In accordance with FAA criteria, avoid locating sanitary landfills and other land uses that are artificial attractors of birds within 10,000 feet of any runway used by turbine-powered aircraft and within 5,000 feet of other runways. Also avoid locating attractors of other wildlife that can be hazardous to aircraft operations in locations adjacent to airports.
Land Use Policy 14.7 Ensure that no structures or activities encroach upon or adversely affect the use of navigable airspace.
Land Use Policy 14.8 ADVISORY REVIEWS: The County may from time to time elect to voluntarily submit proposed actions or projects that are not otherwise required to be submitted to the ALUC under the Airport Land Use Law in the following circumstances:
a. Clarification: If there is a question as to the purpose, intent or interpretation of an airport land use compatibility plan (CLUP) or its provisions; or
b. Advisory: If assistance is needed concerning a proposed action or project relating to Airport Land Use matters.
Land Use Policy 14.9 All development proposals within an Airport Influence Area will be submitted to the affected airport.
Circulation Policy 14.1 Ensure the development of appropriate land uses near County airports, as specified in the Riverside County Airport Land Use Plan. Promote coordinated long-range planning between the County, airport authorities, businesses and the public to meet the County and the region's aviation needs.
Circulation Policy 14.2 Implement and maintain Airport Land Use Plans for public use airports to address compatible land use designations, noise issues, environmental impacts and safety considerations within and adjacent to each airport facility. Apply a variety of land use planning techniques to maintain the viability of the County's airports.
Circulation Policy 14.3 Enforce federal and state regulations related to land use planning around airport facilities with the cooperation of the County Economic Development Agency. Encourage the use of noise-reducing flight procedures for airplanes and helicopters, such as maintaining flight altitudes or using flight patterns that avoid noise-sensitive neighborhoods to the extent permitted by Federal Aviation Administration regulations.
Circulation Policy 14.4 Recognize and support policies contained in the March Joint Powers Authority General Plan, the Desert Resorts Regional Airport Plan, and the Inland Ground Access Plan.
Circulation Policy 14.5 Encourage the use of noise-reducing flight procedures for airplanes and helicopters, such as maintaining flight altitudes or using flight patterns that avoid noise-sensitive neighborhoods.
Effectiveness of Proposed General Plan Policies Implementation of the proposed General Plan policies related to land uses adjacent to airports would reduce the effects of future growth and development within the County anticipated under the proposed General Plan. Because the proposed General Plan and Area Plan policies mandate compliance with applicable requirements outlined in various airport land use plans, potential impacts resulting from development adjacent to or within airport land use plan areas would be reduced to a less than significant level. No further mitigation is required.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have resulted in the inclusion of additional policies pertaining to airport land use. However, these policies all serve to increase the level of compatibility between airport land use plans and the surrounding land uses. None of the policies would result in a conflict between future growth and airport land use. Thus, no changes to the analysis and conclusions pertaining to this topic are necessary.
Potentially Significant Impacts
Land Use
The following impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed General Plan were evaluated and considered potentially significant without mitigation.
Impact 4.2.1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan would alter the amount of land designated for community development, rural, and open space uses. Changes in the pattern of land uses would result in the development of structures or facilities within areas that are currently undeveloped. Relative to adjacent land uses, this intensification of development may contribute to or create significant land use impacts.
Analysis of Impact One of the primary purposes of land use planning is the generation of a land use plan that represents the County's vision of the future. The proposed General Plan categorizes land uses into one of five four Foundation Components (Agriculture, Rural, Rural Community, Open Space, and Community Development). The General Plan Foundation Components describe the overall nature and intent of each of the four proposed General Plan land uses, yet are general in nature and do not determine the specific land use on individual properties. Land uses are further divided into the 19 Area Plans and the remaining unincorporated areas. Each Area Plan contains guidelines for development, the implementation of which, will ensure compatibility between various land uses. Parcel-specific land uses are located on the individual Area Plan land use maps. The Area Plan land use designations are further divided into a second tier of land uses and include 30 land use designations, five land use overlays, and three Policy Area Overlays. Each land use designation contains specific descriptions of allowable uses and development standards. The Foundation Components are further divided into 24 Area Plan Land Use Designations. Each of the 24 land use designations establish specific requirements governing development permitted within each land use designation. Parcel-specific land uses are located on the individual Area Plan land use maps. The proposed General Plan establishes 19 Area Plans, which, when combined, encompass the whole of western Riverside County and significant portions of eastern Riverside County. Each Area Plan contains guidelines for development, the implementation of which, will ensure compatibility between various land uses.
Direct Impacts
Development of the land uses in the proposed General Plan is dependent upon a number of variables, including site-specific constraints and market forces. Maximum development would occur in instances where a proposed project provides public amenities or benefits. Potential land use compatibility impacts will be determined on a case-bycase basis as development occurs. The intent of the proposed General Plan policies is to provide guidance regarding compatibility, including reducing negative impacts on adjacent uses and the sensitive siting and design of uses. To ensure that land use compatibility issues are limited or reduced, development will be subject to the policies outlined in the proposed General Plan, other County standards, applicable provisions of State law (including CEQA), and Federal law.
The amount of land and the distribution or pattern of land use envisioned under the proposed General Plan has been altered from that which currently exists. An analysis of County-wide land use undertaken during preparation of the Riverside County Existing Setting Report, revealed that approximately 3.7 million acres of vacant land, 29,639 acres of "Natural", 269,012 acres of "Agriculture", and 10,777 acres of "Recreation-Open Space" were scattered throughout the County. Land identified as "vacant" during the 1999 existing land use analysis consisted of undeveloped parcels located within developed areas, desert and mountainous areas, and abandoned vineyards, orchards, and agricultural areas. "Vacant" land was designated as such regardless of its underlying land use designation, status (e.g., public or private), or level of protection (e.g., habitat reserve, National Forest, BLM wilderness area, etc.). The approximate 4.0 million acres of "Vacant", "Natural", "Agriculture" and "Recreation-Open Space" land included areas located within the National Forests, reserve lands, tribal lands, water bodies, and other areas where development would not generally be permitted. By removing the acreage devoted to these uses from the approximate 4.0 million acre total, the amount of land available for development was identified. Approximately 2.64 million acres of "undeveloped" land was identified as available for development in unincorporated areas County-wide. Of the 4.0 million acre total, a balance of approximately 1.36 million acres were designated for open or natural space use.
Because the land use designations utilized in the 1999 land use analysis and the proposed General Plan land use are not synonymous, a precise comparison of the amount or distribution of various land uses is not possible. The following discussion details existing conditions and identifies increases in the amount land designated for specific uses that will occur upon implementation of the proposed General Plan.
Residential
Under the proposed General Plan, approximately 2.48 million acres are designated as to allow some form of residential development. The overwhelming majority (1.94 million acres) of this is land designated "Open Space Rural," which allows development of rural residential uses on lots with a minimum size of 20 acres.
Under the Community Development Foundation Component, the proposed General Plan envisions the development of 126,166 acres of residential uses under a variety of densities. Currently, residential uses (excluding "rural" residential) occupy 41,862 acres within unincorporated Riverside County. Compared to the existing uses, build out of the proposed General Plan would expand the amount of land utilized for non-rural residential development by 84,304 acres.
Currently, "rural" residential uses occupy 38,171 acres throughout unincorporated Riverside County. Under the Rural Foundation Component, the construction of residential uses would be permitted on up to 326,294 acres of land under the proposed Rural Residential, Rural Desert, and Rural Mountainous designations. These residential uses would be permitted on lots minimally sized at 5 acres (Rural Residential) or 10 acres (Rural Desert and Rural Mountainous). Residential development within the Rural Community Foundation Component (which includes residential land uses and the Rural Village Overlay/Rural Village Study Overlay - both of which incorporate higher density and commercial uses) would be permitted on up to 87,076 acres. Of this acreage, 2,290 acres are Rural Village Overlay and 7,620 are Rural Village Study Overlay.
Additionally, under the Open Space Foundation component, the "Open Space Rural" designation would permit the development of residential uses on approximately 1.94 million acres. Residential uses developed under this land use designation could occur on lots minimally sized at 20 acres. The 1999 land use analysis did not identify underlying land use on "vacant" lands; it is not possible to determine if the amount of land under this designation increased, decreased, or remained the same.
Residential uses (excluding Rural Residential) presently occupy 41,684 acres within unincorporated Riverside County. Under the proposed General Plan, 112,389 acres of land that is currently undeveloped would be permitted to develop with residential uses of various densities. Combined with residential uses that have already been constructed and occupied, full build out of the proposed General Plan would result in the development of residential uses on 125,876 acres throughout unincorporated County areas. Implementation of the proposed General Plan would increase the acreage dedicated to residential uses by 84,183 acres1 .
Existing Rural Residential uses occupy 38,171 acres. Under the proposed General Plan, the construction of residential uses would be permitted on 306,593 acres of "undeveloped" land under the proposed Rural Residential, Rural Desert, and Rural Mountainous designations (not including the Rural Community component, which is discussed below), increasing the total amount land designated Countywide for Rural residential uses to 328,356 acres. This amount represents a Countywide increase of 290,185 acres beyond the existing condition.
Additionally, the proposed General Plan would permit the development of residential uses on 1.94 million acres of land under the proposed Open Space-Rural designation. Development of residential uses under this designation consists of one single-family dwelling unit on a minimally sized 20-acre lot. Because the 1999 land use analysis did not identify underlying land use on "vacant" lands, it is not possible to determine if the amount of land under this designation increased, decreased, or remained the same.
Commercial
Existing commercial uses occupy 2,420 acres within unincorporated Riverside County. Under the proposed General Plan, 20,604 acres of land that are currently undeveloped would be permitted to develop with Commercial-Retail, Commercial-Office, Commercial-Tourist, and Business Park uses. This acreage includes 374 acres within the Business Park Overlay. Implementation of the proposed General Plan would increase (over existing uses) the amount of land dedicated to commercial uses by 18,1840 acres.
Existing commercial uses occupy 2,420 acres within unincorporated Riverside County. Under the proposed General Plan, 9,445 acres of land that is currently undeveloped would be permitted to develop with Commercial-Retail, Commercial-Office, and Commercial-Tourist uses. When combined; existing commercial uses, and land within developed and "undeveloped" areas designated for commercial uses, would, at full build out of the proposed General Plan, total 14,538 acres throughout unincorporated County areas. Implementation of the proposed General Plan would increase the acreage dedicated to commercial uses by 12,118 over existing conditions.
1 Differences in the additional amount of developable land and total amount of land designated for the various uses may result from the redesignation of land on which development has already occurred. For example, an area that is presently designated as "residential" but is located within a predominantly commercial area, may be redesignated as "commercial" in the proposed General Plan.
Industrial
Combined, the proposed General Plan designates 30,478 acres for industrial (21,818 acres) or mineral extraction (8,660 acres) uses.
Existing heavy industrial uses occupy 346 acres within unincorporated Riverside County. Under the proposed General Plan, 2,059 acres of land are designated for heavy industrial uses. As compared to existing conditions, build out of the proposed General Plan would increase the acreage dedicated to heavy industrial uses by 1,713 acres. Light Industrial-Business Park and Warehouse uses occupy 4,453 acres throughout unincorporated County areas. Approximately 19,759 acres are designated to be developed with Light Industrial uses under the proposed General Plan. The area devoted to Light Industrial uses would increase by 15,306 acres over that which currently exists. Mineral extraction uses currently operate on 10,416 acres. Under the proposed General Plan, the amount of land designated for mineral extraction uses (under the Open Space-Mineral Extraction designation) would total 8,660 acres, a decrease of 1,756 acres.
Existing heavy industrial uses occupy 346 acres within unincorporated Riverside County. Under the proposed General Plan, 1,425 acres of land that is currently undeveloped would be permitted to develop with heavy industrial uses. When combined; existing heavy industrial land uses, and land within developed and "undeveloped" areas designated for heavy industrial uses, would, at full build out of the proposed General Plan total 2,058 acres throughout unincorporated County areas. Implementation of the proposed General Plan would increase the acreage dedicated to industrial uses by 1,712 acres over existing conditions.
Light Industrial-Business Park and Warehouse uses occupy 4,453 acres throughout unincorporated County areas. Approximately 20,579 acres of "undeveloped" land are designated to be developed with Light Industrial and Business Park (including Business Park Overlay) uses under the proposed General Plan. At build out, the amount of Light Industrial and Business Park uses permitted under the proposed General Plan totals 24,802 acres, and increase of 20,349 acres beyond that which currently exists.
Open Space
Under existing conditions, approximately 2.64 million acres of undeveloped land (out of approximately 4.0 million acres) have been designated for the development of residential, commercial, industrial, or public facility uses. Approximately 1.36 million acres would remain designated for natural or open space uses. The Open Space-Conservation, Open Space-Conservation Habitat, Open Space-Recreation, and Open Space-Water designations outlined in the proposed General Plan encompass approximately 1,352,309 acres of land within unincorporated areas of the County. Implementation of the proposed General Plan would, therefore, result in a slight decrease (approximately 7,691 acres) in the amount of designated open/natural space.
Under existing conditions, approximately 2.64 million acres of undeveloped land (out of approximately 4.0 million acres) have been designated for the development of residential, commercial, industrial, or public facility uses. Approximately 1.36 million acres would remain designated for natural or open space uses. The Open Space-Conservation, Open Space-Conservation Habitat, and Open Space-Mineral Resource, Open Space-Recreation, and Open Space-Water designations outlined in the proposed General Plan, encompass approximately 1,361,747 acres of land within unincorporated areas of the County. Implementation of the proposed General Plan would, therefore, result in approximately the same amount of designated open/natural space.
Agriculture
Changes in the amount of agricultural land are addressed in discussion under Impact 4.2.2 (follows).
Community Center
The proposed General Plan includes the new land use designation, "Community Center," which will include a combination of small-lot single- and multi-family residences, commercial retail, office and business park uses, civic uses, transit facilities, and recreational open space within a unified planned development. The Community Center designation will permit the planned development of large areas, allowing land use compatibility issues to be identified and addressed before they occur. Under the proposed General Plan, 721 acres have been assigned the Community Center designation. Additionally, several areas have been designated as Community Center Overlay (approximately 3,096 acres). These areas have the potential to be developed as either Community Center or as the underlying land use designation.
The proposed General Plan includes the new land use designation, "Community Center," which will include a combination of small-lot single- and multi-family residences, commercial retail, office and business park uses, civic uses, transit facilities, and recreational open space within a unified planned development. The Community Center designation will permit the planned development of large area, allowing land use compatibility issues to be identified and addressed before they occur. Under the proposed General Plan, 721 2,821 acres have been assigned the Community Center designation.
Additionally, several areas have been designated as Community Center Overlay (approximately 2,874 acres). These areas have the potential to be developed as either Community Center or as the underlying land use designation.
Rural Community
The proposed General Plan includes the Rural Community Foundation Component, which includes residential land uses and the Rural Village Overlay/Rural Village Study Overlay (both of which incorporate higher density and commercial uses). Approximately 76,447 acres are included in the Rural Community component, of which 2,290 are Rural Village Overlay and 7,619 are Rural Village Study Overlay.
Indirect Impacts
The proposed General Plan will accommodate and guide the growth anticipated to occur within the unincorporated areas of the County. The construction and occupation of structures and facilities as permitted under the proposed General Plan may result in conflicts and/or incompatibilities with existing land or between proposed land uses. The indirect impacts associated with land use compatibility (e.g., noise, traffic, air quality, light and glare, impacts to adjacent natural areas, etc.) are discussed in greater detail in respective sections of this document.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan includes the following policies to reduce or minimize potential adverse impacts that may result from alterations to the extent or distribution of land uses within unincorporated areas of the County. The proposed General Plan also includes Community Center Guidelines (Appendix J of the General Plan) to complement and reinforce policies identified in the proposed General Plan. The effectiveness of the policies at reducing the effect of direct and indirect impacts that may result from changes in land use designation, changes in the amount of a particular land use, or changes to the extent or distribution of a specific land use is analyzed below. As the proposed General Plan policies will provide adequate assurance that potential land use impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level, no additional mitigation is required.
Land Use Element Policy 1.1 Allow for the continued occupancy, operation, and maintenance of legal uses and structures that exist at the time of the adoption of the General Plan and become non-conforming due to uses, density, and/or development requirements.
Land Use Element Policy 1.2 Encourage existing non-conforming uses to transition into conformance with the new land use designation and/or policy.
Land Use Element Policy 1.3 Coordinate planning activities within the sphere-of-influence areas with the respective cities and LAFCO.
Land Use Element Policy 1.4 Notify city planning departments of any discretionary projects within their respective spheres-of-influence in time to allow for coordination and to comment at public hearings.
Land Use Element Policy 1.5 The County shall participate in coordinate regional efforts to address issues of mobility transportation, traffic congestion, economic development, air and water quality, and watershed and habitat management with cities, local and regional agencies, stakeholders, Indian Nations, and surrounding jurisdictions.
Land Use Element Policy 2.1 The County shall accommodate land use development in accordance with the patterns and distribution of use and density depicted on the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure Land Use-1) and the Area Plan Land Use Maps, in accordance with the following:
• Provide a land use mix at the Countywide and Area Plan levels based on projected need and supported by evaluation of impacts to the environment, economy, infrastructure and services.
• Accommodate a range of community types and character, from agricultural and rural enclaves to urban and suburban communities.
• Provide for a broad range of land uses, intensities and densities, including a range of residential, commercial, business, industry, open space, recreation and public facilities uses.
• Concentrate growth near community centers that provide a mixture of commercial, employment, entertainment, recreation, civic and cultural uses to the greatest extent possible.
• Concentrate growth near or within existing urban and suburban areas to maintain the rural and open space character of Riverside County to the greatest extent possible.
• Site development to capitalize upon multi-modal transportation opportunities and promote compatible land use arrangements that reduce reliance on the automobile.
• Prevent inappropriate development in areas that are environmentally sensitive or subject to severe natural hazards.
• Land Use Element Policy 3.1 The County shall accommodate land use development in accordance with the patterns and distribution of use and density depicted on the General Plan Land Use Maps (Figure Land Use-1) and the Area Plan Land Use Maps in accordance with the following concepts:
• Accommodate communities that provide a balanced mix of land uses, including employment, recreation, shopping and housing.
• Assist in and promote the development of infill and underutilized parcels which are located in Community Development areas, and identified on the General Plan Land Use Map.
• Re-plan existing urban cores and specific plans for higher density, compact development.
Land Use Element Policy 3.3 Promote the development and preservation of unique communities in which each community exhibits a special sense of place and quality of design.
Land Use Element Policy 3.4 Allow techniques, such as incentives or transfer of development credit programs or other mechanisms, to achieve more efficient use of land.
Land Use Element Policy 3.5 Prepare a community separator's map or overlay that will illustrate the intent of the County of Riverside and its residents that the County's distinctive community identities be maintained and not be absorbed in a sea of continuous suburban development. The map should be a "bubble" diagram rather than attempting to delineate policy boundaries. Topographical and geographical features such as mountains, hills, rivers, and floodplains should constitute the community separators in most cases. The map should be used as a tool for the County's use in inter-governmental matters, such as commenting on proposals submitted to or by LAFCO, cities, or tribal authorities.
Land Use Element Policy 6.1 The County shall require land uses to develop in accordance with the General Plan and Area Plans to ensure compatibility and minimize impacts.
Land Use Element Policy 6.3 Consider the positive characteristics and unique features of the project site and surrounding community during the design and development process.
Land Use Element Policy 6.4 Retain and enhance the integrity of existing residential, employment, agricultural and open space areas by protecting them from encroachment of land uses that would result in impacts from noise, noxious fumes, glare, shadowing and traffic.
Land Use Element Policy 6.5 Require buffering to the extent possible between urban uses and adjacent rural/equestrian oriented land uses.
Land Use Element Policy 17.4 Permit Encourage clustered development where appropriate on lots smaller than the underlying land use designation would allow. While lot sizes may vary, the overall project density must not exceed that of the underlying land use designation unless associated with the incentive program.
Land Use Element Policy 22.6 Require setbacks and other design elements that buffer residential units to the extent possible from the impacts of abutting agricultural, roadway, commercial, and industrial uses.
Land Use Element Policy 26.10 Require that mixed-use developments be designed to mitigate potential conflicts between uses, considering such issues as noise, lighting, security, trash, and truck, and automobile access.
Effectiveness of Proposed General Plan Policies While several proposed General Plan land use policies allow the County to "encourage," "promote," or "coordinate" efforts to minimize potential land use impacts, they do not definitively mandate the scope of action required by the County. Several more do provide concrete and specific requirements with the intent to reduce potential impacts that may result from the development of land uses as envisioned in the proposed General Plan. Specifically, LU 2.1, 3.1, and
6.1 state that development within the County will occur in conformance with the proposed General Plan and Area Plans. Other policies, LU 6.4, 6.5, 22.6, and 26.10 require the use of buffering, setbacks and design features to ensure compatibility between adjacent uses and to mitigate/minimize potential impacts.
A main purpose of the proposed General Plan is to ensure future development follows a consistent and orderly pattern. As development occurs, it would be required to be consistent with the goals and policies of the proposed General Plan. Because the aforementioned policies will ensure compliance with the proposed General Plan and provide for the implementation of measures to buffer adjacent uses from potentially adverse impacts of neighboring uses, potential impact associated with the alteration of land use designations will be reduced to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation is required.
Revised General Plan Finding The Draft EIR has been revised to reflect a more current inventory of Specific Plans within unincorporated Riverside County, as well as to update agricultural production statistics. Additionally, revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have resulted in the inclusion of additional policies pertaining to land use and have resulted in changes in the amount of acreage designated for commercial, residential, rural residential, rural community, and open space land use. Changes to the policies do not substantially alter the meaning or effectiveness of the policies.
The anticipated increase in the acres of residential and rural residential land resulting from the proposed General Plan is approximately 17,288 acres less than what was stated in the Draft EIR. The addition of the Rural Community Foundation Component (87,076 acres) accounts for much of the redesignated residential area (the Rural Community component includes low-density residential and 9,910 acres village center overlay/study overlay, which consists of residential and commercial land uses). The addition of residential land use under the Rural Community Foundation Component was partially offset by decreases in residential land use in other foundation components.
The amount of land designated for industrial use increased approximately 320 acres. The amount of designated open space land in the proposed General Plan is now approximately the same as the amount of existing designated open space land. The Draft EIR had acknowledged a potential increase in designated open space; thus, this represents a lesser impact.
Because none of the acreage changes or policy changes results in a substantial increase in an environmental impact, neither the policy changes nor the changes in the acreage of designated land uses constitutes a significant change from the conclusions of the Draft EIR.
Agriculture
The following impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed Plan were evaluated and considered potentially significant without mitigation.
Impact 4.2.2 The proposed General Plan update will result in the conversion of prime farmlands, unique farmlands, or farmlands of statewide importance, or land actively utilized for agricultural production to a variety of non-agricultural uses.
Analysis of Impact Currently, the amount of land actively utilized for agricultural uses totals 266,926 acres. Of this 132,183 acres, 42,096 acres, and 37,726 acres are designated as "Prime," "Statewide Important," or "Unique" farmland, respectively. The 212,005 acres designated under these three farmland categories represent 79 percent of the total land that is presently utilized for agricultural production.
In a report by Jones & Stokes Associates completed for the California Department of Conservation, it was found that prime farmland is being lost to urban expansion near existing cities. For farmers, urban encroachment adversely affects the efficiency of remaining farming operations due to "increased air pollution, livestock predation by pets, crop diseases resulting from inadequate care of off-farm ornamental plants, restrictions on pesticide use and burning, and requirements to set aside on-farm buffer zones." At the same time, production costs increase due to rising land values, water scarcity, theft and vandalism of farm equipment, crop pilferage, road congestion, and personal injury liability resulting from trespassing on farms. By reducing the profitability of remaining farming operations, urban encroachment tends to have a spiraling effect, encouraging further losses of farms to urban development. As stated in Section 4.4.3 of the Riverside County Existing Setting Report, the number of full-time farms in Riverside County decreased 9 percent over a five-year period (1992-1997). The average size of farms increased from 121 to 167 acres over the same time period (an increase of 38%).
The proposed General Plan states that 180,178 acres in unincorporated Riverside County would be designated for agricultural uses under the "Agriculture" Foundation Component. The amount of land utilized for agricultural production currently totals 266,926 acres. Assuming all land designated for agricultural use under the proposed General Plan was actively farmed at the time of build out, implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in the loss of 86,748 acres (32.5%) of agricultural land. the loss of 64,170 acres represents a nearly 24 percent reduction in actively utilized farmland. As the total amount of land designated for agricultural uses under the proposed General Plan (180,178 acres) is less than the amount of agricultural land currently designated as Prime, Unique, and Statewide Important (212,005 acres), it is apparent that implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in a significant loss of Prime, Unique or Statewide Important farmland.
In addition to the direct loss of agricultural land, build out of the proposed General Plan will permit the development of residential and employment generating uses adjacent to agricultural designated land. Indirect impacts associated with the agricultural uses include: the generation of dust, odors, and noise from agricultural operation; the proliferation of flies and other pest species; the potential for groundwater contamination (from large-scale feed lots and dairies), and aerial application of agricultural chemicals. Build out of the proposed General Plan will increase the likelihood of having residential and other community development uses in closer proximity to agricultural uses.
The draft policies within the proposed General Plan help to retain agricultural resources within in the County.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan includes the following policies and implementation measures to reduce or minimize the effects of future development on agricultural resources. The effectiveness of the policies at reducing the effect of direct and indirect impacts that may result from the loss of land designated for agricultural uses is analyzed below. Implementation of the proposed General Plan policies related to agricultural resources would help reduce the effects of development, but would not reduce the significant impact associated with the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses.
Land Use Policy 16.1 Encourage retaining Retain agriculturally designated lands where agricultural activity can be sustained at an operational scale, where it accommodates lifestyle choice and in locations where impacts to and from potentially incompatible uses, such as residential uses are minimized, through incentives such as tax credits.
Land Use Policy 16.2 Protect agricultural uses, including those with industrial characteristics (diaries, poultry, hog farms, etc.) by discouraging inappropriate land division in the immediate proximity and allowing only uses and intensities that are compatible with agricultural uses.
Land Use Policy 16.4 Encourage conservation of productive agricultural lands. Preserve prime agricultural lands for high-value crop production.
Land Use Policy 16.5 Continue to participate in the California Land Conservation Act (The Williamson Act) of 1965.
Land Use Policy 16.6 Require consideration of State agricultural land classification specifications when a 2 ½-year five-year Foundation Component amendment to the General Plan is reviewed that would result in a shift from an agricultural to a non-agricultural use.
Land Use Policy 16.7 Adhere to Riverside County's Right-to-Farm Ordinance in accordance with the California Civil Code.
Land Use Policy 16.8 Support and participate in ongoing public education programs by organizations such as the County Agricultural Commissioner's Office, University of California Cooperative Extension, Farm Bureau, and industry organizations to help the public better understand the importance of the agricultural industry.
Land Use Policy 16.9 Weigh the economic benefits of surface mining with the preservation/conservation of agriculture when considering mineral excavation proposals on land classified for agricultural uses.
Land Use Policy 16.10 Allow agriculture-related uses activities, such as feed stores and permanent produce fruit stands, in all agriculturally designated areas and land use designations. with the approval of a discretionary permit. It is not the County's intent pursuant to this policy to subject agricultural-related uses to any discretionary permit requirements other than those in existence at the time of adoption of the General Plan. Where a discretionary permit or other discretionary approval is required under County zoning ordinances in effect as of December 2, 2002, then allow such retail uses with the approval of such a discretionary permit or other approval. The following criteria shall be considered in approving any discretionary permit or other discretionary approval required for these uses. Approval of these and similar uses in areas designated Agriculture will be subject to the following criteria:
a. Whether the use provides a needed service to the surrounding agricultural area that cannot be provided more efficiently within urban areas or requires location in a non-urban area because of unusual site requirements or operational characteristics;
b. Whether the use is sited on productive agricultural lands and less productive land is available in the vicinity;
c. Whether the operational or physical characteristics of the use will have a detrimental impact on water resources or the use or management of surrounding properties within at least ¼ mile radius; and
d. Whether a probable workforce is located nearby or is readily available.
Allow for proposed agriculturally-related processing uses whether or not in conjunction with a farming operation, such as commercial canning, packing, drying, and freezing operations, in all areas and land use designations. Where a discretionary permit or other discretionary approval is required under the County zoning ordinances in effect as of December 2, 2002, then allow such processing uses with the approval of such a discretionary permit or other approval. The following criteria shall be considered in approving any discretionary permit required for these uses:
a. Whether the uses are clustered in centers instead of single uses;
b. Whether the centers are located a sufficient distance from existing or approved agricultural or rural residential commercial centers or designated commercial areas of any city or unincorporated community;
c. Whether sites are located on a major road serving the surrounding area;
d. Whether the road frontage proposed for the uses and the number of separate uses proposed is appropriate; and
e. For proposed value-added uses such as canneries and wineries with on-premises retail uses, the evaluation under the criteria above shall consider the service requirements of the uses and the capability and capacity of cities and unincorporated communities to provide the required services.
a. The use shall provide a needed service to the surrounding agricultural area that cannot be provided more efficiently within urban areas or requires location in a non-urban area because of unusual site requirements or operational characteristics;
b. The use should not be sited on productive agricultural lands if less productive land is available in the vicinity;
c. The operational or physical characteristics of the use shall not have a detrimental impact on water resources or the use or management of surrounding properties within at least ¼ mile radius;
d. A probable workforce should be located nearby or be readily available;
e. For proposed agricultural commercial uses the following additional criteria shall apply:
1. Commercial uses should be clustered in centers instead of single uses.
2. To minimize their proliferation, commercial centers should be located a minimum of 4 miles from any existing or approved agricultural or rural residential commercial center or designated commercial area of any city or unincorporated community.
3. New commercial uses should be located within or adjacent to existing centers.
4. Sites should be located on a major road serving the surrounding area.
5. Commercial centers should not encompass more than ¼ mile of road frontage, or c mile if both sides of the road are involved, and should not provide potential for developments exceeding 10 separate business activities, exclusive of caretakers' residences;
6. For proposed value-added agricultural processing facilities such as canneries and wineries with on-premise retail uses, the evaluation under the criteria above shall consider the service requirements of the use and the capability and capacity of cities and unincorporated communities to provide the required services.
Land Use Policy 16.11 The County shall pursue the creation of new incentiveprograms, such as tax credits, that encourage the continued viability of agricultural activities.
Open Space Policy 7.1 Work with State and federal agencies to periodically update the Agricultural Resources map to reflect current conditions.
Open Space Policy 7.2 In cooperation with individual farmers, farming organizations, and farmland conservation organizations, the County shall employ a variety of agricultural land conservation programs to improve the viability of farms and ranches, and thereby ensure the long-term conservation of viable agricultural operations within Riverside County. The County shall seek out available funding for farmland conservation. Examples of programs which may be employed include land trusts; conservation easements (under certain circumstances, these may also provide Federal and estate tax benefits to farmers); dedication incentives; Land Conservation Contracts; Farmland Security Act contracts; the Agricultural Land Stewardship Program Fund; agricultural education programs; transfer and purchase of development rights; providing adequate incentives (e.g., clustering and density bonuses) to encourage conservation of productive agricultural land in the County's Incentive Program; and providing various resource incentives to landowners (e.g., establish a reliable and/or less costly supply of irrigation water). Consider the use of agricultural land conservation programs that improve the viability of farms and ranches, thereby ensuring long-term conservation of viable agricultural operations. Examples of programs to be considered include: land trusts; conservation easements; dedication incentives; Farmland Security Act contracts; the Agricultural Land Stewardship Program Fund; agricultural education programs; and transfer and purchase of development rights.
The County of Riverside shall establish a Farmland Protection and Stewardship Committee and the Board of Supervisors shall appoint its members. The Committee shall include members of the farming community as well as other individuals and organizations committed to farmland protections and stewardship. The Committee shall develop a strategy to preserve agricultural land within Riverside County and shall identify and prioritize agricultural lands for conservation. This strategy shall not only address the preservation of agricultural land but shall also promote sustainable agriculture within Riverside County. In developing its strategy, the Committee shall consider an array of proven techniques and, where necessary, adapt these techniques to address the unique conditions faced by the farming community within Riverside County. County staff shall assist the Committee in accomplishing its task. County Departments that may be called upon to assist the Committee include, but are not limited to the following: the Agricultural Commissioner, Planning Department, Assessor's Office, and County Counsel. In developing its strategy, the Committee shall consult government and private organizations with expertise in farmland protection. These organizations may include, but are not limited to, the following: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service; State Department of Conservation and its Division of Land Resource Protection; University of California Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program; the University of California Cooperative Extension; The Nature Conservancy; American Farmland Trust; The Conservation Fund; the Trust for Public Land; and the Land Trust Alliance.
The Committee shall, from time to time, recommend to the Board of Supervisors the adoption of policies and/or regulation that it finds will further the goals of the farmland protection and stewardship. The Committee shall also advise the Board of Supervisors regarding proposed policies that curb urban sprawl and the accompanying conversion of agricultural land to urban development, and that support and sustain continued agriculture. Planning policies that may benefit farmland conservation and fall within the purview of the Committee for review include measures to promote efficient development in and around existing communities including clustering, incentive programs, transfer of development rights, and other planning tools.
Open Space Policy 7.3 Encourage conservation of productive agricultural lands and preservation of prime agricultural lands. Preserve prime agricultural lands for high-value crop production.
Open Space Policy 7.4 Encourage landowners to participate in programs that reduce soil erosion, improve, improve soil quality, and address issues that relate to pest management. The County shall promote coordination between the Natural Resources Conservation Service, Resource Conservation Districts, UC Cooperative Extension, and other agencies and organizations.
Open Space Policy 7.5 Encourage the combination of agriculture with other compatible open space uses in order to provide an economic advantage to agriculture. Allow by right, in areas designated Agriculture, activities related to the production of food and fiber, and support uses incidental and secondary to the on-site agricultural operation.
Effectiveness of Proposed General Plan Policies Implementation of the proposed General Plan will result in the significant conversion of active agricultural land and agricultural soils to non-agricultural uses. The proposed General Plan includes policies that will encourage the conservation of productive agricultural land; require consideration of State agricultural designation when amending General Plan Foundation Components; and support and participate in agriculture education programs. However, these policies do not set specific requirements that will limit the conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, the following mitigation has been identified to reduce (though not to a less than significant level) potential impacts associated with this issue.
Mitigation Measures
4.2.2A The County shall establish an Agricultural Land Mitigation Bank. The formation, authority, and operation shall be established by the County of Riverside and shall adhere to applicable statutes of the State of California and Riverside County. The Agriculture Land Mitigation Bank shall be established no later than two three years from the date of adoption of the 2002 Riverside County General Plan.
4.2.2B Subsequent to the establishment of an Agricultural Land Mitigation Bank, any development within any unincorporated area of the County resulting in the conversion of more than 80 acres (the approximate size of an average farm in Riverside County) of Prime, Unique, or Statewide Important farmland (designated farmland), as designated by the most recent version of the Important Farmland Map as prepared by the California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, shall purchase credits in the Agricultural Land Mitigation Bank at the rate of 1 acre (credit) for every four acres (or portion thereof) of designated farmland converted to non-agricultural uses. The 80-acre threshold shall be met by any combination of designated farmland. Prime, Unique, or State Important. All designated farmland within a project site shall be included in the threshold computation, regardless of the size, or location within the project site, or current status (fallow or farmed).
4.2.2C Subsequent to the establishment of an Agricultural Land Mitigation Bank, any development within unincorporated Riverside County resulting in the conversion of more than 40 acres of land actively utilized for agricultural production (active farmland), shall purchase credits in the Agricultural Land Mitigation Bank at
the rate of one acre (credit) for every acre (or portion thereof) of active farmland converted to non-agricultural uses. To be considered "active farmland," land must have been utilized for agricultural production for two of the previous five years (prior to application). The 40-acre threshold shall be met only by the footprint of land on which crops are grown or livestock raised regardless of whether the land is State designated or not; and shall not include roadways, residential or production areas, equipment storage areas, or other non-production areas.
Revised General Plan Finding The primary revision to the proposed General Plan (as reflected by revisions to the Draft EIR) is the reduction in the amount of agricultural land within unincorporated Riverside County. Revisions to the General Plan policies include provisions for the continued use and operation of agriculturally-related ancillary uses; the employ of a variety of agricultural land conservation programs; and the establishment of a Farmland Protection and Stewardship Program. The intent of the new policies is to identify and implement programs that will limit the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses. The mitigation measures authorizing theestablishment and operation of an Agricultural Land Mitigation Bank have been excised from the Draft EIR.
The revised policies "support" and "encourage" the conservation of agricultural land and the continuation of agriculture-related uses. While a cooperative effort between agricultural interests and the County is referenced, the revised policies do not identify the amount, extent, or location of agricultural land to be conserved. It is impossible to determine if the establishment of a Farmland Protection and Stewardship Committee and the development and/or implementation of its agricultural land conservation strategy will effectively reduce potentially significant impacts associated with the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses. The Draft EIR established that impacts to agricultural land resulting from implementation of the General Plan would be significant and unavoidable. Revisions to the proposed General Plan policies (as reflected by revisions to the Draft EIR) and the elimination of Mitigation Measures 4.4.4A-C, will not substantially alter this conclusion.
4.2.4 Land Use/Agricultural Resources Level of Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of the policies in the proposed General Plan would reduce land use impacts to a less than significant level. There is no reasonable or feasible mitigation to reduce impacts the significant impacts resulting from the loss of agricultural land to a less than significant level. While the implementation of proposed General Plan policies and mitigation measures would encourage the conservation of agricultural land reduce the conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses, the potential conversion loss of State-designated farmland and/or actively utilized agricultural land to non-agricultural uses Prime, Unique, or Statewide Important farmland remains a significant and unavoidable impact.
4.3 Population and Housing
An accurate assessment of existing and future residents' housing needs in the County of Riverside is included in Section 6.0 of the Riverside County Integrated Plan Existing Setting Report, and the County of Riverside Housing Element Update, (incorporated by reference). The Riverside County Board of Supervisors adopted the Housing Element as an amendment to the existing General Plan on December 4, 2001. As required, the Housing Element will be amended to achieve internal consistency with the proposed General Plan.
4.3.1 Population and Housing Existing Setting
Riverside County, California, encompasses approximately 7,295 7,296 square miles (4,668,800 4,669,173 acres). While approximately 10 percent of the land area of the County lies within 24 incorporated cities, the majority (6,564 6,565 square miles or 4,201,120 4,201,323 acres) of the land within the County is unincorporated. Only privately held lands within unincorporated areas are under the jurisdiction of Riverside County. Lands controlled by the State or federal government or by the various Indian Nations are under the jurisdiction of government, military or tribal authorities.
Population
The year 2000 population of the unincorporated areas of Riverside County totaled 429,029 persons. As illustrated in Table 4.3.A, during the period between the 1990 and 2000 Censuses, the population of the unincorporated areas of the County increased by 11.3 percent. This increase is approximately one-third the rate of the entire County.
| Table 4.3.A - Population Growth Trends 1990-2000 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Region | 1990 | 2000 | Change | |
| Number | Percent | |||
| Unincorporated Riverside County | 385,386 | 429,029 | +43,643 | +11.3 |
| Riverside County1 | 1,170,413 | 1,545,387 | +374,974 | +32.0 |
| Note: 1 Includes both unincorporated Riverside County and the Cities within the County. Source: County of Riverside Housing Element Update, The Planning Center, June 15, 2001. |
||||
Housing and Employment
Table 4.3.B displays the estimated population, households, and employment for unincorporated areas of Riverside County (1997). As detailed, western Riverside County holds approximately 82 percent of the unincorporated area's population and households, and 88 percent of the employment. The most populated unincorporated area of the County is the Jurupa Area Plan, with approximately 22 percent of the population and 30 percent of the employment. Within Eastern Riverside County, the Western
Coachella Valley Area Plan maintains the highest percentage of population, households, and employment.
| Table 4.3.B Population, Households and Employment within Unincorporated Riverside County, 1997 |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Planning Areas1 | Population | % | Households | % | Employment | % |
| Western Riverside County | ||||||
| Eastvale | 2,558 | 0.7 | 751 | 0.6 | 765 | 1.4 |
| Greater Elsinore | 34,229 | 9.0 | 11,451 | 8.9 | 4,636 | 8.2 |
| Highgrove/Northside | 7,378 | 1.9 | 2,426 | 1.9 | 1,626 | 2.9 |
| Highway 74/79 | 12,548 | 3.3 | 4,841 | 3.8 | 1,381 | 2.4 |
| Jurupa | 81,836 | 21.5 | 24,578 | 19.2 | 16,923 | 30.0 |
| Lakeview/Nuevo | 9,001 | 2.4 | 2,885 | 2.3 | 1,325 | 2.3 |
| March Air Force Base | 3,517 | 0.9 | 1,186 | 0.9 | 960 | 1.7 |
| Mead Valley | 17,243 | 4.5 | 5,090 | 4.0 | 1,002 | 1.8 |
| Reche Canyon/ Badlands | 1,765 | 0.5 | 596 | 0.5 | 204 | 0.4 |
| REMAP | 1,339 | 0.4 | 483 | 0.4 | 202 | 0.4 |
| San Gorgonio Pass | 11,736 | 3.1 | 4,513 | 3.5 | 1,882 | 3.3 |
| Southwest Area (SWAP) | 15,253 | 4.0 | 5,177 | 4.0 | 2,679 | 4.8 |
| Sun City/Menifee Valley | 31,443 | 8.2 | 13,817 | 10.8 | 5,663 | 10.0 |
| Temescal Canyon | 24,977 | 6.5 | 7,533 | 5.9 | 3,789 | 6.3 |
| San Jacinto Valley | 35,393 | 9.3 | 13,318 | 10.4 | 3,034 | 5.4 |
| Woodcrest/Lake Mathews | 22,445 | 5.9 | 6,725 | 5.2 | 3,564 | 6.3 |
| Western Coachella Valley | 39,747 | 10.4 | 13,783 | 10.8 | 4,318 | 7.7 |
| Subtotal | 312,660 | 82.0 | 105,373 | 82.2 | 49,635 | 88.0 |
| Eastern Riverside County | ||||||
| Coachella - Eastern | 11,725 | 3.1 | 4,066 | 3.2 | 1,273 | 2.3 |
| Coachella - Western | 39,747 | 10.4 | 13,783 | 10.8 | 4,318 | 7.7 |
| Desert Center | 7,866 | 2.1 | 1,261 | 1.0 | 375 | 0.7 |
| Palo Verde Valley | 9,503 | 2.5 | 3,635 | 2.8 | 796 | 1.4 |
| Subtotal | 68,841 | 18.0 | 22,744 | 17.8 | 6,763 | 12.0 |
| TOTAL | 381,501 | 100.0 | 128,117 | 100.0 | 56,398 | 100.0 |
| Note: 1 While they may share similar names and may occupy a similar geographic locale, the "Planning Areas" designated in this table should not be confused with the "Area Plans" as detailed in the proposed General Plan. Source: County of Riverside Housing Element Update, Draft, The Planning Center, June 15, 2001. |
||||||
Housing Needs
California's Housing Element law requires that each city and county develop local housing programs designed to meet its "fair share" of housing needs for all income groups. This "fair share" allocation seeks to ensure that each jurisdiction accepts responsibility for the housing needs of not only its current residents, but also for those households who might be reasonably expected to reside within the jurisdiction. A jurisdiction's "fair share" of regional housing need is the number of additional dwelling units that would be required to accommodate the anticipated growth in households, replace expected demolitions and conversion of housing units to non-housing uses, and achieve a future vacancy rate that allows for the healthy functioning of the housing market. The County's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) indicates the need for the addition of 30,677 housing units (for the 1998-2005 planning period). The housing need is further divided by four income categories with 7,917, 4,968, 5,583 and 11,963 housing units assigned to the Very Low (up to 50 percent of county median income), Low (up 80 percent), Moderate (up to 120 percent), and Above Moderate (more than 120 percent) income categories, respectively.
The 30,677 additional residential units Housing Needs Assessment identified as necessary for the provision of adequate housing will not be evenly distributed throughout the County. Approximately 24,542 (or 80 percent of the 30,677 required units) will be developed within the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) region. The remaining 6,135 residential units will be developed within the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) region. The physical, natural and human environments of the eastern and western portions of the County vary drastically. Similarly, potential environmental impacts which may occur as a result of development of new residential units would vary depending on where in the County such units are developed.
Existing Policies and Regulations
California Government Code (Section 65580-65589.8) requires the preparation of a Housing Element as part of each jurisdictions General Plan. While General Plan Housing Elements were mandated by state legislation enacted in 1967, the State undertook a major revision of Housing Element law in response to rapidly increasing housing prices. As a result, each city and county must analyze local housing needs, and provide a realistic set of programs to meet those needs.
The residential character of the County is, to a large extent, determined by the variety of its housing and the locations and maintenance of the housing. The Housing Element is an official response to the need to provide housing for all economic segments of the population. It establishes policies that will guide County decision-making, and sets forth an action plan to implement housing goals through 2005. Section 65588 of the California Government Code requires that housing elements be updated not less frequently than every five years. Each revision must describe the progress made on achieving the goals and objectives of the previous housing element.
As previously stated, the existing Riverside County Housing Element was adopted as an amendment to the existing General Plan on December 4, 2001. As required, the Housing Element will be amended to achieve internal consistency with the proposed General Plan.
4.3.2 Population and Housing Thresholds of Significance
Potential impacts related to housing and population shall be considered significant if implementation of the proposed General Plan results in any of the following conditions:
• Existing population and housing projections are substantially exceeded;
• The displacement of substantial numbers or residential units, requiring the construction of replacement housing elsewhere; and/or
• The displacement of a substantial number of persons, necessitating the construction of replacement housing.
• Exacerbate (make worse) the jobs to housing balance in Riverside County.
4.3.3 Population and Housing Impacts and Mitigation
Less than Significant Impacts
The following potential impacts related to housing and population were found to be less than significant.
Displacement of Residential Units and or Persons Upon build out of the proposed General Plan, approximately 557,849 591,2091 residential units and 490 458 million square feet of commercial/industrial space will exist within unincorporated areas of Riverside County. Development of vacant land would not displace residential units or persons; therefore, no impact would occur. A significant impact would occur only where residential uses and residents were displaced by development or redevelopment. Without the exact location of new development, it is not possible to determine whether it will displace residential units or persons. Prior to any such displacement, and as required by State and federal law, a relocation analysis must be prepared and adequate and appropriate compensations provided. Adherence to applicable County, State and/or federal regulations related to the provision of replacement housing will reduce potential impacts associated with this issue to a less than significant level.
Growth in Population Exceeding Regional Projections Projections for population, employment, and residential dwellings were identified to reflect the theoretical build out of unincorporated Riverside County, utilizing land use designations and assumptions detailed in the proposed General Plan. Based on past growth rates in Riverside County, population increases are anticipated to continue to average approximately 3.38 percent annually. Assuming a SCAG-projected population of 985,945 persons in 2025, the build out population of unincorporated Riverside County would be reached in 2040. Approximately 79 69 percent of this population is projected for unincorporated western Riverside County with the remaining 21 31 percent projected for unincorporated eastern Riverside County. A comparison of these forecasts compared to that forecast by SCAG is provided in Table 4.3.C.
| Table 4.3.C - Unincorporated Riverside County Projections | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Forecast Category | SCAG (2025) | Proposed General Plan Build Out (2040)1 | Number Difference | Percentage Difference |
| Population | 985,945 | 1,771,299 |
+785,354 |
+80 |
| Dwelling Units | 334,472 | 591,209 |
+256,737 |
144 |
| Jobs | 215,919 | 685,375 |
+469,456 |
465 |
| Note: 1 Includes March Inland Port Source: Southern California Association of Governments, May 2001. The Planning Center Land Use Summary Tables, September 24, 2003. |
||||
New employees from commercial and industrial development and new population from residential 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. Examples of development that would indirectly facilitate growth include the installation of new roadways or the construction or expansion of water delivery/treatment facilities. Potential growth inducing impacts resulting from the extension of circulation facilities and expansion of utility infrastructure are addressed in Sections 4.16 (Transportation and Circulation) and 4.15 (Public Services), respectively.
The projected population is based on the land use categories and density assumptions included in the proposed General Plan. Because the build out year (2040) is based on projected annual SCAG population increases, annual and build out population increases associated with proposed General Plan would be consistent with SCAG projections. Therefore, no impact associated with this issue would occur.
Inadequate Provision of Housing As stated in the County's Housing Element Update, an additional 30,677 housing units are required during the 1998-2005 planning period within unincorporated areas of the County. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment divides this housing need among four income categories. As detailed in Section 4.2, the amount of land within the unincorporated areas where residential development would be permitted is decreased by 214,182 acres from that where such uses are currently permitted. The additional residential units identified in the Housing Needs Assessment will not be evenly distributed throughout the County. Approximately 24,542 (or 80 percent of the 30,677 required units) will be developed within the WRCOG region. The remaining 6,135 residential units will be developed within the CVAG region. The development of residential uses will only occur in areas and at intensities permitted by the proposed General Plan.
The existing Housing Element was adopted as an amendment to the County General Plan on December 4, 2001. The Housing Element contains policies designed to meet the housing needs of the County. State law requires that each jurisdiction evaluate its housing element every five years to determine its effectiveness in achieving County and State goals and objectives, and to adopt an Updated Housing Element that reflects the results of this evaluation. The Housing Element contains a detailed program to assure the adequate provision of housing opportunities for all economic segment of the County. The California Government Code requires that General Plans contain an integrated, consistent set of goals and policies. Therefore, the Housing Element is affected by development policies contained in the Land Use Element, which establishes the location, type, intensity, and distribution of land uses within the County. Implementation of the policies presented in the proposed General Plan will achieve the housing goals outlined in the Housing Element. Subsequent amendments to the General Plan will be reviewed to ensure consistency is maintained between the proposed General Plan and the Housing Element. Future Housing Elements and implementation of its policies will ensure that adequate housing opportunities are provided to County residents. Maintenance of such consistency, implementation of the proposed General Plan and Housing Element policies, and adherence to applicable County, State and Federal regulations will reduce potential impacts associated with the provision of adequate housing opportunities to a less than significant level.
Exacerbate (Make Worse) the Jobs to Housing Balance Dwelling units at build out for unincorporated Riverside County are projected at 557,849 591,2091 . Similar to population, about 79 69 percent of these dwelling units are forecast to occur in the unincorporated western Riverside County with the remaining 21 31 percent in unincorporated eastern Riverside County. Household projections represent occupied housing units and do not account for vacant units or second homes that are not occupied full-time.
As for employment projections, the SCAG projections and the proposed General Plan projections at build out reveal different trends. The employment projection of 750,812 685,375 for unincorporated Riverside County exceeds SCAG projections by about 2.5 3 times. Putting aside the difference in timing, this is also a reflection of the policy of SCAG to concentrate employment in existing municipal centers. The proposed General Plan employment projection accounts for about 72 69 percent of total unincorporated Riverside County employment at build out with the remaining 28 31 percent in eastern Riverside County.
Table 4.3.D compares proposed General Plan build out for unincorporated areas and SCAG 2025 jobs-to-housing ratios.
| Table 4.3.D - Jobs-to-Housing Ratios | ||
|---|---|---|
| Riverside County Proposed General Plan Build Out (2040) | SCAG (2025) | |
| Riverside County | 1.35 |
0.65 |
| Western Riverside County | 1.21 |
0.76 |
| Eastern Riverside County | 1.47 |
0.28 |
| SCAG Region (theoretical balance) | — | 1.34 |
| Source: SCAG Population and Housing and Employment Projections, May 2001. | ||
1 Includes March Inland Port
The jobs-to-housing ratio measures the extent to which job opportunities in a given geographic area are sufficient to meet the employment of area residents. This ratio identifies the number of jobs available in a given region compared to the number of housing units in the same region, and determines potential imbalances between housing and employment opportunities. In theory, if households have job opportunities closer to where they live, this can potentially reduce overall commuting. In keeping with the generally higher forecast for the number of jobs in the area discussed previously, the jobs-to-housing ratios are higher for the proposed General Plan build out than for SCAG. However, the projected unincorporated jobs-to-housing ratio for the proposed General Plan is similar closer to the SCAG regional ratio.
Currently, Riverside County is rich in housing and poor in jobs. This means that residents of Riverside County are traveling to surrounding counties to work. This is evident in western Riverside County with a large number of commuters on the SR-91 traveling west (Orange County) to work everyday. The "commute" has led to increased congestion on the freeways and city arterials (Corona), which in turn equates to longer commute times, increased air quality impacts, and a lower quality of life. The proposed General Plan, as discussed above, would provide for an increase in employment opportunities closer to where people are and will be living; therefore, the proposed General Plan has a beneficial impact on the jobs/housing balance for the SCAG region.
Potentially Significant Impacts No potentially significant housing/population impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed General Plan were identified.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have not substantially altered the applicability of the analysis above that pertains to population and housing. While changes to land use designations have altered the total population, dwelling units, and jobs predicted at General Plan build out, these changes overall reflect a more favorable jobs-to-housing ratio. The jobs-to-housing ratio was 1.35 and, with the proposed plan, it is 1.16, which is closer to SCAG's projected balance of 0.65. Therefore, the conclusion that no significant housing or population impacts would occur is accurate for the revised proposed General Plan.
4.3.4 Population and Housing Level of Significance After Mitigation
All impacts associated with housing and population remain less than significant.
4.4 Aesthetics/Visual Resources
4.4.1 Aesthetics/Visual Resources Existing Setting
Riverside County comprises over 7,200 square miles extending roughly 200 miles in width from the Colorado River (Arizona border) to within 14 miles of the Pacific Ocean. Riverside County shares borders with Orange, San Diego, Imperial, and San Bernardino Counties. Within Riverside County, there are 24 incorporated cities with individual identities set among a mixture of rural communities, small towns, deserts, and open space areas. The various communities within the unincorporated areas are defined by the built environment and the surrounding topography, which includes river valleys, lakes, low deserts, mountains, foothills, and rolling plains.
Riverside County is divided into eastern and western regions by the San Jacinto Mountains. A deep valley known as the San Gorgonio Pass, formed by the San Jacinto and San Gorgonio Mountains, serves as a natural link between these two vast areas. The San Bernardino, Little San Bernardino, and Pinto Mountains form a portion of the County's northern boundary while numerous mountain ranges, including those in the Santa Rosa Wilderness and Cleveland National Forest, serve as boundaries along the southern and western edges of the County.
Western Riverside County
Western Riverside County is bounded by the Santa Ana Mountains and Cleveland National Forest on the west and the San Jacinto Mountains and the San Bernardino National Forest on the east. Topography varies dramatically in this region, ranging from low-lying valleys to rolling hillsides and steep mountainous terrain with large rock outcroppings. Major features of this area include the Santa Ana River basin, Lake Mathews, Lake Perris, Lake Elsinore, Lake Skinner, Vail Lake, the San Jacinto River, Murrieta Creek, the Santa Margarita River, and the vineyard/citrus region near Temecula. The Diamond Valley Reservoir south of Hemet is the largest reservoir in Southern California. Western Riverside County includes numerous unincorporated communities as well as the Cities of Corona, Riverside, Beaumont, Banning, Norco, Lake Elsinore, Perris, Hemet, San Jacinto, Moreno Valley, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Murrieta, and Temecula.
Eastern Riverside County
Eastern Riverside County is bounded by the Colorado River on the east and the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains on the west. This area includes the Joshua Tree National Park, Whitewater River, and a portion of the Salton Sea. The most urbanized areas in this portion of the County are contained in the Coachella Valley. This area includes the incorporated cities of Desert Hot Springs, Palm Springs, Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage, Indian Wells, Palm Desert, La Quinta, Indio, Coachella and Blythe. The area near Palm Springs is noted for its golf resorts nestled among the Santa Rosa Mountains and date palm groves. The vast mountainous terrain of Joshua Tree National Park and the desert topography of the Chuckwalla Valley lie between the Coachella Valley, Blythe, and the Colorado River.
Due to the size of the County, a comprehensive analysis of every visual asset and feature is not feasible. However, the visual character of Riverside County is depicted and described in a general manner to provide a basic understanding of the major physical features, landmarks, and characteristics of the County. In the Riverside County Integrated Plan Existing Setting Report, the visual character of the County is described on two levels: the County as a whole and by region or area. Fifteen Visual Analysis Areas were identified to facilitate a greater understanding of the unique aspects, features, and visual characteristics common in the various regions of the County. The boundaries of the regions are selected to capture areas of common physical characteristics and similar development patterns. Table 4.4.A provides a summary of the visual characteristics of each area.
| Table 4.4.A - Summary of Visual Character | |
|---|---|
| Visual Analysis Area | General Visual Character |
| 1: Jurupa Valley- Eastvale | Large-lot and low density single-family residential among rolling hills; some suburban residential tracts, increasing industrial uses in Mira Loma, concentrated commercial along Mission Boulevard and Limonite Avenue, commercial uses otherwise scattered; agricultural uses (e.g., dairies and grazing lands); the Santa Ana River flows along the southern boundary of the area. |
| 2: Temescal Valley | Framed by the Santa Ana Mountains and the Gavilan Hills, predominantly rural land and suburban single-family residences set among open space; mountainous areas are filled with rock outcroppings, scattered oak trees and riparian areas. |
| 3. Greater Elsinore | The Santa Ana Mountains form the western boundary of this area in which oak and pine forests, scattered residential uses, and campgrounds are present; large lot residential amount steep peak and rolling hills east of I-15; lakeside resorts and campgrounds; semi-urbanized in the communities of Sedeco Hills and Wildomar; large scale Specific Plans (e.g., Horsethief Canyon); mineral extraction north of Lake Elsinore. |
| 4. Southwest Area | Framed by the Santa Ana Mountains, Santa Margarita, Agua Tibia ranges, and the Black Hills; consists of a series of valleys separated by rolling hills; eastern slopes of the Santa Ana Mountains characterized by steep slopes and valleys, citrus and avocado orchards, and the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Preserve; large residential lots; rural communities east of Temecula; Vail Lake; equestrian uses on rolling hills, agricultural uses. |
| 5. Lake Mathews | Region consists primarily of rolling hills, large-lot residential, citrus and vineyards uses; includes Lake Mathews, significant amounts of natural open space, natural rock outcroppings, and Mockingbird Canyon Archeological Site. |
| 6. Highway 74-79 | Large-lot residential uses, agricultural and equestrian uses among low-lying flatlands and rocky peaks; includes Diamond Valley Lake, some scattered single-family residences on smaller lots/mobile homes; some commercial-industrial and community serving uses. |
| 7. Menifee Valley | Located within a valley ringed by ridges; rugged rock outcroppings; pockets of residential uses on edges of the valley; estate development throughout the mountains and hillside areas; some commercial and industrial development; golf courses and residential development; some agriculture use. |
| 8. Perris Valley | Flatlands and adjacent foothills; rural residential and agricultural uses. |
| 9. Lakeview and Nuevo | Wide variety of geographical features, low-lying valleys, rolling hills, and rock mountainous terrain; primarily large-lot rural residential; some public facilities; the San Jacinto River runs through the northern portion of the area. |
| 10. San Jacinto Valley | Encompasses San Jacinto Valley and adjacent foothills and mountains; urban development within cities, otherwise medium-density residential development, scattered commercial uses; agricultural uses; dairies; the San Jacinto River traverses the area in a northwest-southeast direction; riparian areas along the river; views of mountains, rock outcroppings, and sparse, low-lying vegetation. |
| 11. Reche Canyon and Lake Perris | Reche Canyon consists primarily of mountainous terrain with low-lying vegetation, rock outcroppings; and large-lot rural residential uses; rural, agricultural and suburbanizing uses in Highgrove; Badlands and San Timoteo Creek along eastern boundary. |
| 12. San Gorgonio Pass | Bordered by the San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains; small town urban uses; San Gorgonio River; Morongo Band of Mission Indians Reservation lands, wind energy facilities, large-lot rural residential and agricultural uses; desert and hillside vegetation. |
| 13. REMAP | Encompasses the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains; mountain peaks, rock outcroppings; numerous springs and streams; vegetation ranging from desert scrub to alkaline forests; rural residential enclaves; scattered community and tourist related commercial uses; public recreation areas; wilderness areas; panoramic views of the Coachella Valley to the east and low-lying areas of western Riverside County to the west. |
| 14. Coachella Valley | East of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains; golf-oriented and tourist resort communities; date groves and agricultural uses; desert oasis areas; cove-like communities at base of Santa Rosa Mountains; Whitewater River; Salton Sea State Recreation Area; desert and mountain vistas. |
| 15. Eastern Riverside County | Vast expanses of desert scrub; Joshua Tree National Park; desert mountain ranges; desert wilderness areas; agricultural uses in the palo Verde Valley; Colorado River; residential and commercial in Blythe. |
A more detailed examination of County aesthetic resources for each region or area is included in Section 4.8 of the Riverside County Integrated Plan Existing Setting Report (incorporated by reference), which includes a detailed photo essay.
Existing Policies and Regulations
Caltrans Scenic Highways Caltrans defines a State Scenic Highway as any freeway, highway, road, or other public right-of-way, that traverses an area of exceptional scenic quality. Suitability for designation as a State Scenic Highway is based on vividness, intactness, and unity (Caltrans Guidelines for Official Designation of Scenic Highways, 1995):
• Vividness is the extent to which the landscape is memorable. This is associated with the distinctiveness, diversity, and contrast of visual elements. A vivid landscape makes an immediate and lasting impression to the viewer.
• Intactness is the integrity of visual order in the landscape and the extent to which the natural landscape is free from visual intrusions (i.e., buildings, structures, equipment, grading).
• Unity is the extent to which development is sensitive to and in visual harmony with the natural landscape.
Ordinance Number 655 County of Riverside Regulating Light Pollution The intent of Riverside County Ordinance Number 655 is to restrict the permitted use of certain light fixtures emitting into the night sky undesirable light rays, which have a detrimental effect on astronomical observation and research.
4.4.2 Aesthetics/Visual Resources Thresholds of Significance
A determination that a change in visual character and aesthetics would occur as a result of the proposed General Plan is subjective. For the purpose of analysis, an impact on the visual and aesthetic nature of the project area is considered to be significant if the proposed General Plan would:
• Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
• Substantially degrade the existing visual character or aesthetic quality of the site and its surroundings;
• Substantially increase the effect of light and glare upon existing residential uses, as well as the Mount Palomar Observatory;
• Result in substantial terrain modifications; and/or
• Conflict with policies regarding community design.
4.4.3 Aesthetics/Visual Resources Impacts and Mitigation
Potentially Significant Impacts
Affected Views to Scenic Vistas and Visual Resources
Impact 4.4.1. The proposed General Plan would increase the development of urban uses, causing a substantial loss in open space and aesthetic resources. This could significantly alter existing and future public views and view corridors, which include State and County designated Scenic Highways.
Analysis of Impact Build out of the proposed General Plan would result in a substantial increase in urban uses throughout the proposed General Plan area. The development of structures and facilities would occur on vacant properties within unincorporated areas of the County and would be consistent with the policies outlined in the proposed General Plan. Similarly, the replacement, expansion, or refurbishment of existing development would occur pursuant to the proposed General Plan policies. The proposed General Plan includes the new land use designation, "Community Center," which will include a combination of small-lot single- and multi-family residences, commercial retail, office and business park uses, civic uses, transit facilities, and recreational open space within a unified planned development. Development within the Community Center designation will permit the planned development of large areas, allowing the intensification of development beyond that which may currently exist.
Visual resources may include undisturbed natural areas (e.g., riparian areas, oak woodlands), open space, scenic vistas and designated scenic routes, points of historic or cultural significance, and agricultural areas (e.g., vineyards, citrus groves) and other human-made features. Based on its location, extent, density, and configuration, future development within unincorporated areas of the County may alter the characteristics of a local or regional significant visual resources. Individual projects under the proposed General Plan will be subject to design review, as appropriate to their nature and location.
The proposed General Plan includes policies that will: concentrate growth near or within existing urban and suburban areas; preserve the existing rural and open space character of the County; provide for the permanent preservation of important natural and scenic resources; incorporate open space within developed areas; ensure the compatibility of existing and new development; maintain or enhance the character of the project site and its immediate area; conserve view corridors, skylines, and scenic vistas; and impose restrictions on development activities that may adversely affect the existing visual characteristics of sites within the County. Furthermore, Appendix J of the proposed General Plan contains Community Center Guidelines, that address landscape, streetscape, building, layout, and other aspects of the community centers. Adherence to these guidelines would reduce or eliminate aesthetic impacts relating to community center development.
Proposed General Plan Policies
Land Use Policy 2.1 The County shall Accommodate land use development in accordance with the patterns and distribution of use and density depicted on the General Plan Land Use Map (included as Figure 3.2 of the EIR) and the Area Plan Land Use Maps, and concentrate growth near or within existing urban and suburban areas to maintain the rural and open space character of Riverside County. in accordance with the following:
• Provide a land use mix at the Countywide and Area Plan levels based on projected need and supported by evaluation of impacts to the environment, economy, infrastructure, and services.
• Accommodate a range of community types and character, from agricultural and rural enclaves to urban and suburban communities.
• Provide for a broad range of land uses, intensities and densities, including a range of residential, commercial, business, industry, open space, recreation, and public facilities uses.
• Concentrate growth near community centers that provide a mixture of commercial, employment, entertainment, recreation, civic, and cultural uses to the greatest extent possible.
• Concentrate growth near or within existing urban and suburban areas to maintain the rural and open space character of Riverside County to the greatest extent possible.
• Site development to capitalize upon multi-modal transportation opportunities and promote compatible land use arrangements that reduce reliance on the automobile.
• Prevent inappropriate development in areas that are environmentally sensitive or subject to severe natural hazards.
Land Use Policy 4.1 Require that new developments be located and designed to visually enhance and not degrade the character of the surrounding area through consideration of the following concepts:
• Mitigate noise, odor, lighting and other impacts on surrounding properties.
• Preserve natural features, such as unique natural terrain, drainage ways, and native vegetation, wherever possible, particularly where they provide continuity with more extensive regional systems.
• Require that new development be designed to provide adequate space for pedestrian connectivity and access, recreational trails vehicular access and parking, supporting functions, open space, and other pertinent elements.
Land Use Policy 8.1 Provide for permanent preservation of open space lands that contain important natural resources, hazards, water features, watercourses and scenic and recreational values.
Land Use Policy 8.3 Incorporate open space, community greenbelt separators, and recreational amenities into Community Development areas to enhance recreational opportunities and community aesthetics, and improve the quality of life.
Land Use Policy 8.4 Allow development clustering and/or density transfers to preserve open space, natural resources, and/or biologically sensitive resources.
Land Use Policy 11.1 Apply the following policies to areas where development is allowed and that contain natural slopes, canyons, or other significant elevation changes, regardless of land use designation:
• Require that hillside development minimize alteration of the natural landforms and natural vegetation.
• Allow development clustering to retain slopes in natural open space whenever possible.
• Require that areas with slope be developed in a manner to minimize the hazards from erosion and slope failures.
• Restrict development on visually significant ridgelines, canyon edges, and hilltops through sensitive siting and appropriate landscaping to ensure development is visually unobtrusive.
• Require hillside-adaptive construction techniques, such as post and beam construction, and special foundations for development when the need is identified in a soils and geology report which has been accepted by the County.
• Encourage the limitation of grading and cut and fill to the amount necessary to provide stable areas for structural foundations, street rights-of-way, parking facilities, and other intended uses.
Land Use Policy 13.1 Preserve and protect outstanding scenic vistas and visual features for the enjoyment of the traveling public.
Land Use Policy 13.2 Incorporate riding, hiking and bicycle trails and other compatible public recreational facilities within scenic corridors.
Land Use Policy 13.3 Ensure that the design and appearance of new landscaping, structures, equipment, signs or grading within Designated and Eligible State and County Scenic Highways corridors are compatible with the surrounding scenic setting or environment.
Land Use Policy 13.4 Maintain at least a 50-foot setback from the edge of the right-of-way for new development adjacent to Designated and Eligible State and County Scenic Highways.
Land Use Policy 13.5 Require new or relocated electric or communication distribution lines, which would be visible from official Designated and Eligible State and County Scenic Highways, to be placed underground.
Land Use Policy 13.6 Prohibit off-site outdoor advertising displays that are visible from Designated and Eligible State and County Scenic Highways a scenic highway.
Land Use Policy 13.7 Require that the size, height and type of on-premise signs visible from Designated and Eligible State and County Scenic Highways scenic highways be the minimum necessary for identification. The design, materials, color and location of the signs shall blend with the environment, utilizing natural materials where possible.
Land Use Policy 13.8 Avoid the blocking of public views by solid walls.
Land Use Policy 16.1 Encourage retaining Retain agriculturally designated lands where agricultural activity can be sustained at an operational scale, where it accommodates lifestyle choice, and in locations where impacts to and from potentially incompatible uses, such as residential uses are minimized, through incentives such as tax credits.
Land Use Policy 16.3 Ensure that development does not adversely affect the open space and rural character of the surrounding area.
Land Use Policy 17.1 Require grading to be designed to blend with undeveloped natural contours of the site and avoid an unvaried unnatural, or manufactured appearance.
Land Use Policy 17.3 Ensure that development does not adversely affect the open space and rural character of the surrounding area.
Land Use Policy 17.6 Provide programs and incentives that allow rural areas to maintain and enhance their existing and desired character.
Land Use Policy 19.4 Require Encourage that structures be designed to maintain the environmental character in which they are located.
Land Use Policy 21.2 Protect lands designated as Open Space-Mineral resource from encroachment of incompatible land uses through buffer zones or visual screening.
Land Use Policy 22.10, 22.11, and 26.1 Require that residential units/projects, mixed-use development, and special needs housing be designed to consider their surroundings and to visually enhance and not degrade, the character of the immediate area.
Land Use Policy 26.3 Provide open space areas within Community Centers to provide visual relief from the urban environment, form linkages to other portions of the urban areas, and serve as buffers, where necessary.
Land Use Policy 26.10 Require that mixed-use developments be designed to mitigate potential conflicts between uses, considering such issues as noise lighting, security, trash, and truck, and automobile access.
Open Space Policy 21.1 Restore no-longer-productive County cut-and-fill waste disposal areas to blend in with their natural surroundings.
Open Space Policy 21.12 Identify and conserve the skylines, view corridors, and outstanding scenic vistas within the County.
Open Space Policy 22.1 Design developments within designated scenic highway corridors to balance the objectives of maintaining scenic resources with accommodating compatible land uses.
Open Space Policy 22.2 Study potential scenic highway corridors for possible inclusion in the Caltrans Scenic Highways Plan.
Open Space Policy 22.3 Encourage joint efforts among Federal, State, and County agencies, and citizen groups to ensure compatible development within scenic corridors.
Open Space Policy 22.4 Impose conditions on development within scenic highway corridors requiring dedication of scenic easements consistent with the Scenic Highways Plan, when it is necessary to preserve unique or special visual features.
Open Space Policy 22.5 Utilize contour grading and slope rounding to gradually transition graded road slopes into a natural configuration consistent with the topography of the areas within scenic highway corridors.
Effectiveness of Proposed General Plan Policies A main purpose of the proposed General Plan is to ensure future development does not occur in a manner that would adversely impact adjacent uses. As development occurs, it would be required to be consistent with the goals and policies of the proposed General Plan. The proposed General Plan policies listed above provide guidance and some mitigation to reduce impacts to aesthetic and scenic resources, particularly as concerns the terrain and location of new development. However, they do not provide development design standards which would ensure that aesthetic impacts relating to design would be less than significant. Therefore, the following mitigation measure has been added.
Mitigation Measures
4.4.1A Development projects shall be subject to the requirements of all relevant guidelines, including the community center guidelines (Appendix J of the proposed General Plan), Riverside County supervisorial district design and landscape guidelines, and all applicable standards, policies, guidelines, and/or regulations of the County of Riverside or other affected entities pertaining to scenic vistas/aesthetic resources. Factors considered in these guidelines include the scale, extent, height, bulk, or intensity of development; the location of development; the type, style, and intensity of adjacent land uses; the manner and method of construction, including materials, coatings, and landscaping; the interim and/or final use of the development; the type, location, and manner of illumination and signage; the nature and extent of terrain modification required; and the potential effects to the established visual characteristic of the project site and/or an identified scenic vista/aesthetic resource.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have not substantially altered the meaning and applicability of the policies that pertain to scenic vistas and visual resources. The policies and mitigation measure address impacts to scenic vistas and visual resources on a project-level basis, and would thus not be affected by changes in land use designations associated with the revised proposed General Plan. Therefore, the policies and mitigation will remain effective in reducing visual impacts to a less than significant level.
Light and Glare Impacts
Impact 4.4.2 Implementation of the proposed General Plan would increase the effects of light and glare upon existing residential uses, as well as the Mount Palomar Observatory. New light and glare would be created by the addition of residences and commercial establishments within the proposed General Plan. The most significant glare would be generated by commercial uses throughout the proposed General Plan area, especially in association with outdoor parking that may be lit at night and that would be visible from roadways. This is a potentially significant impact, but would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of mitigation measures.
Analysis of Impact Light and glare would be created by the proposed General Plan with the lighting of parking lots, commercial landscaped areas, interior building lighting, and/or the use of exterior building materials that could be reflective. The most significant impacts would occur from new development occurring adjacent to undeveloped land and commercial, industrial, and public facility uses adjacent to residential areas.
Generally, to ensure that nighttime skies will not be brightened, observatories need to be sited 30 to 40 miles from large lighted areas. The Palomar Observatory is located approximately 5.5 miles south of the Riverside-San Diego County boundary. Originally, the observatory was located in an area that was generally non-urbanized. The proposed General Plan would permit the development of urban uses and the accompanying installation of lighting. While not located within Riverside County, astronomical observations at the observatory would be affected by an increase in lighting sources that may occur as a result of build out of the proposed General Plan. Although additional light sources would not be individually significant, the cumulative increase could be a potentially significant impact.
Existing County of Riverside Requirements
County of Riverside Ordinance No. 655 The intent of this ordinance is to restrict the permitted use of certain light fixtures emitting into the night sky undesirable light rays which have a detrimental effect on astronomical observation and research. This ordinance is not intended to restrict the use of low pressure sodium lighting of single-family dwellings for security purposes. Ordinance No. 655 defines lighting sources, establishes the type and manner of installation and operation of lighting, and details lighting prohibitions.
The following mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the impact of light and glare to a level that is less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
4.4.2A Riverside County shall require that sources of lighting within the General Plan area be limited to the minimum standard required to ensure safe circulation and visibility.
4.4.2B Riverside County shall require street lighting to be limited to intersections and other locations that are needed to maintain safe access (e.g., sharp curves).
4.4.2C Riverside County shall require exterior lighting for buildings to be of a low profile and intensity.
4.4.2D The County shall establish a liaison with California Institute of Technology to ensure "dark skies" preservation procedures are incorporated, as necessary, in future County ordinances.
4.4.2E The County shall participate in Palomar Observatory's "dark sky" conservation area.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have not added any policies that pertain to light and glare, nor has any modification been made to County Ordinance No. 655. The mitigation measures address impacts to light and glare on a project-level basis, and would thus not be affected by changes in land use designations associated with the revised proposed General Plan. Therefore, the mitigation will remain effective in reducing these impacts to a less than significant level.
Open Space Conversion Impacts
Impact 4.4.3 Implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in conversion of open space areas to urban land use.
Analysis of Impact As discussed in Impact 4.4.1, build out of the proposed General Plan would result in a substantial increase in urban uses throughout the proposed General Plan area. The development of structures and facilities would occur on vacant properties within unincorporated areas of the County and would be consistent with the policies outlined in the proposed General Plan. The conversion of open space to urban uses would result in a significant unavoidable impact by causing the obstruction of existing open views as well potentially obstructing distant panoramic views from existing development; therefore, implementation of the proposed General Plan will contribute significantly to the loss of visual character of the County. While the proposed General Plan policies and mitigation measures outlined in Impact 4.4.1 address the aesthetic impact of the new development, no mitigation is available to address the conversion of open space to urban land uses. This impact is significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures No feasible mitigation measures exist to address the conversion of open space to urban land.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have not added any policies that pertain to open space conversions. Although the changes in land use designations associated with the revised proposed General Plan may alter the location of development, the net effect of the conversion of open space to urban land remains the same. Therefore, this impact remains significant and unavoidable.
4.4.4 Aesthetics/Visual Resources Level of Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of the proposed General Plan policies, existing County ordinances, and the mitigation identified above, will reduce potential aesthetic resource and light/glare impacts to a less than significant level. Impacts resulting from the conversion of open space to urban land uses would remain significant and unavoidable.
4.5 Air Quality
4.5.1 Air Quality Existing Setting
Although air quality in Southern California continues to improve, Southern California still experiences the worst air quality in the nation, requiring continued diligence to meet air quality standards. Continuing the progress toward clean air is a challenging task, not only to recognize and understand complex interactions between emissions and resulting air quality, but also to pursue the best possible set of strategies to improve air quality while maintaining a healthy economy.
Air Basins and Air Quality Management Districts
The project site is located in Riverside County, which is located in three distinct air basins: South Coast Air Basin, Mojave Desert Air Basin, and Salton Sea Air Basin (Figure 4.5.1).
Western Riverside County (west of San Gorgonio Pass) is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes all of Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Air quality conditions in the SCAB are under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
The far eastern end of Riverside County (approximately east of Joshua Tree National Park) belongs to the Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB), which also includes the portions of Los Angeles, Kern, and San Bernardino Counties that were previously within the Southeast Desert Air Basin (SEDAB). Air quality conditions in the Riverside County MDAB are partly (i.e., the western portion of the Riverside County MDAB in the Coachella Valley Planning Area) under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD and partly (i.e., the eastern portion of the Riverside County MDAB in the Southeast Desert Nonattainment Area) under the jurisdiction of the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD).
The middle part of the Riverside County (between San Gorgonio Pass and Joshua Tree National Monument), included as part of Coachella Valley Planning Area, belongs to the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB), which also includes Imperial County. Air quality conditions in this portion of the Riverside County, although in SSAB, are also administered by the SCAQMD.
Each of these regional air quality agencies regulates stationary sources of pollution throughout its jurisdiction area. Direct emissions from motor vehicles are regulated throughout the state by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
Climate/Meteorology
Air quality is not only affected by various emission sources (mobile, industry, etc.) but is also affected by atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, wind direction, temperature, rainfall, etc. The following describes the climate and meteorology in the Riverside County portion of each of the three air basins.
South Coast Air Basin The combination of topography, low mean mixing height, abundant sunshine, and emissions from the second largest urban area in the United States gives the SCAB the worst air pollution problem in the nation.
Climate in the SCAB is determined by its terrain and geographical location. The Basin consists of a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills. The Pacific Ocean forms the southwestern border, and high mountains surround the rest of the SCAB. The SCAB lies in the semi-permanent high pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. The resulting climate is mild, and is tempered by cool ocean breezes. This climatological pattern is rarely interrupted. However, periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana wind conditions can occur.
Annual average temperature varies little throughout the SCAB, ranging from the low-to-middle 60s, measured in degrees Fahrenheit. With a more pronounced oceanic influence, coastal areas show less variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas. The majority of annual rainfall in the SCAB occurs between October and March. Summer rainfall is minimal and generally limited to scattered thundershowers in coastal regions and slightly heavier showers in the eastern portion of the SCAB and along the coastal side of the mountains.
Although the SCAB has a semi-arid climate, air near the surface is generally moist because of the presence of a shallow marine layer. With very low average wind speeds, there is a limited capacity to disperse air contaminants horizontally. The dominant daily wind pattern is an onshore 8 to 12 mph daytime breeze and an offshore 3 to 5 mph nighttime breeze. The typical wind flow pattern fluctuates only with occasional winter storms or strong northeasterly Santa Ana winds from the mountains and deserts northeast of the SCAB. Summer wind flow patterns represent worst-case conditions, as this is the period of higher temperatures and more sunlight, which results in ozone formation.
During spring and early summer, pollution produced during any one day is typically blown out of the SCAB through mountain passes or lifted by warm, vertical currents adjacent to mountain slopes. Air contaminants can be transported 60 miles or more from the SCAB by ocean air during the afternoons. From early fall to winter, the transport is less pronounced because of slower average wind speed and the appearance of drainage winds earlier in the day. During stagnant wind conditions, offshore drainage winds may begin by late afternoon. Pollutants remaining in the SCAB are trapped and begin to accumulate during the night and the following morning. A low morning wind speed in pollutant source areas is an important indicator of air stagnation and the buildup potential for primary air contaminants.
Temperature normally decreases with altitude, and a reversal of this atmospheric state, where temperature increases with altitude, is called an inversion. The height from the earth to the inversion base is known as the mixing height. With persistent low inversions and cool coastal air, morning fog and low stratus clouds are common. Cloudy days are less likely in the eastern portions of the SCAB and about 25 percent more likely along the coast. The vertical dispersion of air pollutants in the SCAB is limited by temperature inversions in the atmosphere close to the earth's surface.
Inversions are generally lower in the nighttime, when the ground is cool, than during daylight hours when the sun warms the ground and, in turn, the surface air layer. As this heating process continues, the temperature of the surface air layer approaches the temperature of the inversion base, causing heating along its lower edge. If enough warming takes place, the inversion layer becomes weak and opens up to allow the surface air layers to mix upward. This can be seen in the middle to late afternoon on a hot summer day when the smog appears to clear suddenly. Winter inversions typically break earlier in the day, preventing excessive contaminant build-up.
The combination of stagnant wind conditions and low inversions produces the greatest pollutant concentrations. On days of no inversion or high wind speeds, ambient air pollutant concentrations are lowest. During periods of low inversions and low wind speeds, air pollutants generated in urbanized areas are transported predominantly onshore into Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. In the winter, the greatest pollution problems are carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen because of extremely low inversions and air stagnation during the night and early morning hours. In the summer, the longer daylight hours and the brighter sunshine combine to cause a reaction between hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen to form photochemical smog.
Mojave Desert Air Basin The MDAB is an assemblage of mountain ranges interspersed with long broad valleys that often contain dry lakes. Many of the lower mountains that dot the vast terrain rise from 1,000 to 4,000 feet above the valley floor. Prevailing winds in the MDAB are out of the west and southwest. These prevailing winds are due to the proximity of the MDAB to coastal and central regions and the blocking effect of the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the north. Air masses pushed onshore in Southern California by differential heating are channeled through the MDAB. The MDAB is separated from the Southern California coastal and central California Valley regions by mountains (highest elevation approximately 10,000 feet), whose passes form the main channels for these air masses. The Mojave Desert is bordered in the southwest by the San Bernardino Mountains, separated from the San Gabriel Mountains by the Cajon Pass (4,200 feet). A lesser channel lies between the San Bernardino Mountains and the Little San Bernardino Mountains, the Morongo Valley. The Palo Verde Valley portion of the Mojave Desert lies in the low desert, at the eastern end of a series of valleys (notably the Coachella Valley) whose primary channel is the San Gorgonio Pass (2,300 feet) between the San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains.
During the summer, the MDAB is generally influenced by a Pacific Subtropical High cell that sits off the coast, inhibiting cloud formation and encouraging daytime solar heating. The MDAB is rarely influenced by cold air masses moving south from Canada and Alaska, as these frontal systems are weak and diffuse by the time they reach the desert. Most desert moisture arrives from infrequent warm, moist and unstable air masses from the south. The MDAB averages between three and seven inches of precipitation per year (from 16 to 30 days with at least 0.01 inch of precipitation). The MDAB is classified as a dry-hot desert climate (Bwh), with portions classified as dry-very hot desert (Bwhh), to indicate at least three months have maximum average temperatures over 100.4EF.
Salton Sea Air Basin The SSAB portion of the Riverside County is separated from the SCAB region by the San Jacinto Mountains and from the MDAB region by the Little San Bernardino Mountains.
Similar to the MDAB region, during the summer the SSAB is generally influenced by a Pacific Subtropical High cell that sits off the coast, inhibiting cloud formation and encouraging daytime solar heating. The SSAB is rarely influenced by cold air masses moving south from Canada and Alaska, as these frontal systems are weak and diffuse by the time they reach the desert. Most desert moisture arrives from infrequent warm, moist and unstable air masses from the south. The SSAB averages between three and seven inches of precipitation per year.
Criteria Air Pollutants and Attainment Status
The following describes the six criteria air pollutants and the attainment status of each of the three air basins.
Ozone Ozone (O3), or smog, is formed by photochemical reactions between oxides of nitrogen and reactive organic gases rather than being directly emitted. O3 is a pungent, colorless gas typical of Southern California smog. Elevated O3 concentrations result in reduced lung function, particularly during vigorous physical activity. This health problem is particularly acute in sensitive receptors such as the sick, elderly, and young children. O3 levels peak during the summer and early fall.
The SCAB is designated as a nonattainment area for both federal and State O3 standards, meaning that air quality standards are being exceeded. The EPA has classified the SCAB as an "extreme" nonattainment area, and has mandated that the SCAB achieve attainment by 2010.
The MDAB and SSAB are designated as nonattainment areas for both federal and State O3 standards.
Carbon Monoxide Carbon monoxide (CO) is formed by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, and is almost entirely from automobile exhaust. It is a colorless, odorless gas that can cause dizziness, fatigue, and impairments to central nervous system functions.
The SCAB is designated as a nonattainment area for federal CO standards and attainment for the State CO standards. Riverside County has not exceeded either the federal or State CO standards in the past five years.
The MDAB and SSAB are designated as attainment areas for both federal and State CO standards.
Nitrogen Dioxide Nitrogen dioxide (NO2), a reddish brown gas, and nitric oxide (NO), a colorless, odorless gas, are formed from fuel combustion under high temperature or pressure. These compounds are referred to jointly as nitrogen oxides, or NOx. NOx is a primary component of the photochemical smog reaction. They also contribute to other pollution problems, including a high concentration of fine particulate matter, poor visibility, and acid deposition. NO2 decreases lung function and may reduce resistance to infection.
The SCAB has not exceeded either federal and State standards for NO2 in the past five years, according to published monitoring data. It is designated as a maintenance area under federal standards, and as an attainment area under State standards.
The MDAB and SSAB are designated as attainment areas for both federal and State NO2 standards.
Sulfur Dioxide Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless irritating gas formed primarily from incomplete combustion of fuels containing sulfur. Industrial facilities also contribute to gaseous SO2 levels. SO2 irritates the respiratory tract, can injure lung tissue when combined with fine particulate matter, and reduces visibility and the level of sunlight.
The SCAB is in attainment with both federal and State SO2 standards.
The MDAB and SSAB are designated as attainment areas for federal and State SO2 standards.
Particulate Matter Particulate matter is the term used for a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air. Coarse particles (all particles smaller than 10 micrometers, or PM10) come from a variety of sources, including windblown dust and grinding operations. Fine particles (less than 2.5 micrometers, or PM2.5) often come from fuel combustion, power plants, and diesel buses and trucks. Fine particles can also be formed in the atmosphere through chemical reactions.
PM10 can accumulate in the respiratory system and aggravate health problems such as asthma. EPA's scientific review concluded that fine particles (PM2.5), which penetrate deeply into the lungs, are more likely than coarse particles to contribute to the health effects listed in a number of recently published community epidemiological studies at concentrations that extend well below those allowed by the current PM10 standards. These health effects include premature death and increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits (primarily the elderly and individuals with cardiopulmonary disease); increased respiratory symptoms and disease (children and individuals with cardiopulmonary disease such as asthma); decreased lung functions (particularly in children and individuals with asthma); and alterations in lung tissue and structure and in respiratory tract defense mechanisms.
The SCAB, MCAB and SSAB are nonattainment areas for federal and State PM10 standards.
The attainment statuses of PM2.5 in the SCAB, MDAB, and SSAB have not been established by the EPA or the CARB.
Lead Lead is found in old paints and coatings, plumbing, and a variety of other materials. Once in the bloodstream, lead (Pb) can cause damage to the brain, nervous system and other body systems. Children are highly susceptible to the effects of lead.
The SCAB, MDAB, and SSAB are all in attainment for federal and State standards for lead.
Existing Policies and Regulations
Air Quality Standards
Air quality has been regulated at the federal level under the Clean Air Act (CAA) since 1970. This act authorized the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for air pollutants of nationwide concern. The EPA has established standards for six criteria air pollutants. Table 4.5.A shows both federal and State standards for these criteria pollutants. Primary standards for air pollutants were established to protect public health, while secondary standards were established to protect the public welfare by preventing impairment of visibility and damage to vegetation and property. In addition to more stringent ambient air quality standards than the corresponding NAAQS for the six criteria air pollutants, the CARB has set State standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety. These criteria refer to episode levels representing periods of short-term exposure to air pollutants that actually threaten public health. Health effects are progressively more severe as pollutant levels increase from Stage One to Stage Three. Table 4.5.B lists the sources and primary health effects of these six criteria pollutants. These health effects would not occur unless the standards are exceeded by a large margin or for a prolonged period of time. The State AAQS are more stringent than the federal AAQS.
Federal Regulations/Standards The NAAQS are two-tiered: primary, to protect public health; and secondary, to prevent degradation of the environment (e.g., impairment of visibility, damage to vegetation and property, etc.). Data collected at permanent monitoring stations are used by the EPA to classify regions as "attainment" or "nonattainment," depending on whether the regions met the requirements stated in the primary NAAQS. Nonattainment areas are imposed with additional restrictions as required by the EPA. The EPA has designated the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) responsible for ensuring compliance with the requirements of the CAA for the SCAB, MDAB, and the SSAB areas of the Riverside County.
The EPA established new national air quality standards for ground-level O3 and fine particulate matter in 1997. On May 14, 1999, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision ruling that the CAA, as applied in setting the new public health standards for O3 and particulate matter, was unconstitutional as an improper delegation of legislative authority to the EPA. On February 27, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the way the government sets air quality standards under the CAA. The Court unanimously rejected industry arguments that the EPA must consider financial cost as well as health benefits in writing standards. The Court also rejected arguments that the EPA took too much lawmaking power from Congress when it set tougher standards for O3 and soot in 1997. Nevertheless, the Court threw out the EPA's policy for implementing new O3 rules, saying the agency ignored a section of the law that restricts its decision-making authority. It ordered the agency to come up with a more "reasonable" interpretation of the law.
| Table 4.5.A - Ambient Air Quality Standards | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pollutant | Averaging Time | STATE | FEDERAL | |
| Concentration | Primary | Secondary | ||
| Ozone (O3) | 1-Hour | 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3) |
0.12 ppm (235 µg/m3) |
Same as Primary Standard |
| 8-Hour | - | 0.08 ppm (157 µg/m3) |
||
| Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) | Annual Average | - | 0.053 ppm (100 µg/m3) |
Same as Primary Standard |
| 1-Hour | 0.25 ppm (470 µg/m3) |
- | ||
| Carbon Monoxide (CO) | 8-Hour | 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) |
9 ppm (10 mg/m3) |
- |
| 1-Hour | 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) |
35 ppm (40 mg/m3) |
- | |
| Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10) | Annual Geometric Mean |
30 µg/m3 | - | Same as Primary Standard |
| 24-Hour | 50 µg/m3 | 150 µg/m3 | Same as Primary Standard |
|
| Annual Arithmetic Mean |
- | 50 µg/m3 | - | |
| Suspended Particulate Matter (PM2.5) | 24-Hour | No separate State standard |
65 µg/m3 | Same as Primary Standard |
| Annual Arithmetic Mean |
- | 15 µg/m3 | Same as Primary Standard |
|
| Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) | Annual Average | - | 0.03 ppm ( 80 µg/m3) |
- |
| 24-Hour | 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m3) |
0.14 ppm (365 µg/m3) |
- | |
| 3-Hour | - | - | 0.5 ppm (1,300 µg/m3) |
|
| 1-Hour | 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3) |
- | - | |
| Lead | 30-Day Average | 1.5 µg/m3 | - | - |
| Calendar Quarter | - | 1.5 µg/m3 | Same as Primary Standard |
|
| Sulfates | 24-Hour | 25 µg/m3 | - | - |
| Hydrogen Sulfide | 1-Hour | 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m3) |
- | - |
| Vinyl Chloride (chloroethene) | 24-Hour | 0.010 ppm (26 µg/m3) |
- | - |
| Visibility-Reducing Particles | 8-Hour (10 am-6 pm PST) |
1 | - | - |
| Notes: ppm = parts per million mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter 1 In sufficient amounts to produce an extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer due to particles when the relative humidity is less than 70 percent. Measurement in accordance with CARB Method V. Source: California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2001. |
||||
| Table 4.5.B - Health Effects Summary of the Major Criteria Air Pollutants | ||
|---|---|---|
| Pollutants | Sources | Primary Effects |
| Ozone (O3) | Atmospheric reaction of organic gases with nitrogen oxides in sunlight. | Aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Irritation of eyes. Impairment of cardiopulmonary function. Plant leaf injury. |
| Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) | Motor vehicle exhaust. High temperature stationary combustion. Atmospheric reactions. |
Aggravation of respiratory illness. Reduced visibility. Reduced plant growth. Formation of acid rain. |
| Carbon Monoxide (CO) | Incomplete combustion of fuels and other carbon containing substances, such as motor exhaust. Natural events, such as decomposition of organic matter. |
Reduced tolerance for exercise. Impairment of mental function. Impairment of fetal development. Death at high levels of exposure. Aggravation of some heart diseases (angina). |
| Fine Particulate Matter (PM10) | Stationary combustion of solid fuels. Construction activities. Industrial processes. Atmospheric chemical reactions. Reduced lung function. |
Aggravation of the effects of gaseous pollutants. Aggravation of respiratory and cardiorespiratory diseases. Increased cough and chest discomfort. Soiling. Reduced visibility. |
| Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) | Combustion of sulfur containing fossil fuels. Smelting of sulfur bearing metal ores. Industrial processes. |
Aggravation of respiratory diseases (asthma, emphysema). Reduced lung function. Irritation of eyes. Reduced visibility. Plant injury. Deterioration of metals, textiles, leather, finishes, coatings, etc. |
| Lead (Pb) | Contaminated soil. | Impairment of blood function and nerve construction. Behavioral and hearing problems in children. |
| Source: CARB, 1998. | ||
State Regulations/Standards The State of California began to set California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) in 1969 under the mandate of the Mulford-Carrell Act. The CAAQS are generally more stringent than the NAAQS. Originally, there were no attainment deadlines for the CAAQS. However, the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) of 1988 provided a time frame and a planning structure to promote their attainment. The CCAA required nonattainment areas in the State to prepare attainment plans and proposed to classify each such area on the basis of the submitted plan, as follows: moderate, if CAAQS attainment could not occur before December 31, 1994; serious, if CAAQS attainment could not occur before December 31, 1997; and severe, if CAAQS attainment could not be conclusively demonstrated at all.
The attainment plans are required to achieve a minimum 5 percent annual reduction in the emissions of nonattainment pollutants unless all feasible measures have been implemented. The Riverside County is currently classified as a nonattainment area for two criteria pollutants (O3 and PM10) for the State standards.
Regional Air Quality Planning Framework
The 1976 Lewis Air Quality Management Act established air districts throughout the State of California. The Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 required that each state adopt an implementation plan outlining pollution control measures to attain the federal standards in nonattainment or maintenance areas of the state. This requirement led to the local air quality planning processes in areas like the SCAB, MDAB, and SSAB.
The CARB coordinates and oversees both State and federal air pollution control programs in California. The CARB oversees activities of local air quality management agencies, and is responsible for incorporating air quality management plans for local air basins into a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for federal EPA approval. The SIP provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the AAQS. The CARB maintains air quality monitoring stations throughout the State in conjunction with local air districts. Data collected at these stations are used by the CARB to classify air basins as "attainment" or "nonattainment" with respect to each pollutant and to monitor progress in attaining air quality standards. The CARB has divided the State into 15 air basins. Significant authority for air quality control within them has been given to local air districts that regulate stationary source emissions and develop local nonattainment plans. The CCAA provides local air districts such as SCAQMD and MDAQMD with the authority to manage transportation activities at indirect sources and regulate stationary source emissions. Indirect sources of pollution are generated when minor sources collectively emit a substantial amount of pollution. Examples of this would be the motor vehicles at an intersection, a mall, and on highways. As a State agency, the CARB regulates motor vehicles and fuels for their emissions.
Regional Air Quality Management Plan The federal CAA prohibits federal departments and agencies or other agencies from acting on behalf of the federal government, and the MPO from engaging in, supporting in any way, providing financial assistance for, licensing, permitting or approving any activity that does not conform to the SIP. SCAG is the MPO for Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles and Orange Counties. Federal law requires that a proposed project conform with the SIP. The AQMP must be reviewed and approved by the EPA before it becomes part of the SIP. SIP status in the region is complex because of a combination of EPA proposed action on the SIP and legal action by various parties.
South Coast Air Basin and Salton Sea Air Basin The SCAQMD and SCAG are responsible for formulating and implementing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the SCAB and SSAB portions of Riverside County. Regional AQMPs were adopted for the SCAB region for 1979, 1982, 1991, 1994, and 1997. In January 1999, the EPA rejected the provisions of the 1997 AQMP designed to attain the federal O3 standard for the SCAG region. Separate parts of the 1997 AQMP related to CO and NO2 have previously been approved, and EPA has yet to act on that portion of the 1997 AQMP re-lated to PM10. Therefore, the following SIP and AQMP are the currently approved plans for the SCAB region:
• 1994 SIP for O3.
• 1997 SIP for CO.
• 1997 AQMP for O3, PM10, CO, and NO2.
• For those pollutants without an approved SIP, the 1990 inventory should be used for general conformity.
The SCAQMD Governing Board approved the 1997 AQMP on November 15, 1996. After approval, the AQMP was submitted to the CARB for its review and approval. The CARB approved the O3 and PM10 portions of the 1997 AQMP on January 23, 1997, and submitted the plan to the EPA as proposed revisions to the SIP. The EPA rejected the District's revision of its 1997 AQMP in January 1999. The rejection, however, covers only the provisions of the AQMP designed to attain the federal O3 standard. As a result of the rejection, SCAQMD prepared a draft "Proposed 1999 Amendment to the 1997 Ozone SIP Revision for the South Coast Air Basin;" on October 7, 1999, for public review and comment. The 1999 Amendment proposed to revise the O3 portion of the 1997 AQMP that was submitted to the EPA as a revision to the SCAB portion of the 1994 California Ozone SIP. The SCAQMD Governing Board adopted the "1999 Amendment to the 1997 Ozone SIP Revision for the South Coast Air Basin;" on December 10, 1999. In addition, the SCAQMD Governing Board settled with three environmental organizations on its litigation of the 1994 Ozone SIP.
Mojave Desert Air Basin The MDAQMD and SCAG are responsible for formulating and implementing the Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP) for the MDAB portion of Riverside County. Regional AQAPs were adopted in 1991, 1994 and 1997. The following SIP and AQAP are the currently approved plans for the MDAB region:
• 1997 SIP for O3, PM10, and NO2.
• 1997 AQAP for O3, PM10, and NO2.
Existing Local Air Quality
The SCAQMD maintains ambient air quality monitoring stations throughout the SCAB. There are seven air quality monitoring stations in the SCAB area of Riverside County: Norco, Riverside-Rubidoux, Riverside-Magnolia, Banning-Allesandro, Banning-Hathaway, Perris, and Lake Elsinore. These seven air monitoring stations cover the western Riverside County area (See Tables 4.5.C through 4.5.K).
The SCAQMD also maintains two ambient air quality monitoring stations in the SSAB portion of Riverside County: Palm Springs and Indio.
There are no air quality monitoring stations in the MDAB portion of Riverside County.
| Table 4.5.C - Ambient Air Quality at Norco Air Monitoring Station | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carbon Monoxide | Ozone | |||||
| Max. 1-Hour Concentration (PPM) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
Max. 8-Hour Concentration (PPM) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
Max. 1-Hour Concentration (PPM) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
|
| State Standards | > 20 ppm/1 hr | > 9.0 ppm/8 hr | > 0.09 ppm/1 hr | |||
| 2001 | NM1 | NM | NM | NM | NM | NM |
| 2000 | NM | NM | NM | NM | NM | NM |
| 1999 | NM | NM | NM | NM | NM | NM |
| 1998 | NM | NM | NM | NM | NM | NM |
| 1997 | NM | NM | NM | NM | NM | NM |
| Maximum | NM | NM | NM | |||
| Federal Standards | > 35 ppm/1 hr | > 9.0 ppm/8 hr | > 0.12 ppm/1 hr | |||
| 2001 | NM | NM | NM | NM | NM | NM |
| 2000 | NM | NM | NM | NM | NM | NM |
| 1999 | NM | NM | NM | NM | NM | NM |
| 1998 | NM | NM | NM | NM | NM | NM |
| 1997 | NM | NM | NM | NM | NM | NM |
| Maximum | NM | NM | NM | |||
| Coarse Particulates | Nitrogen Dioxide | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Max. 24-Hour Concentration (µg/m3) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
Max. 1-Hour Concentration (PPM) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
|
| State Standards | > 50 µg/m3, 24 hrs | > 0.25 ppm/1 hr | ||
| 2001 | 109 | 9 | NM | NM |
| 2000 | 129 | 28 | NM | NM |
| 1999 | 136 | 31 | NM | NM |
| 1998 | 93 | 23 | NM | NM |
| 1997 | 158 | 25 | NM | NM |
| Maximum | 158 | NM | ||
| Federal Standards | > 150 µg/m3, 24 hrs | 0.053 ppm, annual average | ||
| 2001 | 109 | 0 | NM | NM |
| 2000 | 129 | 0 | NM | NM |
| 1999 | 136 | 0 | NM | NM |
| 1998 | 93 | 0 | NM | NM |
| 1997 | 158 | 1 | NM | NM |
| Maximum | 158 | NM | ||
| Notes: 1 Not monitored at this monitoring station. µg/m3 = microgram per cubic meter ppm = parts per million Source: CARB Air Quality Data, 1997 to 2001. |
||||
| Table 4.5.D - Ambient Air Quality at Riverside-Rubidoux Air Monitoring Station | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carbon Monoxide | Ozone | |||||
| Max. 1-Hour Concentration (PPM) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
Max. 8-Hour Concentration (PPM) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
Max. 1-Hour Concentration (PPM) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
|
| State Standards | > 20 ppm/1 hr | > 9.0 ppm/8 hr | > 0.09 ppm/1 hr | |||
| 2001 | 3.9 | 0 | 3.2 | 0 | 0.14 | 40 |
| 2000 | 5.3 | 0 | 4.2 | 0 | 0.14 | 42 |
| 1999 | 7.0 | 0 | 4.4 | 0 | 0.14 | 38 |
| 1998 | 5.5 | 0 | 4.8 | 0 | 0.20 | 70 |
| 1997 | 6.6 | 0 | 5.6 | 0 | 0.19 | 89 |
| Maximum | 7.0 | 5.6 | 0.20 | |||
| Federal Standards | > 35 ppm/1 hr | > 9.0 ppm/8 hr | > 0.12 ppm/1 hr | |||
| 2001 | 3.9 | 0 | 3.2 | 0 | 0.14 | 7 |
| 2000 | 5.3 | 0 | 4.2 | 0 | 0.14 | 3 |
| 1999 | 7.0 | 0 | 4.4 | 0 | 0.14 | 3 |
| 1998 | 5.5 | 0 | 4.8 | 0 | 0.20 | 32 |
| 1997 | 6.6 | 0 | 5.6 | 0 | 0.19 | 13 |
| Maximum | 7.0 | 5.6 | 0.20 | |||
| Coarse Particulates | Nitrogen Dioxide | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Max. 24-Hour Concentration (µg/m3) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
Max. 1-Hour Concentration (PPM) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
|
| State Standards | > 50 µg/m3, 24 hrs | > 0.25 ppm/1 hr | ||
| 2001 | 107 | 41 | 0.15 | 0 |
| 2000 | 139 | 68 | 0.09 | 0 |
| 1999 | 153 | 46 | 0.13 | 0 |
| 1998 | 116 | 42 | 0.10 | 0 |
| 1997 | 163 | 41 | 0.12 | 0 |
| Maximum | 163 | 0.15 | ||
| Federal Standards | > 150 µg/m3, 24 hrs | 0.053 ppm, annual average | ||
| 2001 | 107 | 1 | 0.022 | 0 |
| 2000 | 139 | 0 | 0.022 | 0 |
| 1999 | 153 | 1 | 0.025 | 0 |
| 1998 | 116 | 0 | 0.022 | 0 |
| 1997 | 163 | 1 | 0.026 | 0 |
| Maximum | 163 | 0.026 | ||
| Notes: µg/m3 = microgram per cubic meter ppm = parts per million Source: CARB Air Quality Data, 1997 to 2001. |
||||
| Table 4.5.E - Ambient Air Quality at Riverside-Magnolia Air Monitoring Station | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carbon Monoxide | Ozone | |||||
| Max. 1-Hour Concentration (PPM) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
Max. 8-Hour Concentration (PPM) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
Max. 1-Hour Concentration (PPM) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
|
| State Standards | > 20 ppm/1 hr | > 9.0 ppm/8 hr | > 0.09 ppm/1 hr | |||
| 2001 | 5.7 | 0 | 4.5 | 0 | NM1 | NM |
| 2000 | 8.8 | 0 | 4.2 | 0 | NM | NM |
| 1999 | 7.4 | 0 | 4.1 | 0 | NM | NM |
| 1998 | 6.4 | 0 | 4.6 | 0 | NM | NM |
| 1997 | 10.7 | 0 | 5.5 | 0 | NM | NM |
| Maximum | 10.7 | 5.5 | NM | |||
| Federal Standards | > 35 ppm/1 hr | > 9.0 ppm/8 hr | > 0.12 ppm/1 hr | |||
| 2001 | 5.7 | 0 | 4.5 | |||
| 2000 | 8.8 | 0 | 4.2 | 0 | NM | NM |
| 1999 | 7.4 | 0 | 4.1 | 0 | NM | NM |
| 1998 | 6.4 | 0 | 4.6 | 0 | NM | NM |
| 1997 | 10.7 | 0 | 5.5 | 0 | NM | NM |
| Maximum | 10.7 | 5.5 | NM | |||
| Coarse Particulates | Nitrogen Dioxide | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Max. 24-Hour Concentration (µg/m3) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
Max. 1-Hour Concentration (PPM) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
|
| State Standards | > 50 µg/m3, 24 hrs | > 0.25 ppm/1 hr | ||
| 2001 | NM | NM | NM | NM |
| 2000 | NM | NM | NM | NM |
| 1999 | NM | NM | NM | NM |
| 1998 | NM | NM | NM | NM |
| 1997 | NM | NM | NM | NM |
| Maximum | NM | NM | ||
| Federal Standards | > 150 µg/m3, 24 hrs | > 0.12 ppm/1 hr | ||
| 2001 | NM | NM | NM | NM |
| 2000 | NM | NM | NM | NM |
| 1999 | NM | NM | NM | NM |
| 1998 | NM | NM | NM | NM |
| 1997 | NM | NM | NM | NM |
| Maximum | NM | NM | ||
| Notes: 1 Not monitored at this monitoring station. µg/m3 = microgram per cubic meter ppm = parts per million Source: CARB Air Quality Data, 1997 to 2001. |
||||
| Table 4.5.F - Ambient Air Quality at Banning-Allesandro Air Monitoring Station | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carbon Monoxide | Ozone | |||||
| Max. 1-Hour Concentration (PPM) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
Max. 8-Hour Concentration (PPM) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
Max. 1-Hour Concentration (PPM) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
|
| State Standards | > 20 ppm/1 hr | > 9.0 ppm/8 hr | > 0.09 ppm/1 hr | |||
| 2001 | NM1 | NM | NM | NM | NM | NM |
| 2000 | NM | NM | NM | NM | NM | NM |
| 1999 | NM | NM | NM | NM | NM | NM |
| 1998 | NM | NM | NM | NM | 0.12 | 4 |
| 1997 | NM | NM | NM | NM | 0.13 | 36 |
| Maximum | NM | NM | 0.13 | |||
| Federal Standards | > 35 ppm/1 hr | > 9.0 ppm/8 hr | > 0.12 ppm/1 hr | |||
| 2001 | NM | NM | NM | NM | NM | NM |
| 2000 | NM | NM | NM | NM | NM | NM |
| 1999 | NM | NM | NM | NM | NM | NM |
| 1998 | NM | NM | NM | NM | NM | NM |
| 1997 | NM | NM | NM | NM | NM | NM |
| Maximum | NM | NM | 0.13 | |||
| Coarse Particulates | Nitrogen Dioxide | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Max. 24-Hour Concentration (µg/m3) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
Max. 1-Hour Concentration (PPM) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
|
| State Standards | > 50 µg/m3, 24 hrs | > 0.25 ppm/1 hr | ||
| 2001 | NM | NM | NM | NM |
| 2000 | NM | NM | NM | NM |
| 1999 | 47 | 0 | NM | NM |
| 1998 | 76 | 5 | NM | NM |
| 1997 | 227 | 14 | NM | NM |
| Maximum | 227 | NM | ||
| Federal Standards | > 150 µg/m3, 24 hrs | 0.053 ppm, annual average | ||
| 2001 | NM | NM | NM | NM |
| 2000 | NM | NM | NM | NM |
| 1999 | 47 | 0 | NM | NM |
| 1998 | 76 | 0 | NM | NM |
| 1997 | 227 | 1 | NM | NM |
| Maximum | 227 | NM | ||
| Notes: 1 Not monitored at this monitoring station. µg/m3 = microgram per cubic meter ppm = parts per million Source: CARB Air Quality Data, 1997 to 2001. |
||||
| Table 4.5.G - Ambient Air Quality at Banning Airport Air Monitoring Station | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carbon Monoxide | Ozone | |||||
| Max. 1-Hour Concentration (PPM) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
Max. 8-Hour Concentration (PPM) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
Max. 1-Hour Concentration (PPM) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
|
| State Standards | > 20 ppm/1 hr | > 9.0 ppm/8 hr | > 0.09 ppm/1 hr | |||
| 2001 | NM1 | NM | NM | NM | 0.15 | 62 |
| 2000 | NM | NM | NM | NM | 0.14 | 53 |
| 1999 | NM | NM | NM | NM | 0.14 | 55 |
| 1998 | NM | NM | NM | NM | 0.17 | 53 |
| 1997 | NM | NM | NM | NM | 0.18 | 100 |
| Maximum | NM | NM | 0.18 | |||
| Federal | > 35 ppm/1 hr | > 9.0 ppm/8 hr | > 0.12 ppm/1 hr | |||
| 2001 | NM | NM | NM | NM | 0.15 | 62 |
| 2000 | NM | NM | NM | NM | 0.14 | 53 |
| 1999 | NM | NM | NM | NM | 0.14 | 55 |
| 1998 | NM | NM | NM | NM | 0.17 | 53 |
| 1997 | NM | NM | NM | NM | 0.18 | 100 |
| Maximum | NM | NM | 0.18 | |||
| Coarse Particulates | Nitrogen Dioxide | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Max. 24-Hour Concentration (µg/m3) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
Max. 1-Hour Concentration (PPM) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
|
| State Standards | > 50 µg/m3, 24 hrs | > 0.25 ppm/1 hr | ||
| 2001 | 67 | 1 | 0.24 | 0 |
| 2000 | 69 | 5 | 0.21 | 0 |
| 1999 | 86 | 4 | 0.31 | 1 |
| 1998 | 62 | 2 | 0.26 | 1 |
| 1997 | NM | NM | 0.20 | 0 |
| Maximum | 86 | 0.31 | ||
| Federal | > 150 µg/m3, 24 hrs | 0.053 ppm, annual average | ||
| 2001 | 67 | 0 | ND2 | ND |
| 2000 | 69 | 0 | 0.022 | 0 |
| 1999 | 86 | 0 | 0.023 | 0 |
| 1998 | 62 | 0 | 0.020 | 0 |
| 1997 | NM | NM | NM | 0 |
| Maximum | 86 | 0.023 | ||
| Notes: 1 Not monitored at this monitoring station. 2 No data provided. µg/m3 = microgram per cubic meter ppm = parts per million Source: CARB Air Quality Data, 1997 to 2001. |
||||
| Table 4.5.H - Ambient Air Quality at Perris Air Monitoring Station | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carbon Monoxide | Ozone | |||||
| Max. 1-Hour Concentration (PPM) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
Max. 8-Hour Concentration (PPM) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
Max. 1-Hour Concentration (PPM) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
|
| State Standards | > 20 ppm/1 hr | > 9.0 ppm/8 hr | > 0.09 ppm/1 hr | |||
| 2001 | NM1 | NM | NM | NM | 0.15 | 73 |
| 2000 | NM | NM | NM | NM | 0.16 | 65 |
| 1999 | NM | NM | NM | NM | 0.11 | 10 |
| 1998 | NM | NM | NM | NM | 0.15 | 38 |
| 1997 | NM | NM | NM | NM | 0.08 | 0 |
| Maximum | NM | NM | 0.16 | |||
| Federal Standards | > 35 ppm/1 hr | > 9.0 ppm/8 hr | > 0.12 ppm/1 hr | |||
| 2001 | NM | NM | NM | NM | 0.15 | 19 |
| 2000 | NM | NM | NM | NM | 0.16 | 15 |
| 1999 | NM | NM | NM | NM | 0.11 | 0 |
| 1998 | NM | NM | NM | NM | 0.15 | 8 |
| 1997 | NM | NM | NM | NM | 0.08 | 0 |
| Maximum | NM | NM | 0.16 | |||
| Coarse Particulates | Nitrogen Dioxide | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Max. 24-Hour Concentration (µg/m3) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
Max. 1-Hour Concentration (PPM) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
|
| State Standards | > 50 µg/m3, 24 hrs | > 0.25 ppm/1 hr | ||
| 2001 | 79 | 8 | NM | NM |
| 2000 | 87 | 13 | NM | NM |
| 1999 | 112 | 30 | NM | NM |
| 1998 | 98 | 14 | NM | NM |
| 1997 | 139 | 19 | NM | NM |
| Maximum | 139 | NM | ||
| Federal Standards | > 150 µg/m3, 24 hrs | 0.053 ppm, annual average | ||
| 2001 | 79 | 0 | NM | NM |
| 2000 | 87 | 0 | NM | NM |
| 1999 | 112 | 0 | NM | NM |
| 1998 | 98 | 0 | NM | NM |
| 1997 | 139 | 0 | NM | NM |
| Maximum | 139 | NM | ||
| Notes: 1 Not monitored at this monitoring station. µg/m3 = microgram per cubic meter ppm = parts per million Source: CARB Air Quality Data, 1997 to 2001. |
||||
| Table 4.5.I - Ambient Air Quality at Lake Elsinore Air Monitoring Station | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carbon Monoxide | Ozone | |||||
| Max. 1-Hour Concentration (PPM) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
Max. 8-Hour Concentration (PPM) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
Max. 1-Hour Concentration (PPM) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
|
| State Standards | > 20 ppm/1 hr | > 9.0 ppm/8 hr | > 0.09 ppm/1 hr | |||
| 2001 | NM1 | NM | NM | NM | 0.15 | 62 |
| 2000 | NM | NM | NM | NM | 0.13 | 45 |
| 1999 | NM | NM | NM | NM | 0.14 | 51 |
| 1998 | NM | NM | NM | NM | 0.17 | 52 |
| 1997 | NM | NM | NM | NM | 0.10 | 1 |
| Maximum | NM | NM | 0.17 | |||
| Federal Standards | > 35 ppm/1 hr | > 9.0 ppm/8 hr | > 0.12 ppm/1 hr | |||
| 2001 | NM | NM | NM | NM | 0.15 | 12 |
| 2000 | NM | NM | NM | NM | 0.13 | 1 |
| 1999 | NM | NM | NM | NM | 0.14 | 4 |
| 1998 | NM | NM | NM | NM | 0.17 | 22 |
| 1997 | NM | NM | NM | NM | 0.10 | 0 |
| Maximum | NM | NM | 0.17 | |||
| Coarse Particulates | Nitrogen Dioxide | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Max. 24-Hour Concentration (µg/m3) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
Max. 1-Hour Concentration (PPM) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
|
| State Standards | > 50 µg/m3, 24 hrs | > 0.25 ppm/1 hr | ||
| 2001 | NM | NM | 0.06 | 0 |
| 2000 | NM | NM | 0.08 | 0 |
| 1999 | NM | NM | 0.11 | 0 |
| 1998 | NM | NM | 0.08 | 0 |
| 1997 | NM | NM | 0.11 | 0 |
| Maximum | NM | 0.11 | ||
| Federal Standards | > 150 µg/m3, 24 hrs | 0.053 ppm, annual average | ||
| 2001 | NM | NM | ND2 | ND |
| 2000 | NM | NM | 0.017 | 0 |
| 1999 | NM | NM | 0.019 | 0 |
| 1998 | NM | NM | 0.017 | 0 |
| 1997 | NM | NM | 0.016 | 0 |
| Maximum | NM | 0.019 | ||
| Notes: 1 Not monitored at this monitoring station. 2 No data provided. µg/m3 = microgram per cubic meter ppm = parts per million Source: CARB Air Quality Data, 1997 to 2001. |
||||
| Table 4.5.J - Ambient Air Quality at Palm Springs Air Monitoring Station | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carbon Monoxide | Ozone | |||||
| Max. 1-Hour Concentration (PPM) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
Max. 8-Hour Concentration (PPM) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
Max. 1-Hour Concentration (PPM) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
|
| State Standards | > 20 ppm/1 hr | > 9.0 ppm/8 hr | > 0.09 ppm/1 hr | |||
| 2001 | 2.2 | 0 | 1.4 | 0 | 0.14 | 53 |
| 2000 | 2.7 | 0 | 1.6 | 0 | 0.12 | 40 |
| 1999 | 2.9 | 0 | 1.8 | 0 | 0.13 | 27 |
| 1998 | 3.1 | 0 | 1.7 | 0 | 0.17 | 40 |
| 1997 | 2.7 | 0 | 1.3 | 0 | 0.16 | 45 |
| Maximum | 3.1 | 1.8 | 0.17 | |||
| Federal Standards | > 35 ppm/1 hr | > 9.0 ppm/8 hr | > 0.12 ppm/1 hr | |||
| 2001 | 2.2 | 0 | 1.6 | 0 | 0.14 | 6 |
| 2000 | 2.7 | 0 | 1.6 | 0 | 0.12 | 0 |
| 1999 | 2.9 | 0 | 1.8 | 0 | 0.13 | 1 |
| 1998 | 3.1 | 0 | 1.7 | 0 | 0.17 | 8 |
| 1997 | 2.7 | 0 | 1.3 | 0 | 0.16 | 4 |
| Maximum | 3.1 | 1.8 | 0.17 | |||
| Coarse Particulates | Nitrogen Dioxide | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Max. 24-Hour Concentration (µg/m3) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
Max. 1-Hour Concentration (PPM) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
|
| State Standards | > 50 µg/m3, 24 hrs | > 0.25 ppm/1 hr | ||
| 2001 | 43 | 0 | 0.08 | 0 |
| 2000 | 44 | 0 | 0.06 | 0 |
| 1999 | 104 | 3 | 0.07 | 0 |
| 1998 | 72 | 3 | 0.07 | 0 |
| 1997 | 63 | 1 | 0.07 | 0 |
| Maximum | 104 | 0.07 | ||
| Federal Standards | > 150 µg/m3, 24 hrs | 0.053 ppm, annual average | ||
| 2001 | 43 | 0 | ND2 | ND |
| 2000 | 44 | 0 | 0.016 | 0 |
| 1999 | 104 | 0 | 0.018 | 0 |
| 1998 | 72 | 0 | 0.016 | 0 |
| 1997 | 63 | 0 | 0.016 | 0 |
| Maximum | 104 | 0.018 | ||
| Notes: 1 Not monitored at this monitoring station. 2 No data provided. µg/m3 = microgram per cubic meter ppm = parts per million Source: CARB Air Quality Data, 1997 to 2001. |
||||
| Table 4.5.K - Ambient Air Quality at Indio Air Monitoring Station | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carbon Monoxide | Ozone | |||||
| Max. 1-Hour Concentration (PPM) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
Max. 8-Hour Concentration (PPM) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
Max. 1-Hour Concentration (PPM) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
|
| State Standards | > 20 ppm/1 hr | > 9.0 ppm/8 hr | > 0.09 ppm/1 hr | |||
| 2001 | NM1 | NM | NM | NM | 0.11 | 21 |
| 2000 | NM | NM | NM | NM | 0.11 | 7 |
| 1999 | NM | NM | NM | NM | 0.13 | 13 |
| 1998 | NM | NM | NM | NM | 0.13 | 16 |
| 1997 | NM | NM | NM | NM | 0.10 | 1 |
| Maximum | NM | NM | 0.13 | |||
| Federal Standards | > 35 ppm/1 hr | > 9.0 ppm/8 hr | > 0.12 ppm/1 hr | |||
| 2001 | NM | NM | NM | NM | 0.11 | 0 |
| 2000 | NM | NM | NM | NM | 0.11 | 0 |
| 1999 | NM | NM | NM | NM | 0.13 | 1 |
| 1998 | NM | NM | NM | NM | 0.13 | 2 |
| 1997 | NM | NM | NM | NM | 0.11 | 0 |
| Maximum | NM | NM | 0.13 | |||
| Coarse Particulates | Nitrogen Dioxide | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Max. 24-Hour Concentration (µg/m3) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
Max. 1-Hour Concentration (PPM) |
Number of Days Exceeded |
|
| State Standards | > 50 µg/m3, 24 hrs | > 0.25 ppm/1 hr | ||
| 2001 | 245 | 29 | NM | NM |
| 2000 | 201 | 55 | NM | NM |
| 1999 | 119 | 30 | NM | NM |
| 1998 | 158 | 33 | NM | NM |
| 1997 | 182 | 25 | NM | NM |
| Maximum | 245 | NM | ||
| Federal Standards | > 150 µg/m3, 24 hrs | 0.053 ppm, annual average | ||
| 2001 | 245 | 3 | NM | NM |
| 2000 | 201 | 3 | NM | NM |
| 1999 | 119 | 0 | NM | NM |
| 1998 | 158 | 1 | NM | NM |
| 1997 | 182 | 2 | NM | NM |
| Maximum | 245 | NM | ||
| Notes: 1 Not monitored at this monitoring station. µg/m3 = microgram per cubic meter ppm = parts per million Source: CARB Air Quality Data, 1997 to 2001. |
||||
Tables 4.5.C through 4.5.K list the air quality data monitored at these nine air quality monitoring stations. The ambient air quality data in these tables show that NO2 and CO levels are either not monitored, or are below the relevant State and federal standards at most of the nine air monitoring stations, except at the Banning Airport station where the monitored NO2 level exceeded the State standard in both 1998 and 1999. The federal standard for NO2 was not exceeded at any of the nine monitoring stations. O3 levels exceeded State and federal standards in almost every year of the past five years at all eight monitoring stations where O3 concentration was monitored (except Riverside-Magnolia). However, the general trend at all monitoring stations was that the maximum level of O3 was decreasing and the number of days federal and State O3 standards were exceeded was also decreasing.
The PM10 level monitored at these air monitoring stations exceeded the State standard in almost every year of the past five years at all monitoring stations that monitor this pollutant. However, the federal standard was exceeded less frequently at each monitoring station in all five years.
4.5.2 Air Quality Thresholds of Significance
A General Plan would be considered to have a significant effect on air quality if it would violate any Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS), contribute substantially to an existing air quality violation, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community in which it is located.
In addition to the federal and State AAQS, as listed in Table 4.5.A, there are daily and quarterly emissions thresholds for construction and operation of a proposed project established by the SCAQMD for the SCAB and the original SEDAB. The MDAQMD has not established daily emissions thresholds for CEQA review purposes.
The Riverside County area of the SSAB is administered by the SCAQMD, and guidelines and emissions thresholds previously established by the SCAQMD in its CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April 1993) for the SEDAB area are used in this analysis for that area. For simplicity, emissions thresholds for SEDAB are also used in the Riverside County MDAB area. Consistency with the SCAG Regional Plan is discussed in Chapter 5.
Thresholds for Construction Emissions
The following CEQA significance thresholds for construction emissions have been established for the SCAB and SEDAB (MDAB and SSAB) areas:
• 75 pounds per day or 2.5 tons per quarter of reactive organic compounds (ROC).
• 100 pounds per day or 2.5 tons per quarter of NOX.
• 550 pounds per day or 24.75 tons per quarter of CO.
• 150 pounds per day or 6.75 tons per quarter of PM10.
• 150 pounds per day or 6.75 tons per quarter of sulfur oxides (SOX).
Projects in SCAB and SEDAB with construction-related emissions that exceed any of the emission thresholds should be considered to be significant under CEQA.
Thresholds for Criteria Pollutants Emissions with Regional Effects
The proposed General Plan would have a significant effect on air quality if any of the following thresholds are exceeded:
1. The daily operational emissions "significance" thresholds for criteria pollutants with regional effects for the SCAB area are exceeded:
• 55 pounds or 0.0275 tons per day of ROC.
• 55 pounds or 0.0275 tons per day of NOX.
• 550 pounds or 0.275 tons per day of CO.
• 150 pounds or 0.075 tons per day of PM10.
• 150 pounds or 0.075 tons per day of SOX.
2. The daily operational emissions "significance" thresholds for criteria pollutants with regional effects for the SSAB and MDAB area are exceeded:.
• 75 pounds or 0.0375 tons per day of ROC.
• 100 pounds or 0.05 tons per day of NOX.
• 550 pounds or 0.275 tons per day of CO.
• 150 pounds or 0.075 tons per day of PM10.
• 150 pounds or 0.075 tons per day of SOX.
3. The proposed General Plan is inconsistent with the AQMP or Coachella Valley PM10 Plan, Regional Growth Management Plan, Regional Mobility Plan, or the locally adopted Congestion Management Plan.
Local Micro-scale Concentration Standards
The significance of localized project impacts under CEQA depends on whether ambient CO levels in the vicinity of the project are above or below State and federal CO standards. If ambient levels are below the standards, a project is considered to have a significant impact if project emissions result in an exceedance of one or more of these standards. If ambient levels already exceed a State or federal standard, project emissions are considered significant if they increase one hour CO concentrations by 1.0 part per million (ppm) or more or eight hour CO concentrations by 0.45 ppm or more. The following are applicable local emission concentration standards for carbon monoxide.
• California State one-hour CO standard of 20.0 ppm
• California State eight-hour CO standard of 9.0 ppm
Thresholds for Odor Impacts
Assessing odor impacts depends upon such variables as wind speed, wind direction, and the sensitivity of receptors to different odors. The American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM, Standard Method D 1391) has devised a method that considers how many times an air sample must be diluted with "clean" air before the odor is no longer detectable to an average adult with average odor sensitivity. The number of dilutions needed to reach this threshold level is referred to as a "dilution to threshold" (D/T) factor. An odor with a D/T of 2 (2 parts of fresh air to one part of odorous air) becomes faintly detectable to almost all receptors. At 5 D/T, people become consciously aware of the presence of an odor, and at 5 to 10 D/T, the odor is strong enough to evoke registered complaints. The standard to utilize in assessing off-site odor exposure is preferably below 5 D/T and acceptable below 10 D/T.
Toxic Air Pollutant Thresholds
The SCAQMD regulates levels of air toxics through a permitting process that covers both construction and operation. The SCAQMD has adopted Rule 1401 for both new and modified sources that use materials classified as air toxics. The SCAQMD CEQA Guidelines for permit processing consider the following types of projects significant:
• Any project involving the emission of a carcinogenic or toxic air contaminant identified in SCAQMD Rule 1401 that exceeds the maximum individual cancer risk of one in one million or 10 in one million if the project is constructed with best available control strategy for toxics (T-BACT) using the procedures in SCAQMD Rule 1401;
• Any project that could accidentally release an acutely hazardous material or routinely release a toxic air contaminant posing an acute health hazard; and
• Any project that could emit an air contaminant that is not currently regulated by SCAQMD rule, but that is on the federal or State air toxics list.
4.5.3 Air Quality Impacts and Mitigation
Air pollutant emissions associated with the project would occur over the short-term from individual construction activities, such as fugitive dust from site preparation and grading and emissions from equipment exhaust. Long-term local CO emissions at intersections in the County would be affected by project traffic. Future sources and types of air pollutants generated at build out of the proposed General Plan will be similar to those presently produced although the amounts generated will be greater.
The vast majority of long-term air pollutants produced at build out of the proposed General Plan will be from vehicular traffic, the rest will be generated from stationary sources such as power plants and industrial facilities. Short-term air quality impacts would be expected during site grading (earthmoving activities) and the construction of residential units, commercial, industrial, and public facilities and associated infrastructure such as roadways.
Less than Significant Impacts
Consistency with Air Quality Management Plan
Analysis of Impact Based on past growth rates in Riverside County, population increases are anticipated to continue to average approximately 3.38 percent annually. Assuming a SCAG-projected population of 985,945 persons in 2025, the build out population of unincorporated Riverside County would be reached in 2040. The projected 2020 population resulting from implementation of the General Plan update is anticipated to meet the SCAG-projected 2020 population for Riverside County. Since the AQMP and the SIP are based on SCAG population projections, an exceedance of SCAG projections is also an exceedance of the population values used in the AQMP and SIP. If population growth is greater than assumed in the AQMP emission inventory, then population based emissions also are likely to be greater than assumed in the AQMP. Consequently, attainment of the State and Federal air quality standards would be delayed. Therefore, the proposed General Plan would be consistent with regional air quality plans since population growth is projected to be at the same rate as projected by SCAG.
The 1988 CCAA, Section 40919(d) requires regions to implement "transportation control measures to substantially reduce the rate of increase in passenger vehicle trips and miles traveled." A plan showing a vehicular miles traveled (VMT) growth rate that is greater than the population growth rate is considered to be hindering progress towards achieving this performance objective, and thus, be inconsistent with regional air quality planning. The proposed General Plan shows a VMT growth rate that is consistent with the projected population growth rate; therefore the proposed General Plan will not be inconsistent with the AQMP.
The proposed General Plan is consistent with SCAG's Regional Growth Management Plan and SCAQMD's Air Quality Management Plan, and the vehicle miles traveled growth rate under the proposed General Plan is consistent with SCAG's projected population growth. In addition, with the planning and implementation of the proposed General Plan Circulation Element, it is anticipated that the proposed General Plan will be consistent with SCAG's Regional Mobility Plan, locally adopted Congestion Management Plan, as well as the Coachella Valley PM10 Plan.
Proposed General Plan Policies Air pollutants are not limited to jurisdictional boundaries. Local land use patterns, emission sources, and airflow patterns throughout Southern California contribute to the air quality of Riverside County. While the County can enact policies that limit emissions within its boundaries, it is necessary to support efforts to decrease region-wide pollution emissions as surrounding jurisdictions significantly impact Riverside County's air quality. The following policies are designed to establish a regional basis for improving air quality.
Air Quality Policy 1.1 Promote and participate with regional and local agencies, both public and private, to protect and improve air quality.
Air Quality Policy 1.2 Support the SCAG's Regional Growth Management Plan by developing intergovernmental agreements with appropriate governmental enti-ties such as the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), sanitation districts, water districts, and those subregional entities identified in the Regional Growth Management Plan.
Air Quality Policy 1.3 Participate in the development and update of those regional air quality management plans required under federal and state law, and meet all standards established for clean air in these plans.
Air Quality Policy 1.4 Coordinate with the SCAQMD and MDAQMD to ensure that all elements of air quality plans regarding reduction of air pollutant emissions are being enforced.
Air Quality Policy 1.5 Establish and implement air quality, land use and circulation measures that improve not only the County's environment but the entire region's.
Air Quality Policy 1.6 Establish a level playing field by working with local jurisdictions to simultaneously adopt policies similar to those in this Air Quality Element.
Air Quality Policy 1.7 Support legislation which promotes cleaner industry, clean fuel vehicles and more efficient burning engines and fuels.
Air Quality Policy 1.8 Support the introduction of federal, State or regional enabling legislation to permit the County to promote inventive air quality programs, which otherwise could not be implemented.
Air Quality Policy 1.9 Encourage, publicly recognize and reward innovative approaches that improve air quality.
Air Quality Policy 1.10 Coordinate Work with regional and local agencies to evaluate the feasibility of implementing establish a system of charges (e.g., pollution charges, user fees, congestion pricing and toll roads) that requires individuals who undertake polluting activities to bear the economic cost of their actions, where possible.
Air Quality Policy 1.11 Involve environmental groups, the business community, special interests, and the general public in the formulation and implementation of programs that effectively reduce airborne pollutants.
Effectiveness of Proposed General Plan Policies Impacts pertaining to the consistency with the AQMP and Regional Plans will be less than significant. Adherence to the air quality policies listed above would further reduce the level of impact. No additional mitigation is required.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have not substantially altered the meaning and applicability of the policies that pertain to consistency with air quality management plans. Impacts pertaining to the consistency with the AQMP and Regional Plan will be less than significant. Adherence to the air quality policies listed above would further reduce the level of impact. No additional mitigation is required.
Odors and Toxic Air Contaminants
Analysis of Impact The proposed project will not in and of itself generate odor or toxic air contaminants. Individual development within the project area that has the potential to generate odors or toxic air contaminants will be evaluated when project specific information is available. The SCAQMD Rule 1401 will need to be followed for permit application for any facility that has the potential to emit toxic air contaminants. No additional control measures are required.
Potentially Significant Impacts
Particulate (PM10) Emissions
Impact 4.5.1 Air quality impacts would occur during site preparation, including grading and equipment exhaust. Major sources of fugitive dust are a result of grading and site preparation during construction by vehicles and equipment and generated by construction vehicles and equipment traveling over exposed surfaces, as well as by soil disturbances from grading and filling. Blowing dust is also of concern in the dry desert areas where PM10 standards are exceeded by soil disturbance during grading, and vehicular travel over unpaved roads.
Analysis of Impact The proposed General Plan covers a wide area within the County, and its impacts are actually a summary of thousands of individual actions that will be undertaken as part of its implementation. As opposed to an individual project with project-specific construction information available for emissions estimate, it is not feasible to accurately quantify the proposed General Plan-related construction emissions because these air quality construction impacts would actually result from hundreds of different development projects that might occur at any give time throughout unincorporated Riverside County. In addition, detailed construction information (e.g., size, timing, location, and equipment being used) for any individual development project cannot be known at this stage of the planning process for the entire County.
It is known, however, that a typical grading project will involve moving 15,000 to 30,000 cubic yards of earth daily. Temporary air quality impacts would result from grading activities for on-site uses and any off-site facilities and the construction of proposed on-site uses. Air pollutants would be emitted by construction equipment operating on the site and fugitive dust would be generated during grading and site preparation. Construction activities for large development projects are estimated by the
U.S. EPA (according to the 1993 CEQA Handbook, emission factor for disturbed soil is 0.40 tons of PM10 per month per acre). If water or other soil stabilizers are used to control dust as required by SCAQMD Rule 403, the PM10emissions can be reduced by 50 percent. The calculations include a 50 percent reduction for PM10 emissions due to watering.
Applying the above factor to a site of 50 acres of graded area, assuming a six-month grading cycle and an estimated two-year construction period, would result in an average estimate of 184 pounds of PM10 per day, and a daily peak estimate of 735 pounds of PM10. To grade an area of this size, 12 pieces of heavy equipment may be expected to operate at one time. The equipment assumed includes two scrapers, two tractors, two graders, two dozers, two water trucks, and two pieces of miscellaneous equipment. If all of the equipment operated for eight hours per day, the following emissions would result: approximately 67 pounds per day of CO, 10 pounds per day of ROC, 176 pounds per day of NOX, 22 pounds per day of PM10, and 22 pounds per day of SOX. PM10 emissions greater than 150 pounds per day are considered significant as would be the case for the hypothetical project.
Keeping in mind this is an estimate for one project on a 50-acre site, on any given day in the County, there may be different numbers of sites under construction or graded. For a generalized scenario to estimate construction emissions, it is assumed that there are ten grading activities taking place in western Riverside County and five in eastern Riverside County on any given day. When there are 15 sites graded on the same day in western and eastern Riverside County, construction emissions would be 15 times those mentioned above and shown in Table 4.5.L. Daily emissions thresholds for all five pollutants would be exceeded by these construction activities. Impacts due to grading are very localized. Additionally, this material is inert silicates (PM10) rather than the complex organic particulate matter released from combustion sources, which are more harmful to health. In some cases, grading may be near existing development. Care should be taken to minimize the generation of dust. Common practice for minimizing dust generation is watering before and during grading. Without watering, PM10 emission generation would be double the amount mentioned previously.
| Table 4.5.L - Construction Emissions for a 50-Acre Site | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pollutant | Employee Travel | Grading Activities1 | Equipment Emissions | Total Emissions | SCAB Thresholds | SSAB and MDAB Thresholds |
| CO | 9.55 | - | 67.14 | 77 | 550 | 550 |
| ROC | 1.51 | - | 10.14 | 12 | 75 | 75 |
| NOX | 0.91 | - | 176.38 | 177 | 100 | 100 |
| PM102 | 0.13 | 735 | 22.21 | 757 | 150 | 150 |
| SOX | 0.06 | - | 22.22 | 23 | 150 | 150 |
| 1 PM10 only. 2 Calculations for PM10 emissions include a reduction of 50 percent with the use of dust suppression techniques. |
||||||
There will also be some emissions generated by construction workers traveling to and from the job site. However, information is not available to estimate these emissions, and they are usually minimal in comparison to the other construction-related air emissions.
Riverside County will require individual development projects to comply with all applicable regional rules, which would assist in reducing the short-term air pollutant emissions. Fugitive dust from a construction site must be controlled with best available control measures so that the dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. Dust suppression techniques will be implemented to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off site. Implementation of these dust suppression techniques can reduce the fugitive dust generation (and thus the PM10 component) by 50 percent or more.
Blowing dust from agricultural operations and unpaved roads, especially prevalent in Coachella Valley and eastern Riverside County, also causes an increase in PM10. The policies in the proposed General Plan contains standard dust suppression methods that will help reduce PM10 emissions. Additional mitigation measures are provided below to reduce the effects of fugitive dust during construction.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan policies related to air quality would generally result in better planning and projects that proactively address any adverse air quality impacts that could result. Implementation of the proposed General Plan policies related to air quality would help reduce air pollutant emissions and improve the air quality.
Riverside County can implement simple control measures to reduce the amount of particulates produced within its borders. Strict enforcement of these and current regulations can then lead to a substantial decrease in particulate concentrations in the County and neighboring areas. The polices provided address issues relating to particulate matter from agriculture, construction, demolition, debris hauling, street cleaning, utility maintenance, railroad rights-of-way, and off-road vehicles.
Air Quality Policy 4.9 Enforce Require compliance with SCAQMD Rules 403 and 403.1, and support appropriate future measures to reduce fugitive dust emanating from construction sites.
Air Quality Policy 4.10 Coordinate with the SCAQMD and MDAQMD to create a communications plan to alert those conducting grading operations in the County of first, second, and third stage smog alerts, and when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour. During these instances all grading operations should be suspended.
Air Quality Policy 17.2 Enforce regulations against illegal fires.
Air Quality Policy 17.3 Identify and create a control plan for areas within the County prone to wind erosion of soil.
Air Quality Policy 17.4 Adopt incentives, regulations and/or procedures to manage paved and unpaved roads and parking lots so they produce the minimum practicable level of particulates.
Air Quality Policy 17.5 Adopt incentives and/or procedures , in addition to existing regulations, to limit dust from agricultural lands and operations, where applicable.
Effectiveness of Proposed General Plan Policies While the proposed General Plan Policies listed above would provide guidance to potentially reduce impacts relating to PM10 emissions, significant short-term construction impacts would remain. Additional, more specific mitigation measures are provided below to further reduce these impacts.
Mitigation Measures Projects implemented as a result of the proposed General Plan will be required to comply with regional rules that assist in reducing short-term air pollutant emissions. Rule 403 of SCAQMD and MDAQMD requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best available control measures, so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. In addition, Rule 402 of SCAQMD and MDAQMD requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off-site. Applicable dust suppression techniques from Rule 403 are summarized below. Additional dust suppression measures in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook are included below as part of the project's mitigation. Implementation of these dust suppression techniques can reduce the fugitive dust generation (and thus the PM10 component). Compliance with these rules would reduce impacts on nearby sensitive receptors.
4.5.1A Applicable Rule 403 Measures: Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more).
• Water active sites at least twice daily. (Locations where grading is to occur will be thoroughly watered prior to earthmoving).
• All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered, or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23114 (freeboard means vertical space between the top of the load and top of the trailer).
• Pave construction access roads at least 100 feet onto the site from main road.
• Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads shall be reduced to 15 mph or less.
4.5.1B Additional SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook Dust Measures:
• Revegetate disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
• All excavating and grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph.
• All streets shall be swept once a day if visible soil materials are carried to adjacent streets (recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water).
• Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads, or wash trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip.
4.5.1C Mitigation Measures for Construction Equipment and Vehicles Exhaust Emissions:
• The Construction Contractor shall select the construction equipment used on site based on low emission factors and high energy efficiency.
• The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.
• The Construction Contractor shall utilize electric- or diesel-powered equipment, in lieu of gasoline-powered engines, where feasible.
• The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. During smog season (May through October), the overall length of the construction period will be extended, thereby decreasing the size of the area prepared each day, to minimize vehicles and equipment operating at the same time.
• The Construction Contractor shall time the construction activities so as to not interfere with peak hour traffic and minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site; if necessary, a flagperson shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways.
• The Construction Contractor shall support and encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew.
• Dust generated by the development activities shall be retained on-site, and kept to a minimum by following the dust control measures listed below.
a. During clearing, grading, earthmoving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's activities cease.
b. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the late morning, after work is completed for the day, and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour.
c. Immediately after clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation is completed, the entire area of disturbed soil shall be treated until the area is paved or otherwise developed so that dust generation will not occur.
d. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation.
e. Trucks transporting soil, sand, cut or fill materials, and/or construction debris to or from the site shall be tarped from the point of origin.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have not substantially altered the meaning and applicability of the policies that pertain to particulate emissions. Furthermore, policies and mitigation measures will be applied to individual development projects, and are not dependent on the timing or location of these projects to be effective. Therefore, the policies and mitigation as proposed would have the same effect with the revised General Plan as they would for the General Plan as originally proposed.
Long-Term Air Emission Impacts
Stationary Emissions
Impact 4.5.2 Long-term air emission impacts will occur from stationary sources related to the estimated development proposed through implementation of the proposed General Plan.
Analysis of Impact Stationary pollution sources are generally divided into two subcategories: "point sources" (such as power plants and refinery boilers) and "area sources" (including small emission sources such as residential water heaters and architectural coatings). Agricultural and industrial land uses are generally the main stationary pollution sources in Riverside County, though most urbanized land areas and their associated activities also contribute to poor air quality in the region. While industrial sources are addressed here, agricultural source impacts, due to their primary emissions of PM10, are addressed in the Particulate Matter section of this air quality analysis.
Because of the characteristics of the proposed project, i.e., a General Plan, it is not possible to determine the location, size, and characteristics of future stationary pollution sources. It is, therefore, not feasible to quantify the proposed General Plan-related stationary sources emissions associated with the usage of electricity and natural gas. Similarly, the quantification of mitigation measures on emissions associated with these stationary sources is not feasible at a General Plan-level review document. Long-term stationary source emissions will occur as a result of build out of the proposed General Plan, and will be substantial. However, the proposed General Plan provides policies to reduce the effects on stationary source emissions.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan policies related to air quality would generally result in better planning and projects that proactively address any adverse air quality impacts that could result. Implementation of the proposed General Plan policies related to stationary sources would help reduce air pollutant emissions and improve the air quality.
Air Quality Policy 4.1 Encourage the use of building materials/methods which reduce emissions.
Air Quality Policy 4.2 Encourage the use of efficient heating equipment and other appliances, such as water heaters, swimming pool heaters, cooking equipment, refrigerators, furnaces and boiler units.
Air Quality Policy 4.3 RequireEncourage centrally heated facilities to utilize automated time clocks or occupant sensors to control heating.
Air Quality Policy 4.4 Require residential building construction to comply with energy use guidelines detailed in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code.
Air Quality Policy 4.5 Require stationary pollution sources to prevent minimize the release of toxic pollutants through:
• Design features;
• Operating procedures;
• Preventive maintenance;
• Operator training; and
• Emergency response planning
Air Quality Policy 4.6 Require stationary air pollution sources to comply with applicable air district rules and control measures.
Air Quality Policy 4.7 To the greatest extent possible, Rrequire every project to mitigate any of its anticipated emissions which exceed allowable emissions as established by the SCAQMD, MDAQMD, SOCAB, the EPA and the CARB.
Air Quality Policy 4.8 Expand, as appropriate, measures contained in the County's Fugitive Dust Reduction Program for the Coachella Valley to the entire County.
Air Quality Policy 5.1 Utilize source reduction, recycling and other appropriate measures to reduce the amount of solid waste disposed of in landfills.
Air Quality Policy 5.2 Adopt incentives and/or regulations to enact energy conservation requirements for private and public developments.
Air Quality Policy 5.3 Update, when necessary, the County's Policy Manual for Energy Conservation to reflect revisions to the County Energy Conservation Program.
Effectiveness of Proposed General Plan Policies Implementation of policies 4.3 through 4.7 provided in the proposed General Plan and adherence to existing air quality regulations will reduce the projected long-term increase in air pollutants resulting from stationary sources; however, they do not guarantee compliance with applicable air quality standards. Thus, significant unavoidable impacts may remain.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have not substantially altered the meaning and applicability of the policies that pertain to stationary emissions. Implementation of Policies 4.3 through 4.7 provided in the proposed General Plan and adherence to existing air quality regulations will reduce the projected long-term increase in air pollutants resulting from stationary sources; however, they do not guarantee compliance with applicable air quality standards. Thus, significant unavoidable impacts may remain. Therefore, no changes to the analysis and conclusions are necessary.
Vehicular Emissions
Impact 4.5.3 The proposed General Plan would result in changes in regional vehicular traffic trips and associated VMT.
Analysis of Impact Although not specifically identified with land uses and their corresponding vehicular trips, mobile source emissions from vehicle use associated with the proposed General Plan can be estimated from VMT at the particular average speed projected for the project within the project study area. Tables 4.5.M through 4.5.P present emissions of CO, ROC, NOX, and PM10 for the build out of the proposed General Plan and cumulative vehicular emission for build out of the cities in the County and the County and cities together. The emissions, in tons, were calculated for four different time periods in a day: morning peak hour (AM), mid-day (MD), afternoon peak hour (PM), and nighttime (NT). Emissions estimated for these four time periods were then combined to show the daily total. Transcore (January 2002) calculated the emissions based on the VMT on the affected roadway links, average speed on each link, and the EMFAC7G emission factors (2020 data with Riverside vehicle mix provided by SCAG).
| Table 4.5.M - Daily Emissions of the Proposed General Plan for Western Riverside County | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Build Out Condition | Vehicle Miles Traveled | Western Riverside County Emissions (Tons/Day) |
|||
| CO | ROC | NOX | PM10 | ||
| Cumulative Increase Within Unincorporated Areas Attributable to the Proposed Riverside County General Plan1 | 7,512,358 |
20.49 |
0.40 |
10.21 |
0.17 |
| Exceeds SCAQMD Thresholds? | - | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Build Out of Cities Only2 | 62,016,000 | 186.42 | 5.26 | 71.62 | 1.36 |
| Cumulative Build Out of Cities Plus County3 | 69,528,358 |
206.91 |
5.66 |
81.83 |
1.53 |
| Notes: 1 Includes only unincorporated Western Riverside County without the Cities. 2 Includes both County existing Land Uses and Cities in Western Riverside County based on the Existing Cities General Plans. 3 Includes both County and Cities in Western Riverside County based on the proposed Riverside County and Existing Cities General Plans. Source: Transcore, January 2002 and September 2003. |
|||||
| Table 4.5.N - Daily Emissions of the Proposed General Plan for the Central Mountains Area | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Build Out Condition | Vehicle Miles Traveled | Central Mountains Area Emissions (Tons/Day) |
|||
| CO | ROC | NOX | PM10 | ||
| Cumulative Increase Within Unincorporated Areas Attributable to the Proposed Riverside County General Plan1 | 845,851 | 0.68 | 0.03 | 0.30 | 0.01 |
| Exceeds SCAQMD Thresholds? | - | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| Existing Land Use2 | 289,675 | 0.16 | 0.01 | 0.07 | 0.28 |
| Projected General Plan Build Out3 | 845,851 | 0.84 | 0.04 | 0.37 | 0.29 |
| Note: 1 Includes unincorporated areas within REMAP. 2 Includes existing land uses, assuming no future development. 3 Includes build out of the proposed General Plan. Source: Transcore, January 2002. |
|||||
| Table 4.5.O - Daily Emissions of the Proposed General Plan for the Eastern Desert Area | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Build Out Condition | Vehicle Miles Traveled | Eastern Desert Area Emissions (Tons/Day) |
|||
| CO | ROC | NOX | PM10 | ||
| Cumulative Increase Within Unincorporated Areas Attributable to the Proposed Riverside County General Plan1 | 3,964,627 | 18.48 | 0.35 | 4.41 | 0.09 |
| Exceeds SCAQMD Thresholds? | - | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Build Out of Blythe2 | 2,200,436 | 0.04 | 0.19 | 2.54 | 0.05
|
| Cumulative Build Out of Cities Plus County3 | 6,165,063 | 18.52 | 0.54 | 6.95 | 0.14
|
| Note: 1 Includes only unincorporated Eastern Desert areas without the City of Blythe. 2 Includes build out of Blythe with no future development of unincorporated land. 3 Includes County and Blythe based on the proposed County and existing Blythe General Plans. Source: Transcore, January 2002. |
|||||
| Table 4.5.P - Daily Emissions of the Proposed General Plan for the Coachella Valley Area | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Build Out Condition | Vehicle Miles Traveled | Coachella Valley Emissions (Tons/Day) |
|||
| CO | ROC | NOX | PM10 | ||
| Cumulative Increase Within Unincorporated Areas Attributable to the Proposed Riverside County General Plan1 | 5,522,077 |
7.40 |
0.30 |
4.60 |
0.10 |
| Exceeds SCAQMD Thresholds? | - | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Build Out of Cities Only 2 | 12,811,409 | 34.23 | 0.99 | 14.16 | 0.28
|
| Cumulative Build out of Cities Plus | 18,333,486 |
41.63 |
1.29 |
18.76 |
0.38 |
| Note: 1 Includes only unincorporated Coachella Valley Eastern without the Cities. 2 Includes both County existing Land Uses and Cities in Coachella Valley based on the Existing Cities General Plans. 3 Includes both County and Cities in eastern Riverside County based on the proposed Riverside County and Existing Cities General Plans. Source: Transcore, January 2002 and September 2003. |
|||||
Based on the emissions inventory analysis for vehicular emission changes within the project study area, the proposed General Plan at build out would result in significant air quality impacts.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan policies related to air quality would generally result in better planning and projects that proactively address any adverse air quality impacts that could result. Implementation of the proposed General Plan policies related to air quality would help reduce air pollutant emissions and improve the air quality. Policies are also provided to reduce vehicular trips. Those policies are as follows:
Mobile Sources
Air Quality Policy 3.1 Allow the marketplace, as much as possible, to determine the most economical approach to relieve congestion and cut emissions.
Air Quality Policy 3.2 Seek new cooperative relationships between employers and employees to reduce vehicle miles traveled.
Air Quality Policy 3.3 Encourage large employers and commercial/industrial complexes to create Transportation Management Associations. (AI 115)
Air Quality Policy 3.4 Encourage employee rideshare and transit incentives for employers with more than 25 employees at a single location.
Trip Reduction
Air Quality Policy 10.1 Encourage trip reduction plans to promote alternative work schedules, ridesharing, telecommuting and work-at-home programs, employee education and preferential parking.
Air Quality Policy 10.2 Use incentives, regulations and Transportation Demand Management in cooperation with surrounding jurisdictions when possible to eliminate vehicle trips which would otherwise be made.
Air Quality Policy 10.3 Assist merchants in encouraging their customers to shift from single occupancy vehicles to transit, carpools, bicycles, or foot.
Air Quality Policy 10.4 Continue to enforce the County's Transportation Demand Management Ordinance and update as necessary.
Special Events
Air Quality Policy 11.1 Establish requirements for special event centers to provide off-site parking and park-n-ride facilities at remote locations. Remote parking should be as close as practicable to the event site and the operator should supply shuttle services.
Air Quality Policy 11.2 Promote the use of peripheral parking by increasing on-site parking rates and offering reduced rates to peripheral parking with tickets sold for non-ridesharing patrons.
Air Quality Policy 11.3 Encourage special event center operators to advertise and offer discounted transit passes with event tickets.
Air Quality Policy 11.4 Encourage special event center operators to advertise and offer discount parking incentives to carpooling patrons, with two or more persons per vehicle, for on-site parking facilities
Traffic Flow
Air Quality Policy 12.1 Manage traffic flow through signal synchronization, while coordinating with and permitting the free flow of mass transit vehicles, when possible. as a way to achieve mobility.
Air Quality Policy 12.2 Synchronize signals throughout the County with those of its cities, adjoining counties and the California Department of Transportation.
Air Quality Policy 12.3 Construct and improve traffic signals with channelization and Automated Traffic Surveillance and Control systems at appropriate intersections.
Air Quality Policy 12.4 Eliminate traffic hazards and delays through highway maintenance, rapid emergency response, debris removal, and elimination of at-grade railroad crossings when possible.
Air Quality Policy 12.5 Encourage business owners to schedule deliveries off-peak traffic periods.
Transportation Demand Systems
Air Quality Policy 13.1 Manage the County of Riverside transportation fleet fueling standards to achieve an appropriate the best alternate fuel fleet mix possible.
Air Quality Policy 13.2 Cooperate with local, regional, State, and federal jurisdictions to better manage transportation facilities and fleets.
Air Quality Policy 13.3 Encourage the construction of high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes whenever possible necessary to relieve congestion, safety hazards and air pollution as described in the AQMP.
Transportation System Management
Air Quality Policy 14.1 Emphasize the use of HOV lanes, light rail and bus routes, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities when using transportation facility development to improve mobility and air quality.
Air Quality Policy 14.2 Utilize facility development programs only when the County cannot substitute Transportation Demand Management, Transportation Systems Management, or job/housing balance strategies. When developing new capital facility improvement plans, also consider measures such as Transportation Demand Management, Transportation Systems Management, or job/housing balance strategies.
Air Quality Policy 14.3 Monitor traffic and congestion to determine when and where the County needs new transportation facilities to achieve increased mobility efficiency.
Air Quality Policy 14.4 Preserve transportation corridors with the potential of high demand or of regional significance for future expansion to meet project demand.
Effectiveness of Proposed General Plan Policies Implementation of the policies provided in the proposed General Plan will reduce the projected long-term increase in air pollutants; however, significant impacts would remain. This impact is significant and unavoidable, and as the policies represent the best available mitigation measures, no further feasible mitigation measures are provided.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have not substantially altered the meaning and applicability of the policies that pertain to vehicular emissions. Implementation of the policies provided in the proposed General Plan will reduce the projected long-term increase in air pollutants; however, significant impacts would remain. This impact is significant and unavoidable, and as the policies represent the best available mitigation measures, no further feasible mitigation measures are provided.
Sensitive Receptors
Impact 4.5.4 Development under the proposed General Plan may produce air pollution that may significantly affect sensitive receptors.
Analysis of Impact Sensitive receptors are those segments of the local population that are especially sensitive to poor air quality. Such receptors include young children, the sick and the elderly, and the facilities that house them including schools, hospitals, and convalescent homes. Development as a result of implementation of the proposed General Plan will result in short-term construction emissions and fugitive dust from grading activities. Continued and new agricultural activities may increase the amount of fugitive dust (PM10) in the air. Stationary sources of air pollutants may result from increased energy production and industrial sources. The projected increase in vehicular traffic and projected VMTs will result in an increase in air pollutants. Sensitive receptors will be exposed to an increase in air pollutants as a result of the growth and development projected in the proposed General Plan.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan policies related to air quality and sensitive receptors would generally result in better planning and projects that proactively address any adverse air quality impacts that could result. Implementation of the proposed General Plan policies related to air quality would help reduce air pollutant emissions and improve the air quality. Policies are also provided to reduce vehicular trips as discussed in Impact 4.5.3. Those policies are as follows:
Air Quality Policy 2.1 The County land use planning efforts shall assure that sensitive receptors are separated and protected from polluting point sources to the greatest extent possible.
Air Quality Policy 2.2 Require site plan designs to protect provide the maximum feasible protection to people and land uses sensitive to air pollution through the use of barriers and/or distance from emissions sources when possible.
Air Quality Policy 2.3 Encourage the use of pollution control measures at sensitive land uses such as landscaping, vegetation and other materials, which wrap particulate matter or control pollution.
Air Quality Policy 2.4 Protect sensitive receptors by creating an urban tree planting program to plant trees that remove pollutants from the air or provide shade which increases the negative impacts of heat on the air. Consider creating a program to plant urban trees on an Area Plan basis that removes pollutants from the air, provides shade and decreases the negative impacts of heat on the air.
Effectiveness of Proposed General Plan Policies Implementation of the policies provided in the proposed General Plan will reduce the exposure of sensitive receptors to increase air pollutants. No additional mitigation measures have been identified.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have not substantially altered the meaning and applicability of the policies that pertain to sensitive receptors. Implementation of the policies provided in the proposed General Plan will reduce the exposure of sensitive receptors to increased air pollutants. Therefore, no changes to the analysis and conclusions are necessary.
4.5.4 Air Quality Level of Significance after Mitigation
The proposed General Plan update would result in significant, unavoidable air quality impacts caused by construction and long-term stationary and mobile emissions, after all feasible mitigation measures are implemented. Air quality impacts on sensitive receptors is reduced to less than significant with implementation of the proposed General Plan policies.
4.6 Biological Resources
This section assesses the potential impacts on biological resources that could occur withthe development pursuant to the proposed General Plan. On June 17, 2003, the Countyof Riverside adopted the Western Riverside County MSHCP and certified the EIR/EIS.At the time the Final EIR was published for the Riverside County General Plan, theUSFWS had not issued its "take authorization" permit or finalized the Final EIS for theWestern Riverside County MSHCP. The County of Riverside and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments is currently preparing a Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan for western Riverside County and a similar plan is being prepared by theCoachella Valley Association of Governments for the Coachella Valley. However, since neither plan has been adopted by the USFWS to date, they are not included in theexisting setting description and the impacts and mitigation section assumes only thoseconservation measures currently available (i.e., only adopted habitat conservation plans). Thus, this portion of the proposed General Plan EIR analyzes the potential biological impacts that would occur in the absence of the Western Riverside County andCoachella Valley MSHCPs. The proposed General Plan and this EIR recognize theongoing MSHCP programs. In fact, the proposed General Plan relies heavily on adoption of these programs for its biological mitigation. Because the proposed General Plan is moving ahead of these programs, and their adoption cannot be ensured; therefore, the implementation of MSHCP provisions cannot be assumed. Thus, certain mitigationmeasures are proposed in the document that would apply only to areas not subject to anMSHCP (i.e., Riverside County east of Coachella Valley, western Riverside County,and the Coachella Valley prior to adoption of MSHCPs for those areas).
The Riverside County Existing Setting Report was used as baseline information for a description of biological resources within Riverside County and as a basis for assessment of impacts of the proposed General Plan. The Riverside County Existing SettingReport provides a comprehensive review of biological resources within the county. Nofield studies were conducted for purposes of the analysis of biological resources.
4.6.1 Biological Resources Existing Setting
Following is summary of the existing setting of biological resources within RiversideCounty. A detailed examination of Riverside County biological resources is includedin Section 4-2 of the Riverside County Existing Setting Report (incorporated by reference), refer to Figure 4.6.1 for a map of vegetation communities within the County. In Riverside County, variation in topography, elevation, soil, and climate create conditionsfor a wide variety of natural communities, each with its own assemblage of native plantand animal species. This section focuses on those communities and species that, because of their legal status, rarity, or vulnerability, are of greatest concern to State andfederal agencies, and consequently to land use planners. Within this section, natural communities, species, and existing conservation areas are discussed.
Western Riverside County is approximately the portion of the County west of the crestof the San Jacinto Mountains. Even though it constitutes less than one-third of theCounty, western Riverside County contains most of the County's non-desert areas, aswell as most of its urbanized areas. Prior to development, most of western RiversideCounty was covered by chaparral and coastal sage scrub, with coniferous and oakwoodlands at higher elevations. Elevations within western Riverside County rangefrom about 755 feet in the northwestern corner of the County to about 10,800 feet atSan Jacinto Peak.
Eastern Riverside County is approximately the portion of the County which lies east ofthe crest of the San Jacinto Mountains. Almost all of the desert region of the County iscontained within eastern Riverside County. Most of eastern Riverside County is covered by desert scrub, with chaparral at the western edge, and woodlands and forests athigher elevations in the San Jacinto Mountains and desert mountains. Elevation of eastern Riverside County ranges from about 230 feet below mean sea level at the SaltonSea to about 9,800 feet in the San Jacinto Mountains.
Variation in topography, soil, and climate across the landscape of Riverside Countycreates habitats for a wide variety of animals and plants, including many that are rare orendemic to Southern California. Tables 4.6.A and 4.6.B provide general descriptionsof natural communities of western and eastern Riverside County and identify associatedlisted, proposed, and candidate species.
| Table 4.6.A Generalized Natural Communities of Western Riverside County and Associated Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species |
||
|---|---|---|
| Natural Community | Description | Federal and State Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species |
| Urban and Disturbed | This category includes areas where naturalvegetation has been largely destroyed by human activity, other than agriculture. It includes land covered by concrete, asphalt,buildings, lawns, golf courses, etc., as well asareas cleared of vegetation or otherwise significantly disturbed by machinery. Urban and disturbed areas occur throughout lowerelevations in western Riverside County, andto a much lesser degree in mountainous areas. | mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) - may utilize golf courses and sod farms |
| Agriculture | Agricultural land may be defined broadly as land used primarily for production of food and fiber. Agricultural land includes field croplands, orchards, groves, vineyards, and dairy and livestock feed yards. In western Riverside County, agricultural land is predominantly in the Perris and Menifee Valleys. | mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsonii) |
| Water | This category consists of areas permanently or generally flooded, including lakes, reservoirs, ponds, rivers, and streams. This category occurs throughout western Riverside County. | Santa Ana sucker (Catastomus santaanae) southwestern arroyo toad (Bufo microscaphus californicus) California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) |
| Coastal Sage Scrub | This plant community consists of low, soft woody shrubs and subshrubs. Characteristic species include California Buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), white sage (Salvia apiana), and California broom (Lotus scoparius), with scalebroom (Lepidospartum squamatum) in occasionally flooded areas. Coastal sage scrub is widespread at lower elevations in western Riverside County. | Munz’ onion (Allium munzii) Nevin’s barberry (Berberis nevinii) slender-horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras) Santa Ana River woollystar (Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum) Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) Delhi sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus) Stephens’ kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi) |
| Sonoran Desert Scrub | This plant community is dominated by widely spaced shrubs and occurs on welldrained desert soils of low salinity in areas where temperatures rarely fall below freezing. Characteristic species include burroweed (Ambrosia dumosa), creosote bush (Larrea tridentata), brittlebush (Encelia farinosa), ocotillo (Fouquieria splendens), catclaw (Acacia greggii), agave (Agave desertii), and various species of cactus. Sonoran desert scrub occurs in western Riverside County at low elevations at the northern and southern ends of the San Jacinto Mountains. | Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsonii) |
| Sagebrush Scrub | This plant community consists mostly of widely spaced soft-woody shrubs. Big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) is the dominant species. In western Riverside County, sagebrush scrub occurs around Anza, around Temecula, and at sparsely scattered locations in the San Jacinto Mountains. | Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsonii) |
| Chaparral | This plant community is dominated by dense, evergreen shrubs up to 10 feet tall. Characteristic species include chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), red shank (Adenostoma sparsifolium), scrub and live oaks (Quercus spp.), manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.), ceanothus (Ceanothus spp.), sugar bush (Rhus ovata), and mountain-mahogany (Cercocarpus spp.) . Chaparral is widely distributed throughout western Riverside County. | Nevin’s barberry (Berberis nevinii) Vail Lake ceanothus (Ceanothus ophiochilus) slender-horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras) Mojave tar plant (Hemizonia mohavensis) Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) southern rubber boa (Charina bottae umbratica) California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) |
| Grassland | Grasslands are dominated by native and exotic grasses to a height of about two feet. In western Riverside County, native grasslands occur at only a few scattered locations, including the Santa Rosa Plateau; while nonnative grasslands are widely distributed. | Munz’ onion (Allium munzii) San Jacinto Valley crownscale (Atriplex coronata var. notatior) thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia) Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) southern rubber boa (Charina bottae umbratica) Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsonii) mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) California gnatcathcer (Polioptila californica californica) Stephens’ kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi) |
| Playa and Vernal Pool | The playa plant community is composed primarily of low, grayish, widely spaced shrubs on poorly drained soils of high salinity and/or alkalinity due to evaporation of water that accumulates in closed basins, often with high water table and with salt crust on the surface. Total cover is usually low due to wide spacing between shrubs and minimally developed understory. This community is similar to chenopod scrub, but with more succulent species. Dominant species include saltbush (Atriplex spp.), iodine bush (Allenrolfea occidentalis), and bush seepweed (Sueda moquinii) . In western Riverside County, this community occurs primarily in the San Jacinto and Perris Valleys. The vernal pool plant community consists primarily of amphibious annul herbs and grasses that begin their lives as aquatic juveniles in winter rain-filled pools, then flower and die as the pools dry in spring and summer. Soil salinity is generally much lower than in playas. Typical dominants include mesa mint (Pogogyne spp.), navarretia (Navarretia spp.), downingia (Downingia spp.), mouse-tail (Myosurus spp.), popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys spp.), woolly marbles (Psilocarphus spp.), and button-celery (Eryngium spp.) . In western Riverside County, vernal pools are located on the Santa Rosa Plateau, at Skunk Hollow, in the Hemet Plain, and in Moreno Valley at the edge of Sycamore Canyon Park. Small pools may also be present at other locations where suitable conditions exist. | Munz’s onion (Allium munzii) San Jacinto Valley crownscale (Atriplex coronata var. notatior) thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia) San Diego button-celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii) Parish’s meadowfoam (Limnanthes gracilis var. parishii) spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis) California Orcutt grass (Orcuttia californica) vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchii) Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni) |
| Meadow and Marsh | These plant communities have soils that are saturated continually or at least during a significant portion of the year. They differ from vernal pools in retaining enough soil moisture to support perennial plant growth. Plant growth is often dense and consists primarily of perennial monocots, including sedges (Carex), nutsedges (Cyperus), rushes (Juncus), bulrushes (Scirpus), and cattails (Typha) . In western Riverside County, these communities occur in montane meadows and around the margins of lakes, rivers, and streams. | Parish’s meadowfoam (Limnanthes gracilis var. parishii) California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) southern rubber boa (Charina bottae umbratica) American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) |
| Riparian and Bottomland | This category occurs in bottomlands, canyons, desert washes, floodplains, gravel bars, banks of perennially wet streams, and other places with high water tables. These areas are characteristically dominated by droughtor winter-deciduous trees, tall shrubs, or palms, including cottonwoods (Populus spp.), willows (Salix spp.), mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), tamarisk, (Tamarix spp.), giant reed (Arundo donax), western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), California fan palm (Washingtonia filifera), arrow weed (Pluchea sericea), mesquite (Prosopis spp.), smoke tree (Psorothamnus spinosus), desert willow (Chilpsis linearis), catclaw (Acacia greggii), and palo verde (Cercidium floridum) . In western Riverside County, riparian and bottomlands are widespread and occur along major waterways and their tributaries, and in canyon bottoms. | slender-horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras) Santa Ana River woollystar (Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum) Mojave tar plant (Hemizonia mohavensis) southwestern arroyo toad (Bufo microscaphus californicus) California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) southern rubber boa (Charina bottae umbratica) western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus) |
| Oak Woodland/ Forest | This category consists of woodlands and forests dominated by oaks (Quercus spp.), and is found throughout western Riverside County on mountain and foothill slopes and in canyons. | southern rubber boa (Charina bottae umbratica) |
| Coniferous Woodland/ Forest | This category consists of woodlands and forests dominated by conifers, including pines (Pinus spp.), junipers (Juniperus spp.), white fir (Abies concolor), incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens) and bigcone douglas fir (Pseudotsuga macrocarpa) . In western Riverside County, coniferous woodlands and forests occur at upper elevations in the San Jacinto and San Bernardino Mountains, and to a lesser extent at other scattered locations. | southern rubber boa (Charina bottae umbratica) bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) |
| Table 4.6.B Generalized Natural Communities of Eastern Riverside County |
||
|---|---|---|
| Natural Community | Description | Federal and State Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species |
| Urban and Disturbed | This category includes areas where natural vegetation has been largely destroyed by human activity, other than agriculture. It includes land covered by concrete, asphalt, buildings, lawns, golf courses, etc., as well as areas cleared of vegetation or otherwise significantly disturbed by machinery. In eastern Riverside County, urban and disturbed areas occur predominantly in the Coachella and Palo Verde Valleys. | California least tern (Sterna antillarum brownii) – utilizes landfills and paved areas peninsula bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis cremnobates) – may utilize lawns and golf courses adjacent to natural habitat mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) – may utilize golf courses and sod farms |
| Agriculture | Agricultural land may be defined broadly as land used primarily for production of food and fiber. This community includes field croplands, orchards, groves, vineyards, and dairy and livestock feedyards. In eastern Riverside County, agricultural land is predominantly in the Coachella and Palo Verde Valleys. | mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) – may utilize sod farms |
| Water | This category consists of areas permanently or generally flooded, including lakes, reservoirs, ponds, rivers, creeks, and springs. The Salton Sea and the Colorado River are the major water bodies in eastern Riverside County. Most permanent creeks are in the San Jacinto and San Bernardino Mountains, most ponds are in agricultural areas, canals and aqueducts transport water to agricultural lands and the Salton Sea, and springs are scattered in mountain and desert areas. | desert pupfish (Cyprinodon macularius) bonytail chub (Gila elegans) razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus) American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) - nesting and wintering. California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis colturniculus) Yuma clapper rail (Rallus longirostris yumanensis) California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni) California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) |
| Desert Dune | Desert dunes occur in desert areas where windblown sand has accumulated. Dunes may be actively moving or partially or fully stabilized by shrubs, scattered low annuals and perennial grasses. In eastern Riverside County, dunes are widely scattered throughout the desert. | Coachella Valley milk-vetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae) Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard (Uma inornata) desert tortoise (Xerobates agassizii) |
| Coastal Sage Scrub | This plant community consists of low, softwoody shrubs and subshrubs. Typical stands in eastern Riverside County are fairly open and dominated by California sagebrush (Artemesia californica), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), and red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens) . In eastern Riverside County, this community occurs primarily at the southern end of the San Bernardino Mountains. | thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia) slender-horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras) |
| Sonoran Desert Scrub | This plant community is dominated by widely spaced shrubs and occurs on welldrained desert soils of low salinity, in areas where temperatures rarely fall below freezing in the winter. Characteristic species include burro-weed (Ambrosia dumosa), creosote bush (Larrea tridentata), brittlebush (Encelia farinosa), ocotillo (Fouquieria splendens), catclaw (Acacia greggii), agave (Agave desertii), and various species of cactus. This is the predominant natural community in eastern Riverside County. | Coachella Valley milk-vetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae) triple-ribbed milk-vetch (Astragalus tricarinatus) desert slender salamander (Batrachoseps aridus) desert tortoise (Xerobates agassizii) gilded flicker (Colaptes chrysoides) Gila woodpecker (Melanerpes uropygialis) Peninsula bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis cremnobates) |
| Mojavean Desert Scrub | This plant community is the Mojave Desert counterpart to Sonoran desert scrub. It is dominated by widely spaced shrubs and occurs on well-drained desert soils of low salinity. It differs from Sonoran desert scrub in occurring in areas where winter temperatures are often below freezing in the winter, and in its characteristic species, which include burro-weed (Ambrosia dumosa), creosote bush (Larrea tridentata), burrobush (Hymenoclea salsola), box thorn (Lycium spp.), ephedra (Ephedra nevadensis), blackbush (Coleogyne ramosissima), saltbush (Atriplex spp.), Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia), and various species of cactus (mostly Opuntia spp.) . This is the predominant natural community in and around Joshua Tree National Park. | Parish’s daisy (Erigeron parishii) triple-ribbed milk-vetch (Astragalus tricarinatus) desert tortoise (Xerobates agassizii) peninsula bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis cremnobates) |
| Sagebrush Scrub | This plant community consists mostly of widely spaced soft-woody shrubs. Big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) is the dominant species. In eastern Riverside County, sagebrush scrub occurs at the northern end of the Santa Rosa Mountains and perhaps in sparsely scattered locations in the desert mountains. | peninsula bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis cremnobates) |
| Chenopod Scrub | This community is composed primarily of low, grayish, widely spaced shrubs on poorly drained soils of high salinity and/or alkalinity, often surrounding playas but on slightly higher ground. It is strongly dominated by saltbush (Atriplex spp.) , sometimes of a single species. In eastern Riverside County, this community occurs primarily in the Coachella Valley and around playas in the Sonoran Desert. |
desert tortoise (Xerobates agassizii) |
| Chaparral | This plant community is dominated by dense, evergreen shrubs up to 10 feet tall. Characteristic species include chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), red shank (Adenostoma sparsifolium), scrub and live oaks (Quercus spp.), manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.), ceanothus (Ceanothus spp.), sugar bush (Rhus ovata), and mountain-mahogany (Cercocarpus spp.) . In eastern Riverside County, Chaparral is found on slopes and foothills of the San Bernardino, San Jacinto, and Santa Rosa Mountains. | slender-horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras) Mojave tarplant (Hemizonia mohavensis) |
| Grassland | Grasslands are dominated by native and exotic grasses to a height of about two feet. In eastern Riverside County, grasslands occur mostly in the San Jacinto and San Bernardino Mountains and in disturbed areas. | thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia) Mojave tarplant (Hemizonia mohavensis) desert tortoise (Xerobates agassizii) peninsula bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis cremnobates) mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) |
| Playa | This community is composed primarily of low, grayish, widely spaced shrubs on poorly drained soils of high salinity and/or alkalinity due to evaporation of water that accumulates in closed basins. Often with high water table and with salt crust on the surface. Total cover usually low due to wide spacing between shrubs and minimally developed understory. This community is similar to chenopod scrub, but with more succulent species. Dominant species include saltbush (Atriplex spp.), iodine bush (Allenrolfea occidentalis), and greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus), and bush seepweed (Sueda moquinii) . In eastern Riverside County, this community occurs in closed basins on the Mojave and Sonoran deserts. | thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia) desert tortoise (Xerobates agassizii) California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni) |
| Riparian and Bottomland | This category occurs in bottomlands, canyons, desert washes, floodplains, gravel bars, banks of perennially wet streams, and other places with high water tables. These areas are characteristically dominated by droughtor winter-deciduous trees, tall shrubs, or palms. Characteristic dominant species include cottonwoods (Populus spp.), willows (Salix spp.), mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), tamarisk, (Tamarix spp.), giant reed (Arundo donax), California fan palm (Washingtonia filifera), arrow weed (Pluchea sericea), mesquite (Prosopis spp.), smoke tree (Psorothamnus spinosus), desert willow (Chilpsis linearis), catclaw (Acacia greggii), and palo verde (Cercidium floridum) . In eastern Riverside County, riparian and bottomland is widespread and occurs in mountain canyons, along waterways, and in desert washes. | Coachella Valley milk-vetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae) triple-ribbed milk vetch (Astragalus tricarinatus) Mojave tarplant (Hemizonia mahavrnsis) desert slender salamander (Batrachoseps aridus) arroyo toad (Bufo microscaphus californicus) California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) desert tortoise (Xerobates agassizii) Gila woodpecker (Melanerpes uropygialis) elf owl (Micrathene whitneyi) western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) gilded flicker (Colaptes chrysoides) southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) - nesting. American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) - nesting and wintering ,br>Yuma clapper rail (Rallus longirostris yumanensis) Arizona Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii arizonae) - nesting least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) - nesting Peninsula bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis cremnobates) |
| Oak Woodland/ Forest | This category consists of woodlands and forests dominated by oaks (Quercus spp.), and is found in eastern Riverside County mostly in the San Jacinto and San Bernardino Mountains. | Southern rubber boa (Charina bottae umbratica) |
| Coniferous Woodland / Forest | This category consists of woodlands and forests dominated by conifers, including pines (Pinus spp.), junipers (Juniperus spp.), white fir (Abies concolor), incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens) and bigcone douglas fir (Pseudotsuga macrocarpa) . In eastern Riverside County, coniferous woodlands and forests occur on the San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains, and at higher elevations in the desert mountains. | Parish’s daisy (Erigeron parishii) Hidden Lake bluecurls (Trichostema austromomtanum ssp. compactum) Southern rubber boa (Charina bottae umbratica) Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) - nesting and wintering Tahquitz ivesia (Ivesia callida) |
Conservation Areas of Western Riverside County
Conservation areas have been established in numerous areas around the western County and are managed by a variety of entities for a wide range of conservation purposes. Conservation areas are assigned a management status to reflect the degree to which they are managed for biodiversity and preservation of land in its natural state. The management status definitions and designations below are from the University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB) GIS coverage and metadata.
Management Status 1. An area having permanent protection from conversion of natural land cover and a mandated management plan in operation to maintain a natural state within which natural disturbance events are allowed to proceed without interference or are mimicked through management (fire is usually suppressed in most managed areas in California, however). Areas of Management Status 1 in western Riverside County include U.S. Forest Service (USFS) research natural areas and wilderness areas (Cahuilla Mountain and Hall Canyon Research Natural Areas, and Agua Tibia, San Gorgonio, San Jacinto, and San Mateo Canyon Wilderness Areas), the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Lake Matthews Ecological Reserve, Mount San Jacinto State Wilderness, University of California natural reserves (Box Springs Reserve, Emerson Oaks), water district land within the Lake Mathews Ecological Reserve, Nature Conservancy land within the Santa Rosa Plateau Preserve, and Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency reserves for the Stephens' kangaroo rat (Lake Skinner, Lake Mathews, San Jacinto, Sycamore Canyon, Steele Peak, and Portrero area of critical environmental concern (ACEC), and Motte Rimrock Core Reserves).
Management Status 2. An area having permanent protection from conversion of natural land cover and a mandated management plan in operation to maintain a primarily natural state, but which may receive use or management practices that degrade the quality of existing natural communities. Areas of Management Status 2 in western Riverside County include BLM ACECs (Beauty Mountain, Potrero, and Santa Margarita ACECs), the USFS Black Mountain Special Interest Area, CDFG wildlife areas and undesignated lands (Coal Canyon, Hidden Valley, CDFG land within the Santa Rosa Plateau Preserve), and State Parks (Anza-Borrego State Park, Chino Hills State Park, Mount San Jacinto State Park).
Management Status 3. An area having permanent protection from conversion of natural land cover for the majority of the area, but subject to extractive uses of either a broad, low-intensity type or localized intense type. Areas of Management Status 3 in western Riverside County include the Cleveland and San Bernardino National Forests, Army Corps of Engineers and BLM undesignated lands, Lake Elsinore and Lake Perris State Recreation Areas, state land within the Santa Margarita ACEC, and county regional parks (Prado Basin Park, Santa Ana River Regional Park, Box Springs Mountain Park, Lake Skinner Park).
Management Status 4. All remaining lands, including most private, military, and Native American lands.
Conservation Areas of Eastern Riverside County
Conservation areas have been established in numerous areas around the eastern County and are managed by a variety of entities for a wide range of conservation purposes. Conservation areas are assigned a management status to reflect the degree to which they are managed for biodiversity and preservation of land in its natural state. The management status definitions and designations below are from UCSB GIS coverage and metadata.
Management Status 1. An area having permanent protection from conversion of natural land cover and a mandated management plan in operation to maintain a natural state within which natural disturbance events are allowed to proceed without interference or are mimicked through management (fire is usually suppressed in most managed areas in California, however). Areas of Management Status 1 in eastern Riverside County include BLM wilderness areas (Big Maria Mountains, Chuckwalla Mountains, Little Chuckwalla Mountains, Mecca Hills, Orocopia Mountains, Palen/McCoy, Palo Verde Mountains, Rice Valley, Riverside Mountains, and Santa Lucia Wilderness Areas), U.S. Forest Service (USFS) research natural areas and wilderness areas (Hall Canyon and Millard Canyon Research Natural Areas, and San Gorgonio, San Jacinto, and Santa Rosa Wilderness Areas), Joshua Tree National Park and Wilderness, CDFG ecological reserves (Carrizo Canyon, Coachella Valley, Hidden Palms, and Magnesia Spring Ecological Reserves), Mt. San Jacinto State Wilderness, the University of California's Boyd Deep Canyon Desert Research Center, the Nature Conservancy's Coachella Valley Preserve, and three Coachella Valley Habitat Conservation Plan fringe-toed lizard preserves.
Management Status 2. An area having permanent protection from conversion of natural land cover and a mandated management plan in operation to maintain a primarily natural state, but which may receive use or management practices that degrade the quality of existing natural communities. Areas of Management Status 2 in eastern Riverside County include BLM ACECs and preserves (Alligator Rock, Big Morongo Canyon, Chuckwalla Bench, Corn Spring, Dune Thicket, Palen Drylake, Dos Palmas, White-water Canyon, and Mule Mountains ACECs, and Desert Lily and Coachella Valley Preserves), the USFS Black Mountain Special Interest Area, the CDFG Santa Rosa Wildlife Area, and the Anza-Borrego State Park.
Management Status 3. An area having permanent protection from conversion of natural land cover for the majority of the area, but subject to extractive uses of either a broad, low-intensity type or localized intense type. Areas of Management Status 3 in eastern Riverside County include the San Bernardino National Forest, state lands within ACECs and wilderness areas (Dos Palmas and Chuckwalla Bench ACECs, and Orocopia Mountains, Chuckwalla Mountains, and Little Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness Areas), the Salton Sea State Recreational Area, and undesignated BLM lands.
Management Status 4. All remaining lands, including most private, military, and Native American lands.
Existing Policies and Regulations
Federal Policies and Regulations
Endangered Species Act The Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) was promulgated to protect any species of plant or animal which is endangered or threatened with extinction. "Take" of endangered species is prohibited under Section 9 of the ESA. Take as defined under the ESA means to "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct" [16 U.S.C. § 1532(19)].
Section 7 of the Act requires federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on proposed federal actions (actions authorized, funded, or carried out by federal agencies) which may affect threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Section 7 also requires federal agencies to confer with the USFWS if the agency determines that its action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any proposed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat.
Section 10 of the ESA provides the regulatory mechanism which allows the incidental take of a listed species by private interests and non-federal government agencies during lawful land, water, and ocean use activities. Under these conditions, habitat conservation plans (HCPs) for the impacted species must be developed, approved by the USFWS, and implemented by the permitted. It is the goal through the HCP to minimize impacts to the species and develop viable mitigation measures to offset the unavoidable impacts.
Clean Water Act, Section 404 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulates discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. These waters include wetlands and non-wetland bodies of water that meet specific criteria. Corps regulatory jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act is founded on a connection or nexus between the water body in question and interstate commerce. This connection may be direct, through a tributary system linking a stream channel with traditional navigable waters used in interstate or foreign commerce, or may be indirect, through a nexus identified in the Corps regulations. The following definition of waters of the U.S. is taken from the discussion provided at 33 CFR 328.3:
"The term waters of the U.S. means:
(1) all waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce...;
(2) all interstate waters including interstate wetlands;
(3) all other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams) ...the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce...;
(4) all impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the U.S. under the definition; and
(5) tributaries of waters defined in paragraphs (a) (1)-(4) of this section."
The Corps typically regulates as waters of the U.S. any body of water displaying an ordinary high water mark (OHWM). Corps jurisdiction over non-tidal waters of the
U.S. extends laterally to the OHWM or beyond the OHWM to the limit of any adjacent wetlands, if present. The OHWM is defined as "that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding area." Jurisdiction typically extends upstream to the point where the OHWM is no longer perceptible.
Clean Water Act, Section 401 The California Regional Water Quality Control Board is responsible for the administration of Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The site of the proposed General Plan is within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Board. Typically, the areas subject to jurisdiction of the Regional Board coincide with those of the Corps (i.e., waters of the United States including any wetlands). The Regional Board's responsibility is to ensure that the quality of down stream areas ("receiving waters") are not adversely impacted.
State Policies and Regulations
California Endangered Species Act The State of California has promulgated the California Endangered Species Act. This Act is similar to the Federal ESA in that its intent is to protect species of fish, wildlife, and plants that are in danger of, or threatened with, extinction because their habitats are threatened with destruction, adverse modification, or severe curtailment, or because of overexploitation, disease, predation, or other factors.
The threshold for take under the Federal ESA is lower than that under the California ESA. "Take" as defined under the California ESA means hunt, pursue, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, capture, or kill. Under certain conditions, the California ESA has provisions for take through a 2081 permit or a 2081 Memorandum of Understanding. The impacts of the authorized take must be minimized and fully mitigated. No permit may be issued if the issuance of the permit would jeopardize the continued existence of the species.
California Fish and Game Code, Section 1603 The CDFG, through provisions of the California Fish and Game Code (Section 1603), is empowered to issue agreements for any alteration of a river, stream, or lake where fish or wildlife resources may be adversely affected. Streams (and rivers) are defined by the presence of a channel bed and banks, and at least an intermittent flow of water.
CDFG regulates wetland areas only to the extent that those wetlands are a part of a river, stream, or lake as defined by CDFG. While seasonal ponds are within the CDFG definition of wetlands, they are not part of a river, stream, or lake and are not subject to jurisdiction of CDFG under Section 1603 of the Fish and Game Code.
County of Riverside Policies and Regulations
Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan In 1996, the USFWS issued a permit for the Long Term Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the Stephens' kangaroo rat (SKR). The HCP covers an area of 540,000 acres and authorizes "take" of the SKR and resulted in the establishment of habitat reserves providing for the long-term conservation of the SKR.
Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan In 1985 the USFWS and the CDFG authorized the Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard (CVFTL) Habitat Conservation Plan. The HCP authorizes "take" of the CVFTL and establishes a preserve providing for the long-term conservation of the species.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan On June 17, 2003, the County of Riverside adopted the Western Riverside County MSHCP and certified the EIR/EIS. At the time the Final EIR was published the USFWS has not issued its "take authorization" permit or finalized the Final EIS for the Western Riverside County MSHCP. This MSHCP (also a component of RCIP), if approved by the USFWS and CDFG, will provide mitigation for development impacts to threatened and endangered species throughout western Riverside County by way of a development fee and property acquisition. Participation in the plan may provide some or all mitigation for many CEQA-significant impacts, including habitat fragmentation and impacts to non-listed species (additional mitigation may be required, as determined on a project-by-project basis).
Riverside County Oak Tree Management Guidelines In March 1993, the County of Riverside issued Oak Tree Management Guidelines intended to address the treatment of oak woodlands in areas where zoning and/or general plan density restrictions will allow the effective use of clustering. The guidelines are generally considered to be the most effective where minimum lot sizes of 2.5 acres or larger or where oak woodlands are concentrated in a relatively small portion of a project site. The guidelines include recommendations for oak inventories, land use designs to cluster home sites in order to reduce impacts to oaks, and mitigation measures for oak conservation.
Biological Resources Reports Guidelines The County of Riverside Planning Department maintains a policy that prior to the submittal of any biological reports to the County, the Consultant preparing the report meet certain qualifications and must follow the County's standard procedures for conducting biological surveys, documenting the results in a technical report, and submitting the report to the Planning Department.
4.6.2 Biological Resources Thresholds of Significance
The effects of a development project on biological resources are considered to be significant if the proposed project will:
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 CDFG or USFWS.
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 CDFG or USFWS.
c) 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.
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.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
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.
Note: CEQA Guidelines Section 15065 identifies conditions warranting "mandatory findings of significance" that are to be used in preliminary review of projects, conducting initial studies, and in determining if an EIR is required. The mandatory findings of significance are not used as thresholds of significance for purposes of the proposed General Plan analysis as: 1) it has already been determined that an EIR is required and 2) a more comprehensive analysis is provided herein than would be done for a preliminary review or an initial study.
4.6.3 Biological Resources Impacts and Mitigation
Methodology
The biological resources impacts discussion is primarily qualitative with some quantitative data generated through GIS analysis.
The mitigation measures identified for potential impacts to biological resources are based on standard professional practice. During subsequent project-level environmental analysis and review of individual development projects, compliance with applicable regulations may require coordination with resource agencies (e.g.,USFWS, CDFG, or Corps) to determine specific mitigation for impacts to waters of the U.S. (including wetlands), riparian habitats, and state and federally listed species. Resource agency permits for project-level approvals may require mitigation measures in addition to those outlined herein for the proposed General Plan.
For purposes of impact assessment and General Plan level mitigation, sensitive and nonsensitive habitat types are considered to be the following:
| Western County | Eastern County |
| Sensitive Habitats Coastal Sage Scrub Playa and Vernal Pool Meadow and Marsh Riparian and Bottomland Oak Woodland/Forest Grassland (Valley and Foothill Grassland) |
Sensitive Habitats Desert Dune Coastal Sage Scrub Playa Oak Woodland/Forest |
| Non-Sensitive Habitats Urban and Disturbed Agriculture Water Sonoran Desert Scrub Big Sagebrush Scrub Chaparral Grassland (non-native grassland) Coniferous Woodland/Forest |
Non-Sensitive Habitats Coniferous Woodland/Forest Urban and Disturbed Agriculture Water Sonoran Desert Scrub Mojavean Desert Scrub Big Sagebrush Scrub Chenopod Scrub Chaparral Grassland Riparian and Bottomland |
Any habitat may be considered sensitive (including those identified above as non-sensitive) should it be found to support a listed, proposed, or candidate species or should it provide a viable habitat linkage between areas of sensitive habitat(s).
This impact analysis assumes that biological resources could be directly or indirectly impacted by implementation ("build out") of the proposed General Plan land uses and associated public works projects. Biological resources could be impacted as follows:
Direct mortality of individuals of listed, proposed, or candidate species or loss of habitat occupied by such species.
• Alteration or loss of habitat of listed, proposed, or candidate species that inhibits or compromises recovery efforts that could otherwise lead or contribute to the delisting of the species.
• Direct loss of sensitive natural communities.
• Fragmentation of sensitive habitats resulting in isolation of habitat patches creating a "checkerboard" pattern of small habitat patches of limited biological value.
• Fragmentation of habitat that constricts, inhibits, or eliminates wildlife movement.
• Direct loss of oak trees or alteration of natural processes (e.g., hydrology) resulting in indirect loss of oak trees.
• Alteration of habitat or natural processes that would result in the direct or indirect mortality of listed, proposed, or candidate species or that would result in loss, fragmentation, or isolation of sensitive habitat(s).
For purposes of this analysis, it is presumed that all natural habitat within Agriculture, Rural, and Community Development areas would be impacted (i.e., removed or degraded to such an extent as to be of no biological value). It is also presumed that all natural vegetation within Open Space areas would be retained. Due to the countywide scale of vegetation mapping, the smallest vegetation patch size depicted is 10 acres. Thus, certain habitat types that typically occur in small patches (i.e., vernal pools) are likely under-represented in the tables and figures depicting vegetation on a countywide scale. However, the depiction is considered to be sufficient for the program-level EIR review and it is anticipated that subsequent analyses for site-specific projects will include the small habitat patches.
Table 4.6.C identifies proposed General Plan impacts to all habitat and vegetation types. Figure 4.6.2 depicts how the total area of all existing natural habitat types would be "overlain;" by proposed General Plan land uses based on the Foundation Components (Agriculture, Community Development, Open Space, and Rural). Figure 4.6.3 depicts how the total area of all existing sensitive habitat types would be overlain by proposed General Plan land uses based on the Foundation Components. Table 4.6.D summarizes proposed General Plan impacts to sensitive habitats.
To determine if the impact is significant, at the level of site-specific projects that are proposed in accordance with the proposed General Plan, land uses will require analysis as part of the subsequent evaluation of such projects. The potential for such impacts to be considered significant will depend upon various factors including, but not limited to, the site conditions at the time of project evaluation, the extent of the area potentially affected, and the value of the affected habitat at local and regional scales.
During subsequent project-level environmental analysis and review of individual development projects, compliance with applicable regulations may require coordination with resource agencies (e.g., USFWS, CDFG, or Corps) to determine specific mitigation for impacts to waters of the U.S. (including wetlands), riparian habitats, and State and federally listed species. Resource agency permits for project-level approvals may require mitigation measures in addition to those outlined in the proposed General Plan.
| Table 4.6.C Proposed General Plan Impacts to Habitat and Vegetation Types |
|||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Habitat Type | Existing Vegetation Type | Acres | Foundation Category | Total Impacts | Percent | Retained | |||
| Ag | Rural and Rural Com. |
Com. Dev. | Open Space | Percent | |||||
| Water | Open Water/Reservoir/Pond | 8,906 |
99 |
90 |
466 |
655 |
7 |
8,251 |
93 |
| Water | 44,884 |
0 | 38 | 552 | 590 | 1 | 44,294 |
99 | |
| Subtotal | 53,790 |
99 |
128 |
1,018 |
1,245 |
2 | 52,545 |
98 | |
| Desert Dune | Desert Dune | 71,561 |
151 |
1,245 |
3,137 |
4,533 |
6 |
67,028 |
94 |
| Coastal Sage Scrub | Coastal Sage Scrub | 7,668 |
8 |
1,344 |
5,790 |
7,142 |
93 | 525 |
7 |
| Coastal Scrub | 6,583 |
3 | 2,087 |
1,574 |
3,664 |
56 |
2,920 |
44 |
|
| Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub | 15,025 |
16 |
6,180 |
810 |
7,006 |
47 |
8,020 |
53 |
|
| Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub | 4,934 |
179 |
1,817 |
1,310 |
3,306 |
67 |
1,627 |
33 |
|
| Riversidean Sage Scrub | 116,400 |
881 |
53,898 |
16,725 |
71,504 |
61 |
44,896 |
39 |
|
| Subtotal | 150,610 |
1,087 |
65,326 |
26,209 |
92,622 |
61 |
57,988 |
39 |
|
| Sonoran Desert Scrub | Colorado Desert Wash Scrub | 1,476 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1,476 | 100 |
| Semi-desert Succulent Scrub | 2,425 |
30 |
2,395 |
0 | 2,425 |
100 | 0 | 0 | |
| Sonoran Desert Scrub | 1,885,491 |
17,881 |
28,629 |
35,248 |
81,758 |
4 |
1,803,732 |
96 |
|
| Subtotal | 1,889,392 |
17,911 |
31,024 |
35,248 |
84,183 |
4 |
1,805,208 |
96 |
|
| Mojavean Desert Scrub | Mojavean Desert Scrub | 400,310 |
0 | 904 |
14 |
918 |
0 | 399,392 |
100 |
| Big Sagebrush Scrub | Big Sagebrush Scrub | 11,762 |
1 |
4,223 |
5,297 |
9,521 |
81 | 2,241 |
19 |
| Chenopod Scrub | Chenopod Scrub | 4,202 |
596 |
157 |
3,294 |
4,047 |
96 |
155 |
4 |
| Chaparral | Chaparral | 422,186 |
3,520 |
107,408 |
34,178 |
145,106 |
34 |
277,080 |
66 |
| Red Shank Chaparral | 83,528 |
874 |
17,239 |
13,465 |
31,578 |
38 |
51,949 |
62 | |
| Semi-desert Chaparral | 15 | 0 | 15 |
0 |
15 | 100 | 0 | 0 | |
| Subtotal | 505,729 |
4,394 |
124,662 |
47,643 |
176,699 |
35 |
329,029 |
65 |
|
| Grassland | Grassland | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 100 |
| Non-native Grassland | 102,489 |
3,704 |
44,669 |
27,938 |
76,311 |
74 |
26,178 |
26 |
|
| Valley and Foothill Grassland | 2,733 | 0 | 421 | 0 | 421 | 15 | 2,311 | 85 | |
| Subtotal | 105,223 |
3,704 |
45,090 |
27,938 |
76,732 |
73 |
28,490 |
27 |
|
| Playa and Vernal Pool | Alkali Playa | 5,218 |
482 |
236 |
749 |
1,467 |
28 |
3,751 |
72 |
| Playa and Vernal Pool | 23,950 |
28 |
0 | 1,753 |
1,781 |
7 |
22,169 |
93 |
|
| Southern Interior Basalt Vernal Pool | 0 |
0 | 0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
| Vernal Pool | 26 |
0 | 3 |
3 |
6 |
23 |
19 |
73 |
|
| Subtotal | 29,194 |
510 |
239 |
2,505 |
3,254 |
11 |
25,939 |
89 |
|
| Meadow and Marsh | Cismontane Alkali Marsh | 1,263 |
2 |
114 |
1,120 |
1,236 |
98 | 27 | 2 |
| Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh | 337 |
0 | 0 | 12 |
12 |
4 |
325 |
96 |
|
| Marsh | 94 |
50 |
6 |
5 |
61 |
65 |
32 |
34 |
|
| Meadow (Montane) | 150 |
0 | 18 | 27 | 45 | 30 |
106 |
71 |
|
| Wet Montane Meadow | 486 | 97 | 1 | 35 |
133 |
27 | 354 |
73 | |
| Subtotal | 2,330 |
149 |
139 |
1,199 |
1,487 |
64 |
844 |
36 |
|
| Riparian and Bottomland | Arundo/Riparian Forest | 348 |
0 | 0 | 0 |
0 |
0 | 348 |
100 |
| Disturbed Alluvial | 674 |
27 |
235 |
168 |
430 |
64 |
244 |
36 |
|
| Montane Riparian Forest | 249 |
0 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 3 |
243 |
98 | |
| Montane Riparian Scrub | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 100 | |
| Riparian Forest | 6,580 |
33 |
591 |
463 |
1,087 |
17 | 5,493 |
83 | |
| Riparian Scrub | 4,363 |
52 |
1,411 |
572 |
2,035 |
47 |
2,327 |
53 |
|
| Riparian and Bottomland | 349,133 |
16,268 |
1,821 |
6,933 |
25,022 |
7 |
324,111 |
93 |
|
| Southern Sycamore/Alder Riparian Wood | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Tamarisk Scrub | 272 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 272 | 100 | |
| Subtotal | 361,625 |
16,380 |
4,061 |
8,140 |
28,581 |
8 | 333,044 |
92 | |
| Oak Woodland/Forest | Black Oak Forest | 9 |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 |
|
| Broadleaved Upland Forest | 2,760 |
0 | 36 | 125 | 161 | 6 | 2,599 |
94 | |
| Dense Engelmann Oak Woodland | 4,055 |
0 | 2,542 |
8 |
2,550 |
63 |
1,504 |
37 |
|
| Oak Woodland | 31,997 |
249 |
5,505 |
1,664 |
7,418 |
23 |
24,578 |
77 |
|
| Oak Woodland Forest | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Subtotal | 38,821 |
249 |
8,083 |
1,797 |
10,129 |
26 |
28,689 |
74 |
|
| Coniferous Woodland/Forest | Coniferous Woodland/Forest | 87,039 |
0 | 1,083 |
1,172 |
2,255 |
3 |
84,784 |
97 |
| Jeffrey Pine | 13,834 |
671 |
889 |
151 |
1,711 |
12 |
12,124 |
88 |
|
| Lodgepole Pine | 1,656 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1,656 | 100 | |
| Lower Montane Coniferous Forest | 7,700 |
97 |
389 |
274 |
760 |
10 |
6,940 |
90 |
|
| Mixed Evergreen Forest | 7,852 |
15 | 147 |
0 | 162 |
2 | 7,690 |
98 | |
| Peninsular Juniper Woodland and Scrub | 0 |
0 | 0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
| Southern California White Fir | 6,736 | 0 | 115 |
36 | 151 |
2 |
6,585 |
98 |
|
| Subalpine Coniferous | 541 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 541 | 100 | |
| Subtotal | 125,358 |
783 |
2,623 |
1,633 |
5,039 |
4 |
120,320 |
96 |
|
| GRAND TOTAL | 3,749,907 |
46,014 |
287,904 |
165,072 |
498,990 |
13 |
3,250,912 |
87 |
|
Impact 4.6.1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan will result in the direct mortality of individuals of listed, proposed, or candidate species or loss of habitat occupied by such species.
| Table 4.6.D - Potential Impacts and Retention of Sensitive Habitat Types | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitive Habitat Type | Existing(acres) | Proposed General Plan Impacts by Foundation Category |
Total Proposed Impacts | Total Proposed Retained | ||||
| Agriculture (impacted) |
Rural and Rural Community (impacted) |
Community Development (impacted) |
Total Impacted | % | Open Space (retained) |
% | ||
| Desert Dune | 71,561 |
151 |
1,245 |
3,137 |
4,533 |
6% |
67,028 |
94% |
| Coastal Sage Scrub | 150,610 |
1,087 |
65,326 |
26,209 |
92,622 |
61% |
57,988 |
39% |
| Grassland | 2,733 | 0 | 421 | 0 | 421 | 15% | 2,311 |
85% |
| Playa & Vernal Pool | 29,194 |
510 |
239 |
2,505 |
3,254 |
11% |
25,939 |
89% |
| Meadow & Marsh | 2,330 |
149 |
139 |
1,199 |
1,489 |
64% |
844 |
36% |
| Riparian & Bottomland | 12,492 |
112 |
2,240 |
1,207 |
3,559 |
28% |
8,933 |
72% |
| Oak Woodland / Forest | 38,821 |
249 |
8,083 |
1,797 |
10,129 |
26% |
28,689 |
74% |
| Total | 307,741 |
2,258 |
77,693 |
36,054 |
116,005 |
38% |
191,732 |
62% |
| Note: Totals exclude land within Cities and major roadways. | ||||||||
Analysis of Impact A total of 51 species that are listed, proposed, or candidates for listing under the California and/or the Federal Endangered Species Act are known to occur in Riverside County. Every habitat type identified in Table 4.6.C is known to be occupied or used by at least one such species. Some species are restricted to a single habitat type (e.g., fairy shrimp in playa and vernal pools) while other species occupy variety of habitat types (e.g., slender-horned spineflower in coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and riparian habitats). Every habitat type identified in Table 4.6.C will be impacted to at least some degree by implementation of the proposed General Plan. Thus, implementation of the proposed General Plan will result in the direct mortality of individuals of listed, proposed, or candidate species or loss of habitat occupied by such species. This impact is considered to be significant at the General Plan level.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan includes the following policies to address effects of prospective development on biological resources. The following proposed General Plan policies will directly or indirectly address the direct mortality of individuals of listed, proposed, or candidate species or loss of habitat occupied by such species. The effectiveness of the policies at reducing such impacts is analyzed below and additional mitigation measures are provided to reduce the effects of future development in the County on biological resources.
Open Space Policy 5.1 Substantially alter floodways or implement other channelization only as a "last resort," and limit the alteration to: (a) that necessary for the protection of public health and safety only after all other options are exhausted; (b) essential public service projects where or other feasible construction method or alternative project location exists; or (c) projects where primary function is improvement of fish and wildlife habitat.
Open Space Policy 5.2 If substantial modification to a floodway is proposed, design it to reduce adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent feasible, considering the following factors: (a) stream scour; (b) erosion protection and sedimentation; (c) wildlife habitat and linkages; (d) groundwater recharge capability; (e) adjacent property; (f) design (a natural effect, examples could include soft riparian bottoms and gentle bank slopes, wide and shallow floodways, minimization of visible use of concrete, and landscaping with native plants to the maximum extent possible). A site-specific hydrologic study may be required.
Open Space Policy 5.3 Set back all developed uses, except for non-motorized trails and existing agriculture, from the floodway boundary a distance equal to 15 percent of the floodway width unless modified by a site-specific study that determines a more appropriate setback width due to: Based upon site-specific study, all development shall be set back from the floodway boundary a distance adequate to address the following issues:
(a) pPublic safety;
(b) eErosion;
(c) rRiparian or wetland buffer;
(d) wWildlife movement or MSHCP corridor or linkage; and
(e) sSlopes.
Open Space Policy 5.5 Require new private or public developments to New development shall preserve and enhance existing native riparian habitat and prevent obstruction of natural watercourses. Incentives shall be utilized to the maximum extent possible.
Open Space Policy 5.6 Identify and, to the maximum extent feasible, conserve remaining upland habitat areas adjacent to wetland and riparian areas that are critical to the feeding, hibernation, or nesting of wildlife species associated with those these wetland and riparian areas.
Open Space Policy 5.7 Where land is prohibited from development due to its retention as natural floodways, floodplains and water courses, incentives should be available to the owner of such the land including density transfer and other mechanisms as may be adopted. These incentives will be provided for the purpose of encouraging the preservation of natural watercourses without creating undue hardship on the owner of properties following these policies property owners.
Open Space Policy 6.1 During the development review process, ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act's Section 404 in terms of wetlands mitigation policies and policies concerning fill material in jurisdictional wetlands.
Open Space Policy 6.2 Preserve buffer zones around wetlands where feasible and biologically appropriate.
Open Space Policy 8.1 Cooperate with Federal and State agencies to achieve the sustainable conservation of forest land as a means of providing open space and protecting natural resources and MSHCP habitat lands included in the MSHCPs.
Open Space Policy 9.3 Maintain and conserve superior examples of native trees, natural vegetation, stands of established trees, and other features for ecosystem, aesthetic, and water conservation purposes.
Open Space Policy 17.1 Enforce the provisions of applicable County MSHCPs, if adopted, Implementing Agreements when conducting review of development applications for discretionary activities.
Open Space Policy 17.2 Enforce the provisions of applicable County MSHCPs, if adopted, Implementing Agreements when developing transportation or infrastructure projects that have been designated as permitted covered activities in the applicable MSHCPs.
Open Space Policy 17.3 Enforce the provisions of applicable County MSHCPs, if adopted, Implementing Agreements when conducting review of possible general plan amendments and/or zoning changes.
Open Space Policy 18.1 Preserve multi-species habitat resources in the County of Riverside through the enforcement of the provisions of applicable MSHCPs, if adopted multi-species habitat conservation planning process.
Open Space Policy 18.2 Provide incentives to landowners that will encourage the protection of significant resources in the County beyond the preservation and/or conservation required to mitigate project impacts by policy.
Staff-suggested Changes to the Open Space and Conservation Policies:
Open Space Policy 17.1 Enforce the provisions of applicable MSHCPs, if adopted, when conducting review of development applications.
Open Space Policy 17.2 Enforce the provisions of applicable MSHCPs, if adopted, when developing transportation or other infrastructure projects that have been designated as permitted activities in the MSHCP.
Open Space Policy 17.3 Enforce the provisions of applicable MSHCPs, if adopted, when conducting review of possible general plan amendments and/or zoning changes.
Open Space Policy 17.4 Require the preparation of biological reports in compliance with Riverside County Planning Department Biological Report Guidelines for development related uses that require discretionary approval to assess the impacts of such development and provide mitigation for impacts to biological resources until such time as the CVAG MSHCP and/or Western Riverside County MSHCP are adopted or should one or both MSHCP's not be adopted.
Open Space Policy 17.5 Establish baseline ratios for mitigating the impacts of development related uses to rare, threatened and endangered species and their associated habitats to be used until such time as the CVAG MSHCP and/or Western Riverside County MSHCP are adopted or should one or both MSHCP's not be adopted.
Open Space Policy 18.1 Preserve multi-species habitat resources in the County of Riverside through adopted MSHCP's.
Open Space Policy 18.2 Provide incentives to landowners that will encourage the protection of significant resources in the County beyond the preservation and/or conservation required to mitigate project impacts.
Effectiveness of the Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan policies focus primarily on avoidance and minimization of impacts to floodplain, riparian, and wetland habitats; maintaining and conserving superior examples of native vegetation; and complying with applicable MSHCPs. The policies provide for avoidance and minimization of impacts to natural habitats but do not specify a means for identifying habitats that warrant such measures. Nor do the policies specify parameters for compensating for the loss of habitats when avoidance or minimization of impacts is considered to be infeasible. The policies do not fully mitigate for the direct mortality of individuals of listed, proposed, or candidate species or loss of habitat occupied by such species. In conjunction with the proposed General Plan policies, the following mitigation measures will be implemented.
Mitigation Measures
4.6.1A Comply with Riverside County Planning Department Biological Report Guidelines to include an analysis of the potential for a proposed project to result in direct mortality of individuals of listed, proposed, or candidate species or loss of habitat occupied by such species and sensitive habitats.
Under the Planning Department Guidelines, biological reports must be conducted as follows:
a. Reports must be prepared by a biologist on the County's list of qualified consultants.
b. The County Planning Department must be notified in advance that a report will be prepared for a specific project.
c. The report must include a signed certification attesting to the report contents.
d. The report must include specific information as to the type of survey (e.g., General Biological Resources Assessment, Habitat Assessment, etc.), site location, property owner, principal investigator, and contact information for participants in the field surveys.
e. The report must include specified attachments (summary sheet, level of significance checklist, biological resources/project footprint map, and site photos).
f. The report must include information on literature sources (e.g., California Natural Diversity Data Base, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and environmental documents for nearby projects).
g. The report must include a description of surveys, including timing, personnel, and weather conditions.
h. The report must include a description of site conditions including plant and wildlife habitat, disturbances, and sensitive elements.
i. The report must include an assessment of anticipated project impacts and a discussion of mitigation.
j. The report must include a list of all species observed or detected and a recommendation for any additional focused surveys that may be necessary.
The above list is a summary of the County's guidelines, the actual guidelines available from the Planning Department shall be used in determining requirements for, and adequacy of, biological reports.
4.6.1B Preserve habitat at minimum of 1:1 replacement ratio in locations that provide long-term conservation value for impacted resource. This could involve acquisition of habitat occupied by the affected species, acquiring a key parcel that fills in a missing link or gap in a reserve that provides conservation for the species, or acquisition of credits in a mitigation bank (endorsed by the USFWS and/or CDFG) that has been established to provide conservation value for the species. Implementation of the mitigation measure shall include provisions for the preservation of such areas in perpetuity.
4.6.1C Comply with applicable HCPs.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have not substantially altered the meaning and applicability of the policies that pertain to direct mortality of species. The policies, as modified, still do not fully mitigate for the direct mortality of listed and proposed species or for the loss of habitat occupied by these species. However, adherence to the mitigation measures above would continue to provide adequate mitigation when combined with the revised policies. Changes that have been made to the amount of land designated for specific land uses are reflected in Figures 4.6.2 through 4.6.4 and in Tables 4.6.4C and 4.6.4D. The revised proposed General Plan land use would affect fewer acres of habitat than the General Plan as analyzed in the Draft EIR. While the policies and mitigation measures still partially mitigate the impact of direct mortality of listed and proposed species and the loss of habitat occupied by those species, the impact remains significant and unavoidable, as discussed in Section 4.6.4 below.
Impact 4.6.2 Alteration or loss of habitat of listed proposed, or candidate species that inhibits or compromises recovery efforts that could otherwise lead or contribute to the delisting of the species.
Analysis of Impact Pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act, the USFWS designates "Critical Habitat" identifying specific areas, both occupied and unoccupied, that are essential to the conservation of a listed species and that may require special management considerations or protections. "Recovery Plans" delineate actions which are believed, by the USFWS, to be required to recover or protect listed species. Construction of proposed General Plan land uses that result in the loss of or disturbance to designated Critical Habitat and/or identified Recovery Areas may inhibit or compromise efforts that could lead or contribute to the delisting of species.
In reaching a determination regarding such effects, the project impacts must be viewed against the aggregate effects of everything that has led to the species' current status and those things likely to affect the species in the future. If such factors may substantially diminish the species' reproduction, numbers, and distribution in the wild, then the effects may inhibit or compromise the recovery and delisting the species. The recovery or delisting of species that are narrowly distributed (e.g., the Riverside fairy shrimp) or that occur in Riverside County only as an isolated population of the species' larger range (e.g., red-legged frog) could be inhibited through even small-scale impacts resulting from a small number of projects that could result from a wide variety of land uses. The recovery or delisting of species that are more widely distributed and that occupy larger expanses of habitat (e.g., California gnatcatcher) could be inhibited through large-scale changes in land use and vegetative cover that eliminates large areas of occupied habitat, fragments habitat into small disjunct patches, or intensively impacts areas in which the species' activities are concentrated.
Fifty-one (51) species that are listed, proposed, or candidates for listing under the California and/or federal Endangered Species Acts are known to occur in Riverside County. The recovery of each of the 51 species may be inhibited to some degree by implementation of the proposed General Plan. This impact is considered potentially significant.
Determining if the impact is significant at the level of site-specific projects that are proposed in accordance with the proposed General Plan land uses will require analysis as part of the subsequent evaluation of such projects. The potential for such impacts to be considered significant will depend upon various factors including, but not limited to, the site conditions at the time of project evaluation, the extent of the area potentially affected, the quality of the habitat being affected, the value of the affected habitat at local and regional scales, and the importance of the habitat to the species in question.
The risks associated with the above impact can be minimized through implementation of the following proposed General Plan Open Space Policies.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan includes the following policies to address effects of prospective development on biological resources. The following proposed General Plan policies will directly or indirectly address the inhibition of recovery efforts for listed, proposed, or candidate species. The effectiveness of the policies at reducing such impacts is analyzed below and additional mitigation measures are provided reduce the effects of future development in the County on biological resources.
Open Space Policy 5.1 Substantially alter floodways or implement other channelization only as a "last resort," and limit the alteration to: (a) that necessary for the protection of public health and safety only after all other options are exhausted; (b) essential public service projects where nor other feasible construction method or alternative project location exists; or (c) projects where primary function is improvement of fish and wildlife habitat.
Open Space Policy 5.2 If substantial modification to a floodway is proposed, design it to reduce adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent feasible, considering the following factors: (a) stream scour; (b) erosion protection and sedimentation; (c) wildlife habitat and linkages; (d) groundwater recharge capability; (e) adjacent property; (f) design (a natural effect, examples could include soft riparian bottoms and gentle bank slopes, wide and shallow floodways, minimization of visible use of concrete, and landscaping with native plants to the maximum extent possible). A site-specific hydrologic study may be required.
Open Space Policy 5.3 Set back all developed uses, except for non-motorized trails and existing agriculture, from the floodway boundary a distance equal to 15 percent of the floodway width unless modified by a site-specific study that determines a more appropriate setback width due to: Based upon site-specific study, all development shall be set back from the floodway boundary a distance adequate to address the following issues:
(a) pPublic safety;
(b) eErosion;
(c) rRiparian or wetland buffer;
(d) wWildlife movement or MSHCP corridor or linkage; and
(e) sSlopes.
Open Space Policy 5.5 Require new private or public developments to New development shall preserve and enhance existing native riparian habitat and prevent obstruction of natural watercourses. Incentives shall be utilized to the maximum extent possible.
Open Space Policy 5.6 Identify and, to the maximum extent feasible, conserve remaining upland habitat areas adjacent to wetland and riparian areas that are critical to the feeding, hibernation, or nesting of wildlife species associated with those these wetland and riparian areas.
Open Space Policy 5.7 Where land is prohibited from development due to its retention as natural floodways, floodplains and water courses, incentives should be available to the owner of such the land including density transfer and other mechanisms as may be adopted. These incentives will be provided for the purpose of encouraging the preservation of natural watercourses without creating undue hardship on the owner of properties following these policies property owners.
Open Space Policy 6.1 During the development review process, ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act's Section 404 in terms of wetlands mitigation policies and policies concerning fill material in jurisdictional wetlands.
Open Space Policy 6.2 Preserve buffer zones around wetlands where feasible and biologically appropriate.
Open Space Policy 8.1 Cooperate with Federal and State agencies to achieve the sustainable conservation of forest land as a means of providing open space and protecting natural resources and MSHCP habitat lands included in the MSHCPs.
Open Space Policy 9.3 Maintain and conserve superior examples of native trees, natural vegetation, stands of established trees, and other features for ecosystem, aesthetic, and water conservation purposes.
Open Space Policy 17.1 Enforce the provisions of applicable County MSHCPs, if adopted, Implementing Agreements when conducting review of development applications for discretionary activities.
Open Space Policy 17.2 Enforce the provisions of applicable County MSHCPs, if adopted, Implementing Agreements when developing transportation or infrastructure projects that have been designated as permitted covered activities in the applicable MSHCPs.
Open Space Policy 17.3 Enforce the provisions of applicable County MSHCPs, if adopted, Implementing Agreements when conducting review of possible general plan amendments and/or zoning changes.
Open Space Policy 18.1 Preserve multi-species habitat resources in the County of Riverside through the enforcement of the provisions of applicable MSHCPs, if adopted multi-species habitat conservation planning process.
Open Space Policy 18.2 Provide incentives to landowners that will encourage the protection of significant resources in the County beyond the preservation and/or conservation required to mitigate project impacts by policy.
Effectiveness of the Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan policies focus primarily on avoidance and minimization of impacts to floodplain, riparian, and wetland habitats; and maintaining and conserving superior examples of native vegetation. Avoidance and minimization of impacts to such areas may reduce impacts to associated listed, proposed, and candidate species. The proposed General Plan policies also focus on complying with applicable MSHCPs and on habitat preservation through MSHCPs or through incentives for landowners.
The policies do not describe a means for identifying species whose recovery may be inhibited as a result of proposed General Plan implementation. Nor do the policies describe how avoidance and minimization of impacts to riparian (and wetland) habitats will be assessed with regard to species recovery. Further, the policies do not specify parameters for compensating for the loss of habitat of a listed, proposed, or candidate species when avoidance or minimization of impacts is considered to be infeasible. The policies do not fully mitigate for the potential inhibition of recovery efforts for listed, proposed, or candidate species. In conjunction with the proposed General Plan policies, the following mitigation measures will be implemented.
Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measures 4.6.1B and 4.6.1C, above, along with the following mitigation measure.
4.6.2A Comply with Riverside County Planning Department Biological Report Guidelines to include an analysis of the potential for a proposed project to result in alteration or loss of habitat of listed proposed, or candidate species that inhibits or compromises recovery efforts that could otherwise lead or contribute to the delisting of the species.
Under the Planning Department Guidelines, biological reports must be conducted as follows:
a. Reports must be prepared by a biologist on the County's list of qualified consultants.
b. The County Planning Department must be notified in advance that a report will be prepared for a specific project.
c. The report must include a signed certification attesting to the report contents.
d. The report must include specific information as to the type of survey (e.g., General Biological Resources Assessment, Habitat Assessment, etc.), site location, property owner, principal investigator, and contact information for participants in the field surveys.
e. The report must include specified attachments (summary sheet, level of significance checklist, biological resources/project footprint map, and site photos).
f. The report must include information on literature sources (e.g., California Natural Diversity Data Base, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and environmental documents for nearby projects).
g. The report must include a description of surveys, including timing, personnel, and weather conditions.
h. The report must include a description of site conditions including plant and wildlife habitat, disturbances, and sensitive elements.
i. The report must include an assessment of anticipated project impacts and a discussion of mitigation.
j. The report must include a list of all species observed or detected and a recommendation for any additional focused surveys that may be necessary.
The above list is a summary of the County's guidelines, the actual guidelines available from the Planning Department shall be used in determining requirements for, and adequacy of, biological reports.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have not substantially altered the meaning and applicability of the policies that pertain to the loss of habitat of listed species. The policies, as modified, are still insufficient to mitigate the impact to a less than significant level. Changes that have been made to the amount of land designated for specific land uses are reflected in Figures 4.6.2 through 4.6.4 and in Tables 4.6.4C and 4.6.4D. The revised proposed General Plan would affect fewer acres of habitat, and would therefore likely result in a lesser loss of habitat of listed species than the General Plan analyzed in the Draft EIR. While the revised proposed General Plan policies and the mitigation measures would reduce the impact relating to loss of habitat of listed species, this impact will remain significant and unavoidable, as discussed in Section 4.6.4 below.
Impact 4.6.3 Implementation of the proposed General Plan would cause direct loss of sensitive habitat.
Analysis of Impact The CDFG, through its Natural Diversity Data Base (NDDB), tracks the occurrence of natural communities which it considers to be the most sensitive in the state. Refer to preceding list of sensitive habitats for eastern and western Riverside County and to the Riverside County Existing Setting Report for identification of sensitive habitat types. As conditions change over time, conservation efforts may lead to habitat types being added to or removed from the set of habitats considered sensitive. Direct loss of habitat occurs when vegetation and other habitat components (e.g., rock outcrops) are removed for purposes of land use conversion. Implementation of the proposed General Plan will result in the direct loss of 150,495 acres of sensitive habitat (see previously referenced Table 4.6.D for a summary of impacts by each habitat type). This impact is considered significant.
Determining if the impact is significant at the level of site-specific projects that are proposed in accordance with the proposed General Plan land uses will require analysis as part of the subsequent evaluation of such projects. The potential for such impacts to be considered significant will depend upon various factors including, but not limited to, the site conditions at the time of project evaluation, the extent of the area potentially affected, the quality of the habitat being affected, and the value of the affected habitat at local and regional scales.
The risks associated with the above impact can be minimized through implementation of the following proposed General Plan Open Space Policies and proposed mitigation measures.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan includes the following policies to address effects of prospective development on biological resources. The following proposed General Plan policies will directly or indirectly address the loss of sensitive habitat. The effectiveness of the policies at reducing such impacts is analyzed below and additional mitigation measures are provided to reduce the effects of future development in the County on biological resources.
Open Space Policy 5.1 Substantially alter floodways or implement other channelization only as a "last resort," and limit the alteration to: (a) that necessary for the protection of public health and safety only after all other options are exhausted; (b) essential public service projects where nor other feasible construction method or alternative project location exists; or (c) projects where primary function is improvement of fish and wildlife habitat.
Open Space Policy 5.2 If substantial modification to a floodway is proposed, design it to reduce adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent feasible, considering the following factors: (a) stream scour; (b) erosion protection and sedimentation; (c) wildlife habitat and linkages; (d) groundwater recharge capability; (e) adjacent property; (f) design (a natural effect, examples could include soft riparian bottoms and gentle bank slopes, wide and shallow floodways, minimization of visible use of concrete, and landscaping with native plants to the maximum extent possible). A site-specific hydrologic study may be required.
Open Space Policy 5.3 Set back all developed uses, except for non-motorized trails and existing agriculture, from the floodway boundary a distance equal to 15 percent of the floodway width unless modified by a site-specific study that determines a more appropriate setback width due to: Based upon site-specific study, all development shall be set back from the floodway boundary a distance adequate to address the following issues:
(a) pPublic safety;
(b) eErosion;
(c) rRiparian or wetland buffer;
(d) wWildlife movement or MSHCP corridor or linkage; and
(e) sSlopes.
Open Space Policy 5.5 Require new private or public developments to New development shall preserve and enhance existing native riparian habitat and prevent obstruction of natural watercourses. Incentives shall be utilized to the maximum extent possible.
Open Space Policy 5.6 Identify and, to the maximum extent feasible, conserve remaining upland habitat areas adjacent to wetland and riparian areas that are critical to the feeding, hibernation, or nesting of wildlife species associated with those these wetland and riparian areas.
Open Space Policy 5.7 Where land is prohibited from development due to its retention as natural floodways, floodplains and water courses, incentives should be available to the owner of such the land including density transfer and other mechanisms as may be adopted. These incentives will be provided for the purpose of encouraging the preservation of natural watercourses without creating undue hardship on the owner of properties following these policies property owners.
Open Space Policy 6.1 During the development review process, ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act's Section 404 in terms of wetlands mitigation policies and policies concerning fill material in jurisdictional wetlands.
Open Space Policy 6.2 Preserve buffer zones around wetlands where feasible and biologically appropriate.
Open Space Policy 8.1 Cooperate with Federal and State agencies to achieve the sustainable conservation of forest land as a means of providing open space and protecting natural resources and MSHCP habitat lands included in the MSHCPs.
Open Space Policy 9.3 Maintain and conserve superior examples of native trees, natural vegetation, stands of established trees, and other features for ecosystem, aesthetic, and water conservation purposes.
Open Space Policy 9.4 Conserve the oak tree resources in the County.
Open Space Policy 17.1 Enforce the provisions of applicable County MSHCPs, if adopted, Implementing Agreements when conducting review of development applications for discretionary activities.
Open Space Policy 17.2 Enforce the provisions of applicable County MSHCPs, if adopted, Implementing Agreements when developing transportation or infrastructure projects that have been designated as permitted covered activities in the applicable MSHCPs.
Open Space Policy 17.3 Enforce the provisions of applicable County MSHCPs, if adopted, Implementing Agreements when conducting review of possible general plan amendments and/or zoning changes.
Open Space Policy 18.1 Preserve multi-species habitat resources in the County of Riverside through the enforcement of the provisions of applicable MSHCPs, if adopted multi-species habitat conservation planning process.
Open Space Policy 18.2 Provide incentives to landowners that will encourage the protection of significant resources in the County beyond the preservation and/or conservation required to mitigate project impacts by policy.
Effectiveness of the Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan policies focus primarily on avoidance and minimization of impacts to floodplain, riparian, and wetland habitats; maintaining and conserving superior examples of native vegetation; and complying with applicable MSHCPs. The policies provide for avoidance and minimization of impacts to some sensitive habitats but do not specify a means for identifying habitats that warrant such measures. Nor do the policies specify parameters for compensating for the loss of habitats when avoidance or minimization of impacts is considered to be infeasible. The policies do not fully mitigate for the loss of sensitive habitat. In conjunction with the proposed General Plan policies, the following mitigation measures will be implemented.
Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measures 4.6.1A and 4.6.1B, above, along with the following mitigation measure.
4.6.3A Construct treatment wetlands outside of natural wetlands, allowing treatment of runoff from developed surfaces prior to entering natural stream systems.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have not substantially altered the meaning and applicability of the policies that pertain to the loss of sensitive habitat. The policies, as modified, are still insufficient to mitigate the impact to a less than significant level. Changes that have been made to the amount of land designated for specific land uses are reflected in Figures 4.6.2 through 4.6.4 and in Tables 4.6.4C and 4.6.4D. The revised proposed General Plan would affect fewer acres of sensitive habitat compared with the General Plan as originally proposed. While the revised proposed General Plan policies and the mitigation measures would reduce the impact relating to loss of sensitive habitat, this impact will remain significant and unavoidable, as discussed in Section 4.6.4 below.
Impact 4.6.4 Implementation of the proposed General Plan would cause habitat fragmentation resulting in isolation of sensitive habitat patches, creating a "checkerboard" pattern of small habitat patches of limited biological value.
Analysis of Impact The CDFG, through its NDDB, tracks the occurrence of natural communities which it considers to be the most sensitive in the state. Refer to preceding list of sensitive habitats for eastern and western Riverside County and to the Riverside County Existing Setting Report for identification of sensitive habitat types. As conditions change over time, conservation efforts may lead to habitat types being added to or removed from the set of habitats considered sensitive. Construction of proposed General Plan land uses may result in the loss or fragmentation of sensitive habitat(s).
Habitat fragmentation occurs when a proposed action results in a single, unified habitat area being divided into two or more parts, such that the division isolates the two new areas from each other. Isolation of habitats occurs when wildlife cannot move freely from one portion of the habitat to another, or from one habitat type to another. An example is the fragmentation of habitats within and around "leapfrog" patterns of residential development. Habitat fragmentation can also occur when a portion of one or more habitats is converted into another habitat, as when scrub habitats are converted into annual grassland habitat because of frequent burning.
The result of fragmentation is that the amount of habitat available to local wildlife populations is reduced. In general, a reduction in available habitat is followed by a reduction in wildlife populations, because the remaining areas are too small to support pre-fragmentation population levels. If the fragmentation is too great, wildlife populations will not be able to persist and some or all of the species in a fragmented habitat area will disappear. This can occur on a local or regional scale, depending upon the degree and type of fragmentation occurring. Fragmentation is particularly critical for species that occupy already limited habitats, such as riparian scrub, woodland, or forest. If various stands of riparian vegetation are too fragmented to provide sufficient continuous cover, or are too isolated from each other for an animal to freely move among various stands, that particular portion of the overall habitat may be lost to use by certain species.
As land use proceeds under implementation of the proposed General Plan, patches of habitat on undeveloped properties will initially be fragmented by the sporadic pattern of development. However, once the proposed General Plan reaches build out, the only fragmented patches remaining would be those set aside within a project site as on-site mitigation or due to development constraints (e.g., steep slopes), or both. Thus, the initial fragmentation of undeveloped properties would be an interim condition with the long-term fragmentation occurring under total build out. Regional fragmentation will occur as existing biological reserves and other conservation lands (e.g., Stephens' kangaroo rat HCP reserves, National Forest lands, AD161 MSHCP reserve, and Santa Rosa Plateau reserve) become surrounded and isolated by community and rural development. The proposed General Plan will create habitat fragmentation resulting in isolation of sensitive habitat patches creating a "checkerboard" pattern of small habitat patches of limited biological value. This impact is considered significant.
Determining if the impact is significant at the level of site-specific projects that are proposed in accordance with the proposed General Plan land uses will require analysis as part of the subsequent evaluation of such projects. The potential for such impacts to be considered significant will depend upon various factors including, but not limited to, the site conditions at the time of project evaluation, the extent of the area potentially affected, the quality of the habitat being affected, and the value of the affected habitat at local and regional scales.
The risks associated with the above impact can be minimized through implementation of the following proposed General Plan Open Space Policies and proposed mitigation measures.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan includes the following policies to address effects of prospective development on biological resources. The following proposed General Plan policies will directly or indirectly address the loss of sensitive habitat. The effectiveness of the policies at reducing such impacts is analyzed below and additional mitigation measures are provided to reduce the effects of future development in the County on biological resources.
Open Space Policy 5.1 Substantially alter floodways or implement other channelization only as a "last resort," and limit the alteration to: (a) that necessary for the protection of public health and safety only after all other options are exhausted; (b) essential public service projects where nor other feasible construction method or alternative project location exists; or (c) projects where primary function is improvement of fish and wildlife habitat.
Open Space Policy 5.2 If substantial modification to a floodway is proposed, design it to reduce adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent feasible, considering the following factors: (a) stream scour; (b) erosion protection and sedimentation; (c) wildlife habitat and linkages; (d) groundwater recharge capability;
(e) adjacent property; (f) design (a natural effect, examples could include soft riparian bottoms and gentle bank slopes, wide and shallow floodways, minimization of visible use of concrete, and landscaping with native plants to the maximum extent possible). A site-specific hydrologic study may be required.
Open Space Policy 5.3 Set back all developed uses, except for non-motorized trails and existing agriculture, from the floodway boundary a distance equal to 15 percent of the floodway width unless modified by a site-specific study that determines a more appropriate setback width due to: Based upon site-specific study, all development shall be set back from the floodway boundary a distance adequate to address the following issues:
(a) pPublic safety;
(b) eErosion;
(c) rRiparian or wetland buffer;
(d) wWildlife movement or MSHCP corridor or linkage; and
(e) sSlopes.
Open Space Policy 5.4 Consider designating floodway setbacks for greenways, trails, and recreation opportunities on a case-by-case basis.
Open Space Policy 5.5 Require new private or public developments to New development shall preserve and enhance existing native riparian habitat and prevent obstruction of natural watercourses. Incentives shall be utilized to the maximum extent possible.
Open Space Policy 5.6 Identify and, to the maximum extent feasible, conserve remaining upland habitat areas adjacent to wetland and riparian areas that are critical to the feeding, hibernation, or nesting of wildlife species associated with those these wetland and riparian areas.
Open Space Policy 5.7 Where land is prohibited from development due to its retention as natural floodways, floodplains and water courses, incentives should be available to the owner of such the land including density transfer and other mechanisms as may be adopted. These incentives will be provided for the purpose of encouraging the preservation of natural watercourses without creating undue hardship on the owner of properties following these policies property owners.
Open Space Policy 6.1 During the development review process, ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act's Section 404 in terms of wetlands mitigation policies and policies concerning fill material in jurisdictional wetlands.
Open Space Policy 6.2 Preserve buffer zones around wetlands where feasible and biologically appropriate.
Open Space Policy 8.1 Cooperate with Federal and State agencies to achieve the sustainable conservation of forest land as a means of providing open space and protecting natural resources and MSHCP habitat lands included in the MSHCPs.
Open Space Policy 9.3 Maintain and conserve superior examples of native trees, natural vegetation, stands of established trees, and other features for ecosystem, aesthetic, and water conservation purposes.
Open Space Policy 9.4 Conserve the oak tree resources in the County.
Open Space Policy 17.1 Enforce the provisions of applicable County MSHCPs, if adopted, Implementing Agreements when conducting review of development applications for discretionary activities.
Open Space Policy 17.2 Enforce the provisions of applicable County MSHCPs, if adopted, Implementing Agreements when developing transportation or infrastructure projects that have been designated as permitted covered activities in the applicable MSHCPs.
Open Space Policy 17.3 Enforce the provisions of applicable County MSHCPs, if adopted, Implementing Agreements when conducting review of possible general plan amendments and/or zoning changes.
Open Space Policy 18.1 Preserve multi-species habitat resources in the County of Riverside through the enforcement of the provisions of applicable MSHCPs, if adopted multi-species habitat conservation planning process.
Open Space Policy 18.2 Provide incentives to landowners that will encourage the protection of significant resources in the County beyond the preservation and/or conservation required to mitigate project impacts by policy.
Effectiveness of the Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan policies focus primarily on avoidance and minimization of impacts to floodplain, riparian, and wetland habitats; maintaining and conserving superior examples of native vegetation; and complying with applicable MSHCPs. The policies provide for avoidance and minimization of impacts associated with fragmentation but do not specify a means for identifying specific sites (either locally or regionally) that warrant such measures. Nor do the policies specify parameters for compensating for habitat fragmentation when avoidance or minimization of impacts is considered to be infeasible. The policies do not fully mitigate for the effects of habitat fragmentation. In conjunction with the proposed General Plan policies, the following mitigation measures will be implemented.
Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measure 4.6.1C, above, along with the following mitigation measures.
4.6.4A Comply with Riverside County Planning Department Biological Report Guidelines to include an analysis of the potential for a proposed project to result in habitat fragmentation leading to the isolation of sensitive habitat patches.
Under the Planning Department Guidelines, biological reports must be conducted as follows:
a. Reports must be prepared by a biologist on the County's list of qualified consultants.
b. The County Planning Department must be notified in advance that a report will be prepared for a specific project.
c. The report must include a signed certification attesting to the report contents.
d. The report must include specific information as to the type of survey (e.g., General Biological Resources Assessment, Habitat Assessment, etc.), site location, property owner, principal investigator, and contact information for participants in the field surveys.
e. The report must include specified attachments (summary sheet, level of significance checklist, biological resources/project footprint map, and site photos).
f. The report must include information on literature sources (e.g., California Natural Diversity Data Base, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and environmental documents for nearby projects).
g. The report must include a description of surveys, including timing, personnel, and weather conditions.
h. The report must include a description of site conditions including plant and wildlife habitat, disturbances, and sensitive elements.
i. The report must include an assessment of anticipated project impacts and a discussion of mitigation.
j. The report must include a list of all species observed or detected and a recommendation for any additional focused surveys that may be necessary.
The above list is a summary of the County's guidelines, the actual guidelines available from the Planning Department shall be used in determining requirements for, and adequacy of, biological reports.
4.6.4B Identify local and regional habitat patterns whereby sensitive habitats are connected or where opportunities exist to reconnect isolated patches of sensitive habitat. The baseline data of the Western Riverside County MSHCP provides a biologically sound depiction of habitat linkages that would provide regional connections between existing biological reserves and other conservation lands. Avoid impacts that would fragment sensitive habitat, or acquire land that would reconnect isolated habitat patches and create or restore habitat to reestablish the connection. Where on-site habitat preservation would not provide meaningful mitigation either for an affected sensitive species or for habitat connectivity, off-site mitigation shall be implemented through the acquisition of lands that provide for regional habitat connectivity. Implementation of the mitigation measure shall include provisions for the preservation of such areas in perpetuity.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have not substantially altered the meaning and applicability of the policies that pertain to the isolation of sensitive habitat resulting from habitat fragmentation. The policies, as modified, are still insufficient to mitigate the impact to a less than significant level. Changes that have been made to the amount of land designated for specific land uses are reflected in Figures 4.6.2 through 4.6.4 and in Tables 4.6.4C and 4.6.4D. The revised proposed General Plan would affect fewer acres of habitat than with the General Plan analyzed in the Draft EIR. Additionally, the adoption of the Western Riverside County MSHCP, provided it is certified by the USFWS and CDFG, will further reduce the amount of habitat fragmentation resulting from development in western Riverside County. While the revised proposed General Plan policies and the mitigation measures would reduce the impact relating to the isolation of sensitive habitat resulting from habitat fragmentation, this impact will remain significant and unavoidable, as discussed in Section 4.6.4 below.
Impact 4.6.5 The proposed General Plan would cause fragmentation of habitat that constricts, inhibits, or eliminates wildlife movement.
Analysis of Impact Certain species, including many plants and birds, are able to pass urban barriers, and may be somewhat less restricted by habitat fragmentation. Other species, such as deer, small mammals, and larger carnivores are more restricted by urban barriers, and require corridors of usable habitat between habitat patches in order to thrive. Keystone predator species, such as mountain lions, bears, bobcats, and coyotes require large territories. They provide important functions, both directly controlling the number of prey species (i.e., deer and rodents) by predation, and controlling the number of mesopredator species (such as raccoons, feral cats, and opossums) by predation and competition. As keystone predator species may include many smaller patches of habitat within their larger ranges, connectivity between suitable habitat patches is essential in maintaining the presence of these predators in fragmented areas. Functional connections may include riparian corridors or greenbelts, and must connect suitable habitat patches to each other. Connections to unsuitable habitat are unlikely to be of use to keystone predators.
As land use proceeds under implementation of the proposed General Plan, wildlife movement will be increasingly inhibited until build out of the proposed General Plan results in the exclusion of wildlife from large areas and the associated elimination of wildlife movement. Thus, the initial interruption of wildlife movement between undeveloped properties would be only an interim condition with the long-term elimination of wildlife movement occurring under total build out. Regional constriction, inhibition, or elimination of wildlife movement will occur as existing biological reserves and other conservation lands (e.g., Stephens' kangaroo rat HCP reserves, National Forest lands, AD161 MSHCP reserve, and Santa Rosa Plateau reserve) become surrounded and isolated by community and rural development. The proposed General Plan will result in fragmentation of habitat that constricts, inhibits, or eliminates wildlife movement. This impact is considered significant at the General Plan level.
Determining if the impact is significant at the level of site-specific projects that are proposed in accordance with the proposed General Plan land uses will require analysis as part of the subsequent evaluation of such projects. The potential for such impacts to be considered significant will depend upon various factors including, but not limited to, the site conditions at the time of project evaluation, the extent of the area potentially affected, the quality of the habitat being affected, and the value of the affected habitat at local and regional scales.
The risks associated with the above impact can be minimized through implementation of the following proposed General Plan Open Space Policies and proposed mitigation measures.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan includes the following policies to address effects of prospective development on biological resources. The following proposed General Plan policies will directly or indirectly address impacts to wildlife movement. The effectiveness of the policies at reducing such impacts is analyzed below and additional mitigation measures are provided to reduce the effects of future development in the County on biological resources.
Open Space Policy 5.1 Substantially alter floodways or implement other channelization only as a "last resort," and limit the alteration to: (a) that necessary for the protection of public health and safety only after all other options are ex-hausted; (b) essential public service projects where nor other feasible construction method or alternative project location exists; or (c) projects where primary function is improvement of fish and wildlife habitat.
Open Space Policy 5.2 If substantial modification to a floodway is proposed, design it to reduce adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent feasible, considering the following factors: (a) stream scour; (b) erosion protection and sedimentation; (c) wildlife habitat and linkages; (d) groundwater recharge capability; (e) adjacent property; (f) design (a natural effect, examples could include soft riparian bottoms and gentle bank slopes, wide and shallow floodways, minimization of visible use of concrete, and landscaping with native plants to the maximum extent possible). A site-specific hydrologic study may be required.
Open Space Policy 5.3 Set back all developed uses, except for non-motorized trails and existing agriculture, from the floodway boundary a distance equal to 15 percent of the floodway width unless modified by a site-specific study that determines a more appropriate setback width due to: Based upon site-specific study, all development shall be set back from the floodway boundary a distance adequate to address the following issues:
(a) pPublic safety;
(b) eErosion;
(c) rRiparian or wetland buffer;
(d) wWildlife movement or MSHCP corridor or linkage; and
(e) sSlopes.
Open Space Policy 5.4 Consider designating floodway setbacks for greenways, trails, and recreation opportunities on a case-by-case basis.
Open Space Policy 5.5 Require new private or public developments to New development shall preserve and enhance existing native riparian habitat and prevent obstruction of natural watercourses. Incentives shall be utilized to the maximum extent possible.
Open Space Policy 5.6 Identify and, to the maximum extent feasible, conserve remaining upland habitat areas adjacent to wetland and riparian areas that are critical to the feeding, hibernation, or nesting of wildlife species associated with those these wetland and riparian areas.
Open Space Policy 5.7 Where land is prohibited from development due to its retention as natural floodways, floodplains and water courses, incentives should be available to the owner of such the land including density transfer and other mechanisms as may be adopted. These incentives will be provided for the purpose of encouraging the preservation of natural watercourses without creating undue hardship on the owner of properties following these policies property owners.
Open Space Policy 6.1 During the development review process, ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act's Section 404 in terms of wetlands mitigation policies and policies concerning fill material in jurisdictional wetlands.
Open Space Policy 6.2 Preserve buffer zones around wetlands where feasible and biologically appropriate.
Open Space Policy 8.1 Cooperate with Federal and State agencies to achieve the sustainable conservation of forest land as a means of providing open space and protecting natural resources and MSHCP habitat lands included in the MSHCPs.
Open Space Policy 9.3 Maintain and conserve superior examples of native trees, natural vegetation, stands of established trees, and other features for ecosystem, aesthetic, and water conservation purposes.
Open Space Policy 9.4 Conserve the oak tree resources in the County.
Open Space Policy 17.1 Enforce the provisions of applicable County MSHCPs, if adopted, Implementing Agreements when conducting review of development applications for discretionary activities.
Open Space Policy 17.2 Enforce the provisions of applicable County MSHCPs, if adopted, Implementing Agreements when developing transportation or infrastructure projects that have been designated as permitted covered activities in the applicable MSHCPs.
Open Space Policy 17.3 Enforce the provisions of applicable County MSHCPs, if adopted, Implementing Agreements when conducting review of possible general plan amendments and/or zoning changes.
Open Space Policy 18.1 Preserve multi-species habitat resources in the County of Riverside through the enforcement of the provisions of applicable MSHCPs, if adopted multi-species habitat conservation planning process.
Open Space Policy 18.2 Provide incentives to landowners that will encourage the protection of significant resources in the County beyond the preservation and/or conservation required to mitigate project impacts by policy.
Effectiveness of the Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan policies focus primarily on avoidance and minimization of impacts to floodplain, riparian, and wetland habitats; maintaining and conserving superior examples of native vegetation; and complying with applicable MSHCPs. The policies provide for avoidance and minimization of impacts to wildlife movement but do not specify a means for identifying specific sites (either locally or regionally) that warrant such measures. Nor do the policies specify parameters for compensating for loss of wildlife movement when avoidance or minimization of impacts is considered to be infeasible. The policies do not fully mitigate for the impacts to wildlife movement. In conjunction with the proposed General Plan policies, the following mitigation measures will be implemented.
Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measure 4.6.1C, above, along with the following mitigation measures.
4.6.5A Comply with Riverside County Planning Department Biological Report Guidelines to include an analysis of the potential for a proposed project to result in fragmentation of habitat that constricts, inhibits, or eliminates wildlife movement.
Under the Planning Department Guidelines, biological reports must be conducted as follows:
a. Reports must be prepared by a biologist on the County's list of qualified consultants.
b. The County Planning Department must be notified in advance that a report will be prepared for a specific project.
c. The report must include a signed certification attesting to the report contents.
d. The report must include specific information as to the type of survey (e.g., General Biological Resources Assessment, Habitat Assessment, etc.), site location, property owner, principal investigator, and contact information for participants in the field surveys.
e. The report must include specified attachments (summary sheet, level of significance checklist, biological resources/project footprint map, and site photos).
f. The report must include information on literature sources (e.g., California Natural Diversity Data Base, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and environmental documents for nearby projects).
g. The report must include a description of surveys, including timing, personnel, and weather conditions.
h. The report must include a description of site conditions including plant and wildlife habitat, disturbances, and sensitive elements.
i. The report must include an assessment of anticipated project impacts and a discussion of mitigation.
j. The report must include a list of all species observed or detected and a recommendation for any additional focused surveys that may be necessary.
The above list is a summary of the County's guidelines, the actual guidelines available from the Planning Department shall be used in determining requirements for, and adequacy of, biological reports.
4.6.5B Identify local and regional habitat patterns that provide movement routes for wildlife or where opportunities exist to establish movement routes between isolated habitat patches. The baseline data of the Western Riverside County MSHCP provides a biologically sound depiction of habitat linkages that would provide wildlife movement routes between existing biological reserves and other conservation lands. Avoid impacts that would eliminate, substantially constrict, or substantially inhibit wildlife movement, or acquire land that would establish movement routes between isolated habitat patches and create or restore habitat to reestablish the connection. Where on-site habitat preservation would not provide meaningful mitigation either for affected species or for habitat connectivity, off-site mitigation shall be implemented through the acquisition of lands that provide for regional habitat connectivity. Implementation of the mitigation measure shall include provisions for the preservation of such areas in perpetuity.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have not substantially altered the meaning and applicability of the policies that pertain to wildlife movement. The policies, as modified, are still insufficient to mitigate the impact to a less than significant level. Changes that have been made to the amount of land designated for specific land uses are reflected in Figures 4.6.2 through 4.6.4 and in Tables 4.6.4C and 4.6.4D. The revised proposed General Plan would affect fewer acres of habitat than with the General Plan analyzed in the Draft EIR. However, the adoption of the Western Riverside County MSHCP, provided it is certified by the USFWS and CDFG, will further reduce the impact on wildlife movement resulting from development in western Riverside County by providing corridors and linkages between core habitats. While the revised proposed General Plan policies and the mitigation measures would reduce the impact relating to wildlife movement, this impact will remain significant and unavoidable, as discussed in Section 4.6.4 below.
Impact 4.6.6 Implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in direct loss of oak trees or alteration of natural processes (e.g., hydrology) resulting in indirect loss of oak trees.
Analysis of Impact Oak trees are dependent upon site conditions and a variety of associated natural processes for their growth, survival, and reproduction. Natural processes and conditions upon which the trees depend include, but are not limited to, the hydrologic regime, soil structure and chemistry, and microclimate. Construction of the proposed General Plan land uses may result in the direct loss of oak trees or may result in the alteration of natural processes upon which the trees depend. As described in previously referenced Table 4.6.D, 8,019 acres of oak woodland/forest will be impacted by implementation of the proposed General Plan. This impact is considered significant at the General Plan level.
Determining if the impact is significant at the level of site-specific projects that are proposed in accordance with the proposed General Plan land uses will require analysis as part of the subsequent evaluation of such projects. The potential for such impacts to be considered significant will depend upon various factors including, but not limited to, the site conditions at the time of project evaluation, the extent of the area potentially affected, the quality of the habitat being affected, and the value of the affected habitat at local and regional scales.
The risks associated with the above impact can be minimized through implementation of the following proposed General Plan Open Space Policies and proposed mitigation measures.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan includes the following policies to address effects of prospective development on biological resources. The following proposed General Plan policies will directly or indirectly address impacts to oak trees. The effectiveness of the policies at reducing such impacts is analyzed below and additional mitigation measures are provided to reduce the effects of future development in the County on biological resources.
Open Space Policy 5.1 Substantially alter floodways or implement other channelization only as a "last resort," and limit the alteration to: (a) that necessary for the protection of public health and safety only after all other options are exhausted; (b) essential public service projects where nor other feasible construction method or alternative project location exists; or (c) projects where primary function is improvement of fish and wildlife habitat.
Open Space Policy 5.2 If substantial modification to a floodway is proposed, design it to reduce adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent feasible, considering the following factors: (a) stream scour; (b) erosion protection and sedimentation; (c) wildlife habitat and linkages; (d) groundwater recharge capability; (e) adjacent property; (f) design (a natural effect, examples could include soft riparian bottoms and gentle bank slopes, wide and shallow floodways, minimization of visible use of concrete, and landscaping with native plants to the maximum extent possible). A site-specific hydrologic study may be required.
Open Space Policy 5.3 Set back all developed uses, except for non-motorized trails and existing agriculture, from the floodway boundary a distance equal to 15 percent of the floodway width unless modified by a site-specific study that determines a more appropriate setback width due to: Based upon site-specific study, all development shall be set back from the floodway boundary a distance adequate to address the following issues:
(a) pPublic safety;
(b) eErosion;
(c) rRiparian or wetland buffer;
(d) wWildlife movement or MSHCP corridor or linkage; and
(e) sSlopes.
Open Space Policy 5.4 Consider designating floodway setbacks for greenways, trails, and recreation opportunities on a case-by-case basis.
Open Space Policy 5.5 Require new private or public developments to New development shall preserve and enhance existing native riparian habitat and prevent obstruction of natural watercourses. Incentives shall be utilized to the maximum extent possible.
Open Space Policy 5.6 Identify and, to the maximum extent feasible, conserve remaining upland habitat areas adjacent to wetland and riparian areas that are critical to the feeding, hibernation, or nesting of wildlife species associated with those these wetland and riparian areas.
Open Space Policy 5.7 Where land is prohibited from development due to its retention as natural floodways, floodplains and water courses, incentives should be available to the owner of such the land including density transfer and other mechanisms as may be adopted. These incentives will be provided for the purpose of encouraging the preservation of natural watercourses without creating undue hardship on the owner of properties following these policies property owners.
Open Space Policy 6.1 During the development review process, ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act's Section 404 in terms of wetlands mitigation policies and policies concerning fill material in jurisdictional wetlands.
Open Space Policy 6.2 Preserve buffer zones around wetlands where feasible and biologically appropriate.
Open Space Policy 8.1 Cooperate with Federal and State agencies to achieve the sustainable conservation of forest land as a means of providing open space and protecting natural resources and MSHCP habitat lands included in the MSHCPs.
Open Space Policy 9.3 Maintain and conserve superior examples of native trees, natural vegetation, stands of established trees, and other features for ecosystem, aesthetic, and water conservation purposes.
Open Space Policy 9.4 Conserve the oak tree resources in the County.
Open Space Policy 17.1 Enforce the provisions of applicable County MSHCPs, if adopted, Implementing Agreements when conducting review of development applications for discretionary activities.
Open Space Policy 17.2 Enforce the provisions of applicable County MSHCPs, if adopted, Implementing Agreements when developing transportation or infrastructure projects that have been designated as permitted covered activities in the applicable MSHCPs.
Open Space Policy 17.3 Enforce the provisions of applicable County MSHCPs, if adopted, Implementing Agreements when conducting review of possible general plan amendments and/or zoning changes.
Open Space Policy 18.1 Preserve multi-species habitat resources in the County of Riverside through the enforcement of the provisions of applicable MSHCPs, if adopted multi-species habitat conservation planning process.
Open Space Policy 18.2 Provide incentives to landowners that will encourage the protection of significant resources in the County beyond the preservation and/or conservation required to mitigate project impacts by policy.
Effectiveness of the Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan policies focus primarily on avoidance and minimization of impacts to floodplain, riparian, and wetland habitats; maintaining and conserving superior examples of native vegetation; and complying with applicable MSHCPs. Oak trees are often found in floodplain and riparian habitat areas but are also found in other locations. The policies provide for avoidance and minimization of some impacts to oak trees but do not specify a means for identifying specific sites that warrant such measures. The policies do not specify a means for determining if natural processes will be altered to such a degree as to result in the indirect loss of oak trees. Nor do the policies specify parameters for compensat-ing for loss of oak trees when avoidance or minimization of impacts is considered to be infeasible. The policies do not fully mitigate for the impacts to oak trees. In conjunction with the proposed General Plan policies, the following mitigation measures will be implemented.
Mitigation Measures
4.6.6A Comply with Riverside County Planning Department Biological Report Guidelines to include an analysis of the potential for a proposed project to result in direct loss of oak trees or alteration of natural processes (e.g., hydrology) resulting in indirect loss of oak trees.
Under the Planning Department Guidelines, biological reports must be conducted as follows:
a. Reports must be prepared by a biologist on the County's list of qualified consultants.
b. The County Planning Department must be notified in advance that a report will be prepared for a specific project.
c. The report must include a signed certification attesting to the report contents.
d. The report must include specific information as to the type of survey (e.g., General Biological Resources Assessment, Habitat Assessment, etc.), site location, property owner, principal investigator, and contact information for participants in the field surveys.
e. The report must include specified attachments (summary sheet, level of significance checklist, biological resources/project footprint map, and site photos).
f. The report must include information on literature sources (e.g., California Natural Diversity Data Base, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and environmental documents for nearby projects).
g. The report must include a description of surveys, including timing, personnel, and weather conditions.
h. The report must include a description of site conditions including plant and wildlife habitat, disturbances, and sensitive elements.
i. The report must include an assessment of anticipated project impacts and a discussion of mitigation.
j. The report must include a list of all species observed or detected and a recommendation for any additional focused surveys that may be necessary.
The above list is a summary of the County's guidelines, the actual guidelines available from the Planning Department shall be used in determining requirements for, and adequacy of, biological reports.
4.6.6B Comply with Oak Tree Management Guidelines, including the use of replacement plantings with acorns or oak saplings when it is determined to be biologically sound and appropriate to do so.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have not substantially altered the meaning and applicability of the policies that pertain to direct and indirect loss of oak trees. Changes to the acreages of land uses are reflected in Figures 4.6.2 through 4.6.4 and in Tables 4.6.C and 4.6.D. The revised proposed General Plan would affect about the same number of acres of sensitive habitat as the General Plan analyzed in the Draft EIR, which would not affect the ability of the policies and mitigation measures to mitigate effectively for the potential loss of oak trees. This impact will be less than significant, as discussed in Section 4.6.4.
Impact 4.6.7 Implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in alteration of habitat or natural processes that would result in the direct or indirect mortality of listed, proposed, or candidate species or that would result in loss, fragmentation, or isolation of sensitive habitat(s).
Analysis of Impact In addition to the potential for direct mortality of listed, proposed, or candidate species and the fragmentation or isolation of sensitive habitats as described above, alteration of habitats or natural processes may result in additional significant impacts. Habitats and species are dependent upon ecological processes for their support, growth, and continued existence. Various processes are important to each species and to each sensitive habitat type. Such processes include, but are not limited to, nutrient cycling, surface and subsurface hydrology, habitat connectivity (via sensitive or non-sensitive habitats), biotic interactions, habitat diversity and structural complexity, and periodic disturbances such as fire or flooding.
Construction of proposed General Plan land uses may result in the alteration of natural processes that directly or indirectly causes the mortality of listed, proposed or candidate species or that results in the loss, fragmentation, or isolation of sensitive habitat(s). The direct or indirect mortality of listed, proposed, or candidate species is considered to be a significant impact. The potential for impacts to sensitive habitat(s) be considered significant will depend upon various factors including, but not limited to, the extant conditions within the subject area, the extent of the area potentially affected, the quality of the habitat being affected, and the value of the affected habitat at local and regional scales.
The proposed General Plan will result in the loss of 574,354 498,990 acres of habitat including 150,495 116,005 acres of sensitive habitat. As a result, the proposed General Plan will directly or indirectly impact up to 51 listed, proposed, or candidate species in Riverside County. Thus, the proposed General Plan will result in alteration of habitat or natural processes that would result in the direct or indirect mortality of listed, proposed, or candidate species or that would result in loss, fragmentation, or isolation of sensitive habitat(s). This impact is considered significant at the General Plan level.
The construction and maintenance of new and existing roadways, structures, or facilities provide opportunities for the movement of invasive species. Invasive species can travel on vehicles and in the loads they carry. Invasive plants can be moved from site to site during spraying and mowing operations. Weed seed can be inadvertently introduced into the construction site on equipment during construction and through the use of mulch, imported soil or gravel, and sod. Some invasive plant species might be deliberately planted in erosion control, landscape, or wildflower projects. Highway rights-ofway provide ample opportunity for weeds in adjacent land to spread along corridors that, on a national scale, span millions of miles of highway. The introduction of invasive species may contribute to affect the habitat value of conservation lands.
The risks associated with the above impact can be minimized through implementation of the following proposed General Plan Open Space Policies and proposed mitigation measures.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan includes the following policies to address effects of prospective development on biological resources. The following proposed General Plan policies will directly or indirectly address alteration of habitat or natural processes that would result in the direct or indirect mortality of listed, proposed, or candidate species or that would result in loss, fragmentation, or isolation of sensitive habitat(s). The effectiveness of the policies at reducing such impacts is analyzed below and additional mitigation measures are provided to reduce the effects of future development in the County on biological resources.
Open Space Policy 5.1 Substantially alter floodways or implement other channelization only as a "last resort," and limit the alteration to: (a) that necessary for the protection of public health and safety only after all other options are exhausted; (b) essential public service projects where nor other feasible construction method or alternative project location exists; or (c) projects where primary function is improvement of fish and wildlife habitat.
Open Space Policy 5.2 If substantial modification to a floodway is proposed, design it to reduce adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent feasible, considering the following factors: (a) stream scour; (b) erosion protection and sedimentation; (c) wildlife habitat and linkages; (d) groundwater recharge capability; (e) adjacent property; (f) design (a natural effect, examples could include soft riparian bottoms and gentle bank slopes, wide and shallow floodways, minimization of visible use of concrete, and landscaping with native plants to the maximum extent possible). A site-specific hydrologic study may be required.
Open Space Policy 5.3 Set back all developed uses, except for non-motorized trails and existing agriculture, from the floodway boundary a distance equal to 15 percent of the floodway width unless modified by a site-specific study that determines a more appropriate setback width due to: Based upon site-specific study, all development shall be set back from the floodway boundary a distance adequate to address the following issues:
(a) pPublic safety;
(b) eErosion;
(c) rRiparian or wetland buffer;
(d) wWildlife movement or MSHCP corridor or linkage; and
(e) sSlopes.
Open Space Policy 5.5 Require new private or public developments to New development shall preserve and enhance existing native riparian habitat and prevent ob-struction of natural watercourses. Incentives shall be utilized to the maximum extent possible.
Open Space Policy 5.6 Identify and, to the maximum extent feasible, conserve remaining upland habitat areas adjacent to wetland and riparian areas that are critical to the feeding, hibernation, or nesting of wildlife species associated with those these wetland and riparian areas.
Open Space Policy 5.7 Where land is prohibited from development due to its retention as natural floodways, floodplains and water courses, incentives should be available to the owner of such the land including density transfer and other mechanisms as may be adopted. These incentives will be provided for the purpose of encouraging the preservation of natural watercourses without creating undue hardship on the owner of properties following these policies property owners.
Open Space Policy 6.1 During the development review process, ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act's Section 404 in terms of wetlands mitigation policies and policies concerning fill material in jurisdictional wetlands.
Open Space Policy 6.2 Preserve buffer zones around wetlands where feasible and biologically appropriate.
Open Space Policy 8.1 Cooperate with Federal and State agencies to achieve the sustainable conservation of forest land as a means of providing open space and protecting natural resources and MSHCP habitat lands included in the MSHCPs.
Open Space Policy 9.3 Maintain and conserve superior examples of native trees, natural vegetation, stands of established trees, and other features for ecosystem, aesthetic, and water conservation purposes.
Open Space Policy 9.4 Conserve the oak tree resources in the County.
Open Space Policy 17.1 Enforce the provisions of applicable County MSHCPs, if adopted, Implementing Agreements when conducting review of development applications for discretionary activities.
Open Space Policy 17.2 Enforce the provisions of applicable County MSHCPs, if adopted, Implementing Agreements when developing transportation or infrastructure projects that have been designated as permitted covered activities in the applicable MSHCPs.
Open Space Policy 17.3 Enforce the provisions of applicable County MSHCPs, if adopted, Implementing Agreements when conducting review of possible general plan amendments and/or zoning changes.
Open Space Policy 18.1 Preserve multi-species habitat resources in the County of Riverside through the enforcement of the provisions of applicable MSHCPs, if adopted multi-species habitat conservation planning process.
Open Space Policy 18.2 Provide incentives to landowners that will encourage the protection of significant resources in the County beyond the preservation and/or conservation required to mitigate project impacts by policy.
Effectiveness of the Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan policies focus primarily on avoidance and minimization of impacts to floodplain, riparian, and wetland habitats; maintaining and conserving superior examples of native vegetation; and complying with applicable MSHCPs. To the extent that natural processes are associated with such measures, the policies will provide for avoidance and minimization of some impacts (i.e. hydrology associated with floodplains, riparian, and wetland habitats). However, the policies do not specify a means for identifying specific sites that warrant such measures. The policies do not specify a means for determining if natural processes will be altered to such a degree as to result in the indirect loss sensitive species or habitats. Nor do the policies specify parameters for compensating for the alteration of natural processes when avoidance or minimization of impacts is considered to be infeasible. The policies do not fully mitigate for the indirect impacts to sensitive species and or habitats. In conjunction with the proposed General Plan policies, the following mitigation measures will be implemented.
Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measures 4.6.1C and 4.6.6B, above, along with the following mitigation measures.
4.6.7A Comply with Riverside County Planning Department Biological Report Guidelines to include an analysis of the potential for a proposed project to result in alteration of habitat or natural processes that would result in the direct or indirect mortality of listed, proposed, or candidate species or that would result in loss, fragmentation, or isolation of sensitive habitat(s).
Under the Planning Department Guidelines, biological reports must be conducted as follows:
a. Reports must be prepared by a biologist on the County's list of qualified consultants.
b. The County Planning Department must be notified in advance that a report will be prepared for a specific project.
c. The report must include a signed certification attesting to the report contents.
d. The report must include specific information as to the type of survey (e.g., General Biological Resources Assessment, Habitat Assessment, etc.), site location, property owner, principal investigator, and contact information for participants in the field surveys.
e. The report must include specified attachments (summary sheet, level of significance checklist, biological resources/project footprint map, and site photos).
f. The report must include information on literature sources (e.g., California Natural Diversity Data Base, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and environmental documents for nearby projects).
g. The report must include a description of surveys, including timing, personnel, and weather conditions.
h. The report must include a description of site conditions including plant and wildlife habitat, disturbances, and sensitive elements.
i. The report must include an assessment of anticipated project impacts and a discussion of mitigation.
j. The report must include a list of all species observed or detected and a recommendation for any additional focused surveys that may be necessary.
The above list is a summary of the County's guidelines, the actual guidelines available from the Planning Department shall be used in determining requirements for, and adequacy of, biological reports.
4.6.7B Avoid or minimize interruption of natural processes in local ecosystems.
4.6.7C Identify local and regional habitat patterns whereby sensitive habitats are connected or where opportunities exist to reconnect isolated patches of sensitive habitat. Avoid impacts that would fragment sensitive habitat, or acquire land that would reconnect isolated habitat patches and create or restore habitat to reestablish the connection. Implementation of the mitigation measure shall include provisions for the preservation of such areas in perpetuity.
4.6.7D Construct facilities to treat non-point source runoff outside natural stream systems thereby allowing only treated runoff to enter natural stream systems. Treatment facilities may be mechanical (i.e., filtration devices within storm drain systems), biological (i.e., constructed wetlands at storm drain outfalls), or a combination of the two means.
4.6.7E The following measures will be implemented to mitigate the potential spread of invasive plant species from construction areas:
• Soil exposed during construction and maintenance activities shall be landscaped utilizing seeds, cuttings, and/or plant material from locally adapted species to preclude the invasion of noxious weeds. The use of site-specific materials, which are adapted to local conditions, increases the likelihood that revegetation will be successful and maintains the genetic integrity of the local ecosystem. Arrangements will be made well in advance of planting (nine months, if possible) to ensure that plant materials are located and available for the scheduled planting time. Sufficient time should be allocated for a qualified specialist to visit the project site during the appropriate season and collect the native plant material. If local propagules are not available or cannot be collected in sufficient quantities, materials collected or grown from other sources within Southern California shall be substituted. For widespread native herbaceous species that are more likely to be genetically homogeneous, site specificity is a less important consideration, and seed from commercial sources may be used.
• Seed purity shall be certified by planting seeds labeled under the California Food and Agricultural Code, or that have been tested within a year by a seed laboratory certified by the Association of Official Seed Analysts or by a seed technologist certified by the Society of Commercial Seed Technologists.
• Construction equipment will be cleaned of mud or other debris that may contain invasive plants and/or seeds and inspected to reduce the potential of spreading noxious weeds (before mobilizing to arrive at the site and before leaving the site).
• Vehicles with loads carrying vegetation shall be covered and vegetative materials removed from the site shall be disposed of in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have not substantially altered the meaning and applicability of the policies that pertain to the direct or indirect mortality of species or loss, fragmentation, or isolation of habitat. The revised proposed General Plan would affect 498,990 acres of habitat, including 116,005 acres of sensitive habitat, which is a decrease in acreage from the General Plan as analyzed in the Draft EIR. The policies and mitigation measures will reduce the severity of the impact, but not to a level below significance.
Summary Tables
Table 4.6.E presents applicable mitigation measures and Table 4.6.F presents potential effectiveness of proposed General Plan Multi-Purpose Open Space Element policies as mitigation for potentially significant impacts to biological resources.
Additional Mitigation Requirements
It is recognized that while a minimum replacement ratio of 1:1 is sufficient mitigation for CEQA purposes, the USFWS and the CDFG may not accept the 1:1 ratio for Federal and State Endangered Species Act mitigation. The County of Riverside recognizes that the USFWS and CDFG may, and in some cases will, require a higher replacement ratio (i.e., 2:1 or 3:1 are typical replacement ratios required for ESA compliance).
4.6.4 Biological Resources Level of Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of the proposed policies and mitigation measures will reduce impacts to oak trees (Impact 4.6.6) to below a level of significance as these measures will provide for sufficient assessment of oak trees and associated natural processes and allow for the incorporation of mitigating measures as needed during future project review.
Implementation of the proposed policies and mitigation measures will reduce other impacts to biological resources (Impacts 4.6.1, 4.6.2, 4.6.3, 4.6.4, 4.6.5 and 4.6.7) however, not to below a level of significance. In the absence of a comprehensive plan that addresses regional conservation issues (such as an approved MSHCP), implementation of the policies and mitigation measures on a project-by-project basis will result in the preservation of fragmented habitat patches and the isolation of associated biological resources. Habitat fragmentation will be most prevalent in upland habitats where areas are already fragmented to some degree and where a project-by-project analysis does not allow for the identification, or conservation, of regionally important linkages and natural processes. Proposed policies, regulatory requirements, and physical constraints on development will partially offset the fragmentation of riparian habitats. However, many species are dependent on riparian and upland habitats and will be lost unless both habitats are conserved together.
Additionally, in the absence of an approved MSHCP for both the Coachella Valley and a USFWS- and CDFG- certified MSHCP for western Riverside County, implementation of the proposed General Plan will result in cumulative significant unavoidable adverse effects on biological resources by causing a direct loss of sensitive natural communities, especially coastal sage scrub and meadow and marsh habitats; by causing fragmentation of sensitive habitats resulting in isolation of habitat patches creating a "checkerboard" pattern of small habitat patches of limited biological value; and by causing the fragmentation of habitat that constricts, inhibits, or eliminates wildlife movement.
| Table 4.6.E Applicable Mitigation Measures |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proposed General Plan Policies | Potentially Significant Impacts | ||||||
| Direct mortality of individuals of listed species or loss of habitat occupied |
Inhibition of recovery efforts for listed species |
Loss or fragmentation of riparian or other sensitive habitats |
Fragmentation and isolation of habitat patches |
Fragmentation of habitat that constricts or eliminates wildlife movement. |
Direct or indirect loss of oak trees |
Alteration of habitat or natural processes resulting in mortality of listed, proposed, or candidate species or loss or fragmentation of sensitive habitats. |
|
| Floodplain and Riparian Management | |||||||
| 5.1 Channelize only as a last resort | • | • | • | • | • | • | • |
| 5.2 Design to accommodate natural functions | • | • | • | • | • | • | • |
| 5.3 Setback developed uses a distance |
• | • | • | • | • | • | • |
| 5.4 Designate larger floodway setbacks for recreation | - | - | - | • | • | • | - |
| 5.5 Require new developments to enhance existing riparian habitat and prevent obstructions of natural watercourses | • | • | • | • | • | • | • |
| 5.6 Conserve key upland habitat in proximity to wetland and riparian areas | • | • | • | • | • | • | • |
| 5.7 Establish incentives for landowners to preserve natural floodways | • | • | • | • | • | • | • |
| Wetlands | |||||||
| 6.1 Comply with Section 404 of Clean Water Act | • | • | • | • | • | • | • |
| 6.2 Preserve buffer zones around wetlands were feasible and biologically appropriate | • | • | • | • | • | • | • |
| Forest Resources | |||||||
| 8.1 Cooperate with state and federal agencies to achieve sustainable forest conservation | • | • | • | • | • | • | • |
| 8.2 Support programs to reforest private forest lands | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Vegetation OS 9.1 - 9.5 | |||||||
| 9.3 Maintain and conserve superior examples of native vegetation | • | • | • | • | • | • | • |
| 9.4 Conserve oak tree resources | - | - | • | • | • | • | • |
| 9.5 Encourage research and education on effects of pollution on human health and natural vegetation | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| MSHCPs | |||||||
| 17.1 Enforce provisions of applicable MSHCPs as part of development review | • | • | • | • | • | • | • |
| 17.2 Enforce provisions of applicable MSHCPs when developing infrastructure projects | • | • | • | • | • | • | • |
| 17.3 Enforce applicable MSHCP provisions when reviewing GP amendments or zone changes | • | • | • | • | • | • | • |
| Environmentally sensitive lands | |||||||
| 18.1 Preserve habitats through MSHCPs | • | • | • | • | • | • | • |
| 18.2 Provide incentives to landowners to protect significant resources beyond the level required by County policy | • | • | • | • | • | • | • |
| Additional Mitigation Measures | |||||||
| Comply with County of Riverside Biological Report Guidelines | • | • | • | • | • | • | • |
| Acquire and preserve habitat at minimum of 1:1 replacement ratio in location that provides long-term conservation value for impacted resource | • | • | • | - | - | • | • |
| Identify local and regional habitat connectivity patterns, avoid impacts that would fragment habitat or, acquire land to re-connect disjunct habitat patches | - | - | - | • | - | - | • |
| Identify local and regional wildlife movement patterns, avoid impacts that would inhibit wildlife movement or, acquire land to establish movement routes between isolated habitat patches | - | - | - | - | • | - | - |
| Comply with applicable HCPs | • | • | - | • | • | - | • |
| Comply with Oak Tree Management Guidelines | - | - | - | - | - | • | • |
| Avoid or minimize interruption of natural processes of local ecosystems | - | - | - | - | - | - | • |
| Construct treatment wetlands outside of natural wetlands, allowing treatment of runoff from developed surfaces prior to entering natural stream systems | - | - | • | - | - | - | • |
| Table 4.6.F Potential Effectiveness of Proposed General Plan Multipurpose Open Space Element Policies as Mitigation for Potentially Significant Impacts to Biological Resources |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proposed General Plan Policies | Potentially Significant Impacts | ||||||
| Direct mortality of individuals of listed species or loss of habitat occupied |
Inhibition of recovery efforts for listed species |
Loss or fragmentation of riparian or other sensitive habitats |
Fragmentation and isolation of habitat patches |
Fragmentation of habitat that constricts or eliminates wildlife movement. |
Direct or indirect loss of oak trees |
Alteration of habitat or natural processes resulting in mortality of listed, proposed, or candidate species or loss or fragmentation of sensitive habitats. |
|
| Floodplain and Riparian Management | |||||||
| 5.1 Channelize only as a last resort | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| 5.2 Design to accommodate natural functions | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| 5.3 Setback developed uses a distance |
1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 5.4 Designate larger floodway setbacks for recreation | - | - | - | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| 5.5 Require new developments to enhance existing riparian habitat and prevent obstructions of natural watercourses | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| 5.6 Conserve key upland habitat in proximity to wetland and riparian areas | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| 5.7 Establish incentives for landowners to preserve natural floodways | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| Wetlands | |||||||
| 6.1 Comply with Section 404 of Clean Water Act | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| 6.2 Preserve buffer zones around wetlands were feasible and biologically appropriate | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| 6.3 Consider wetlands for use as natural water quality treatment sites | - | - | X | - | X | X | - |
| Forest Resources | |||||||
| 8.1 Cooperate with state and federal agencies to achieve sustainable forest conservation | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| 8.2 Support programs to reforest private forest lands | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Vegetation OS 9.1 - 9.5 | |||||||
| 9.1 Update vegetation map for western County in consultation with resource agencies | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 9.2 Expand vegetation mapping to include eastern County | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 9.3 Maintain and conserve superior examples of native vegetation | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| 9.4 Conserve oak tree resources | - | - | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 |
| 9.5 Encourage research and education on effects of pollution on human health an d natural vegetation | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| MSHCPs | |||||||
| 17.1 Enforce provisions of applicable MSHCPs as part of development review | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 |
| 17.2 Enforce provisions of applicable MSHCPs when developing infrastructure projects | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 |
| 17.3 Enforce applicable MSHCP provisions when reviewing GP amendments or zone changes | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 |
| Environmentally sensitive lands | |||||||
| 18.1 Preserve habitats through MSHCPs | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 |
| 18.2 Provide incentives to landowners to protect significant resources beyond the level required by County policy | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| Additional Mitigation Measures | |||||||
| Comply with County of Riverside Biological Report Guidelines | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Acquire and preserve habitat at minimum of 1:1 replacement ratio in location that provides long-term conservation value for impacted resource | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Identify local and regional habitat connectivity patterns, avoid impacts that would fragment habitat or, acquire land to re-connect disjunct habitat patches | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | - | 1 |
| Identify local and regional wildlife movement patterns, avoid impacts that would inhibit wildlife movement or, acquire land to establish movement routes between isolated habitat patches | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | - | 1 |
| Comply with applicable HCPs | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | - | 1 |
| Comply with Oak Tree Management Guidelines | - | - | - | - | - | 3 | - |
| Avoid or minimize interruption of natural processes of local ecosystems | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | - | 3 |
| Construct treatment wetlands outside of natural wetlands, allowing treatment of runoff from developed surfaces prior to entering natural stream systems | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2 |
| Notes: Potential Effectiveness of GP Policies as means of mitigating impacts to below a level of significance X Policy may exacerbate impact as currently written but, could be modified to provide effective mitigation - Policy is not relevant to impact or is of little or no value as mitigation measure 1 Low potential for effectiveness or, impact pertains to wide range of resources and mitigation measure would be effective only for a narrow portion of the range. For instance, "channelizing floodways as a last resort" could be a highly effective mitigation measure to avoid direct mortality of listed species that are dependent on floodway habitats but, could have little or no effect on avoiding such impacts to species dependent on upland habitats. 2 Moderate effectiveness - adequate for CEQA providing mitigation is specific to resource being impacted 3 High effectiveness - may result in no-net-loss or even net gain of resource being impacted. |
|||||||
4.7 Cultural Resources
This section assesses the potential impacts on cultural resources that could occur with the development projected with the proposed General Plan.
4.7.1 Cultural Resources Existing Setting
The existing setting is summarized from the information contained within Section 4.6 of the Existing Setting Report prepared for the RCIP (incorporated by reference). The cultural and paleontological resource characteristics of Riverside County reflect human settlement, exploitation, arts, crafts, technology, ideology, and past environmental conditions.
The heritage values of cultural resources are typically expressed in the disciplines of architecture, anthropology (including archaeology), history, and engineering. Paleontological resources are fossilized biotic remains of ancient environments. They are valued for the information they yield about the history of the earth and its past ecological settings. Cultural resources consist of places (historic and prehistoric archaeological sites), structures, or objects that provide evidence of past human activity. They are important for scientific, historic, and/or religious reasons to cultures, communities, groups, and/or individuals.
The cultural history of Riverside County is divided into three general chronological units - prehistory, ethnohistory, and history - the last two of which overlap in the early years. The first two divisions are restricted to Native American traditions, beginning with the settlement of the Southern California region 10,000 to 12,000 years ago and extending through time to initial Euro-American settlement in the late 18th century when the mission system was established, disrupting native life ways. Nearly a century later, between 1875 and 1891, at least ten reservations were set aside in Riverside County and nearby vicinities (Bean 1978:Table 3). Most natives were removed to these reservations, further disrupting, and to a large extent ending, the persistence of native life ways. The historic era begins around 1774 with the exploratory expeditions of Juan Bautista de Anza and continues into 1958, or 45 years before the present as defined by CEQA.
The relative sensitivity of the diverse landscapes of Riverside County for cultural resources is shown in Figure 4.7.1. Three classifications are used: high, undetermined, and low.
Properties with high potential include those listed or determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Table 4.7.A provides a listing of historic resources in Riverside County. Table 4.7.B provides a summary of those Riverside County properties listed on the National Register.
| Table 4.7.A Historical Resources of Riverside County |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NRHP | CRHL | CPHI | RCHL | Present | Location | Theme | |
| Exploration (1772-1818) | |||||||
| 1 Anza Crossing of Santa Ana River, Site of | X | X | E/Van Buren on Jurupa | E/S | |||
| 2 Anza Camp and Crossing, Site of | X | X | S/Terwilliger on Coyote Can | E/S | |||
| 3 Indian Wells, site of | X | X | 17 miles SE on SR111 | W, E/S | |||
| Mission Period 1769-1833 | |||||||
| 4 Dos Palmas | X | X | X | S/111, exit on Parkside Drive | W, E/S, T | ||
| 5 Jose Romero Expedition | S/I-10, ½ mile east of SR 111 | E/S | |||||
| 6 Old Temescal Road | X | Approximates Temescal Cyn Rd | E/S | ||||
| 7 Palm Springs, site of | X | X | NE corner of Indian Avenue | W, A/L, E/S | |||
| 8 Serrano Boulder | X | Approx 1 mile N of Glen Ivy Hot Springs | E/S | ||||
| 9 Serrano Tanning Vats | X | X | 8 mi. S/Corona W/I-15 | E/I, NA | |||
| Mexican/Rancho (1833-1848) | |||||||
| 10 Bandini-Cota Adobe | X | X | X | Prado Flood Control Basin | E/S | ||
| 11 First Bandini Adobe, site of | X | X | 1000 feet W/Hamner Avenue | E/S | |||
| 12 La Placita del Los Trujillos, site of | X | 295 North Orange Street | E/S | ||||
| 13 Louis Rubidoux House, Site of | X | X | X | W/ Rubidoux, 5500 Mission Blvd | E/S | ||
| 14 Mt. Rubidoux | X | X | X | 7th & Mt. Rubidoux Drive | E/S, E/S, REL | ||
| 15 Rancho Santa Rosa | X | X | X | X | W/ Murrieta on Clinton-Keith Road | E/S | |
| 16 Rubidoux Grist Mill, Site of | X | X | X | S/60, E/Rubidoux, end of Fort Drive | E/S | ||
| 17 Trujillo Adobe | X | X | X | W/215, N/Center, on Orange | E/S | ||
| 18 Weaver Adobe | X | X | X | N/10, 10055 Avenida Miravilla | E/S | ||
| Early Californian (1848-1869) | |||||||
| 19 Agua Mansa Bell | X | X | 3649 7th Street | REL | |||
| 20 Bradshaw Ferry Crossing | X | X | I-10 to Rivera Drive, Blythe Marina | W, T | |||
| 21 Butterfield Stage Station, site of | X | 20730 Temescal Canyon Rd | E/S, T | ||||
| 22 Corn Springs | X | X | X | S/I-10 to Corn Springs Road | NA, W, E/S | ||
| 23 First Post Office, site of | X | X | 28636 Front Street | GOV | |||
| 24 Frink Ranch | X | X | ? | W/10, N/60 on Timoteo Canyon, near El Casco | E/S, T | ||
| 25 Jensen Alvarado Ranch | X | X | X | S/Mission E/Limonite E/S | |||
| 26 Little Temecula Rancho Adobe, site of | X | 20730 Temescal Canyon Rd | E/I | ||||
| 27 Pincate Mining District | X | X | Orange Empire RR Museum | E/I | |||
| 28 SAAHATAPA | X | ? | W/10, N/60 on Timoteo Canyon | E/S, NA | |||
| 29 Southern Hotel | X | ? | 445 S. D Street | ARC, E/I | |||
| 30 Temescal Tin Mines | X | X | ? | E/I-10, N/Cajalco | E/I | ||
| 31 Third Serrano Adobe, site of | X | S/E corner of I-15 & Temescal Canyon Rd | E/S | ||||
| 32 Toro Village | X | X | ? | S/I-10, to end of Jackson | NA, T, E/S | ||
| 33 Whitewater Ranch, Site of | X | X | S/I-10, ½ mile east of SR 111 | E/S, T | |||
| (1869-1919) | |||||||
| 34 Adair House | X | X | 4310 Orange Street-R | ARC | |||
| 35 Administration Building, Sherman Institute | X | X | 9010 Magnolia Avenue-R | ARC, E/S, NA | |||
| 36 African Methodist Episcopal Church | X | X | 2433 10th-R | REL | |||
| 37 All Souls Universalists Church | X | X | NW Corner of Lemon & 7th-R | REL | |||
| 38 Armory Hall | X | X | 252 N. Main Street | ARC, MIL | |||
| 39 Banning Woman's Club | X | X | X | 175 W. Hayes Street | E/S | ||
| 40 Barker Dam | X | X | N/I-10, SR62, to Utah Trail | W, E/S | |||
| 41 Blythe Intake Site | X | N/I-10 on US 95 near Palo Verde Diversion Dam | W, E/I | ||||
| 42 Camp Emerson | X | X | X | 243 to West Canyon Dr, to McKinney Lane | E/S | ||
| 43 Chase House | X | X | 5145 Myrtle-R | ARC | |||
| 44 Chinatown, Site of | X | X | X | Brockton & Tequesquite-R | ETH | ||
| 45 Citrus Experiment Station | X | X | X | UCR-R | E/S, E/I | ||
| 46 Citrus Machinery Pioneering | X | X | X | S/7th, E/91, SE Corner of Vine & Birtcher-R | E/I | ||
| 47 Coachella Valley Water District | X | X | X | Avenue 52 & SR111 | W, E/I | ||
| 48 Coplin House | X | X | X | 12 S. San Gorgonio Avenue | E/S | ||
| 49 Corona Carnegie Library, site of | X | S/E corner of Main & 8th | E/S | ||||
| 50 Cottonwood Oasis | X | X | N/I-10, SR62, to Utah Trail | W, E/S | |||
| 51 Cottonwood School | X | X | X | 1 mi N of CR 3 & SR79 | E/S | ||
| 52 Crescent Bath House | X | X | X | X | Corner of West Graham | ARC, A/L | |
| 53 Date Industry Birthplace | X | X | X | National Avenue between Johnson and Grand | E/I | ||
| 54 Desert Inn, site of | X | X | NW Corner of Palm Canyon & Tahquitz | A/L | |||
| 55 Desert Queen Mine | X | X | N/I-10, SR62, to Utah Trail | E/I | |||
| 56 Elsinore's Hottest Sulphur Spring | X | X | Graham @ Spring-E | A/L | |||
| 57 Evans Adobe | X | X | 7606 Mount Vernon | ARC | |||
| 58 Fairmont Park | X | X | N/Redwood Drive-R | A/L | |||
| 59 First Church of Christ | X | X | 3606 Lemon Street-R | ARC, REL | |||
| 60 First Congregational Church | X | X | X | SW corner of Lemon and 7th | ARC, REL | ||
| 61 Gilman Ranch | X | X | N/10, E/22st,on Wilson St | E/S, W, T | |||
| 62 Grant School Fountain | X | X | Brocton Avenue-R | A/L | |||
| 63 Greystones | X | X | 6190 Hawarden Drive- R | ARC | |||
| 64 Hall City & Grade | X | X | X | N slope of San Jacinto S/I-10 around Cabazon | E/I | ||
| 65 Hamilton School | X | X | X | 56481 Cahuilla Road | E/S | ||
| 66 Harada House | X | X | 3356 Lemon Street | ETH | |||
| 67 Hemet Dam & Lake Hemet | X | X | X | 1 mile E of 243 & SR 74 | W, E/I | ||
| 68 Hemet Depot | X | X | X | NW corner State Street & Florida Avenue | E/I, T | ||
| 69 Heritage House | X | X | 8193 Magnolia Avenue ARC, | E/S | |||
| 67 Highgrove Hydroelectric Plant, Site of | X | X | W/Iowa, S/Center, Electric & W. Spring-R | E/I, W | |||
| 68 Highland Springs | X | X | ? | N/10 5 miles on Highland Springs Ave. | T,A/L | ||
| 69 Idyllwild | X | X | X | County Park Rd, 1 mile N of SR 243-CO | A/L | ||
| 70 La Altalya | X | X | 5800 Hawarden Drive | ARC | |||
| 71 Loring Block | X | X | 7th & Main A/L | ||||
| 72 Loring Opera House | X | X | X | 3745 7th Street | ARC, A/L | ||
| 73 Lost Horse Mine | X | X | N/I-10, SR62, to Utah Trail | E/I | |||
| 74 March Field | X | X | X | I-215 @ Van Buren | MIL | ||
| 75 Martinez Historic District | X | X | X | X | S/SR111, W/Avenue 66 to Martinez Rd | NA, E/S | |
| 76 Masonic Temple | X | 3650 11th Street | E/S | ||||
| 77 Mission Inn | X | X | X | X | X | N/7th, S/6th,W/Orange, E/Main | ARC, A/L |
| 78 Mount Rubidoux Cross | X | X | Buena Vista Avenue | E/S | |||
| 79 Nobles Ranch | X | X | X | Singleton Canyon off Timoteo Canyon | E/S | ||
| 80 North Park | X | X | 7th & Vine | GOV | |||
| 81 Old YWCA Building | X | X | 3225 7th Street | ARC, E/S | |||
| 82 Palmdale Railroad | X | X | 248 E. Ramon Road | T, E/S | |||
| 83 Palo Verde Diversion Dam, site of | X | 11 miles N of I-10 on US 95 | W, E/I | ||||
| 84 Parent Navel Orange Tree | X | X | SW corner Magnolia Avenue, E/Arlington | E/I, W/S | |||
| 85 Pedley-Type Dam | X | X | ? | Banning Canyon via San Gorgonio Ave. | E/I | ||
| 86 Peter Weber House | X | ? | 1510 University Ave | ARC | |||
| 87 Presbyterian Church | X | X | 7200 Magnolia Avenue | REL | |||
| 88 Raincross Street Heights | X | X | Buena Vista Drive | ARC | |||
| 89 Reid Building | X | X | ? | N/E corner of San Gorgonio/Livingstone | E/S | ||
| 90 Riverside Cement Co. | X | X | X | N/60, 1500 Rubidoux-J | E/I | ||
| 91 Riverside County Courthouse | X | X | X | 4050 Main Street | ARC, GOV | ||
| 92 Riverside Federal Post Office | X | X | SE Corner Orange/7th | ARC, GOV | |||
| 93 Riverside-Arlington Heights Fruit Exchange | X | X | 3397 7th Street | ARC, E/I | |||
| 94 Rumsey House | X | X | 6700 Victoria Avenue | ARC | |||
| 95 Ryan House & Lost Horse Well | X | X | N/I-10, SR62, to Utah Trail | E/S, W | |||
| 96 Salt Lake Bridge | X | X | Union Pacific Railroad, over Santa Ana River | E/I, T | |||
| 97 San Pedro, LA & Salt Lake Railroad Depot | X | X | 3751 Vine St | ARC, T | |||
| 98 San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse | X | X | X | W/10, N/60 on Timoteo Canyon | NA, E/S | ||
| 99 Shaver's Well | X | X | X | Box Canyon, 12 miles NE of Mecca | W, E/I | ||
| 100 St. Boniface School & Cemetery | X | X | ? | 14700 Manzanita Park Road | E/S | ||
| 101 Streeter House | X | X | 5211 Central Avenue | REL | |||
| 102 Sutherland Fruit Company | X | X | NE Corner 7th & Vine | ARC, E/I | |||
| 103 Temecula Old Town Historic District | X | X | Front Street between 1st and 6th. | E/S | |||
| 104 Temecula Quarries | X | X | Monument @ Front Street/Sam Hicks Park | E/I | |||
| 105 Thomas-Garner Ranch | X | X | X | SR 74, across highway from Lake Hemet Store- CO | E/S | ||
| 106 Victoria Avenue | X | X | Victoria Avenue | A/L | |||
| 107 White Park | X | X | Market Street | A/L | |||
| 108 Wiley's Well | X | X | X | N/I-10 @ Wiley Well exit | W, E/I | ||
| 109 Woman's Improvement Club | X | X | SE corner of Main & 10th | ARC, E/S | |||
| 110 Yerxa's Discovery | X | X | X | 67616 E. Desert View | W, E/S | ||
| (1920-1945) | |||||||
| 111 Benedict Castle | X | X | 1850 Benedict Avenue | ARC | |||
| 112 Blythe Depot | X | X | X | Corner of Commercial & Rice, N/I-10 | T, E/I | ||
| 113 Buena Vista Drive | X | X | Buena Vista Drive | A/L | |||
| 114 Contractor's Hospital, site of | X | I-10, 6 miles W of Desert Center | W, E/S | ||||
| 115 Corona Founders Monument | X | X | City Park @ South Street | E/S | |||
| 116 Corona Theater | X | X | NE corner Ramona & 6th | ARC, A/L | |||
| 117 Desert Training Center | X | X | X | X | I-10 to Chiriaco Summit | MIL | |
| 118 Eagle Mountain Iron | X | X | X | 35 miles E of Indio @ Desert Center Café | E/I | ||
| 119 El Mirador Hotel and Tower | X | X | 1150 N Indian Avenue | A/L | |||
| 120 Fairmont Park Bandshell | X | X | Fairmont Park-R | S/L | |||
| 121 Fruit Exchange | X | X | 3391 7th Street | ARC | |||
| 122 Galleano Winery | X | X | X | S/ 60 at 4231 Wineville Rd | ARC, E/I | ||
| 123 John W. North Park | X | X | X | S/7th/University/Evergreen/ Vine | A/L | ||
| 124 M.H. Simon Undertaking Chapel | X | X | SW corner of 11th & Orange | ARC | |||
| 125 Main Street Clock | X | X | Downtown Mall | E/I | |||
| 126 Neighbors of Woodcraft | X | X | 8432 Magnolia | E/S | |||
| 127 Old Moreno School | X | X | X | 28780 Alessandro Blvd. | E/S | ||
| 128 Pergolas | X | X | 7th Street | ARC | |||
| 129 Ramona Bowl | X | X | S/Florida to Girard | A/L | |||
| 130 Riverside Baptist Temple | X | X | 9015 Magnolia | ARC | |||
| 131 Riverside Municipal Auditorium | X | X | 3485 7th | ARC, A/L | |||
| 132 Smiley Place | X | X | X | 82616 Miles Avenue | ARC | ||
| 133 Soviet Transpolar Landing Site | X | X | X | X | Hofmann Mem Park @ 6th Street | GOV | |
| 134 Speed of Light Experiment | X | X | X | Pine Cove Rd, N of SR 243 | E/I | ||
| 135 St Anthony's Church | X | X | 3074 Madison | REL | |||
| 136 Valerie Jean Date Garden | X | X | X | Avenue 66 & SR 86 | E/I | ||
| 137 Victoria Bridge | X | X | Victoria Avenue | E/I | |||
| 138 WCTU Fountain | X | ? | 7th & Orange | ARC | |||
| Notes: A/L : Arts and Leisure ARC: Architecture CPHI: California Points of Historical Interest CRHL: California Registered Historic Landmarks Architecture E/I: Economic/Industrial E/S: Exploration /Settlement ETH: Ethnic GOV: Government MIL: Military NA: Native American NRHP: National Register of Historic Places RCHL: Riverside County Historical Landmarks REL: Religion T: Transportation W: Water |
|||||||
| Table 4.7.B - Riverside County Properties Listed on the National Register of Historic Places | ||
|---|---|---|
| Property Name | Location | Date Listed |
| Administration Building, Sherman Institute | 9010 Magnolia Avenue, Riverside | 1/9/80 |
| All Souls Universalist Church | 3657 Lemon Street, Riverside | 9/18/78 |
| Andreas Canyon | Address Restricted, Palm Springs | 1/8/73 |
| Arlington Branch Library and Fire Hall | 9556 Magnolia Avenue, Riverside | 7/22/93 |
| Armory Hall | 252 North Main Street, Lake Elsinore | 1/29/92 |
| Barker Dam | SE of Twentynine Palms in Joshua Tree National Monument, Twentynine Palms | 10/29/75 |
| Blythe Intaglios | Address Restricted, Blythe | 8/22/75 |
| Buttercup Farms Pictograph | Address Restricted, Perris | 5/3/76 |
| Carnegie, Andrew, Library | 8th and Main Streets, Corona | 6/29/77 |
| Chinatown | Brockton and Tequesquite Avenues, Riverside | 3/1/90 |
| Coachella Valley Fish Traps | Address Restricted, Valerie | 6/13/72 |
| Corn Springs | Address Restricted, Desert Center | 10/30/98 |
| Crescent Bathhouse | 201 W. Graham Avenue, Lake Elsinore | 7/30/75 |
| Desert Queen Mine | South of Twentynine Palms in Joshua Tree National Monument, Twentynine Palms | 1/17/76 |
| Federal Post Office | 3720 Orange Street, Riverside | 11/20/78 |
| First Church of Christ, Scientist | 3606 Lemon Street, Riverside | 9/22/92 |
| First Congregational Church of Riverside | 3504 Mission Inn Avenue, Riverside | 4/3/97 |
| Gilman Ranch | 1937 W. Gilman Street, Banning | 11/17/77 |
| Harada House | 3356 Lemon Street, Riverside | 9/15/77 |
| Heritage House | 8193 Magnolia Avenue, Riverside | 2/28/73 |
| Jensen, Cornelius, Ranch | 4350 Riverview Drive, Rubidoux | 9/6/79 |
| March Field Historic District | Eschscholtzia Avenue, March Air Reserve Base, Riverside | 12/6/94 |
| Martinez Historical District | Off SR-86 Torres-Martinez Indian Reservation | 5/17/73 |
Paleontological Resources
Fossils - nonrenewable paleontological resources - are important for dating sedimentary rocks, and thus determining the time of movement of faults against which those sediments lie. Eastern and western Riverside County have fossiliferous sediments that occur in different settings. In the western portion of the County, fossils occur in sediments lying on the surface of crystalline bedrock, or are deposited in or between the major fault zones.
Eastern Riverside County has fault block mountains that contain the older fossiliferous sediments. Younger deposits containing fossils are found around dry lakes, along high stands of the Salton Sea, and in terraces left by the Colorado River.
The oldest fossils in California are of Proterozoic age (900 million years old). Fossils in Riverside County of comparable age have been destroyed by the natural process of metamorphism. The oldest fossils found in Riverside County are from the late Jurassic Period (150 million years ago). Fossils from the late Cretaceous, the end of the Age of Dinosaurs, include ammonites, clams, and giant oysters.
The Cenozoic Era, the Age of Mammals, is divided into the Tertiary Period (65 million years to 2 million years) and the Quaternary Period, which includes the Pleistocene (2 million years to 10 thousand years) and the Holocene (10,000 years ago to present). The Tertiary Period records depositional events where continental sediments mixed with marine sediments. These important fluctuations in sea level are recorded in the Elsinore Fault Zone to the west and, in the Salton Trough of eastern Riverside county, as far west as Cabazon. Large fossils from the Tertiary Period include whales, sharks, primitive elephants and oreodonts, camels, and horses.
During the Quaternary Epoch, Riverside County was affected by increased Pleistocene rainfall which filled basins and fault zones and turned depressions into lakes. The influx of new sediment buried remains of large and small animals. Deposition of fossiliferous sediment occurred along the margins of the Salton Sea and along the Colorado River. The climate changed drastically ten thousand years ago from the end of the wet Pleistocene to the very dry Holocene. The record of changing plants and animals is preserved as mummified samples in the nests built by pack rats.
Summary of the Fossil Record
Riverside County has an extensive record of fossil life (Table 4.6.C). The record starts in Jurassic time, 150 million years ago, with diverse marine mollusks. The oldest Tertiary flora in Southern California is found east of Lake Elsinore, and dates to around 60 million years ago. The 23 million-year old oreodonts and camels, and the tracks of camels, were found in the Orocopia Mountains in central Riverside County.
Marine advances are recorded at Corona, and in the Salton Trough. Marine sandstones of the Imperial Formation in the Salton Trough are found as far northwest as Cabazon. Three million years ago, near the present I-15/SR-91 interchange, there was the white sand beach at the edge of the Pacific Ocean. The Ice Ages left fossils of giant sloths, elephants, camels, and bison that were preyed upon by giant bear, American lion, and sabercats.
| Table 4.7.C Paleontological Resources by Age, Formation, and Location |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Western Riverside County | Central Riverside County | Eastern Riverside County | |
| Mesozoic Era: The Age of Dinosaurs | |||
| Jurassic Period 150 million years ago | The Bedford Canyon Formation in western Riverside County has been dated by a distinctive fauna of ammonites, brachiopods, and mollusks as Late Jurassic in age. | ||
|
|
|||
| Late Cretaceous Period 75 million years ago | The Ladd Formation contains the Holz Shale which produces large ammonites and giant clams distinctive to that time period. Dinosaurs have not yet been found in Riverside County, but are likely to occur in this unit, which encompasses the Santa Ana Mountains. Hadrosaur bones from a duck bill dinosaur have been found in nearby Santiago Canyon, in Orange County. | ||
| Cenozoic Era: The Age of Mammals | |||
| General | Western Riverside County has a long Tertiary record of marine advances and retreats. The fossiliferous marine sediments interfinger with sediments from the continent which contain land mammals. This record spans a period of time from 65 million years to 2 million years. | The fossils in central Riverside County are located on the bedrock isthmus between troughs of marine advances in western and eastern Riverside County. In part, the marine advances were simultaneous, and only 40 miles apart. | The Tertiary record of the eastern county includes Eocene marine fossils and the earliest record of Miocene land mammals in Riverside County. Deposition of late Miocene and early Pliocene marine sediments and their fossils have separate histories in the San Jacinto and San Andreas Fault Zones, and along the Colorado River. |
|
|
|||
| Paleocene Epoch 65-55 million years ago | The “Martinez Formation,” marine and nonmarine siltstone, sandstone and coal north of Lake Elsinore contains Riverside County’s oldest fossil flora. The Silverado Formation in southwestern Riverside County and Temescal Canyon consists of nonmarine silty sands that grade upward into marine sediments which contain a diverse molluscan fauna. |
||
|
|
|||
| Eocene Epoch 55-34 million years ago | The Santiago Formation crops out in Santa Ana Canyon. The marine and non-marine sandstone contains abundant marine molluscs. | The Orocopia Mountains contain marine clams, snails and foraminifera. These sediments have been moved 200 miles away from their counterparts at Tejon Pass by the San Andreas Fault. | |
|
|
|||
| Oligocene Epoch 34-24 million years ago | The Sespe and Vaqueros formations are non-marine and marine, respectively, interfingering across a broad, ancient coastal plain, that now includes Corona and Temescal Canyon. The green and white marine sediments contain fossil clams, snails, plants, crabs, and the teeth of sharks and rays. The non-marine red beds contain extinct camels, oreodonts, horses, rhinos, and carnivores. Important small finds are primates, insectivores, and rodents which help date portions of this formation that spans 10 million years. | ||
|
|
|||
| Miocene Epoch 24-4.5 million years ago | The Puente Formation in the Chino Hills is late Miocene in age, deposited from 12 to 7 million years ago. These marine sediments contain extremely well preserved fish, whales, sharks, clams, nautiloids and seaweed. Of great importance are fossil logs and leaves of many species of land plants, including palm fronds and pine cones and needles. | The Lake Mathews Formation, from Lake Mathews east to Val Verde, contains rare fossil oreodonts and camels from the period between 11 and 9 million years ago. These fossils were deposited in lakes and stream channels cutting through granitic bedrock. The Mount Eden Formation along Gilman Springs Road signals the initial basin filling of the Perris Block in late Miocene time (6 million years ago). Fossils used to date the formation are bear, rhinoceros, giant sloth, peccary, camel, deer, antelope and horse. |
The Orocopia Mountains also contain the oldest known Miocene mammals in Riverside County. These are a small oreodont and a camel. Tracks of the small camel are also found here. Mid-Miocene sediments (15 million years) in the Palo Verde Mountains and the Mule Mountains contain the bones of a three toed horse and the tracks of a large extinct camel. The Imperial Formation (6 million years) records a marine advance from the Gulf of California into the proto-Salton trough. Fossil whales, shark teeth, and marine molluscs are found as far northwest as Cabazon, in west-central Riverside County. In addition to whales, walrus and sea cow are also found in the Imperial Formation. These marine mammals invaded the opening gulf in clean ocean water, prior to when silts were carried in by the Colorado River. |
|
|
|||
| Pliocene Epoch 4.5-2 million years ago | The Fernando Formation crops out around Prado dam and Corona and is late Miocene to Pliocene in age, dated by the presence of rhinoceros and primitive mastodon (5 million years) and distinctive small rodents (3 million years). Sediments containing fossils are in a near-shore marine deposit. The view at the time from Corona to the southwest was of the Pacific Ocean, before the Santa Ana Mountains rose. | The San Timoteo Formation makes up the Badlands north of Moreno Valley. It was deposited on top of the Mt. Eden Formation 4.5 to 1.3 million years ago, through Pliocene and Pleistocene time. The age of the formation has been determined by the fossil mammals that are very different than those that occur in the area today. Porcupine, muskrat, voles, lemmings and cotton rats are found in the sandstone of the Badlands, and suggest a cool, wellwatered environment. Also present were giant bear, coyote, horse, tapir, camel, deer, mammoth, and giant ground sloth. The Elsinore Fault Zone around Murrieta and through Pauba Valley contains sediments which span early Pliocene time (4 million years ago ) to the late Pleistocene (0.3 million years ago). Sediments equivalent to the Pauba Formation are exposed in the Elsinore Fault Zone from Temecula northwest to Norco. The age is based on a very important fossil record which includes ground sloths, mastodons, camels, horses, peccary, skunk, porcupine, rabbits, rodents and shrews. Birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and clams and snails have also been described. |
The first sign of deposition by the Colorado River is the Bouse Formation, exposed between Parker and Blythe in the Colorado Trough. Freshwater fish and barnacles of unusual shape indicate that the marine waters of the Imperial formation were being freshened by the silty waters of the newly formed Colorado River at about 4.5 million years ago. The Mecca Hills contain fossils of extinct horses and cotton rats which date the start of deposition in the mid-Pliocene. |
|
|
|||
| Pleistocene Epoch 2.5 million-10,000 years ago | Pleistocene deposits containing Ice Age fossils are found across Riverside County. The remains of large mammoths, mastodons, ground sloths, bison, horse and camel are associated with important remains of small rodents and insectivores that describe changes in habitat and age of deposit. | Buried Ice Age fossils occur in stable or subsiding areas in western Riverside County. Fossil antelope and horse have been found near Norco. Sabercat, giant ground sloth, and camel have been found further north in the Chino Basin. Ice Age fossils have been found buried only four feet below the surface of the Perris Plain. These near surface finds include sabercat, deer, horse and mammoth and large juniper logs from a time when the climate was colder. A spectacular buried assemblage of Ice Age fossils has been unearthed by excavation for the Eastside Reservoir. At least 1,500 fossil localities below eight feet of depth have produced fossils the same age as, and as significant as those from the La Brea Tar Pits. Mastodon, giant ground sloth and bison are abundant, and horse, camel, sabercat, dire wolf, and many other medium and small mammals are present, with associated reptiles, amphibians and birds. |
Mammoths and bison occur in the Chemehuevi Formation along the Colorado River. Camels and horses are found in Ice Age lake sediments around Ford and Palen Basins, and in the lake sediments of Pinto Basin. Large fish fossils from the Colorado River system are found in ancient Lake Cahuilla sediments deposited in the Salton Trough. |
|
|
|||
Paleontological Sensitivity
Figure 4.7.2 identifies the sensitivity of lands within Riverside County in relation to the potential for finding paleontological resources. The Paleontological Sensitivity map classifies lands into the following categories:
• Low Potential This category encompasses lands for which previous field surveys and documentation demonstrates as having a low potential for containing significant paleontological resources subject to adverse impacts. The mapping of low potential was determined based on actual documentation, and was not generalized to cover all areas of a particular rock unit on a geologic map. For instance, an area mapped as "Qal" may actually be a thin surficial layer of non-fossiliferous sediments which covers fossil-rich Pleistocene sediments. Also, an area mapped as granite may be covered by a Pleistocene soil horizon that contains fossils. Thus, actual sensitivity must be ultimately determined by both a records search and a field inspection by a paleontologist, and those areas designated as having a low potential include those for which field inspections have been completed.
• Undetermined Potential Areas underlain by sedimentary rocks for which literature and unpublished studies are not available have undetermined potential for containing significant paleontological resources. These areas need to be inspected by a qualified vertebrate paleontologist before a specific determination of high potential or low potential for containing significant non-renewable paleontological resources can be made.
• High Potential Sedimentary rock units with high potential for containing significant non-renewable paleontological resources are rock units within which vertebrate or significant invertebrate fossils have been determined to be present or likely to be present. These units include, but are not limited to, sedimentary formations which contain significant non-renewable paleontological resources anywhere within their geographical extent, and sedimentary rock units temporally or lithologically suitable for the preservation of fossils. High sensitivity includes not only the potential for yielding abundant vertebrate fossils, but also for production of a few significant fossils that may provide new and significant (taxonomic, phylogenetic, ecologic, and/or stratigraphic) data. High sensitivity areas are mapped as either "High A" or "High B."
-High Sensitivity A (High A) is based on geologic formations or mappable rock units that are known to contain or have the correct age and depositional conditions to contain significant paleontological resources. These include rocks of Silurian or Devonian age and younger that have potential to contain remains of fossil fish and Mesozoic and Cenozoic rocks that contain fossilized body elements, and trace fossils such as tracks, nests, and eggs.
-High Sensitivity B (High B) is a sensitivity equivalent to High A, but is based on the occurrence of fossils at a specified depth below the surface. This category indicates that fossils are likely to be encountered at or below 4 feet of depth, and may be impacted during excavation by construction activities.
The sensitivity of the various landscapes of Riverside County that may contain cultural resources is of a growing concern. Increasing pressure to develop and/or redevelop these sensitive areas in the County would heighten with the anticipated build out population of 1.67 million people and the associated 557,849 dwelling units, and commercial and industrial development.
Existing Policies and Regulations
The following existing policies/regulations are intended to ensure the preservation of cultural, historical, archaeological, and paleontological resources in Riverside County:
Historic properties are comprised of prehistoric or historic archaeological resources. The National Register of Historic Places defines an archaeological site as "the place or places where the remnants of a past culture survive in a physical context that allows for the interpretation of these remains" (National Register Bulletin 36, Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Historical Archaeological Sites and Districts, 1993, p.2).
Historic properties and resources are protected pursuant to a wide variety of policies and regulations. Cultural and paleontological resources are recognized as a non-renewable resource and therefore receive protection pursuant to CEQA. Native American interments and associated funerary objects receive additional protection with Public Resources Code 5097.98. Additional regulations include:
• Section 106 regulations (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 800, Protection of Historic Properties, National Historic Preservation Act; and
• Regulatory Historic Property regulations (33 CFR 325, Appendix C).
Federal Policies and Regulations
Section 106, Protection of Historic Properties Implementing the Section 106 process into the normal administrative process used by agencies for project planning ensures early, systematic consideration of federal historic preservation issues. The Federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation accommodates preservation through consultation among the Agency Official, the State Historic Preservation Officer, and other interested persons during the early stages of planning. To this end, the Council encourages agencies to examine their administrative processes to see that they provide adequately for the efficient identification and consideration of historic properties, for participation by the State Historic Preservation Officer and others interested in historic preservation, for timely requests for Council comment, and for the promotion of cost-effective implementation of the Section 106 process.
Regulatory Historic Property Regulations (33 CFR 325, Appendix C) Appendix C establishes the procedures to be followed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to fulfill the requirements set forth in the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), other applicable historic preservation laws, and Presidential directives as they relate to the regulatory program of the USACE (33 CFR Parts 320-334).
4.7.2 Cultural Resources Thresholds of Significance
Archaeological Resources
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. In the protection and management of the cultural environment, CEQA Guidelines provides definitions and standards for cultural resource management. The term "unique archaeological resource" has the following meaning according to CEQA:
"An archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.
2. Has a special and particular quality, such as the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.
3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person." (Public Resources Code Section 21083.2[g])
Historic Resources
As defined by CEQA §15064.5(b), "substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired." In order to create such a substantial adverse change, the resource must first possess historical significance. Secondly, the resource must meet the time and integrity criteria to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). By combining these two steps, therefore, a resource is considered to be a historic resource in accordance with CEQA it meets both parts of the following two-step test (Parts A and B)
Part A: Historic Significance. The resource has historical significance as defined by the State Office of Historic Preservation. A resource possesses historical significance if it meets one or more of the following criteria:
1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; or
2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; or
3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or
4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
Resources that meet Part A of the test possess historical significance. However, resources that have historical significance do not necessarily qualify as significant historical resources as defined by CEQA in Section 15064.5.
Part B: Time and Integrity. Resources that first meet Part A of the test are considered historical resources for the purposes of CEQA when both of the following criteria are met.
1. Pursuant to California Register regulations, sufficient time must have passed since a resource's period of significance to "obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource." Fifty years is used as a general estimate of the time needed to develop this perspective and permit a legitimate understanding of the resource's significance. A resource less than 50 years old may be considered for listing in the California Register if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance.
2. In addition, the California Register requires that a resource possess integrity, which is defined as "the authenticity of an historical resource's physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource's period of significance" (California Office of Historic Preservation 1999:2). To retain integrity, a resource should have its original location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Which of these factors is most important will depend on the particular criteria under which the resource is considered eligible for listing. "A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the California Register if it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data" (California Office of Historic Preservation 1999:2).
Paleontological Resources
Significant impacts will occur to paleontological resources if the proposed project alters or destroys any significant paleontological resource.
Significant paleontological resources are fossils or assemblages of fossils that are unique, unusual, rare, uncommon, diagnostically or stratigraphically important, and those that add to an existing body of knowledge in specific areas, stratigraphically, taxonomically, or regionally. They include fossil remains of large to very small aquatic and terrestrial vertebrates, remains of plants and animals previously not represented in certain portions of the stratigraphy, and assemblages of fossils that might aid stratigraphic correlations, particularly those offering data for the interpretation of tectonic events, geomorphologic evolution, paleoclimatology, and the relationships of aquatic and terrestrial species.
4.7.3 Cultural Resources Impacts and Mitigation
Potentially Significant Impacts
Potential to Disturb Human Remains
Impact 4.7.1 Build out within now vacant unincorporated areas of the County will result in a substantial increase in population and residential and non-residential structures, and associated infrastructure. Development associated with the proposed General Plan would require disturbance of vacant lands. Development allowed by implementation of the proposed General Plan could have the potential to disturb buried human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, and buried cultural resources.
Analysis of Impact The policies within the proposed General Plan require cultural resources surveys to be conducted prior to development occurring on a site specific basis. A cultural resources survey, which includes a records search1 , can identify the existence of above-surface human remains, archaeological and historic resources, and the likelihood for buried cultural resources including human remains. However, the survey can not determine with certainty whether buried cultural resources or human remains will be found until the surface soil is disturbed, such as during grading activities. Destruction or disturbance of such surface and buried cultural resources during construction of individual, private development, or public works projects could be a potentially significant impact and mitigation is provided below in accordance with State law regarding the discovery of human remains and archaeological resources.
1A records search is a formal request made by a qualified archaeologist to an archaeological repository, such as the Eastern Information Center at the University of California, Riverside, to provide a written account of all pervious recorded surveys within one square mile of a project site.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan includes the following policies to reduce or minimize the effects of prospective development on cultural resources.
Open Space Policy 19.2 Review all proposed development for the possibility of archaeological sensitivity.
Open Space Policy 19.3 Employ procedures to protect the confidentiality of and prevent inappropriate public exposure of sensitive archaeological resources when soliciting the assistance of public and volunteer organizations.
Open Space Policy 19.4 Require a Native American Statement as part of the environmental review process on the development projects with identified cultural resources.
Open Space Policy 19.8 Require that whenever existing information indicates that a site proposed for development may contain biological, cultural, paleontological, or other scientific resources, a report shall be filed stating the extent and potential significance of the resource that may exist within the proposed development and appropriate measures through which the impacts of development may be mitigated.
Open Space Policy 19.10 Transmit significant development applications subject to CEQA for review, comment, and/or preparation of recommended conditions of approval to the following agency with regard to cultural resources: Eastern Information Center, University of California Riverside.
Effectiveness of Proposed General Plan Policies Implementation of the proposed General Plan policies related to cultural resources would help reduce the effects of growth and development. However, because the policies do not provide performance standards to protect buried cultural resources, mitigation is provided to ensure that if buried resources are found they will be protected.
Mitigation Measures
4.7.1A If human remains are encountered during a public or private construction activity, State Health and Safety Code 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The Riverside County Coroner must be notified within 24 hours.
a. If the coroner determines that the burial is not historic, but prehistoric, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) must be contacted to determine the most likely descendent (MLD) for this area. The MLD may become involved with the disposition of the burial following scientific analysis.
4.7.1B Avoidance is the preferred treatment for cultural resources.
Where feasible, project plans shall be developed to allow avoidance of cultural resources. Where avoidance of construction impacts is possible, capping of the cultural resource site and avoidance planting (e.g., planting of prickly pear cactus) shall be employed to ensure that indirect impacts from increased public availability to the site are avoided. Where avoidance is selected, cultural resource sites shall be placed within permanent conservation easements or dedicated open space.
4.7.1C If avoidance and/or preservation in place of cultural resources is not possible, the following mitigation measures shall be initiated for each impacted site:
a. A participant-observer from the appropriate Indian Band or Tribe shall be used during archaeological testing or excavation in the project site.
b. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the project, the project proponent shall develop a test level research design detailing how the cultural resource investigation shall be executed and providing specific research questions that shall be addressed through the excavation program. In particular, the testing program shall characterize the site constituents, horizontal and vertical extent, and, if possible, period of use. The testing program shall also address the California Register and National Register eligibility of the cultural resource and make recommendations as to the suitability of the resource for listing on either Register. The research design shall be submitted to the County of Riverside Regional Park and Open-Space District for review and comment. For sites determined, through the Testing Program, to be ineligible for listing on either the California or National Register, execution of the Testing Program will suffice as mitigation of project impacts to this resource.
c. After approval of the research design and prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent shall complete the excavation program as specified in the research design. The results of this excavation program shall be presented in a technical report that follows the County of Riverside outline for Archaeological Testing. The Test Level Report shall be submitted to the County of Riverside Regional Park and Open-Space District for review and comment. If cultural resources that would be affected by the project are found ineligible for listing on the California or National Register, test level investigations will have depleted the scientific value of the sites and the project can proceed.
d. If the resource is identified as being potentially eligible for either the California or National Register, and project designs cannot be altered to avoid impacting the site, a Treatment Program to mitigate project effects shall be initiated. A Treatment Plan detailing the objectives of the Treatment Program shall be developed. The Treatment Plan shall contain specific, testable hypotheses relative to the sites under study and shall attempt to address the potential of the sites to address these research questions. The Treatment Plan shall be submitted to the County of Riverside Regional Park and Open-Space District for review and comment.
e. After approval of the Treatment Plan, the Treatment Program for affected, eligible sites shall be initiated. Typically a Treatment Program involves excavation of a statistically representative sample of the site to preserve those resource values that qualify the site as being eligible for the California or National Register. At the conclusion of the excavation or research program, a Treatment Report, following the outline of the County of Riverside for Archaeological Mitigation or Data Recovery, shall be developed. This data recovery report shall be submitted to the County of Riverside Regional Park and Open-Space District for review and comment.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have not altered the policies that pertain to the disturbance of human remains. Changes in the land use designations may result in an increase of developed acres, or in development in a different location than indicated in the General Plan as originally proposed. However, because the policies and mitigation measures are general and can apply to any amount of development in any location, this will not affect the ability of the policies and mitigation measures to effectively reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Adverse Change in the Significance of an Historical Resource
Impact 4.7.2 Build out within now vacant unincorporated areas of the County will result in a substantial increase in population and residential and non-residential structures, and associated infrastructure. Development associated with the proposed General Plan would require disturbance of vacant lands and possible conversion of existing structures into various land uses (e.g., historic homes into office space). Development allowed by implementation of the proposed General Plan could cause the destruction of or loss of an historical resource, as defined in CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5.
Analysis of Impact Historic properties and resources are protected under a wide variety of policies and regulations including: Riverside County Ordinance Number 6263 Title 20, the CEQA (Title 14, Chapter 3), the Federal Register (36 CFR Part 800), the USACE (33 CFR 325, Appendix C), and the NEPA (33 CFR Part 325, Appendix B).
Riverside County is known to have been visited and permanently inhabited by Euro-Americans since the 18th century. As a result, significant historic structures (or their ruins) exist within the County, along with other historic resources that have yet to be identified. Development will occur as a result of the proposed General Plan in areas that may contain significant historic resources. Although Riverside County and the proposed General Plan have policies to protect and minimize adverse impacts on historic resources, the potential exists for significant impacts to historic resources to occur as a result of development of individual public and private development projects. Therefore, additional mitigation is provided to protect historic resources in the County.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan includes the following policies to reduce or minimize the effects of prospective growth on historic resources.
Open Space Policy 19.5 Transmit significant development proposals to the History Division of the Riverside County Parks and Open-Space District Department for evaluation in relation to destruction/preservation of potential historical sites. Prior to approval of any development proposal, feasible mitigation shall be incorporated into the design of the project, and its conditions of approval.
Open Space Policy 19.6 Enforce the Historic Building Code so that historic buildings can be preserved and used without posing a hazard to public safety.
Open Space Policy 19.7 When possible, Aallocate resources and/or tax credits to prioritize retrofit of County historical structures, which are irreplaceable.
Effectiveness of Proposed General Plan Policies Implementation of the proposed General Plan policies related to historic resources would help reduce the effects of growth and development by requiring development proposals be evaluated for the presence of historic resources; by protecting historic buildings from demolition; and providing capital for preservation of historic buildings. In addition to the policies in the proposed General Plan, to ensure that future development in the County would not have any significant adverse impacts on historic resources, mitigation is provided below.
Mitigation Measures Implementation of mitigation measures 4.7.1B and 4.7.1C would reduce the magnitude of effects on historic resources to less than significant.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have not substantially altered the meaning and applicability of the policies that pertain to changes in the significance of a historical resource. Changes in the land use designations may result in an increase of developed acres, or in development in a different location than indicated in the General Plan as originally proposed. However, because the policies and mitigation measures are general and can apply to any amount of development in any location, this will not affect the ability of the policies and mitigation measures to effectively reduce the impacts to historic resources to a less than significant level.
Destruction of a Known Archaeological Resource
Impact 4.7.3 Build out within now vacant unincorporated areas of the County will result in a substantial increase in population and residential and non-residential structures, and associated infrastructure. Development associated with the proposed General Plan would require disturbance of vacant lands. Development allowed by implementation of the proposed General Plan could cause the destruction of known archaeological resources, as defined in CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5.
Analysis of Impact Significant archaeological resources are known to exist within Riverside County, based on what is known of the histories of local Native American communities and the recordation of past archaeological and historic surveys conducted by qualified archaeologists and historians on lands within the County. Given the amount of undisturbed land that remains available for development, there remains the possibility that cultural resources may be disturbed through grading activities. Impacts upon archaeological resources could result from implementation of the proposed General Plan in the form of individual private development and public works projects.
Figure 4.7.1 shows areas within the County that have the potential to contain archaeological resources. As shown on Figure 4.7.1, there is a limited area within the County that contains a high potential for archaeological resources. The proposed General Plan would allow development of structures within areas that contain high sensitivity for archaeological resources.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan includes the following policies to reduce or minimize the effects of prospective growth on cultural resources by requiring that development proposals be reviewed for archaeological sensitivity and that a report be prepared to evaluate the potential for archaeological resources.
Potential cultural resource impacts can be reduced through implementation of the Open Space Policies 19.2-19.4, 19.8, and 19.10.
Effectiveness of Proposed General Plan Policies The policies do not protect archaeological resources from being destroyed by future development. Although Riverside County and the proposed General Plan have policies to protect and minimize adverse impacts on archaeological resources, the potential exists for destruction of known archaeological resources to occur if mitigation is not provided to protect such resources. To ensure that future development in the County would not have any significant adverse impacts on archaeological resources, mitigation is provided below.
Mitigation Measures Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.7.1B and 4.7.1C, above, would reduce the magnitude of effects on archaeological resources to less than significant.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have not altered the policies that pertain to the destruction of a known archaeological resource. Changes in the land use designations may result in an increase of developed acres, or in development in a different location than indicated in the General Plan as originally proposed. However, because the policies and mitigation measures are general and can apply to any amount of development in any location, this will not affect the ability of the policies and mitigation measures to effectively reduce the impacts to archaeological resources to a less than significant level.
Destruction of a Unique Paleontological Resource or Site
Impact 4.7.4 Build out within now vacant unincorporated areas of the County will result in a substantial increase in population and residential and non-residential structures, and associated infrastructure. Development associated with the proposed General Plan would require disturbance of vacant lands. Therefore, development as a result of implementation of the proposed General Plan could potentially destroy directly or indirectly a unique paleontological resource or site.
Analysis of Impact Based on the soil types within Riverside County and previous paleontological studies, paleontological resources are known to be present within unincorporated areas of the County. Due to the large amounts of undisturbed land remaining, it is possible that there will be impacts upon paleontological resources as a result of implementation of the proposed General Plan in the form of individual private development and public works projects. Figure 4.7.2 shows areas within the County that have the potential for high paleontological resource sensitivity. The proposed General Plan would allow development of structures within areas that contain high sensitivity for paleontological resources. This is a significant adverse impact of the implementation of the proposed General Plan.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan includes the following policy that requires for development in areas that contain high potential for paleontological resources: site grading is to be monitored by a qualified paleontologist and any resources collected be cataloged and curated in an appropriate repository. The paleontologist is also required to submit a report to the Planning Department documenting his or her findings.
Open Space Policy 19.9 This policy requires that when existing information indicatesd that a site proposed for development may contain paleontological resources, a paleontologist shall monitor site grading activities with the authority to halt grading to collect uncovered paleontological resources, curate any resources collected with an appropriate reposition, and file a report with the Planning Department documenting any paleontological resources that are found during site grading.
Effectiveness of Proposed Plan Policies Implementation of the proposed General Plan policy related to paleontological resources would reduce the effects of growth and development proposed in the County through implementation of the proposed General Plan. The policy to protect paleontological resources is adequate and no further mitigation is required.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have not altered the policy that pertains to the destruction of a unique paleontological resource or site. Thus, no changes to the analysis and conclusions are necessary.
4.7.4 Cultural Resources Level of Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of the policies in the proposed General Plan and proposed mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts on cultural and paleontological resources to less than significant.
4.8 Energy
4.8.1 Energy Existing Setting
The following section describes the existing setting for natural gas and electricity along with existing policies and regulations.
Natural Gas
Natural gas is provided to the region by The Gas Company, which provides service to 17 million people in California through three major natural gas pipelines traversing Riverside County from east to west. Most of the major natural gas transmission pipelines in Riverside County are operated by The Gas Company. These main pipelines follow I-10 through most of the County. Dual pipelines branch off these main lines near Desert Center and extend southward into Imperial County. Another set of dual lines branch off the main pipelines near Gilman Springs Road at SR-60 and extend southward into San Diego County. Near the I-215 interchange, one pipeline veers to the south and extends west across the County following SR-91. Another veers to the north and follows I-215 before extending west across the County through the City of Riverside and community of Pedley. The Gas Company pipelines also extend north-south in the western portion of Riverside County, providing system connectivity to the West San Bernardino Valley and the upper desert region in San Bernardino County.
Near Desert Center, an additional natural gas transmission line extends northward from the main pipelines following the I-10 corridor. This pipeline follows Kaiser Road before terminating near Eagle Mountain. A separate pipeline operated by Imperial Irrigation District extends north from the Metropolitan Water District Eagle Mountain water pumping plant and terminates near the intersection of SR-62 and SR-177.
All natural gas services are regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission, and may also be affected by the actions of federal regulatory agencies.
The delivery of natural gas via pipelines is not available to all residents in unincorporated Riverside County, especially in the rural, mountainous, and rural desert areas. Those residents generally use propane or other fuel sources for heating and cooking purposes. Propane is stored in aboveground tanks on individual property owner's sites and is provided by private gas purveyors.
Electricity
The two major providers of electricity in the region are Southern California Edison (SCE) and the Imperial Irrigation District. SCE provides electrical service to customers within a 50,000-square mile area of central, coastal, and Southern California, including western Riverside County. The Imperial Irrigation District provides electrical service to the southern end of the Coachella Valley, all of Imperial County, and parts of San Diego County, located west of Imperial Irrigation District is the Anza Electric Coopera-tive. In addition to these providers, the Cities of Banning and Riverside provide electrical service to local customers.
Major electricity transmission lines in Riverside County are operated by SCE and the Imperial Irrigation District. Major electricity transmission lines are those that carry a minimum of 220 kilovolts (kV) of power. SCE operates a 500-kV transmission line extending east-west through most of Riverside County. The 500-kV line follows the I-10 corridor from the Arizona border west to the San Gorgonio pass area, veers south of I-10 toward Perris, and then extends west from Perris into Orange County. From the San Gorgonio Pass area, multiple 220-kV lines veer north of I-10 and follow San Timoteo Canyon into Redlands in San Bernardino County. Portions of the SCE 220-kV transmission lines pass through the northwest corner of Riverside County.
The Imperial Irrigation District operates a 220-kV transmission line, extending from its Hinds water pumping plant located along I-10 west of Desert Center to its Iron Mountain pumping plant, located in San Bernardino County north of the intersection of SR62 and SR-177.
This electricity comes from a variety of sources, which include hydroelectric, oil, natural gas, and renewable sources, such as wind and solar power. Each of these agencies maintains specific criteria to determine future service demands from specific land uses. Each of the agencies providing service to unincorporated areas has indicated that they have the ability to meet future demands for utility services.
Existing Policies and Regulations
Title 24, Part 6, California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings was established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. New standards were adopted by the Commission in 2001 as mandated by Assembly Bill 970 to reduce California's electricity demand. The new standards went into effect on June 1, 2001. The standards (along with standards for energy efficient appliances) have saved more than$20 billion in electricity and natural gas costs. It is estimated the standards will save$57 billion by 2011.
4.8.2 Energy Thresholds of Significance
A project is considered to have a significant impact on natural gas or electrical service if existing or planned facilities and supplies are not adequate to serve the proposed land uses or if existing natural gas or electrical service is significantly disrupted.
4.8.3 Energy Impacts and Mitigation
This section discusses impacts and proposed policies with respect to energy resources.
Potentially Significant Impacts
Impact 4.8.1 Build out within unincorporated areas of the County will result in a substantial increase in population and residential and non-residential structures, potentially increasing the use of and need for natural gas. Due to the growth involved in the proposed General Plan, this increase may potentially impact existing natural gas facilities.
Analysis of Impact As shown in Table 4.8.A, the monthly natural gas demand at General Plan build out would be 6,562,342,012 cubic feet. The additional growth anticipated with the proposed General Plan will require that natural gas purveyors expand existing facilities or increase supply. The Gas Company has stated that as future demand for natural gas increases as a result of new development, The Gas Company will expand its existing facilities. The construction of new natural gas facilities or expansion of existing facilities may cause environmental effects. It is not possible to accurately determine or quantify such environmental effects without site locations and specific project details. Future natural gas needs will be evaluated as each new development is proposed. Recommendations for improvements to existing and/or construction of new natural gas facilities will also be made at that time. Through the County's environmental review process, future development projects will be evaluated for potential impacts pertaining to the provision of natural gas. Where needed, appropriate mitigation measures will be required to reduce potential impacts to a level that is less than significant.
| Table 4.8.A Demand of Natural Gas at Build Out of Proposed General Plan |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Land Use | Development at Build Out |
Natural Gas Demand Rate1 |
Monthly Natural Gas Demand at Build Out |
| Residential | 591,209 |
6,665 cf/unit/month | 3,940,407,985 |
| Commercial | 151,894,591 |
2.9 cf/sf/month | 440,494,313 |
| Industrial | 438,109,927 |
3.3 cf/sf/month | 144,576,273 |
| Public/Quasi-Public | 273,868,690 |
2.9 cf/sf/month | 794,219,201 |
| Total | 5,319,697,772 |
||
| Notes: sf = square feet. cf = cubic feet. 1 Assumes a combination of propane and natural gas use. Source: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993. |
|||
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan includes the policies to reduce or minimize the effects of the addition demand and consumption of energy resources (natural gas) associated with the prospective growth within the County. The following proposed General Plan policies will directly or indirectly address energy resources. Implementation of the following policies would help reduce the effects of the additional demand and consumption of energy resources (natural gas). To guarantee that significant adverse impacts to energy resources is minimized to a less than significant level, mitigation is provided below.
Open Space Policy 10.1 Provide for orderly and efficient wind energy development in a manner that maximizes benefits and minimizes detrimental effects to the residents, bird migration, and the environment of the County.
Open Space Policy 10.2 Continue to implement the County's Wind Implementation Monitoring Program (WIMP) in order to study the evolution of wind energy technology, identify means to solve environmental and community impacts, and provide for an ability to respond with changes in the County's regulatory structure.
Open Space Policy 11.1 Enforce the state Solar Shade Control Act, which promotes all feasible means of energy conservation and all feasible uses of alternative energy supply sources.
Open Space Policy 11.2 Support and encourage voluntary efforts to provide active and passive solar access opportunities in new developments.
Open Space Policy 11.3 Permit and encourage the use of passive solar devices and other state-of-the-art energy resources.
Open Space Policy 12.1 Allow for the development of non-electrical, direct heat uses of geothermal heat and fluids for space, agricultural, and industrial heating in situations and localities where naturally occurring hydrothermal features will not be degraded.
Open Space Policy 12.2 Base all geothermal decisions on appropriate data relating to anticipated environmental, cultural, aesthetic, archaeological, and social impacts.
Open Space Policy 12.3 Weigh the benefits of geothermal as a viable energy source against the protection of hot springs, geysers, thermal pools, and other thermal features for their ecological, educational, and recreational values.
Open Space Policy 12.4 Permit geothermal heat utilization for space heating in buildings.
Open Space Policy 16.1 Continue to implement Title 24 of the State Building Code and establish mechanisms and incentives to encourage architects and builders to exceed the energy efficiency standards of Title 24.
Open Space Policy 16.2 Specify energy-efficient materials and systems, including shade design technologies, for County buildings.
Open Space Policy 16.3 Implement public transportation systems that utilize alternative fuels when possible, as well as associated urban design measures that support alternatives to private automobile use.
Open Space Policy 16.4 Undertake proper maintenance of County physical facilities to ensure that optimum energy conservation is achieved.
Open Space Policy 16.5 Utilize Federal, State, and utility company programs that encourage energy conservation.
Open Space Policy 16.7 Promote purchase of energy-efficient equipment based on a fair return on investment, and use energy-savings estimates as one basis for purchasing decisions for major energy-using devices.
Open Space Policy 16.8 Promote coordination of new public facilities with mass transit service and other alternative transportation services, including bicycles, and design structures to enhance mass transit, bicycle, and pedestrian use.
Open Space Policy 16.9 Encourage increased use of passive, solar design, and day-lighting in existing and new structures.
Open Space Policy 16.10 Encourage installation and use of cogenerating systems where they are cost-effective and appropriate.
Effectiveness of Proposed General Plan Policies Implementation of the preceding proposed General Plan policies would help to reduce the effects of growth and development on energy resources. However, the proposed General Plan policies do not provide concrete means of implementation and enforcement. Many policies lack performance standards that ensure appropriate actions and parameters would be achieved. Therefore, additional mitigation measures would be required. Impacts to energy resources due to the additional demand for and consumption of energy resources (natural gas) associated with the prospective growth within the County can be further minimized through implementation of the following mitigation measures.
Mitigation Measures
4.8.1A The County shall review all development proposals prior to the approval of development plans to guarantee that sufficient energy resources and facilities are available to supply adequate energy to the proposed project and associated uses.
4.8.1B The County shall review all development plans prior to approval to guarantee that energy conservation and efficiency standards of Title 24 are met and are incorporated into the design of the future proposed project.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have not substantially altered the meaning and applicability of the policies that pertain to natural gas production. While the revisions to the acreages and locations of designated land uses within the County may affect the potential location of new production locations, the policies and mitigation measures above are general (and not dependent on a specific location) and will effectively reduce impacts relating to this issue to a less than significant impact. Furthermore, changes to the land use designa-tions in the revised General Plan have resulted in a decreased overall demand for natural gas when compared to the General Plan as originally proposed.
Impact 4.8.2 Build out within unincorporated areas of the County will result in a substantial increase in population and residential and non-residential structures, potentially increasing the use of and need for electricity. Due to the growth involved in the proposed General Plan, this increase may potentially result in an impact on existing electrical generating facilities.
Analysis of Impact California has recently endured a disruption of electricity supply as a result of the restructuring of the State's utility industry. This electricity supply and demand disruption has resulted in escalating electricity rates, rolling blackouts, the threat of investor-owned utility bankruptcies, and efforts on the part of the State of California to subsidize, at least temporarily, wholesale purchases of electricity for the State's consumers.
Presently and for the foreseeable future, the national and regional supply of electrical energy is not in jeopardy. The acceleration of the approval and licensing process of additional State power plants will ensure an adequate supply of electricity for State consumers. Recently (May 10, 2001), the California Energy Commission granted a license to AES Corporation, owner of the electrical power plant in Huntington Beach, to operate two additional generators. These generators, producing 450 megawatts, provide enough additional electricity for 337,500 to 450,000 homes. These two power plants will provide California with electrical energy supply capacity and the ability to meet peak load demand in excess of forecasts of regional energy supplies.
Therefore, past shortages of electricity were solved by the additional power plants being brought "on-line" in California. The matter of electrical generation capacity is not one of physical shortages due to power plant limitations; rather, it is a function of market forces and the wholesale cost of electricity. This cost and supply adjustment was evident when energy producers withheld electricity from the market and were unwilling to sell electricity at market prices. This enabled energy suppliers to create a false electricity shortage that artificially inflated prices to a desired point. Suppliers sold electricity at this inflated price. As a result of mandated price caps, California's investor-owned utilities have been required to purchase electricity for their customers on the open market at inflated prices well above their costs.
Loretta Lynch, President of the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC), provided the following explanation of California's electrical demand issue, in public remarks given on April 22, 2001: The supply of electricity available for California at any given time during the past few years has been approximately 41 megawatts. Over the years, the "on-line" production plants have supplied an average capacity to produce 35 megawatts, while plants capable of 6 megawatts of production have been off-line at any given time for repair, maintenance, and upgrading. The State of California is aggressively pursuing solutions to this short-term situation through Congressional action, applications for rulings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and gathering evidence for potential legal action against the wholesale providers for unfair business practices under the California Business and Professions Code.
Table 4.8.B lists the demand of electricity at build out of the proposed General Plan.
| Table 4.8.B Demand of Electricity at Build Out of Proposed General Plan |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Land Use | Development at Build Out |
Electricity Demand Rate |
Monthly Electricity Demand at Build Out |
| Residential | 591,209 |
468.875 kWh/unit/month | 277,203,119 |
| Commercial | 151,894,591 |
1.1 kWh/sf/month | 161,084,050 |
| Industrial | 438,109,927 |
0.875 kWh/sf/month | 383,346,186 |
| Public/Quasi-Public | 273,868,690 |
1.1 kWh/sf/month | 301,255,559 |
| Total | 684,601,745 |
||
| Notes: sf = square feet. KWh = kilowatt hour. Source: CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993. |
|||
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan includes policies to reduce or minimize the effects of the additional demand and consumption of energy resources (electricity) associated with the prospective growth within the County. Implementation of the following proposed General Plan policies would help to reduce the effects of growth and development on energy resources. Implementation of the following policies would help reduce the effects of the additional demand and consumption of energy resources (electricity). To guarantee that significant adverse impacts to energy resources are minimized to a less than significant level, mitigation is provided below.
Potential energy resource impacts can be reduced through implementation of Open Space Policies OS 10.1, 10.2, OS 11.1-11.3, OS 12.1-12.4, OS 16.1-16.5, and OS 16.7 16.10.
Effectiveness of Proposed General Plan Policies Implementation of the preceding proposed General Plan policies would help to reduce the effects of growth and development on energy resources. However, the proposed General Plan policies do not provide concrete means of implementation and enforcement. Many policies lack performance standards that ensure appropriate actions and parameters would be achieved. Therefore, additional mitigation measures would be required. Impacts to energy resources due to the additional demand for and consumption of energy resources (electricity) associated with the prospective growth within the County can be further minimized through implementation of the following mitigation measures.
Mitigation Measures Impacts to energy resources due to the additional demand and consumption of energy resources (electricity) associated with the prospective growth within the County can be further minimized through implementation of mitigation measures 4.8.1A and 4.8.1B.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have not substantially altered the meaning and applicability of the policies that pertain to electricity demand and generation. While the revisions to the acreages and locations of designated land uses within the County may affect the potential demand for power, the policies and mitigation measures above are general (and not tied to specific land uses) and will effectively reduce impacts relating to this issue to a less than significant impact. Furthermore, changes to the land use designations in the revised General Plan have resulted in a decreased overall demand for electricity when compared to the General Plan as originally proposed.
4.8.4 Energy Level of Significance after Mitigation
The implementation of the preceding General Plan policies and mitigation measures will result in less than significant impacts on energy resources. However, it must be noted that electricity costs to consumers will likely increase compared to past levels until additional generating capacity can be brought on-line and the cost and supply adjustment is stabilized.
4.9 Flood and Dam Inundation Hazards
4.9.1 Flood and Dam Inundation Hazards Existing Setting
The existing setting is summarized from the information contained within Section 5.4 of the Existing Setting Report prepared for the 2002 Riverside County General Plan (incorporated by reference).
Flood Hazards
Eleven Gubernatorial and Presidential flood disaster declarations have been made for Riverside County since 1965. Floods that affect the County of Riverside can be attributed to three different types of storm events. The first is a general winter storm that combines high-intensity rainfall and rapid melting of the mountain snow pack. The second is a tropical storm out of the southern Pacific Ocean, and the third is summer thunderstorms, particularly in the desert areas. There are three principal types of flood hazards. These include stream flooding (including bridge scour and stream erosion), flash flooding (including debris and mud flows), and sheetflow flooding (including alluvial fan flooding).
According to the Flood Insurance Study for the County of Riverside (Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA], 1996), most major floods in the County have occurred as a result of general winter storms. However, serious flooding, including potentially lethal flash flooding, has also occurred as a result of summer thunderstorms. Riverside County's average precipitation varies from more than 30 inches per year in the San Jacinto Mountains to less than 5 inches per year in the Blythe region. FEMA flood hazard zones in Riverside County (2000) are shown in Figure 4.9.1.
The major rivers in the western portion of Riverside County are dry most of the year and pose flood threats to developments within the floodplain during general storms of long duration (FEMA, 1996). When a major storm moves into the area, water collects rapidly and becomes surface runoff. Resultant flood flows have predominantly short durations and sharp peaks. Increased urbanization increases flood potential by increasing the percentage of impervious surfaces.
Dam Inundation Hazards
Portions of Riverside County along the Colorado River corridor could suffer from catastrophic failure of dams that are located far outside the borders of Riverside County. These dams include Palo Verde Diversion Dam, Headgate Rock Dam, Parker Dam, Davis Dam, and Hoover Dam. If there were a catastrophic dam failure, it is estimated that it would take a minimum of 23 hours before the floodwaters reach the City of Blythe.
Experience has shown that dams must be made safe before earthquakes occur. Several methods have been used to improve the seismic stability of dams in California. Multiple arch dams are being stiffened, and embankment dams are being buttressed. Reservoir storage restrictions are an effective way to increase dam safety. Temporary storage restrictions have been used to improve the safety of 21 dams in California. Dam failure and innundation zones of Riverside County are shown in Figure 4.9.2. Data for Riverside County dams was obtained from the National Inventory of Dams (NATDAM, 2000), based on 1998-99 data submitted by local agencies. The NATDAM database (FEMA, 1993) is undergoing the addition of 19 new fields and will include dam retrofit information in the future.
Existing Federal Policies and Regulations
National Flood Insurance Program The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is a relatively recent Federal program. The Federal government has been actively involved in flood control since 1927, following major floods on the Mississippi River. Beginning with the Flood Control Act of 1936, Congress assigned the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) the responsibility for flood control engineering works and later for floodplain information services. Flood control was provided through the construction of dams and reservoirs.
Despite these programs and rapidly rising Federal expenditures for flood control, flood losses continued to rise. In 1968, Congress passed the National Flood Insurance Act, which created the NFIP. The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, which also amended the 1968 Act, required the purchase of flood insurance by property owners who were located in special flood hazard areas and were being assisted by Federal programs, or by federally supervised, regulated, or insured agencies or institutions.
National Flood Insurance Program Reform Act of 1994 In 1994, the National Flood Insurance Program Reform Act went through its first major revision since its inception. Included in this revision were provisions that if a lender were to escrow an account and if the structure were in the floodplain, then the lender must escrow for flood insurance. The revised legislation also included increased flood insurance limits and the elimination of the 1962 buy-out program. However, the legislation did initiate the Hazard Mitigation Fund as part of the flood insurance policy. This made it possible to cover the cost of elevating a continuously flood damaged home through the insurance policy. Also included in this legislation was the increase from a 5-day to a 30-day waiting period for a new policy to become effective. It also prohibits the waiver of flood insurance purchase requirements as a condition of receiving Federal disaster assistance. If the flood insurance policy were not maintained, in the event of another disaster, no disaster assistance would be made available for that structure.
Executive Order 11988, Flood Plain Management Executive Order 11988 requires USACE to provide leadership and to take action to:
• Avoid development in the existing 100-year floodplain, unless such development is the only practicable alternative;
• Reduce the hazards and risk associated with floods;
• Minimize the impact of floods on human health, safety, and welfare; and
• Restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values of the current floodplain.
To comply with Executive Order 11988, the policy of USACE is to formulate projects that, to the extent possible, avoid or minimize adverse effects associated with use of the floodplain, and avoid inducing development in an existing floodplain unless there is no practicable alternative.
Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, as amended The Federal Water Project Recreation Act reestablished recreation as a full project purpose, directing that full consideration be given to the outdoor recreation opportunities, if any, of any Federal navigation, flood control, reclamation, hydroelectric, or multipurpose water resource project. The Act also placed additional requirements on recreation as a project purpose, defining the basis for sharing financial responsibilities in joint development, enhancement, and management of recreation and fish and wildlife resources of Federal water projects.
Existing State of California Policies and Regulations
Cobey-Alquist Flood Plain Management Act 8401 The Flood Plain Management Act states that a large portion of land resources of the State of California is subject to recurrent flooding. The public interest necessitates sound development of land use, as land is a limited, valuable, and irreplaceable resource, and the floodplains of the State are a land resource to be developed in a manner that, in conjunction with economically justified structural measures for flood control, will result in prevention of loss of life and of economic loss caused by excessive flooding. The primary responsibility for planning, adoption, and enforcement of land use regulations to accomplish floodplain management rests with local levels of government. It is State of California policy to encourage local levels of government to plan land use regulations to accomplish floodplain management and to provide state assistance and guidance.
Water Code Section 8100 The Water Code states that the boards of supervisors, in their respective counties, may appropriate and expend money from the general fund of a county for any of the following purposes in connection with streams or rivers in the county:
• The construction of works, improvements, levees, or check dams to prevent overflow and flooding;
• The protection and reforestation of watersheds;
• The conservation of the floodwaters;
• The making of all surveys, maps, and plans necessary to carry out any work, construction, or improvement authorized by this article; and
• The carrying out of any work, construction, or improvement authorized by this article outside the county if the rivers or streams affect flow in or through more than one county.
4.9.2 Flood and Dam Inundation Hazards Thresholds of Significance
Implementation of the proposed General Plan from flooding and dam inundation shall be considered to cause significant impacts if it:
• Substantially alters existing drainage patterns within Riverside County; Considerably alters existing drainage patterns such that substantial changes to streamflow velocities, erosion patterns, or siltation would occur;
• Creates or contributes runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems;
• Places housing within a 100-year flood hazard zone; and/or
• Exposes people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding or dam inundation.
4.9.3 Flood and Dam Inundation Hazards Impacts and Mitigation
Potentially Significant Impacts
Increased Stormwater Runoff
Impact 4.9.1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in the development of a significant amount of vacant lands within the County. The addition of impervious surfaces would substantially increase the potential stormwater runoff from areas throughout the County. Existing drainage facilities may not be adequate to accommodate the future potential increase in stormwater runoff. Therefore, the implementation of development in accordance with the proposed General Plan may result in significant impacts related to existing drainage facilities.
Analysis of Impact Build out within presently vacant unincorporated areas of Riverside County will result in an increase in residential and non-residential structures and associated facilities (e.g., roads), increasing the amount of area in the unincorporated County that would be covered in impermeable surfaces, thereby limiting the amount of ground infiltration during storm events. The passage of storm flows over impermeable surfaces would increase the volume and rate of storm runoff. Roads and buildings generate greater amounts of runoff than typical forested land. Fixed drainage channels in urban areas may be unable to contain the runoff generated by relatively small, but intense rainfall events. In addition, with the substantial increase in stormwater runoff caused by new land uses, there would be the potential for an increase in pollutants conveyed to the groundwater basins and surface waters in creeks and rivers. These effects are considered to be significant.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan includes the following policies to reduce or minimize the effects of prospective growth on existing drainage facilities. These policies reduce the effects of growth by providing incentives to preserve the natural watercourse and/or direct storm waters away from existing and planned development in a capable drain system to protect people, property, and riparian habitats from possible flood waters. The proposed policies are as follows:
Safety Policy 4.4 Prohibit alteration of floodways and channelization unless alternative methods of flood control are not technically feasible or unless alternative methods are utilized to the maximum extent practicable. The intent is to balance the need for protection, with prudent land use solutions, recreation needs, and habitat requirements, and as applicable, to provide incentives for natural watercourse preservation, including density transfer programs as may be adopted.
a. Prohibit the construction, location, or substantial improvement of structures in areas designated as floodways, except upon approval of a plan that provides that the proposed development will not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of a 100-year flood discharge.
b. Prohibit the filling or grading of land for nonagricultural purposes and for un non-authorized flood control purposes in areas designated as floodways, except upon approval of a plan that which provides that the proposed development will not result in any significant increase in flood levels during the occurrence of a 100-year flood discharge.
Safety Policy 4.5 Prohibit substantial modification to water courses, unless modification does not increase erosion or adjacent sedimentation, or increase water velocities, so as to be detrimental to adjacent property, or adversely affect adjacent wetlands or riparian habitat.
Safety Policy 4.6 Direct flood control improvement measures toward the protection of existing and planned development.
Safety Policy 4.8 Require development in the floodway fringe, following a site-specific hydrology study, to implement measures that avoid erosion or sedimentation on adjacent land, or water flows or velocities, that would be detrimental to the health and safety of persons or adjacent property, or adversely affect adjacent wetlands or riparian habitat.
Safety Policy 4.10 Require all uses within the floodway fringe to be capable of withstanding flooding and to minimize use of fill. Within the floodway fringe of a floodplain as mapped by FEMA or as determined by site-specific hydrologic studies for areas not mapped by FEMA, require development to be capable of withstanding flooding and to minimize use of fill. However, some development may be compatible within floodplains and floodways, as may some other land uses. In such cases, flood-proofing would not be required. Compatible uses shall not, how-ever, obstruct flows or adversely affect upstream or downstream properties with increased velocities, erosion backwater effects, or concentrations of flows.
Safety Policy 4.11 Require all projects anywhere in the County to address and mitigate any impacts that they may have on the carrying capacity of the local and regional storm drain systems.
Safety Policy 4.19 Require that the design and upgrade of street storm drains be based on the depth of inundation, relative risk to public health and safety, the potential for hindrance of emergency access and regress from excessive flood depth, and the threat of contamination of the storm drain system with sewage effluent. In general, the 10-year flood flows shall be contained within the top of curbs and the 100-year flood flows within the street right-of-way.
Effectiveness of Proposed General Plan Policies Implementation of these proposed General Plan policies related to flooding hazards would reduce the effects of future growth and development in Riverside County on drainage facilities. These policies, however, do not provide for a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) or Letter of Map Revision based on fill (LOMR-F), floodway alterations requirements, or the discussion of certain land uses that may not require flood control. Nor do the policies discuss details concerning containment of 10-year flood flows and 100-year flood flows. In conjunction with the General Plan policies, the following mitigation measures will be implemented.
Mitigation Measures
4.9.1A LOMA and LOMR-F are documents issued by FEMA that officially remove a property and/or structure from a special flood hazard area of a Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). These letters shall be accepted by Riverside County where applicable.
4.9.1B Riverside County shall prohibit alteration of floodways and channelization unless alternative methods of flood control are not found to be technically, economically, and practicably infeasible.
4.9.1C Riverside County shall not necessarily require all land uses to withstand flooding. These may include land uses such as agricultural, golf courses, and trails. For these land uses, flows shall not be obstructed, and upstream and downstream properties shall not be adversely affected by increased velocities, erosion backwater effects, concentration of flows, and adverse impacts to water quality from point and nonpoint sources of pollution.
4.9.1D Riverside County shall require the 10-year flood flows to be contained within the top of curbs and the 100-year flood flows within the street rights-of-way.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have not substantially altered the meaning and applicability of the policies that pertain to increased stormwater runoff and associated flood hazards. The policies and mitigation measures address issues on a project-level basis, and thus would not be affected by the redistribution of land use designation in the revised proposed General Plan. The policies and mitigation measures will reduce the impact associated with stormwater runoff and associated flood hazards to below a level of significance.
Placement of Habitable Structures and Housing Within a 100-Year Flood Hazard Zone
Impact 4.9.2 Implementation of the proposed General Plan would contribute to an increase in development in vacant areas of Riverside County. Development has the potential to increase the risk of flooding, which leads to damage to structures and risk to the health and safety of people. This is a potentially significant impact of the implementation of the proposed General Plan.
Analysis of Impact In addition to an increase in industrial, commercial, and public facilities, the number of dwelling units in Riverside County is expected to grow to 557,849 with the proposed General Plan build out in 2040. This large increase in the demand for dwelling units may cause housing to encroach onto 100-year flood zones and potentially place housing and structures in areas subject to dam inundation. Therefore, the implementation of development in accordance with the proposed General Plan may result in significant impacts related to the placement of habitable structures and homes within 100-year flood zones.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan includes the following policies to reduce or minimize the effects of prospective growth from flooding hazards. These policies prohibit and/or limit development in flood-prone areas. Implementation of these proposed General Plan policies related to flooding hazards would reduce the effects of future growth and development in the County on and from flood hazards.
Safety Policy 4.1 For new construction and proposals for substantial improvements to residential and nonresidential development in 100- and 500-year floodplains as mapped by FEMA or as determined by site-specific hydrologic studies for areas not mapped by FEMA and dam inundation areas, Riverside the County shall apply a minimum level of acceptable risk; and disapprove projects that cannot mitigate the hazard to the satisfaction of the Building Official or other responsible agency.
Safety Policy 4.2 Enforce provisions of the Building Code in conjunction with the following guidelines:
a. The ground floor of any development proposed for human occupancy within any area determined to be a flood hazard shall, at a minimum, be constructed 1.0 foot above the projected inundation depth. All residential, commercial, and industrial structures shall be flood-proofed from the 100-year storm flow, and the finished floor elevation shall be constructed at such a height as to meet this requirement. Critical facilities should be constructed above grade to the satis-faction of the Building Official, based on Federal, state, or other reliable hydrologic studies.
b. Critical facilities shall not be permitted in floodplains unless the project design ensures that there are two routes for emergency egress and regress, and minimizes the potential for debris or flooding to block emergency routes, through the construction of dikes, bridges, or large-diameter storm drains under roads used for primarily access.
c. Facilities Development using, storing, or otherwise involved with substantial quantities of onsite hazardous materials shall not be permitted, unless all standards for elevation, anchoring, and all flood-proofing have been satisfied; and hazardous materials are stored in watertight containers, not capable of floating, to the extent required by State and Federal laws and regulations.
d. Specific flood-proofing measures shall include permanent sealing of grade level openings; may require: use of paints, membranes, or mortar to reduce water seepage through walls; installation of water tight doors, bulkheads, and shutters; installation of flood water pumps in structures; and other proper modification and protection of all electrical equipment, circuits, and appliances so that the risk of electrocution or fire is eliminated. However, fully enclosed areas that are below finished floors shall require openings to equalize the forces on both sides of the walls.
Safety Policy 4.3 Prohibit construction of permanent structures for human housing or employment to the extent necessary to convey floodwaters without property damage or risk to public safety. Agricultural, recreational, or other low-density intensity uses are allowable, if floodplain functions are maintained and groundwater recharge is protected flood control and groundwater recharge functions are maintained.
Safety Policy 4.9 Minimize encroachment of development into the floodway fringe to convey floodwater without property damage and risk to public safety. Allow development within the floodway fringe, if the proposed structures can be adequately flood-proofed and will not contribute to property damage or risks to public safety.
Safety Policy 4.20 Encourage periodic reevaluation of the 500-year, 100-year, and 10-year flood hazard in the County by State, Federal, County and other sources, and use such studies to improve existing protection, to review protection standards proposed for new development and redevelopment, and to update emergency response plans.
Safety Policy 4.21 Balance flood control mitigation with open space and environmental protection.
Safety Policy 4.22 Encourage the use of specific plans to allow increased densities in certain areas of a proposed development; or apply Transfer of Development Credits to encourage the placement of appropriate land uses in natural hazards areas, including open space, passive recreational uses, or other development capable of tolerating these hazards.
Safety Policy 4.23 Take an active role in acquiring property in high-risk flood zones and designating the land as open space for public use or wildlife habitat.
Effectiveness of Proposed General Plan Policies With implementation of the proposed General Plan policies, the risks associated with the placement of habitable structures (any structure than can hold people for any length of time) and housing within a 100year flood hazard would not be significantly adverse. Circumstances, however, where elevation of more than 1 foot may be necessary or the requirement for openings for fully enclosed areas that are situated below finished floors were not addressed. In addition, some land uses that are located within a flood hazard area requiring different flood-proofing was not discussed. Floodway fringe development was also not dealt with. In conjunction with the General Plan policies, the following mitigation measures will be implemented.
4.9.2A Riverside County shall require that all structures (residential, commercial, and industrial) be flood-proofed from the 100-year storm flows. In some cases, this may involve elevating the finished floor more than 1 foot.
4.9.2B Riverside County shall require that fully enclosed areas that are below finished floors have openings to equalize the forces on both sides of the walls.
4.9.2C Riverside County shall require that for agricultural, recreation, or other low-density uses, flows are not obstructed and that upstream and downstream properties are not adversely affected by increased velocities, erosion backwater effects, or concentration of flows.
4.9.2D Provided the applicant does hydrological studies, engineers structures to be safe from flooding, and provides evidence that the structures will not adversely impact the floodplain, Riverside County shall may allow development into the floodway fringe if the proposed structures can be adequately flood-proofed.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have not substantially altered the meaning and applicability of the policies that pertain to placing housing in or near a floodplain. Changes to the policies have primarily provided more measurable standards or more stringent conditions, and have not become more lax. The policies and mitigation measures address issues on a project-level basis, and thus would not be affected by the redistribution of land use designation in the revised proposed General Plan. The policies and mitigation measures will reduce the impact associated with placing housing in or near a floodplain to below a level of significance.
Dam Inundation Hazards
Impact 4.9.3 The implementation of the proposed General Plan may place habitable structures within dam inundation areas. This is a potentially significant impact of the implementation of the proposed General Plan.
Analysis of Impact Not all dams within the County have designated dam inundation areas. As there has never been an historical dam failure in Riverside County, the risk of dam failure, no matter how remote, should be assumed to exist. Previously referenced Figure 4.9.2 shows the potential dam innundation areas. Development planned in these areas is assumed to be at risk in the event of a structural dam failure or a dam failure as a result of a seismic event (earthquake). The location of habitable structures in the dam innundation areas is a potentially significant impact of the proposed General Plan.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan includes the following policies to reduce or minimize the effects of prospective growth from dam inundation hazards. These policies prohibit and/or limit development in dam inundation areas.
Safety Policy 4.1 For new construction and proposals for substantial improvements to residential and nonresidential development in 100- and 500-year floodplains as mapped by FEMA or as determined by site-specific hydrologic studies for areas not mapped by FEMA and dam inundation areas, Riverside the County shall apply a minimum level of acceptable risk; and disapprove projects that cannot mitigate the hazard to the satisfaction of the Building Official or other responsible agency.
Safety Policy 4.12 Encourage neighboring jurisdictions to require development occurring adjacent to the County to consider impact inundation protection in the County of Riverside the impact of flooding and flood control measures on properties within unincorporated Riverside County.
Safety Policy 4.17 Utilize public land acquisition and other land use measures to create open space zoning inundation zones in areas that are destined for redevelopment. When this is not feasible, low density land uses shall be employed.
Safety Policy 4.18 Continue to assess and upgrade inundation risk and protection in the County.
Effectiveness of Proposed General Plan Policies Implementation of these proposed General Plan policies related to dam inundation hazards would reduce the effects of growth and development to ensure that future development in Riverside County would not have any significant adverse impacts from dam inundation hazards. No additional mitigation measures are required.
Existing County of Riverside Requirements The following existing County requirements will also reduce the risk of flood hazards on future development within the unincorporated areas of the County.
• Riverside County shall work with property owners and FEMA to revise the FIRM to correctly show the limits of the 100-year flood zone. Revisions to the FIRM will eliminate the need for flood insurance on properties that are protected from flood-related hazards.
• Riverside County shall continue to adopt and promote flood safety standards set forth by FEMA in areas susceptible to flooding and to identify and map areas that are prone to flooding and dam inundation.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have not substantially altered the meaning and applicability of the policies that pertain to dam inundation. The policies and additional requirements address issues on a project-level basis, and thus would not be affected by the redistribution of land use designation in the revised proposed General Plan. The policies and mitigation measures will reduce the impact associated with dam inundation to below a level of significance.
4.9.4 Flood Hazards and Dam Inundation Level of Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of the previous existing County of Riverside requirements and policies in the proposed General Plan and mitigation measures will reduce the flood hazard impacts by keeping development out of flood-prone areas and ensuring that drainage facilities are kept adequate. In addition, adherence to the National Flood Insurance Program Reform Act of 1994, Federal Executive Order 11988, the Cobey-Alquist Flood Plain Management Act 8401, and Water Code Section 8100 will minimize the effects of flood hazards to a less than significant level.
4.10 Geology and Slope Stability
4.10.1 Geology and Slope Stability Existing Setting
The existing setting is summarized from the information contained within Section 5.2 of the Existing Setting Report prepared for the 2002 Riverside County General Plan and Natural Hazard Mapping, Analysis, and Mitigation: A Technical Background Report in Support of the Safety Element of the New Riverside County 2000 General Plan (incorporated by reference).
Two of California's most active faults, the San Andreas and the San Jacinto faults, traverse Riverside County. Both of these faults, as well as the Elsinore fault zone, have the potential to generate future earthquakes within Riverside County. In addition to these faults, other earthquake source zones exist outside the County. Earthquakes can cause loss of life and property, and devastating economic damages. Because impacts resulting from earthquakes typically extend over a wide area, they can overwhelm local jurisdictions and hamper the delivery of emergency services. The seismic hazards that have the greatest potential to severely affect Riverside County are seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, and surface fault rupture. Secondary hazards such as seismically induced settlement, seismically induced slope instability, and seiches may also occur as the result of a significant seismic event.
Fault Hazard Zones
Primary ground damage due to earthquake fault rupture typically results in a relatively small percentage of the total damage in an earthquake, but being too close to a rupturing fault can cause profound damage. It is difficult to reduce this hazard through structural design. The primary mitigative technique is to set back from, and avoid, active faults. The challenge comes in identifying all active faults. Faults throughout Southern California have formed over millions of years. Some of these faults are generally considered inactive with the present geologic conditions. Other faults are known to be active. Such faults have either generated earthquakes in historical times (the last 200 years) or show geologic and geomorphic indications of relatively recent movement. Faults that have moved in the relatively recent geological past are generally presumed to be the most likely candidates to generate damaging earthquakes in the lifetimes of residents, buildings, or communities.
Earthquakes in Southern California occur as a result of movement between the Pacific and North American plates. Faults of the San Andreas system are used to mark the boundary between the plates, but the deformation, faulting, and associated earthquakes occur in a broadly distributed zone that stretches from offshore to Nevada. Thus, the San Andreas is one of a system of plate-bounding faults. Most of the movement between the plates occurs along the San Andreas fault, which bisects Riverside County. The rest of the motion is distributed among northwest-trending, strike-slip faults of the San Andreas system (principally the San Jacinto, Elsinore, Newport-Inglewood, and Palos Verdes faults), several east-trending thrust faults that bound the Transverse Ranges, and the Eastern Mojave Shear Zone (a series of faults east of the San Andreas, responsible for the 1992 Landers and the 1999 Hector Mine earthquakes).
Alquist-Priolo Zones have been designated by the California Geologic Survey for the Elsinore, San Jacinto, and San Andreas fault zones in Riverside County (Figure 4.10.1). Additionally, the County of Riverside has applied special studies zone criteria for the Agua Caliente fault zone between the Elsinore and San Jacinto faults in southern Riverside County. All of these faults have high rates of displacement and are rapidly accumulating strain energy to be released in earthquakes. Inevitably, the A-P Zones will expand with time. As faults are studied, more splays are discovered.
Ground Shaking
For design purposes, a worst-case scenario earthquake (the maximum credible earthquake [MCE]) for Riverside County is a magnitude 7.9 based on the rupture of the entire southern segment of the San Andreas fault from the Cajon Pass to the Salton Sea. While other scenarios will expose portions of Riverside County to intense ground shaking that is locally as severe as the MCE, the MCE exposes most of the County to very high-intensity ground shaking.
Ground shaking is the movement of the earth resulting from an earthquake. Shaking can cause lateral movement and vertical ground acceleration which can contribute to the collapse of buildings. building reason for collapse of buildings. The strength of seismic ground shaking at any given site is a function of many factors. Of primary importance are the size of the earthquake, its distance, the paths the waves take as they travel through the earth, the rock or soils underlying the site, and topography (particularly whether a site sits in a valley or atop a hill). The amount of damage also depends on the size, shape, age, and engineering characteristics of the affected structures. The interaction of ground motion and human-made structures is complex. Governing factors include a structure's height, construction, and stiffness; a soil's strength and resonant period; and the period of high-amplitude seismic waves. Waves come in different lengths and thus repeat their motions with varying frequency. Long waves are called long-period or low-frequency. Short waves are short-period or high-frequency. In general, long-period seismic waves, which are characteristic of large earthquakes, are most likely to damage long-period structures such as high-rise buildings and bridges. Shorter period seismic waves, which tend to die out quickly, will most often cause damage near the epicenter of the earthquake, damaging structures such as one-story and two-story buildings. Very short period waves are most likely to cause non-structural damage, such as to equipment. In different situations, ground displacement, velocity, and acceleration can cause damage.
Estimates of several key ground shaking parameters near the fault rupture zone for the MCE, expressed as a percentage of gravity, are presented in Table 4.10.A. Peak ground acceleration, which is the maximum acceleration achieved at a site, often turns out to be the earthquake effect that causes most damage to buildings. The periods, 0.3 second and 1.0 second, represent lengths of seismic waves that commonly damage structures. All of these values are well above the threshold for heavy damage.
Maximum Magnitude: the magnitude of an earthquake event based on the amount of energy released. This measurement is more accurate for large earthquake events. Source: Natural Hazard Mapping, Analysis and Mitigation: A Technical Background Report in Support of the New Riverside County General Plan |
||||
| Table 4.10.A: Fault Source Parameters for Riverside County | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fault Name and Geometry1 | Distance from County (km) | Length | Slip Rate | Maximum Magnitude2 | Maximum PGA3 | Average Return Interval (yrs) | Comments | ||
| (km) | +/- | (mm/ yr) |
+/- | ||||||
| San Andreas-Coachella (rl-ss) | 0 | 95 | 10 | 25 | 5 | 7.1 | 0.51 | na | Slip rate based on Sieh and Williams (1990); Sieh (1986); Keller et al. (1982); Bronkowski (1981). Model assumes slip only in S. San Andreas events. |
| San Andreas-San Bernardino (rl-ss) | 0 | 107 | 11 | 24 | 6 | 7.3 | 0.53 | 146 | Slip rate reported by Weldon and Sieh (1985). |
| San Andreas (southern) (rl-ss) | 0 | 203 | 20 | 24 | 6 | 7.4 | 0.48 | 220 | Rupture of San Bernardino and Coachella segments. Slip rate based on Coachella segment. |
| San Andreas-Mojave (rl-ss) | >30 | 99 | 10 | 30 | 7 | 7.1 | 0.25 | 150 | Slip rate based on Sieh (1984), Salyards et al. (1992), and WGCEP (1995). |
| San Jacinto-Coyote Creek (rl-ss) | 0 | 40 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 6.8 | 0.48 | 175 | Slip rate and fault length from WGCEP (1995). |
| San Jacinto-Anza (rl-ss) | 0 | 90 | 9 | 12 | 6 | 7.2 | 0.52 | 250 | Slip rate and fault length from WGCEP (1995). |
| San Jacinto-San Jacinto Valley (rl-ss) | 0 | 42 | 4 | 12 | 6 | 6.9 | 0.49 | 83 | Slip rate and fault length from WGCEP (1995). |
| San Jacinto-San Bernardino (rl-ss) | 0 | 35 | 4 | 12 | 6 | 6.7 | 0.53 | 100 | Slip rate and fault length from WGCEP (1995). |
| Elsinore-Temecula (rl-ss) | 0 | 42 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 6.8 | 0.47 | 240 | Slip rate and fault length from WGCEP (1995). |
| Elsinore-Glen Ivy (rl-ss) | 0 | 38 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 6.8 | 0.48 | 340 | Reported slip rates vary from 3.0-7.2 (Millman and Rockwell 1986) |
| Whittier (rl-ss) | 0 | 37 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 6.8 | 0.48 | 641 | Slip rate based on Rockwell et al. (1990); Gath et al. (1992) description of offset drainage. |
| Chino-Central Ave. (rl-r-o) | 0 | 28 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 6.7 | 0.47 | 882 | Unconstrained slip rate based on assumptions of slip transfer between Elsinore and Whittier faults. |
| 1 STYLE OF FAULT: (ss) strike slip, (r) reverse, (n) normal, (o) oblique SENSE OF SLIP: (rl) right lateral, (ll) left lateral 2 Maximum moment magnitude calculated from rupture area regressions (type "all") (from Wells and Coppersmith, 1994). 3 Maximum estimated horizontal peak ground acceleration as a percentage of gravity on bedrock, at closest Riverside County location (from CDMG). |
|||||||||
These design parameters for the MCE are utilized to estimate losses in an earthquake. With horizontal ground displacements as great as 25 feet along the fault and intense ground shaking that could last more than 60 seconds, damage and losses in Riverside County as a result of the MCE or other major San Andreas fault earthquakes would be extensive. In addition, Riverside County must consider events on several faults. Earthquakes that are likely to occur during the design life of most buildings could be generated by segments of the Elsinore, San Jacinto, or San Andreas faults. These have been evaluated by the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (1995) and illustrated in Figure 4.10.2. Based on this segmentation, there are seven types of probable earthquakes that threaten Riverside County. The event with the greatest probability of occurrence in 30 years (43 percent) is a maximum magnitude (Mw) 6.9 rupture of the San Jacinto Valley segment of the San Jacinto fault. The San Jacinto event is considered the maximum probable event (MPE) for Riverside County.
Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a process by which water-saturated materials (including soil, sediment, and certain types of volcanic deposits) lose strength and fail during strong ground shaking. Liquefaction is defined as "the transformation of a granular material from a solid state into a liquefied state as a consequence of increased pore-water pressure." Liquefaction occurs worldwide, commonly during moderate to great earthquakes. Four kinds of ground failure commonly result from liquefaction: lateral spread, flow failure, ground oscillation, and loss of bearing strength.
In California, some of the liquefaction-related ground failures include the following:
• 1857 Fort Tejon earthquake
• 1906 San Francisco earthquake
• 1933 Long Beach earthquake
• 1971 San Fernando earthquake
• 1973 Point Mugu earthquake
• 1979 and 1981 Imperial Valley earthquakes
• 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake
• 1994 Northridge earthquake.
In 1997 and 1998, the California Geological Survey (CGS) developed guidelines for delineating, evaluating, and mitigating seismic hazards in California. In 1999, a sponsored group published "Recommended Procedures for Implementation of CGS Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California." Liquefaction Hazard Zones are areas meeting one or more of the following criteria:
• Areas known to have experienced liquefaction during historic earthquakes;
• All areas of uncompacted fills containing liquefaction-susceptible material that are saturated, nearly saturated, or may be expected to become saturated; or
• Areas where sufficient existing geotechnical data and analyses indicate that the soils are potentially liquefiable.
Areas within Riverside County susceptible to liquefaction hazards are depicted in Figure 4.10.3. The characteristics of the various liquefaction hazard zones are detailed in Table 4.10.B.
| Table 4.10.B General Liquefaction Potential Zones for Riverside County |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rank | Groundwater Depth2 | General3 Sediment Type | Recommended Policies1 | |
| General Construction | Critical4 Facilities | |||
| High | < 30 feet | Very Susceptible | Study Required | Study Required |
| Moderate | < 30 feet | Susceptible | Study Required | Study Required |
| 30-50 feet | Very Susceptible | Study Required | Study Required | |
| Low | > 30 feet | Susceptible | None | Study Required |
| Very Low | 30-50 feet | Susceptible | None | Study Required |
| 50-100 | Very Susceptible | None | Study Required | |
| Extremely Low | 50-100 feet | Susceptible | None | Study Required |
| None | > 100 feet | Susceptible | None | None |
| no data | Bedrock | None | None | |
| Notes: < = less than > = greater than 1 Ground shaking potential in easternmost Riverside County is considered below the threshold for liquefaction, and site-specific investigations should not be required for general construction projects. 2 Groundwater depth is based on the historic high measurement. 3 Very susceptible sediment type includes generally granular Holocene sediments; susceptible includes generally granular Pleistocene sediments. 4 Critical facilities are facilities designed to remain functional during and immediately after an earthquake. |
||||
Landslides and Rockfalls
Hillsides, generally speaking, can be unstable platforms for development. Unless a landslide is already occurring, a steep slope can generally be thought of as existing in a state of equilibrium. When this equilibrium is disturbed by development in hillside areas, the likelihood of slope failure, soil erosion, silting of lower slopes, and downstream flooding increases.
There are predictable relationships between local geology and mass wasting processes like landslides and rockfall. Slope stability is dependent on many factors and their interrelationships. Rock type and pore water pressure are possibly the most important factors, followed by slope steepness due to natural or man-made undercutting. In addition, many existing landslides and soil slumps have been mapped within Riverside County. Where slopes have failed before, they will fail again. Field investigation enables identification of failure-prone slopes before an earthquake occurs.
Factors controlling the stability of slopes include the following:
• Slope height and inclination;
• Engineering characteristics of the earth materials comprising the slope; and/or
• Intensity of ground shaking.
Seismically induced landslides and rockfalls would be expected throughout Riverside County in the event of a major earthquake or human activity. Factors contributing to the stability of slopes include slope height and steepness, engineering characteristics of the earth materials comprising the slope, and intensity of ground shaking. It is estimated that a ground acceleration of at least 0.10 g in steep terrain is necessary to in duce earthquake-related rockfalls, although exceeding this value does not guarantee that rockfalls will occur. Because there are several faults capable of generating peak ground accelerations of over 0.10 g in Riverside County, there is a high potential for seismically induced rockfalls and landslides to occur.
Areas of steep slopes within the County are depicted in Figure 4.10.4. Additional data on this issue is included in Sections 5.2 (Geotechnical Hazards) and 5.6 (Steep Slopes) of the Existing Setting Report.
Seismically Induced Ground Settlement
Whether seismically induced settlement will occur depends on the intensity and duration of ground shaking, and the relative density (the ratio between the in-place density and the maximum density) of the subsurface soils. Sediments in the alluvial valleys of the County were deposited fairly rapidly, which may lead to conditions of low density sediments that can settle in an earthquake. Therefore, many of the valley regions that contain relatively recent sediments may be susceptible to some degree of seismic settlement. The extent of relatively young sediments with moderate to locally high potential for settlement may be correlated with areas of valley fill represented on subsidence susceptibility mapping described in Section 5.5 (Slope and Soil Instability) of the Existing Setting Report.
As demonstrated by past earthquakes, seismic settlement is primarily damaging in areas subject to differential settlement. These can include cut-and-fill transition lots built on hillsides, where a portion of the house is built over an area cut into the hillside while the remaining portion of the house projects over man-made fill. During an earthquake, even slight settlement of the fill can cause differentially settled structure, leading to significant repair costs.
Subsidence and Collapsible Soils
Ground subsidence is typically a gradual settling or sinking of the ground surface with little or no horizontal movement, although fissures (cracks and separations) are common. Subsidence can range from small or local collapses to broad regional lowering of the earth's surface. While subsidence typically occurs throughout a susceptible valley, additional displacement and fissures occur at or near the valley margin. Susceptible valleys are predominantly filled with unconsolidated sand, and silty sand that includes thin layers of silt and clayey silt. Fine-grained alluvium and organic matter often underlie the fissure areas. Two types of fissures are associated with subsidence. The first is generally straight and corresponds to the traces of faults, while the second is more curvilinear on the surface and appears to correspond to the alluvium-bedrock contact at valley margins.
The causes of subsidence are as diverse as the forms of failure. They include dewatering of peat or organic soils; dissolution in limestone aquifers; first-time wetting of moisture-deficient, low-density soils (hydrocompaction); natural compaction; liquefaction; crustal deformation; subterranean mining; and withdrawal of fluids (groundwater, petroleum, geothermal, etc.). Most of the damaging levels of subsidence are induced by the extraction of oil, gas, or groundwater from below the ground surface, or the organic decomposition of peat deposits, with a resultant loss in volume. Ground subsidence can also occur as a response to natural forces, such as earthquake movements, and the evolution of a sedimentary basin as it folds and subsides. Earthquakes can cause abrupt elevation changes of several feet.
Ground subsidence can disrupt surface drainage, reduce aquifer system storage, form earth fissures, and damage wells, buildings, roads, and utility infrastructure. Regional subsidence generally damages structures that are sensitive to slight changes in elevations, such as canals, sewers, and drainages. In Riverside County, risk due to regional subsidence is greatest at valley margins.
Subsidence and fissuring have been caused by falling groundwater tables and by hydrocollapse when groundwater tables rise in Riverside County. In addition, many fissures have occurred along active faults that bound the San Jacinto Valley and Elsinore Trough.
Figure 4.10.5 depicts areas of documented subsidence and other areas of Riverside County that may be susceptible to subsidence. Subsidence has only been documented in three areas of the County. These areas include the following:
• The Elsinore Trough, including Temecula and Murrieta;
• The San Jacinto Valley from Hemet to Moreno Valley; and
• The southern Coachella Valley.
These areas are all potentially sensitive to the withdrawal of groundwater. Depending on the depth and mechanical properties of the aquifer and the overlying sediments, they can subside if groundwater resources are not managed properly. Mitigation of ground subsidence usually requires a regional approach to groundwater conservation and recharge. Such mitigation measures are difficult to implement if the geology of the aquifer and overlying sediment are not well understood. Furthermore, conservation efforts can be quickly offset by rapid growth and attendant heavy water requirements (golf courses, for example, consume about 8 acre-feet of water per acre per year). Further, it is not uncommon for several jurisdictions to utilize a continuous groundwater aquifer. Mitigation requires regional cooperation among all agencies.
Hydroconsolidation, or soil collapse, typically occurs in recently deposited Holocene (less than 10,000 years before present time) soils that were deposited in an arid or semiarid environment. Soils prone to collapse are commonly associated with man-made fill, wind-laid sands and silts, and alluvial fan and mudflow sediments deposited during flash floods. Particles of these soils, which typically contain minute pores and voids, may be partially supported by clay or silt, or chemically cemented with carbonates. When saturated, collapsible soils undergo a rearrangement of their grains and the water removes the cohesive (or cementing) material, and a rapid, substantial settlement may occur. An increase in surface water infiltration (such as from irrigation) or a rise in the groundwater table, combined with the weight of a building or structure, may initiate settlement, causing foundations and walls to crack.
In Riverside County, collapsible soils occur predominantly at the bases of the mountains, where Holocene-aged alluvial sediments have been deposited during rapid runoff events. Additionally, some windblown sands may be vulnerable to collapse and hydroconsolidation. Typically, differential settlement of structures occurs when lawns or plantings are heavily irrigated in close proximity to a structure's foundation.
Expansive soils have a significant amount of clay particles that can give up water (shrink) or take on water (swell). The change in volume exerts stress on buildings and other loads placed on these soils. The occurrence of these soils is often associated with geologic units having marginal stability. The distribution of expansive soils can be widely dispersed, and they can occur in hillside areas as well as low-lying alluvial basins.
Expansive Soils
Although expansive soils are now routinely alleviated by following the Riverside County Building Code, problems related to past inadequate codes constantly appear. Expansive soils are not the only cause of structural distress in existing structures. Poor compaction and construction practices, settlement, and landslides can cause similar damage, but require different mediation efforts. Once expansion has been verified as the source of the problem, mitigation can be achieved through reinforcement of the existing foundation, or through the excavation and removal of the expansive soils in the affected area.
Wind Erosion
Wind erosion damages land and natural vegetation by removing soil from one place and depositing it in another. It mostly affects dry, sandy soils in flat, bare areas, but wind erosion may occur wherever soil is loose, dry, and finely granulated. It causes soil loss, dryness, deterioration of soil structure, nutrient and productivity losses, air pollution, and sediment transport and deposition. The presence of dust particles in the air is a source of several major health problems. Atmospheric dust causes respiratory discomfort, may carry pathogens that cause eye infections and skin disorders, and reduces highway and air traffic visibility. Buildings, fences, roads, crops, trees and shrubs can all be damaged by blowing soil, which acts as an abrasive.
Wind and windblown sand are an environmentally limiting factor throughout much of Riverside County. Approximately 20 percent of the land area of the County is vulnerable to high and very high wind erosion susceptibility. The Coachella Valley, the Santa Ana River channel, and areas in the vicinity of the City of Hemet have been identified as zones of high wind erosion susceptibility. Areas susceptible to wind erosion hazards are identified in Figure 4.10.6.
Windblown sand is a well-recognized hazard for developments in the Coachella Valley. It has forced abandonment of dwellings and subdivided tracts in the Central Coachella Valley. The primary source of sand in the Coachella Valley is the Whitewater River. Increases in the amount of windblown sand are related to episodic flooding of the Whitewater River. A 15-fold increase in wind erosion rates in the Coachella Valley has been documented following heavy flood events. Therefore, mitigation of windblown sand is directly related to mitigation of flood potential on the Whitewater River.
Because windblown sand from the Whitewater River floodplain provides a large component of the sand that sustains dune fields that, in turn, sustain several endangered species, erosion intervention efforts must be cautiously considered.
Additional data related to this issue is included in Section 5.5 (Wind Hazards) of the Existing Setting Report.
Soil Erosion/Loss of Topsoil
Soil erosion is the process by which soil particles are removed from a land surface by wind, water, or gravity. Most natural erosion occurs at slow rates; however, the rate of erosion increases when land is cleared or altered and left in a disturbed condition. The primary factors that influence erosion include soil characteristics, vegetative cover, topography, and climate. Soil characteristics that determine the erodibility of a soil are particle size and gradation, organic content, soil structure, and soil permeability. Soils with a high proportion of silt and very fine clays are generally the most erodible. Organic matter creates a favorable soil structure, improving soil stability and permeability, which increases the soil's capacity for the infiltration of water, delays the start of erosion, and reduces the amount of runoff. In addition, the less permeable the soil, the higher the likelihood for erosion. Vegetative cover assists in erosion control by shielding the soil surface from the impact of falling rain or blowing wind. Vegetation slows the velocity of runoff, permits greater infiltration, maintains the soil's capacity to absorb water, and holds soil particles in place.
Topography and the length and steepness of slopes, are crucial to determining the volume and velocity of runoff. As slope length and/or steepness increases, the rate of runoff increases and the potential for erosion is magnified. Climate is a fundamental factor affecting the potential for soil erosion. When and where precipitation is frequent, intense, or prolonged, the potential for soil erosion is increased.
Existing Policies and Regulations
Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Act Surface rupture is the most easily avoided seismic hazard. The Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act was signed into law in 1972. In 1994, it was renamed the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (A-P Act). The primary purpose of the A-P Act is to mitigate the hazard of fault rupture by prohibiting the location of structures for human occupancy across the trace of an active fault. Passage of this law was a direct result of the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake. Extensive surface fault ruptures during this earthquake damaged numerous homes, commercial buildings, and other structures.
The A-P Act requires the State Geologist (Chief of the CGS) to delineate "Earthquake Fault Zones" along faults that are "sufficiently active" and "well defined." Sufficiently active faults show evidence of Holocene surface displacement along one or more or their segments. Well-defined faults are clearly detectable by a trained geologist as a physical feature at or just below the ground surface. The boundary of an "Earthquake Fault Zone" is generally about 500 feet from major active faults, and 200 to 300 feet from well-defined minor faults. The A-P Act dictates that cities and counties withhold development permits for sites within an Alquist-Priolo (A-P) Zone, until geologic investigations demonstrate that the sites are not threatened by surface displacements from future faulting.
A-P Zone mapping has been completed by the State Geologist for the 45 quadrangles in Riverside County. The maps are distributed to all affected cities, counties, and state agencies for their use in developing planning policies and controlling renovation or new construction. Local agencies must regulate most development projects within the A-P Zones. Projects include all land divisions and most structures constructed for human occupancy. While state law exempts single family wood-frame dwellings and steel-frame dwellings that are less than three stories and are not part of a development of four units or more, local regulations may be more restrictive than state law.
Before a project can be permitted within an identified Earthquake Fault Zone, cities and counties must require a geologic investigation to demonstrate that proposed buildings will not be constructed across active faults. A site-specific evaluation and written report site must be prepared by a licensed geologist. If an active fault is identified, a structure intended for human occupancy cannot be placed over the trace of the fault and must be set back, generally no closer than 50 feet from the fault.
The A-P Act only addresses the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards.
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act Passed in 1990, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (SHMA) addresses non-surface fault rupture earthquake hazards, including strong ground shaking, liquefaction, and seismically induced landslides.
The CGS is the principal State agency charged with implementing the 1990 SHMA. Pursuant to the SHMA, the CGS is directed to provide local governments with seismic hazard zone maps that identify areas susceptible to amplified shaking, liquefaction, earthquake-induced landslides, and other ground failures. The goal is to minimize loss of life and property by identifying and mitigating seismic hazards. The seismic hazard zones delineated by the CGS are referred to as "zones of required investigation." Site-specific geotechnical hazard investigations are required by SHMA when construction projects fall within these areas. The CGS, pursuant to the 1990 SHMA, has not completed any mapping for Riverside County, nor is any planned for the foreseeable future.
Natural Hazards Disclosure Act Effective June 1, 1998, the Natural Hazards Disclosure Act requires that sellers of real property and their agents provide prospective buyers with a "Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement" when the property being sold lies within one or more State-mapped hazard areas. If a property is located in a Seismic Hazard Zone as shown on a map issued by the State Geologist, the seller or the seller's agent must disclose this fact to potential buyers.
Riverside County Building and Fire Codes The County Department of Building and Safety provides technical expertise in reviewing and enforcing the Building and Fire Codes. These codes establish site-specific investigation requirements, construction standards, and inspection procedures to ensure that development does not pose a threat to the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Every three years, the County's Building and Fire Codes are adapted from the Uniform Building and Fire Codes. The Uniform Building and Fire Codes contain minimum baseline standards to guard against unsafe development.
The Building Earthquake Safety Act of 1986 requires all local governments to identify all potentially hazardous buildings within their jurisdictions and to establish a program for mitigation of identified hazards. It is the legislative basis for the inventory of hazardous unreinforced masonry buildings and Unreinforced Masonry Ordinances adopted by most counties and cities in California.
The Recovery (and) Reconstruction Act of 1986 authorizes local governments to prepare for expeditious and orderly recovery before a disaster and reconstruction afterward. It enables localities to prepare pre-disaster plans and ordinances that may include: an evaluation of the vulnerability of specific areas to damage from a potential disaster; streamlined procedures for appropriate modification of existing General Plans or zoning ordinances affecting vulnerable areas; a contingency plan of action; organization for post-disaster, short-term and long-term recovery and reconstruction; and a pre-disaster ordinance to provide adequate local authorization for post-disaster activities.
4.10.2 Geology and Slope Stability Thresholds of Significance
Potential impacts related to geologic hazards will be considered significant if they violate or are in conflict with any of the above policies, ordinances, regulations, or guidelines, or if the potential impact will endanger the health and/or safety of the public by creating or worsening an adverse safety condition or health hazard.
The effects of the implementation of the 2002 Riverside County General Plan on geology and slope stability are considered to be significant if they:
• Expose people or structures to major geologic hazards beyond an acceptable level;
• Permit development in areas of unsuitable and unmitigable geologic conditions; or
• Create substantial erosion or otherwise diminish soil as a natural resource.
4.10.3 Geology and Slope Stability Impacts and Mitigation
Potentially Significant Impacts
Fault Rupture
Impact 4.10.1 Future development permitted by the proposed General Plan may increase the potential for property loss, injury, or death resulting from development on or adjacent to known and/or as of yet undetected earthquake fault zones. Impacts associated with this issue are potentially significant.
Analysis of Impact At build out of the proposed General Plan, approximately 1.77 million persons will reside in 591,209 dwelling units throughout unincorporated areas of the County. Approximately 459 million square feet of commercial, industrial, office, business park, and public facility uses are anticipated to be developed within the unincorporated areas of the County.
As detailed in Figure 4.10.1, Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault hazard zones have been established along the traces of the Elsinore, San Jacinto, and San Andreas Faults. Some lands within existing Alquist-Priolo zones, or County-designated fault zones are designated "Community Development" or "Rural" in the proposed General Plan. Future development on these lands, as envisioned in the proposed General Plan, may result in the construction and occupation of structures, critical facilities, and pipelines adjacent to known and/or as yet undetected earthquake fault zones. Such development would increase the number of persons and the amount of developed property exposed to fault rupture hazards. To lessen the potential for property loss, injury, or death that could result from rupture(s) of faults during earthquake events, policies and mitigation measures have been identified, the implementation of which will reduce potential impacts associated with fault rupture hazards to a less than significant level.
Existing County of Riverside Requirements Riverside County Ordinance 547 establishes that all applicants for a project located within an earthquake fault zone as shown on the maps prepared by the State Geologist, shall comply with all of the provisions of the A-P Act and the adopted policies and criteria of this ordinance.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan includes the following policies to reduce or minimize the effects associated with fault rupture on residents and habitable structures. The following policies directly address potential impacts to faults identified in the A-P Act. The effectiveness of the policies at reducing such impacts is analyzed below and additional mitigation measures have been identified. The implementation of these will reduce potential impact related to this issue to a less than significant level.
Safety Policy 2.1 Minimize fault rupture hazards through enforcement of Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act provisions and the following policies:
a. Require geologic studies or analyses for critical structures, and lifeline, high-occupancy buildings, schools, and high-risk structures within 0.5 mile of all Quaternary to historic faults shown on the Earthquake Studies Zones map.
b. Require geologic trenching studies within all designated Earthquake Fault Study Zones unless adequate evidence, as determined and accepted by the County Engineering Geologist, is presented. The County may require geologic trenching of non-zoned faults for especially critical or vulnerable structures or lifelines.
c. Require that lifelines be designed to resist, without failure, their crossing of a fault, should fault rupture occur.
d. Support efforts by the California Geologic Survey to develop geologic and engineering solutions in areas of ground deformation caused by faulting, in those areas where a through-going fault cannot be reliably located.
e. Encourage and support efforts by the geologic research community to better define the locations and risks of County faults. Such efforts could include data sharing and database development with regional entities, other local governments, private organizations, utility agencies or companies, and local universities.
Safety Policy 3.3 Before issuance of building permits, require certification regarding the stability of a project site against the adverse effects of earthquake.
Safety Policy 7.7d Review proposed uses of fault setback areas close to ensure that County infrastructure (roads, utilities, drains) are not unduly placed at risk by the developer. Insurance, bonding, or compensation plans should be used to compensate the County for the potential costs of repair.
Effectiveness of Proposed General Plan Policies While implementation of the aforementioned policies would reduce the significance of potential fault rupture impacts, they do not address potential impact related to undiscovered faults or impacts that may be identified through the use of new scientific data, equipment, or procedures. To provide adequate mitigation for potential fault rupture hazards, mitigation measures have been identified to provide flexibility to the County in requiring site-specific geotechnical investigations in any area falling within identified or as yet unidentified fault zones. Adherence to the mitigation measures identified below will reduce potential impacts associated with this issue to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures
4.10.1A Before a project is approved or otherwise permitted within an A-P Zone, County Fault Zone, within 150 feet of any other active or potentially active fault mapped in a published United State Geologic Survey (USGS) or CGS reports, or within other potential earthquake hazard area (as determined by the County Geologist), a site-specific geologic investigation shall be prepared to assess potential seismic hazards resulting from development of the project site. Where and when required, the geotechnical investigation shall address the issue(s), hazard(s), and geographic area(s) determined by the County Geologist to be relevant to each development. The site-specific geotechnical investigation shall incorporate up-todate data from government and non-government sources.
Based on the site-specific geotechnical investigation, no structures intended for human occupancy shall be constructed across active faults. This site-specific evaluation and written report shall be prepared by a licensed geologist and shall be submitted to the County Geologist for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. If an active fault is discovered, any structure intended for human occupancy shall be set back at least 50 feet from the fault. A larger or smaller setback may be established if such a setback is supported by adequate evidence as presented to and accepted by the County Geologist.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have not substantially altered the meaning and applicability of the policies that pertain to fault rupture hazards. There have been no revisions or additional policies regarding fault rupture hazards. Furthermore, the policies and mitigation measure address impacts on a project-by-project basis, and would thus not be affected by the changes in land use designations associated with the proposed revised General Plan. Therefore, the policies and mitigation measure will reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Ground Shaking
Impact 4.10.2 Like all of Southern California, Riverside County has and will continue to be subject to ground shaking resulting from activity on local and regional faults. Future development permitted by the proposed General Plan may increase the potential for property loss, injury, or death resulting from this ground shaking hazard. Impacts associated with this issue are potentially significant.
Analysis of Impact The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in association with the National Institute of Building Sciences utilizes a standardized methodology based on GIS for earthquake loss estimation. This methodology, the HAZUS system, is designed to produce loss estimates for use by State, regional, and local governments in planning for earthquake loss mitigation, emergency preparedness, and response and recovery operations. This methodology deals with nearly all aspects of the built environment, and with a wide range of different types of losses. HAZUS estima-tions are based on current scientific and engineering knowledge and may incorporate data on soil type, liquefaction and landslide susceptibility, and building inventory.
Current (August 2000) HAZUS estimates of losses associated with occurrence of the maximum credible event for Riverside County (a magnitude 7.9 rupture of the southern San Andreas fault from the Cajon Pass to the Salton Sea) would result in approximately 120 deaths and 9,800 injuries. At least 180,000 buildings (or about 45 percent of the buildings in the County) would be at least moderately damaged. Of these, an estimated 37,013 buildings would be destroyed. Approximately 27,000 households would be temporarily displaced. Economic losses associated with the MCE event would total$13.6 billion.
While the estimates of losses associated with the occurrence of the maximum probable event would be reduced from that resulting from the MPE, as many as 39 persons would be killed and 3,500 injured during a magnitude 6.9 earthquake on the San Jacinto Fault. Economic losses would total$5.5 billion. An estimated 94,000 buildings would sustain at least moderate damage, with approximately 10,500 being destroyed. Approximately 9,345 households would be displaced due to such an earthquake.
The Uniform Building Code (UBC) issued by the International Conference of Building Officials establishes design and construction standards for buildings and facilities. The California Building Standards Code (California Building Code, Title 24) is the prevailing standard in the Sate. The California Building Standards Code is based on the UBC and other Uniform Codes (e.g., Uniform Fire Code and Uniform Plumbing Code). Changes in the 1997 UBC represent the most significant increases in ground shaking criteria in the last 30 years. Two changes have special significance for the County of Riverside. The first change is a revision in soil types and amplification factors. The second change incorporates the proximity of earthquake sources in UBC seismic zone 4. Zone 4 is the highest hazard zone and includes most of the County of Riverside. The eastern portion of the County (Blythe Region) is located in Zone 3 (Figure 4.10.7). The Riverside County Department of Building and Safety defines the UBC seismic zones in the County as follows:
"The townships T2SR16E, T3SR17E, T4SR18E, T5SR19E, T6SR20E, T7SR21E, T8SR22E are inclusive to the UBC Seismic Zone 4 and the townships lying East of listed above may be considered in the Seismic Zone 3."
As detailed in Figure 4.10.7, based on their proximity to the Elsinore, San Jacinto, or San Andreas faults, most of western and central Riverside County is subject to near source design factors. The eastern portion of the County (Blythe Region) is located in UBC Seismic Zone 3, so the 1997 near-source seismic provisions of the UBC do not apply.
Increases in population, and the development of residential and non-residential development that will occur upon implementation of the proposed General Plan, will increase the exposure of persons and property to ground shaking hazards. To lessen potentially significant impacts associated with ground shaking, measures are identified below to mitigate the potentially significant impacts associated with future development within Riverside County.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan includes the following policies to reduce or minimize the effects associated with ground shaking on residents and habitable structures. The effectiveness of the policies at reducing the effect of ground shaking is analyzed below and additional mitigation measures are provided to ensure that ground shaking impacts resulting from future development within the County are reduced to a less than significant level.
Safety Policy 7.7 Strengthen the project permit and review process to ensure that proper actions are taken to reduce hazard impacts and to encourage structural and nonstructural design and construction. Damage must be minimized for critical facilities, and susceptibility to structural collapse must be minimized, if not eliminated.
a. Ensure that special development standards, designs, and construction practices reduce risk to tolerable levels for projects involving critical facilities, large-scale residential development, and major commercial and industrial development through conditional uses permits and the subdivision review process. If appropriate, impact fees should be assessed to finance required actions.
b. Require that planned lifeline utilities, as a condition of project approval, be designed, located, structurally upgrades fit with safety shutoff valves, be designed for easy maintenance, and have redundant back up lines where unstable slopes, earth cracks, active faults, or areas of liquefaction cannot be avoided.
Safety Policy 7.8 Promote strengthening of planned and existing utilities and lifelines, the retrofit and rehabilitation of existing weak structures, and the relocation of certain critical facilities.
Safety Policy 7.9 Find alternatives that improve site safety for the protection of critical facilities. Property acquisition for open space, change in building use or occupancy, or other appropriate measures can be employed to reduce risks posed by hazards.
Safety Policy 7.11 Coordinate with the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and/or utilize the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), to strengthen, relocate, or take other appropriate measures to safeguard high-voltage lines, water, sewer, natural gas and petroleum pipelines, and trunk electrical and telephone conduits that:
• Extend through areas of high liquefaction potential;
• Cross active faults; or
• Traverse earth cracks or landslides.
Safety Policy 7.13 Develop a system to respond to short-term increase in hazard on the southern San Andreas fault, based on probabilities associated with foreshocks.
Safety Policy S 7.16 During county earthquake drills, encourage communication and cooperation among emergency response staff and designated contacts at hospitals, high-occupancy buildings, and dependent care facilities.
Safety Policy 7.19 Establish a far-ranging, creative, forward-thinking public education and outreach campaign to inform the community about:
• The hazards they face;
• The cost of doing nothing to mitigate the hazards;
• What is known about each hazard;
• Why jurisdictions don't have all the answers;
• Mitigation incentives;
• What the County does for them; and
• What the County cannot be expected to do for them.
Effectiveness of Proposed General Plan Policies While implementation of the aforementioned policies would reduce the significance of potential ground shaking impacts, they do not provide specific development standards for development within areas subject to potential ground shaking impacts nor do they provide adequate mitigation for potential ground shaking impacts that may be identified through the use of new scientific data, equipment, or procedures. To provide adequate mitigation for potential ground shaking hazards, mitigation has been identified to provide flexibility to the County in requiring site-specific ground shaking assessment for any development subject to potential ground shaking impacts and to require adherence to identified design standards. Adherence to these measures will reduce potential impacts related to this issue to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures
4.10.2A The design and construction of structures and facilities shall adhere to the standards and requirement detailed in the California Building Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24), County Building Code, and/or professional engineering standards appropriate for the seismic zone in which such construction may occur. Conformance with these design standards shall be enforced through building plan review and approval by the Riverside County Department of Building and Safety prior to the issuance of building permits for any structure or facility.
4.10.2B As determined by the County Geologist, a site-specific assessment shall be prepared to ascertain potential ground shaking impacts resulting from development. The site-specific ground shaking assessment shall incorporate up-to-date data from government and non-government sources and may be included as part of any site-specific geotechnical investigation required in Mitigation Measure 4.10.1A. The site-specific ground shaking assessment shall include specific measures to reduce the significance of potential ground shaking hazards.
This site-specific ground shaking assessment shall be prepared by a licensed geologist and shall be submitted to the County Geologist for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
4.10.2C The standards stated in Mitigation Measures 4.10.2A and 4.10.2B shall apply to any structure or facility that undergoes, expansion, remodeling, renovation, refurbishment or other modification.
Revised General Plan Finding No revisions to policies relative to ground shaking hazards have been made to the Draft EIR. Furthermore, the policies and mitigation measures address impacts on a project-by-project basis, and would thus not be affected by the changes in land use designations associated with the proposed revised General Plan. Therefore, the policies and mitigation measures will reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Liquefaction
Impact 4.10.3 Portions of unincorporated Riverside County are susceptible to liquefaction, a destructive secondary effect of strong seismic shaking. Future proposed General Plan development within Riverside County would increase the potential for the placement of structures and facilities in or near areas susceptible to liquefaction. Impacts associated with this issue are potentially significant.
Analysis of Impact Liquefaction is a process by which water-saturated materials (including soil, sediment, and certain types of volcanic deposits) lose strength and may fail during strong ground shaking. Liquefaction is defined as "the transformation of a granular material from a solid state into a liquefied state as a consequence of increased pore-water pressure." Liquefaction occurs worldwide, commonly during moderate to great earthquakes. Four kinds of ground failure commonly result from liquefaction: lateral spread, flow failure, ground oscillation, and loss of bearing strength.
Areas of "Very High' or "High" susceptibility to liquefaction have been identified adjacent to the Santa Ana River, in the vicinity of Hemet and San Jacinto, in the southern Coachella Valley and along the eastern boundary of the County adjacent to the Colorado River. The proposed General Plan would allow the construction and occupation of structures within these areas and other areas susceptible to liquefaction. To lessen the potential for property loss, injury, or death resulting from liquefaction during earthquake events, policies are identified in the proposed General Plan to reduce the potentially significant impacts associated with future development within Riverside County.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan includes the following policies to reduce or minimize the effects associated with potential liquefaction impacts. The effectiveness of the policies at reducing potential liquefaction impacts is analyzed below. Additional mitigation measures are provided to ensure that potential liquefaction impacts resulting from future development within the County are reduced to a less than significant level.
Safety Policy 2.2 Require geologic and geotechnical investigations in areas with potential for earthquake-induced liquefaction as part of the development review process, for any structure proposed for human occupancy, and any structure whose damage would cause harm.
Safety Policy 2.3 Require that a State-licensed professional investigate the potential for liquefaction in areas designated as underlain by "Susceptible Sediments" and "Shallow Groundwater" for all general construction projects.
Safety Policy 2.4 Require that a State-licensed professional investigate the potential for liquefaction in areas identified as underlain by "Susceptible Sediments" for all proposed critical facilities projects.
Safety Policy 7.7b Require mitigation measures to reduce potential damage caused by ground failure for sites determined to have potential for liquefaction. Such measures shall apply to critical facilities, utilities, and large commercial and industrial projects as a condition of project approval.
Effectiveness of Proposed General Plan Policies While implementation of the aforementioned policies would reduce the significance of potential liquefaction impacts, they do not provide specific development standards for development within areas subject to liquefaction, nor do they provide adequate mitigation for potential liquefaction impacts that may be identified through the use of new scientific data, equipment, or procedures. To ensure that potential impacts associated with this issue are reduced to a less than significant level, mitigation measures have been identified below to provide flexibility to the County in requiring site-specific liquefaction assessments.
Mitigation Measures
4.10.3A As determined by the County Geologist, a site-specific assessment shall be prepared to ascertain potential liquefaction impacts resulting from development. The site-specific liquefaction assessment shall incorporate up-to-date data from government and non-government sources and may be included as part of any site-specific geotechnical investigation required in Mitigation Measure 4.10.1A. This site-specific ground shaking assessment shall be prepared by a licensed geologist and shall be submitted to the County Geologist for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
4.10.3B Where development is proposed within an identified or potential liquefaction hazard area (as determined by the County Geologist), adequate and appropriate measures such as (but not limited to) design foundations in a manner that limits the effects of liquefaction, the placement of an engineered fill with low liquefaction potential, and the alternative siting of structures in areas with a lower liquefaction risk, shall be implemented to reduce potential liquefaction hazards. Any such measures shall be submitted to the Riverside County Geologist and the County Department of Building and Safety for review prior to the approval of the building permits.
Revised General Plan Finding No revisions to the policies relative to liquefaction hazards have been made to the Draft EIR. Furthermore, the policies and mitigation measures address impacts on a project-by-project basis, and would thus not be affected by the changes in land use designations associated with the proposed revised General Plan. Therefore, the policies and mitigation measures will reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Landslides and Rockfalls
Impact 4.10.4 Landslides and rockfalls can be expected to occur throughout Riverside County, as a result of seismic activity and other natural processes, or as the result of human activity. Future proposed General Plan development within the County would increase the potential for the placement of structures and facilities in areas susceptible landslides or rockfalls. Impacts associated with this issue are potentially significant.
Analysis of Impact Areas highly susceptible to landslides and rockfalls are located within and adjacent to mountainous areas throughout the County. "Community Development" and "Rural" land uses as envisioned in the proposed General Plan would occur in some areas highly susceptible to this hazards. Development within or adjacent to areas susceptible to land or rockslides would increase the potential for injury, death, or loss of property. To lessen the potential for property loss, injury, or death resulting from landslides or rockfalls, policies have been identified to mitigate the potentially significant impacts associated with future development within the County.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan includes the following policies to reduce to a less than significant level, the potential impacts associated with development in areas of steep slopes. The effectiveness of the policies at reducing potential landslide and rockfall impacts is analyzed below.
Safety Policy 2.5 Require that all engineered slopes be designed to resist seismically induced failure. For lower risk projects, slope design could be based on pseudo-static stability analyses using soil engineering parameters established on a site-specific basis. For higher risk projects, the stability analyses shall factor in the intensity of expected ground shaking, using a Newmark-type deformation analysis.
Safety Policy 3.1 Require the following in landslide potential management zones, or when deemed necessary by CEQA.
a. Preliminary geotechnical and geologic investigations.
b. Evaluations of site stability, including any possible impact on adjacent properties; before final project design is approved.
c. Consultant reports, investigations, and design recommendations required for grading permits, building permits, and subdivision applications be prepared by State-licensed professionals.
Safety Policy 3.2 Require that stabilized landslides shall be provided with redundant drainage systems. Provisions for the maintenance of subdrains must be designed into the system.
Safety Policy 3.4 Require adequate mitigation of potential impacts from erosion, slope instability, or other hazardous slope conditions.
Safety Policy 3.5 During permit review, identify and encourage mitigation of on-site and off-site slope instability, debris flows, and erosion hazards on lots undergoing new development or on any lot undergoing substantial improvement.
Safety Policy 3.6 Require grading plans, environmental assessments, engineering and geological technical reports, irrigation and landscaping plans, including ecological restoration and revegetation plans, as appropriate, in order to assure the adequate demonstration of a project's ability to mitigate the potential impacts of slope and erosion hazards and loss of native vegetation.
Safety Policy 3.7 Support mitigation on existing public and private property located that sits on unstable hillside areas, especially, slopes with recurring failures where County property or public right-of-way is threatened from slope instability, or where considered appropriate and urgent by the County Engineer, Geologist, Fire, or Sheriff Department.
Land Use Policy 11.1c Require that areas with slopes be developed in a manner to minimize the hazards from erosion and slope failures.
Land Use Policy 11.1e Require hillside adaptive construction techniques, such as post and beam construction, and special foundations for development when the need is identified in a soils and geology report that has been accepted by the County.
Land Use Policy 11.1f Encourage the limitation of Limit grading, cut and fill to the amount necessary to provide stable areas for structural foundations, street rights-of-way, parking facilities, and other intended uses.
Effectiveness of Proposed General Plan Policies The aforementioned policies provide specific requirements to identify, evaluate, and mitigate potential impacts associated with seismically induced landsliding and rockfalls. Implementation of the aforementioned policies would reduce significant adverse impacts resulting from landslides/rockfalls to a less than significant level. Therefore, no additional mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures No additional mitigation is required.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have not substantially altered the meaning and applicability of the policies that pertain to landslide/rockfall hazards. Furthermore, the policies address impacts on a project-by-project basis, and would thus not be affected by the changes in land use designations associated with the proposed revised General Plan. Therefore, the policies will reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Seismically Induced Ground Settlement
Impact 4.10.5 Strong ground shaking can cause the densification of soils, resulting in local or regional settlement of the ground surface. Local differential settlement of soils can damage structures. Future proposed General Plan development within Riverside County would increase the potential for the placement of structures and facilities (including infrastructure) in areas susceptible to seismically induced settlement. Impacts related to this issue are potentially significant.
Analysis of Impact Implementation of the proposed General Plan would facilitate the construction and occupation of structures within areas susceptible to seismically induced settlement. Within a local context, development within or adjacent to areas susceptible to seismically induced ground settlement would increase the potential for injury, death, or loss of property, through the loss of structures. On a regional scale, seismically induced settlement can significantly affect a larger population by the interruption of service of utility services. For example, settlement can damage pipelines by changing the gravity gradient on water and sewer lines and canals, affecting a greater number of persons throughout a larger geographical area. Measures are identified below to mitigate the potentially significant impacts associated with development of the land uses envisioned in the proposed General Plan.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan includes the following policies to reduce to a less than significant level potential impacts associated with seismically induced ground settlement. The effectiveness of the policies at reducing potential impacts associated with seismically induced settlement impacts is analyzed below.
Safety Policy 2.2 Require geologic and geotechnical investigations in areas with potential for earthquake-induced settlement as part of the environmental and development review process, for any structures proposed for human occupancy, and any structure whose damage would cause harm.
Safety Policy 2.6 Require that cut-and-fill transition lots to be over-excavated to mitigate the potential of seismically induced differential settlement.
Safety Policy 2.7 Require a 100 percent maximum variation of fill depths beneath structures to mitigate the potential of seismically induced differential settlement.
Safety Policy 2.8 Encourage research into new foundation design systems that better resist the County's climatic, geotechnical, and geologic conditions.
Effectiveness of Proposed General Plan Policies The aforementioned policies provide specific requirements to identify, evaluate, and mitigate potential impacts associated with seismically induced ground settling. Implementation of the aforementioned policies would reduce significant adverse impacts resulting this issue to a less than significant level. Therefore, no additional mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures No additional mitigation is required.
Revised General Plan Finding No revisions to policies relative to ground settlement hazards have been made to the Draft EIR. Furthermore, the policies address impacts on a project-by-project basis, and would thus not be affected by the overall changes in land use designations associated with the proposed revised General Plan. Therefore, the policies will reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Subsidence and Collapsible Soils
Impact 4.10.6 Soils susceptible to subsidence, hydroconsolidation, or soil collapse may be affected by a variety of natural or human activities, including earthquakes and the withdrawal of subsurface fluids. Future proposed General Plan development within Riverside County would increase the potential for the placement of structures and facilities in areas susceptible to subsidence and soil collapse. Impacts related to this issue are potentially significant.
Documented subsidence has occurred in the San Jacinto Valley, the Elsinore Trough, and the southern Coachella Valley. Areas of the County designated for "Community Development" are located within areas of documented or susceptible to subsidence. Build out of proposed General Plan will increase the number of persons, residential units, and non-residential development that would occur on soils susceptible to subsidence or soil collapse. Measures are identified below to mitigate the potentially significant impacts associated with future development within Riverside County.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan includes the following policies to reduce potential impacts associated with development in areas of documented or highly susceptible to subsidence to a less than significant. The effectiveness of the policies at reducing potential impacts associated with subsidence or collapsible soils is analyzed below.
Safety Policy 3.8 Require geotechnical studies within documented subsidence zones, as well as areas that may be susceptible to subsidence, as identified in the Safety Element Technical Background Report, prior to the issuance of development permits. Within the documented subsidence zones of the Coachella, San Jacinto, and Elsinore Valleys, the studies must address the potential for reactivation of these zones, consider the potential impact of the proposed development, and provide adequate and acceptable mitigation measures.
Safety Policy 3.9 Develop a liaison program with all County water districts to prevent water extraction-induced subsidence.
Safety Policy 3.10 Encourage and support efforts for long-term and permanent monitoring of topographic subsidence in all producing groundwater basins, irrespective of past subsidence activity.
Safety Policy 7.12 Require extra design consideration for lifelines across subsidence areas.
Effectiveness of Proposed General Plan Policies The aforementioned policies provide specific requirements to identify, evaluate, and mitigate potential impacts associated with subsidence and collapsible soils. Therefore, implementation of the aforementioned policies would reduce significant adverse impacts resulting from this issue to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures No additional mitigation is required.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have not substantially altered the meaning and applicability of the policies that pertain to subsidence/collapsible soils hazards. Furthermore, the policies address impacts on a project-by-project basis, and would thus not be affected by the overall changes in land use designations associated with the proposed revised General Plan. Therefore, the policies will reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Expansive Soils
Impact 4.10.7 Expansive soils are widely distributed throughout Riverside County. Future development within Riverside County would increase the potential for the placement of structures and facilities in areas susceptible to damage resulting from expansive soils. Impacts associated with expansive soils are considered potentially significant.
Analysis of Impact Expansive soils are those soils with a significant amount of clay particles that have the ability to give up water (shrink) or take on water (swell). When these soils swell, the change in volume exerts significant pressures on loads (such as buildings) that are placed on them. Within the County, expansive soils are widely dispersed and can be found in hillside areas as well as low-lying alluvial basing. Implementation of the proposed General Plan may result in the construction and occupation of structures within areas underlain by expansive soils. Additionally, the past construction of structures and facilities on these soils may increase the potential for structure damage or, through the disruption of utility facilities, an interruption of utility service. Measures are identified below to mitigate the potentially significant impacts associated with development of the land uses envisioned in the proposed General Plan.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan does not include specific policies that would reduce the significance of potential impacts resulting from develop-ment on expansive soils. Therefore, the following measure has been identified, the implementation of which will reduce potential impacts related to expansive soils to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures Impacts associated with expansive soils can be minimized to a less than significant level through implementation of the following measure:
4.10.7A Proponents of new development within Riverside County shall adhere to applicable policies and standards contained in the most recent version of the Uniform Building Code related to the construction of structures and facilities on expansive soils.
Revised General Plan Finding No revisions to policies relative to expansive soil hazards have been made to the Draft EIR. Furthermore, the policies and mitigation measure address impacts on a project-by-project basis, and would thus not be affected by the overall changes in land use designations associated with the proposed revised General Plan. Therefore, the policies and mitigation measure will reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Wind Erosion
Impact 4.10.8 Erosion of soils by winds and windblown sand are an environmentally limiting factor throughout much of Riverside County, especially in the Coachella Valley and Eastern Riverside County. Future development within Riverside County would increase the potential for the placement of structures and facilities in areas susceptible to windblown erosion and blow-sand hazards. Impacts related to this issue are potentially significant.
Analysis of Impact Areas within the County with a "High" wind erodibility rating are located throughout the Coachella Valley, and adjacent to the Santa Ana and San Jacinto Rivers. Future development as envisioned according to the proposed General Plan would result in the construction and occupation of structures and facilities in areas identified as highly susceptible to wind erosion hazard zones.
Existing County of Riverside Requirements Riverside County Ordinance 484.2 establishes requirements for the control of blowing sand within County designated Agricultural Dust Control Areas. This ordinance defines activities that may contribute to wind erosion, identifies restrictions on activities within these areas, establishes penalties for violation of the ordinance, and identifies procedures necessary to obtain valid permit.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan includes a policy requiring the preparation of a study addressing the potential for wind hazards on proposed development within "High" and "Very High" wind erosion hazard zones, and design requirements for structures developed in such zones. The effectiveness of the policies at re-ducing potential impacts associated with subsidence or collapsible soils is analyzed below.
Safety Policy 3.11 Require studies that address the potential of wind hazard on proposed development within "High" and "Very High" wind erosion hazard zones as shown on the Safety Element's Wind Erosion Susceptibility Map.
Safety Policy 3.12 Include a disclosure about wind erosion susceptibility on property title.
Safety Policy 3.13 Require buildings be designed to resist wind loads.
Safety Policy 3.14 Educate builders about the wind environment and encourage them to design projects accordingly.
Effectiveness of Proposed General Plan Policies While the proposed General Plan includes policies to reduce or minimize impacts associated with wind hazards, it does not include a mechanism for the implementation of site-specific measures to reduce potential wind erosion hazards. To provide adequate mitigation for potential wind erosion hazards, mitigation has been identified requiring that site-specific design features be incorporated into structures and facilities developed within wind hazard zones. Adherence to the aforementioned policies and the following mitigation measure will reduce potential wind erosion impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures
4.10.8A New development within identified or potential (as determined by the County Geologist) wind hazard areas shall adhere to applicable provisions of County of Riverside Ordinance 484.2 or other local, State, or Federal requirements established to control or limit the windborne erosion of soil. Prior to the approval of development permits, the County Building and Safety Department shall confirm that the design of any proposed structure, facility, or use incorporates appropriate features to control and/or limit the windborne erosion of soil.
Revised General Plan Finding No revisions to policies relative to wind erosion hazards have been made to the Draft EIR. Furthermore, the policies and mitigation measure address impacts on a project-by-project basis, and would thus not be affected by the overall changes in land use designations associated with the proposed revised General Plan. Therefore, the policies and mitigation measure will reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Soil Erosion/Loss of Topsoil
Impact 4.10.9 Areas exposed during development activities would be prone to erosion and/or the loss of topsoil. The potential for substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil is considered potentially significant.
Analysis of Impact To accommodate the land uses and population increase anticipated by the proposed General Plan, development of residential and non-residential structures and facilities would be required. This would result in the alteration of existing topography and/or the removal of existing vegetation/topsoil. The potential for soil erosion, either by wind or water, is substantially increased upon the exposure of underlying soils during grading activities or other landform modifications. Measures are identified below to mitigate the potentially significant erosion impacts associated with implementation of the County's proposed General Plan.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan does not include specific policies that would reduce the significance of potential soil erosion impacts. Therefore, the following measures have been identified, the implementation of which will reduce potential impacts related to this issue to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures
4.10.9A Riverside County, where required, and in accordance with issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, shall require the construction and/or grading contractor for individual developments to establish and implement specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) at time of project implementation.
4.10.9B Prior to any development within the County, a Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Riverside County Building and Safety Department and/or Riverside County Geologist for review and approval. As required by the County, the grading plan shall include erosion and sediment control plans. Measures included in individual erosion control plans may include, but shall not be limited to, the following:
a. Grading and development plans shall be designed in a manner which minimizes the amount of terrain modification.
b. Surface water shall be controlled and diverted around potential landslide areas to prevent erosion and saturation of slopes.
c. Structures shall not be sited on or below identified landslides unless slides are stabilized.
d. The extent and duration of ground disturbing activities during and immediately following periods of rain shall be limited, to avoid the potential for erosion which may be accelerated by rainfall on exposed soils.
e. To the extent possible, the amount of cut and fill shall be balanced.
f. The amount of water entering and exiting a graded site shall be limited though the placement of interceptor trenches or other erosion control devices.
g. Erosion and sediment control plans shall be submitted to the County for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits.
4.10.9C Where required, drainage design measures shall be incorporated into the final design of individual projects on-site. These measures shall include, but will not be limited to:
a. Runoff entering developing areas shall be collected into surface and subsurface drains for removal to nearby drainages.
b. Runoff generated above steep slopes or poorly vegetated areas shall be captured and conveyed to nearby drainages.
c. Runoff generated on paved or covered areas shall be conveyed via swales and drains to natural drainage courses.
d. Disturbed areas that have been identified as highly erosive shall be (re)vegetated.
e. Irrigation systems shall be designed, installed, and maintained in a manner which minimizes runoff.
f. The landscape scheme for projects within the project site shall utilize drought-tolerant plants.
g. Erosion control devices such as rip-rap, gabions, small check dams, etc., may be utilized in gullies and active stream channels to reduce erosion.
Revised General Plan Finding No revisions to policies relative to soil erosion hazards have been made to the Draft EIR. Furthermore, the policies and mitigation measures address impacts on a project-by-project basis, and would thus not be affected by the overall changes in land use designations associated with the proposed revised General Plan. Therefore, the policies and mitigation measures will reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
4.10.4 Geology and Slope Stability Level of Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of the proposed policies, mitigation measures, and existing requirements would reduce potential impacts associated with fault rupture hazards, ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides and rockfalls, seismically induced settlement, subsidence and collapsible soils, and soil erosion and loss of topsoil to a less than significant level.
4.11 Hazardous Materials
This section discusses the existing setting and possible impacts and mitigation measures pertaining to hazardous materials resulting from the implementation of the proposed General Plan.
4.11.1 Hazardous Materials Existing Setting
Hazardous materials are commonly used by all segments of society, including manufacturing and service industries, commercial enterprises, agriculture, military installations, hospitals, schools, and households. Anticipated residential, commercial, and industrial growth within Riverside County in the coming years will make the identification of potential problems associated with the handling, transport, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials an increasingly important consideration.
Hazardous waste is often generated as a byproduct of industrial, manufacturing, agricultural, and other uses. The Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) defines a hazardous waste as any solid, liquid, or contained gaseous material that is either disposed, incinerated, or recycled. A hazardous material may become hazardous waste upon its accidental release into the environment. Although hazardous wastes may be considered hazardous materials, hazardous materials may not always be classified as hazardous waste. For example, liquid chlorine transported in a tanker truck would be classified as a hazardous material. This same substance, upon accidental release into the environment, would be considered hazardous waste. Hazardous materials and hazardous waste pose potential risks to the health, safety, and welfare of Riverside County residents and workers, if handled inappropriately. All hazardous waste must be discharged at a Class I landfill.
No Class I landfill is currently operated within Riverside County. Until 1983, the Stringfellow disposal site, a State-authorized hazardous waste facility, operated in the unincorporated community of Glen Avon. This facility was placed on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Priority List (Superfund site) in 1983. The dumping of household hazardous wastes and unreported industrial wastes in landfills is not uncommon. Illegal dumping may contribute to the degradation of soil and groundwater quality, thereby increasing the potential for adverse effects on humans and the environment. Hazardous waste generated within Riverside County and disposed of off-site is transported to Kern County or Santa Barbara County, where active Class I landfills are located. Some waste is also transported out of the Sate.
Eight Class III landfills are currently active within Riverside County. All accept only nonhazardous solid wastes and are located in unincorporated areas. Five of these landfills are operated by the Riverside County Waste Management Department, while one (El Sobrante) is privately owned and operated. The El Sobrante and Blythe landfills are the only facilities that currently accept waste from outside of Riverside County.
The County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health contains a Hazardous Materials Management Division, which has several methods of collecting household hazardous waste. A method that is convenient for the community is the Mobile House-hold Hazardous Waste Site Schedule. This is a mobile facility that travels throughout the County and collects hazardous waste at multiple locations. The Hazardous Materials Management Division has a schedule that allows the public to know when and where the mobile facility will collect household hazardous waste. This type of waste includes deodorizers, cleaners, bleach, floor wax, spot remover, drain cleaner, furniture polish, aerosol cans, latex paints, oil paints, weed killer, fertilizer, antifreeze, pesticides, pool chlorine, household and auto batteries, garden chemicals, motor oil, and propane tanks.
The Department of Environmental Health also maintains antifreeze, battery, oil, and latex paint (ABOP) collection sites. There are three sites within Riverside County in the Cities of Riverside, Palm Springs, and Murrieta. These sites are only open on Saturdays between 9:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. and only accept antifreeze, batteries, oil, and latex paint. In addition, Riverside County has drop-off centers that collect used motor oil and recycle it.
According to the EPA database, the five largest generators of production-related hazardous materials in Riverside County produce over 15 million pounds of these materials, including lead compounds, sulfuric and phosphoric acids, and xylene. These hazardous waste generators include food and beverage processors as well as battery, semiconductor, and metal container manufacturers. Although hazardous waste generators are scattered throughout Riverside County, most of the large producers of these materials are located in the western portion of the County. Of the five largest generators, two are located in the City of Corona. The other three are located in the Cities of Riverside and Temecula, and the community of Mira Loma.
There is a long history of agricultural production in Riverside County. Agricultural activities typically include the storage and periodic application of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, as well as the storage and use of toxic fuels and solvents. The infiltration of these substances may leach into local groundwater supplies, presenting an elevated risk of groundwater contamination. In addition, nearly all Riverside County residents have some type of hazardous material in their homes. Examples include motor oil, paints, cleaners, aerosols, and pesticides. Household hazardous materials pose serious health issues for people who improperly use or dispose of these materials. Adverse environmental impacts can occur when household hazardous materials are disposed of in unlined sanitary landfills, where these materials may leach through the soil and contaminate groundwater.
Medical facilities, including clinics, hospitals, professional offices, blood and plasma centers, and medical research facilities generate a wide variety of hazardous substances. These substances may include contaminated medical equipment or supplies, infectious biological matter, prescription medicines, and radioactive materials used in medical procedures. The disposal of medical waste is achieved by on-site autoclaving of red-bagged waste (any medical waste that could possibly transmit a pathogen) and subsequently transported to a Class III landfill. The Riverside County Department of Environmental Health Services has regulatory control over the disposal of medical and biological waste.
Although incidents can happen almost anywhere, certain areas of Riverside County are at higher risk for inadvertent release of hazardous materials. Locations near roadways that are frequently used for transporting hazardous materials (e.g., SR-60, I-10, I-15, and I-215) and locations near industrial facilities that use, store, or dispose of these materials have an increased potential for a release incident, as do locations along the County's freight railways. Section 5.7 of the Riverside County Existing Setting Report provides further information in regard to the generation and handling of hazardous materials and waste.
Existing Federal Policies and Regulations
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Discovery of environmental health damage from disposal sites, such as the Stringfellow acid pits in Western Riverside County, California, prompted the U.S. Congress to pass the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund). The purpose of CERCLA is to identify and clean up chemically contaminated sites that pose a significant environmental health threat. The Hazard Ranking System is used to determine whether a site should be placed on the National Priorities List for cleanup activities.
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) pertains primarily to emergency management of accidental releases. It requires formation of State and local emergency planning committees, which are responsible for collecting material handling and transportation data for use as a basis for planning. Chemical inventory data is made available to the community at large under the "right-to-know" provision of the law. In addition, SARA also requires annual reporting of continuous emissions and accidental releases of specified compounds. These annual submissions are compiled into a nationwide Toxics Release Inventory.
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act is the statutory basis for the extensive body of regulations aimed at ensuring the safe transport of hazardous materials on water, rail, highways, through air, or in pipelines. It includes provisions for material classification, packaging, marking, labeling, placecarding, and shipping documentation.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act The RCRA Subtitle C addresses hazardous waste generation, handling, transportation, storage, treatment, and disposal. It includes requirements for a system that uses hazardous waste manifests to track the movement of waste from its site of generation to its ultimate disposition. The 1984 amendments to RCRA created a national priority for waste minimization. Subtitle D establishes national minimum requirements for solid waste disposal sites and practices. It requires states to develop plans for the management of wastes within their jurisdictions. Subtitle I requires monitoring and containment systems for underground storage tanks that hold hazardous materials. Owners of tanks must demonstrate financial assurance for the cleanup of a potential leaking tank.
Existing State of California Policies and Regulations
The California Hazardous Waste Control Law The Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL) is the primary hazardous waste statute in the State of California. The HWCL implements RCRA as a "cradle-to-grave" waste management system in the State of California. HWCL specifies that generators have the primary duty to determine whether their wastes are hazardous and to ensure their proper management. The HWCL also establishes criteria for the reuse and recycling of hazardous wastes used or reused as raw materials. The HWCL exceeds federal requirements by mandating source reduction planning, and a much broader requirement for permitting facilities that treat hazardous waste. It also regulates a number of types of wastes and waste management activities that are not covered by Federal law with RCRA.
California Code of Regulations Most State and Federal regulations and requirements that apply to generators of hazardous waste are spelled out in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22, Division 4.5. Title 22 contains the detailed compliance requirements for hazardous waste generators, transporters, and treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. Because California is a fully authorized State according to RCRA, most RCRA regulations (those contained in 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 260 et seq.) have been duplicated and integrated into Title 22. However, because the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) regulates hazardous waste more stringently than the U.S. EPA, the integration of California and Federal hazardous waste regulations that make up Title 22 do not contain as many exemptions or exclusions as does 40 CFR 260. As with the California Health and Safety Code, Title 22 also regulates a wider range of waste types and waste management activities than does the RCRA regulations in 40 CFR 260. To aid the regulated community, California compiled the hazardous materials, waste and toxics-related regulations contained in CCR, Titles 3, 8, 13, 17, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 27 into one consolidated CCR Title 26 ‘Toxics.' However, the California hazardous waste regulations are still commonly referred to as Title 22.
Existing County of Riverside Policies and Regulations
Ordinance No. 615.3 This ordinance has been implemented for the purpose of monitoring establishments where hazardous waste is generated, stored, handled, disposed, treated, or recycled and to regulate the issuance of permits and the activities of establishments where hazardous waste is generated. This ordinance designates the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health to enforce the provisions of the California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.5, Division 20, Sections 25100 et seq., and the Environmental Health Standards for the Management of Hazardous Waste as specified in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, Division 4.5 pertaining to the generation, storage, handling, disposal, treatment, and recycling of hazardous waste.
Ordinance No. 718.1 This ordinance implements a medical waste management program in accordance with the Medical Waste Management Act, as found in the California Health and Safety Code, Division 14, Part 14. It establishes requirements for the management of medical waste and makes provisions for the enforcement thereof.
4.11.2 Hazardous Materials Thresholds of Significance
For the purpose of this analysis, an impact related to hazardous materials compliance is considered significant if the exposure of people or the environment to hazardous materials is in excess of federal, State, or local regulatory standards.
4.11.3 Hazardous Materials Impacts and Mitigation
Less than Significant Impact
The following impacts were analyzed and found to be less than significant.
Historical Use of Hazardous Materials and Waste Implementation of the proposed General Plan would not result in impacts associated with known and/or suspected hazardous materials. However, there is a potential that previously unknown hazardous materials contamination from historical use of a property may be encountered during future development activities. Should such contamination be found or disturbance occur, existing Federal, State, and local policies and procedures would require action by the designated local enforcement agency. It is unlikely that any such contamination or disturbance would be extensive beyond the capacities of typical remediation measures. Therefore, no significant impacts from former uses of properties within Riverside County are anticipated as a result of implementation of the proposed General Plan.
Generation of Hazardous Waste Implementation of the proposed General Plan would introduce new land uses to the unincorporated areas of Riverside County that may result in the use of hazardous materials and the potential generation of hazardous waste.
However, compliance with regulations, standards, and guidelines established by the EPA, State, Riverside County, and local agencies relating to the storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials will reduce the potential risk of hazardous materials exposure to a level that is less than significant. No further mitigation is required.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan includes the following policies that would reduce or minimize the effects of prospective growth on the use and generation of hazardous materials. As stated in Safety Policy 6.1, the programs and siting policies outlined in the County of Riverside Hazardous Waste Management Plan would be enforced during the future development or operation of any land use that may occur within unincorporated areas subsequent to adoption of the proposed General Plan. Therefore, implementation of the proposed General Plan policies related to hazardous materials would ensure that potential hazardous material impacts resulting from future development in the County would not have any significant adverse impacts and no further mitigation is required. The proposed policies related to this issue are provided below.
Safety Policy 6.1. Riverside County shall enforce the policies and siting criteria and implement the programs identified in the County of Riverside Hazardous Waste Management Plan, which include the following:
a. Comply with federal and State laws pertaining to the management of hazardous wastes and materials.
b. Ensure active public participation in hazardous waste and hazardous materials management decisions in Riverside County.
c. Coordinate hazardous waste facility responsibilities on a regional basis through the Southern California Hazardous Waste Management Authority.
d. Encourage and promote the programs, practices, and recommendations contained in the Riverside County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, giving the highest waste management priority to the reduction of hazardous waste at its source.
Safety Policy 7.1. Riverside County shall continually strengthen the Multi-Hazard Functional Plan and maintain mutual aid agreements with federal, state, local agencies and the private sector to assist in hazardous materials response.
Safety Policy 7.2 Riverside County shall identify and utilize multi-lingual staff personnel Encourage the utilization of multilingual staff personnel to assist in evacuation, short-term recovery activities, and to meet meeting general community needs.
Safety Policy 7.3 Riverside County shall require commercial businesses, utilities, and industrial facilities that handle hazardous materials to:
• Install automatic fire and hazardous materials detection, reporting, and shut-off devices; and
• Install an alternative communication system in the event that the power is out or telephone service is saturated following an earthquake.
Effectiveness of Proposed General Plan Policies Because the proposed General Plan policies related to the handling, use, storage, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials are in the County's Hazardous Waste Management Plan, and because enforcement of County hazardous materials polices will be maintained through implementation of Safety Policy 6.1, potential impacts related to this issue are less than significant level. No significant impact have been identified, and no mitigation is required.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have not substantially altered the meaning and applicability of the policies that pertain to hazardous materials and hazardous waste. The policies address hazardous materials and waste impacts on a project-level basis and would thus not be affected by changes in the distribution of land uses associated with the revised proposed General Plan. Thus, the policies will remain effective in reducing impacts to a less than significant level.
4.11.4 Hazardous Materials Level of Significance after Mitigation
Because the aforementioned policies mandate compliance with local, State, and federal hazardous material regulations, the implementation of these policies would reduce potential hazardous material impacts to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation is required.
4.12 Mineral Resources
This section assesses the potential impacts on mineral resources that could occur with the development projected under the proposed Riverside County General Plan.
4.12.1 Mineral Resources Existing Setting
The existing setting is summarized from the information contained within Section 4.5 of the Existing Setting Report prepared for the 2002 Riverside County General Plan (incorporated by reference). The mineral resources addressed in this section pertain to those resources that are classified under the State Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA). Riverside County has diverse mineral resources, including extensive deposits of clay, limestone, iron, sand, and aggregates, that have been influential in the development of the area and serve as an important component of the County's economy.
Classification of land within the State of California takes place according to a priority list that was established by the State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB) in 1982, or when the SMGB is petitioned to classify a specific area. The SMGB established Mineral Resources Zones (MRZs) to designate lands that contain mineral deposits. The classifications used by the State to define MRZs are as follows:
• MRZ-1: Areas where the available geologic information indicates no significant likelihood of significant mineral deposits.
• MRZ-2a: Areas where the available geologic information indicates that there are significant mineral deposits.
• MRZ-2b: Areas where the available geologic information indicates that there is a likelihood of significant mineral deposits.
• MRZ-3a: Areas where the available geologic information indicates that mineral deposits exist, however, the significance of the deposit is undetermined.
• MRZ-3b: Areas where the available geologic information indicates that mineral deposits are likely to exist, however, the significance of the deposit is undetermined.
• MRZ-4: Areas where there is not enough information available to determine the presence or absence of mineral deposits.
Figure 4.12.1 identifies the areas within Riverside County having potential mineral resource deposits, according to the State of California MRZ classifications. Mineral deposits within Riverside County are not only important to the economic well-being of the County, but many industries outside the County depend on them as well. The nonrenewable characteristic of these mineral deposits necessitates careful and efficient management to prevent waste, careless exploitation, and uncontrolled urbanization.
Existing Policies and Regulations
The following policies are intended to ensure the conservation of mineral resources in the County:
Riverside County Ordinance 555 This ordinance addresses the importance of mineral extraction to the economic well-being of the unincorporated areas of Riverside County. The purpose and intent of this ordinance is to regulate all surface mining operations in the unincorporated portions of the County as authorized by SMARA (Public Resources Code, Section 2710, et seq.) to ensure that:
• The reclamation of mined lands will be carried out in such a way that the continued mining of minerals will be permitted;
• The adverse effects of surface mining operations will be prevented or minimized and that mined lands will be reclaimed to a useable condition which is readily adaptable for alternative land use; and
• The production and conservation of minerals will be encouraged while giving consideration to values relating to recreation, watershed, wildlife, range and forage, and aesthetic enjoyment, and the residual hazards to the public health and safety will be eliminated.
State Policies and Regulations
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 The intent of SMARA is to promote production and conservation of mineral resources, minimize environmental effects of mining, and to ensure that mined lands will be reclaimed to conditions suitable for alternative uses. In accordance with SMARA, permits are required for all mining industries commencing operation on or after January 1, 1976.
4.12.2 Mineral Resources Thresholds of Significance
The proposed General Plan would have a significant impact on mining resources if it:
• Directly alters land use in areas designated as MRZs established by the State of California, or alters adjacent land uses resulting in uses that are not compatible with mineral resource extraction; and/or
• Results in a depletion of a regional resource availability that will result in a long-duration decrease in revenue to the regional economy.
4.12.3 Mineral Resource Impacts and Mitigation
Less than Significant Impact
Analysis of Impact Based on the assessment of mineral resources prepared by the California State Department of Mines and Geology, significant aggregate mineral resources exist within Riverside County. The increased growth and development associated with the implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact mineral resources located within unincorporated Riverside County. The policies provided within the proposed General Plan, which would guide future growth and development, do not cause significant impacts to known mineral resources. To the contrary, the policies within the proposed General Plan pertaining to mineral resources seek to conserve areas identified as containing significant mineral deposits, oil and gas resources for potential future use. The policies seek to maintain the availability of mineral resources while promoting the reasonable, safe, and orderly operation of mining and extraction activities within areas designated for such use, where environmental, aesthetic, and adjacent land use compatibility impacts can be adequately mitigated.
Future development will be reviewed to ascertain project-specific impacts to mineral resources and to ensure compliance with applicable County policies. With the projected growth and increasing pressure to develop vacant lands within unincorporated Riverside County, management of these mineral resources is necessary to protect and guide the exploitation of mineral deposits. Management strategies are contained in the proposed General Plan policies directed towards mineral resources and their conservation and extraction. Implementation of these policies will reduce or eliminate adverse impacts caused by mineral extraction and/or urbanization.
The Open Space-Mineral Resource land use designation allows for mineral extraction and processing facilities designated on the basis of the SMARA of 1975 classification. Areas held in reserve for future mining activities also fall under this designation. Ancillary structures or uses may be permitted which assist in the extraction, processing, or preservation of minerals. Actual building or structure size, siting, and design will be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan includes the following policies in both the Land Use and Open Space and Conservation Elements to reduce or minimize the conflicts between urban growth and development and mineral resources and their future extraction potential. The proposed policies are provided below.
Land Use Policy 21.1 Require that surface mining activities and lands containing mineral deposits of statewide or of regional significance comply with Riverside County Ordinances and the SMARA.
Land Use Policy 21.2 Protect lands designated as Open Space-Mineral Resource from encroachment of incompatible land uses through buffer zones or visual screening.
Land Use Policy 21.3 Protect road access to mining activities and prevent or mitigate traffic conflicts with surrounding properties.
Land Use Policy 21.4 Require the recycling of mineral extraction sites to open space, recreational, or other uses that are compatible with the surrounding land uses.
Land Use Policy 21.5 Require an approved reuse plan prior to the issuing of a permit to operate an extraction operation.
Open Space Policy 14.1 Require that the operation and reclamation of surface mines be consistent with the SMARA and County Development Code provisions.
Open Space Policy 14.2 Restrict incompatible land uses within the impact area of existing or potential surface mining areas.
Open Space Policy 14.3 Restrict land uses incompatible with mineral resource recovery within areas designated as Open Space-Mineral Resources.
Open Space Policy 14.5 Require that new non-mining land uses adjacent to existing mining operations be designed to provide a buffer between the new development and the mining operations. The buffer distance shall be based on an evaluation of noise, aesthetics, drainage, operating conditions, biological resources, topography, lighting, traffic, operating hours, and air quality.
Open Space Policy 14.6 Accept California Land Conservation (Williamson Act) contracts on land identified by the State as containing significant mineral deposits subject to the acreage limitations established by the County.
Effectiveness of Proposed General Plan Policies Implementation of the proposed General Plan policies related to mineral resources ensure that future development in the County would not have any significant adverse impacts on mineral resources nor would future mineral resource extraction have any significant adverse impacts on future development. Avoiding adverse impacts is achieved through adherence to these policies; by restricting development on land designated as MRZ-2 by the State; reviewing all development proposals adjacent to MRZs or mining activity to safeguard against incompatible land uses; providing buffer zones between urban development mining activity; and requiring that development to adhere to State mining policies and regulations.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have not altered the policies that pertain to mineral resources. Furthermore, because the policies address mineral resource impacts on a site-by-site basis, and address adjacent land use in a general way, the reconfiguration of land use designations associated with the revised proposed General Plan would not decrease the effectiveness of the policies. Therefore, the policies will reduce impacts associated with mineral resources to a less than significant level.
4.12.4 Mineral Resources Level of Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of the proposed policies would guarantee that potential impacts on mineral resources remain at a less than significant level.
4.13 Noise
Measurement of Sound
A "decibel" is a unit for describing the amplitude of sound. Sound intensity is measured through the A-weighted scale to correct for the relative frequency response of the human ear. That is, an A-weighted noise level de-emphasizes low and very high frequencies of sound similar to the human ear's de-emphasis of these frequencies. Unlike linear units, such as inches or pounds, decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, representing points on a sharply rising curve (see Figure 4.13.1).
For example, 10 decibels are 10 times more intense than one decibel, 20 decibels are 100 times more intense and 30 decibels are 1,000 times more intense. Thirty decibels represent 1,000 times as much acoustic energy as 1 decibel. The decibel scale increases as the square of the change, representing the sound pressure energy. A sound as soft as human breathing is about 10 times greater than zero decibels. The decibel system of measuring sound gives a rough connection between the physical intensity of sound and its perceived loudness to the human ear. A 10-decibel increase in sound level is perceived by the human ear as doubling of the loudness of the sound. Ambient sounds generally range from 30 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud).
Sounds are generated from a source, and their decibel level decreases as the distance from that source increases. Sound dissipates exponentially with distance from the noise source. For a single-point source, sound levels decrease approximately six decibels for each doubling of distance from the source. This drop-off rate is appropriate for noise generated by stationary equipment. If noise is produced by a line source such as highway traffic or railroad operations, the sound decreases three decibels for each doubling of distance in a hard site environment. Line source noise in a relatively flat environment with absorptive vegetation decreases four and one-half decibels for each doubling of distance.
Noise Abatement
Three basic mechanisms are effective at reducing excessive noise exposure: 1) reduce the strength of the noise at the source; 2) increase the distance between the source and the receiver; and 3) place an obstruction between the noise source and the receiver.
Given that vehicular noise is exempt from local control and relocation of sensitive land uses away from freeways or major streets is not practical, a noise wall is often the remaining practical solution. A properly sited wall can reduce noise levels by almost 10 dB. A decrease of 10 dB is perceived by people to be about one-half as loud as before. However, a freeway that is one-half as loud as before may still be very loud. Construction costs of noise walls are expensive at approximately $100 to $200 per linear foot, making each mile of wall cost approximately $500,000 to $1,000,000 dollars.
All sensitive uses along freeways and highways that are or will be exposed to noise levels in excess of applicable noise standards require the consideration of mitigation measures such as sound walls or building facade upgrades. However, State highways, including freeways under the jurisdiction of Caltrans, must consider noise abatement measures when roadways are to be undergoing major changes or improvements that will result in new or continued exposure to traffic noise levels approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria (NAC). Because of the competing impact of noise or sound wall costs versus benefits, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is sensitive to the wishes of the affected community regarding wall construction. When building or upgrading roadways, Caltrans will generally support design features that minimize local objections as long as their own design standards are met. Those standards include the following:
• Walls must reduce noise levels by a minimum of 5 dB.
• Walls must be able to block truck exhaust stacks that are located at 11.5 feet above the pavement.
• Walls within 15 feet of the outside of the nearest travel lane must be built upon safety-shaped concrete barriers.
The preferred wall material is concrete or masonry. The effectiveness of a material in stopping sound transmission is called the transmission loss (TL). Materials other than a heavy metal or concrete masonry unit are more typically used on a single unique project basis rather than along several miles of freeway.
Another method of obstructing noise for residential or commercial buildings involves the use of design features, site planning, or building materials to protect the users of buildings in the interior of the building. Features such as dense landscaping and the use of double-paned windows are two examples.
4.13.1 Noise Existing Setting
The primary existing noise sources within Riverside County include transportation facilities such as airports, railroads, freeways and highways; commercial, industrial/manufacturing, agricultural land uses; recreational areas; construction; and other noise sources such as shooting ranges, mining, and sand and gravel operations. Noise is also attributable to various machines, electronic amplification of music, and the sheer number of various power tools, machinery, televisions and stereos throughout the population.
Urban areas are subjected to increasingly pervasive noise. Although most major noise sources are transportation-related, disturbing levels of noise are common throughout many residential areas in the form of stereos, televisions, power mowers and other lawn care devices, shop tools, and pool and air conditioning equipment.
Commercial areas are often subjected to high levels of transportation-related noise, often precluding use of outside areas for conversation where it is necessary or desirable. Juke boxes, video games and service equipment all add another layer of noise to transportation-related noise. Industrial areas are often high noise producers with manufacturing equipment commonly adding significantly to transportation-related noise.
Agricultural operations may produce significant noise during planting and harvesting times from equipment operation. Agricultural noise may be disturbing to neighboring residential areas; a common phenomena as urban areas intrude into agricultural lands. Agricultural areas may also have noise-sensitive uses which can be disturbed by high noise levels as is the case with the raising of animals and poultry.
Recreational lands and wildlife habitat are also significantly impacted by noise. Recreational uses include those that are quiet in nature and those that are noisy by nature. Quiet in nature recreational uses include trails and picnic areas. Noisy in nature recreational uses include sports park and off-road vehicle recreational areas. lands are lands where quiet is a basis for use. However, Uuncontrolled use of off-road vehicles in parks and open space lands degrades recreational opportunities for the County's residents. Noise intrusion into wildlife habitat drives off wildlife and, with prolonged use, may effectively reduce the amount of land used as habitat by various species.
There are seven public use general aviation airports and a number of smaller airports and air fields within Riverside County. The most significant highway noise producers are I-10, I-215, SR-60, and SR-91. The two railroads (Union Pacific and Burlington Northern/Santa Fe) also produce significant amount of noise; however, due to relatively low volumes of traffic and the isolated nature of the current system of rail lines, they do not expose as many people to the intensity of sound as do the airports.
Ambient Noise Survey
A survey of the existing noise environment was conducted on August 17, 18, and 19, 1999. Noise measurements were taken in 20-minute periods. A total of 17 locations in the project areas were monitored to represent existing ambient noise levels. All measurement locations had direct line-of-sight to traffic on existing adjacent roadways. The measured noise level ranged from 61.8 to 72.3 dBA Leq. The field monitoring confirmed that most noise in the County is due to the use of motor vehicles on public roadways. Table 4.13.A summarizes noise measurement data for these monitoring locations. Figure 4.13.2 depicts these noise monitoring locations.
| Table 4.13.A - Ambient Noise Monitoring Results | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Location | Start Time | Leq (dBA) | Noise Sources | Remarks | |
| 1 | 15 feet north of Temescal Canyon Road near Lake Street. | 8:35 a.m. | 65.8 | Traffic on Temescal Canyon Road. | Trucks made up most of the noise; overall traffic was moderate; I-15 to the south contributed to noise level. |
| 2 | 20 feet southwest of Collier Road, at intersection of Central Street and Collier Road. | 9:20 a.m. | 64.9 | Busy traffic on Collier Road plus moderate traffic on Central Street. | Traffic was continuous on Collier Road. |
| 3 | 15 feet south of Bundy Canyon Road, at intersection of Bundy Canyon Road and Mission Trail. | 10:00 a.m. | 61.8 | Traffic on Bundy Canyon Road. | Traffic was dense at times and non-existent at others. |
| 4 | 15 feet east of Clinton Keith Road, near intersection of Clinton Keith Road and Palomar/Washington Street. | 10:45 a.m. | 67.6 | Traffic on Clinton Keith Road and Palomar Street. | Traffic was continuous on Clinton Keith and Palomar Street. |
| 5 | 15 feet southeast of SR-79, near intersection of Clinton Keith Road and Margarita Road. | 11:40 a.m. | 67.2 | Traffic on SR-79 and Margarita Road; plane flying overhead. | Traffic was heavy and continuous on SR-79; moderate traffic on Margarita Road. |
| 6 | 15 feet east of Murrieta Road, near intersection of Murrieta Road and Bundy Canyon/Scott Road. | 12:40 p.m. | 65.3 | Traffic on Murrieta Road. | Traffic was moderate on Murrieta and Scott Roads. |
| 7 | 15 feet west of SR-79, near intersection of SR-79 and Scott Road. | 1:25 p.m. | 67.1 | Busy traffic on SR-79; traffic on Scott Road. | Traffic was continuous on SR-79; moderate traffic on Scott Road. |
| 8 | 15 feet south of McCall Boulevard, near intersection of McCall Boulevard and Murrieta Road. | 2:20 p.m. | 65.1 | Traffic on McCall Boulevard and Murrieta Road; plane flying overhead. | Traffic was moderate on both McCall Boulevard and Murrieta Road. |
| 9 | 15 feet south of McWade Avenue, near intersection of McWade and Olson Avenues. | 3:00 p.m. | 65.3 | Traffic on McWade and Olson Avenues. | Moderate traffic on Olson and McWade Avenues. |
| 10 | 15 feet east of Cornell Street, between parallel Mayberry Avenue and McDowell Street. | 3:50 p.m. | 66.1 | Traffic on Cornell Street, McDowell Street, and May-berry Avenue. | Moderate traffic on all three streets. |
| 11 | 15 feet south of Ellis Avenue; SR-74 to the north. | 2:40 p.m. | 66.5 | Traffic on Ellis Avenue; traffic on SR-74. | Moderate traffic level on Ellis Avenue. |
| 12 | 15 feet south of Reservoir Avenue, near intersection of Reservoir Avenue and Davis Road / Hansen Avenue. Ramona Expressway to the north. | 3:25 p.m. | 65.1 | Traffic on Reservoir Avenue; traffic on Davis Road / Hansen Avenue; traffic on Ramona Expressway. | Moderate traffic levels on Davis Road and Reservoir Avenue. |
| 13 | 15 feet north of Cherry Valley Boulevard, near intersection of Beaumont Avenue and Cherry Valley Boulevard. | 4:20 p.m. | 65.5 | Traffic on Cherry Valley Boulevard and Beaumont Avenue. | Moderate traffic levels on Cherry Valley Boulevard and Beaumont Avenue. |
| 14 | 14 feet from the street, at the southwest corner of Magnolia Avenue and McKinley Street. | 9:40 a.m. | 71.3 | Traffic on McKinley Street and Magnolia Avenue. | Both streets are major streets with heavy traffic in each direction. |
| 15 | 22 feet from the street, at the southeast corner of Cajalco and Temescal Canyon Roads. | 10:40 a.m. | 70.9 | Tractor trailer trucks on Cajalco Road; recycling equipment at Liston Aluminum Company. | Intersection is an all-way stop; Liston Aluminum Company is at the northwest corner of the intersection. |
| 16 | 15 feet from the street, at the southeast corner of Cajalco Road and El Sobrante Road. | 11:30 a.m. | 70.0 | Traffic on Cajalco and El Sobrante Roads, including tractor trailer trucks. | Three-way intersection with a stop sign on El Sobrante Road. |
| 17 | 12 feet from the street, at the northwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Schleisman Road. | 12:20 p.m. | 73.0 | High volume of trucks on Archibald Avenue. | Three-legged signalized intersection; dairy farms located at northwest and southwest corners. |
| 18 | 15 feet from the street, at the northeast corner of McAllister Street and El Sobrante Road. | 2:00 p.m. | 71.9 | Construction at the northwest corner of the intersection and traffic on El Sobrante Road. | Three-legged intersection; very little development nearby. |
| 19 | 15 feet from the street, at the northwest corner of Van Buren Boulevard and Washington Street. | 2:35 p.m. | 72.3 | High volume of traffic entering a 711 Market for gasoline; continuous barking dogs. | 7-11 Market located at the northwest corner of intersection. |
| 20 | 15 feet from the street at the southeast corner of Jurupa Road and 10th Street. | 3:35 p.m. | 69.8 | Heavy tractor trailer truck traffic on 10th Street and high volume of traffic entering Circle K Market. | Across from Vanny's Auto Service located at 10596 Jurupa Road; all-way stop intersection. |
| 21 | 15 feet from the street, at the northeast corner of Valley Road and 34th Street. | 4:10 p.m. | 69.9 | Traffic on Valley Road and construction activity about 300 yards north. | Intersection is signalized. |
| 22 | 15 feet from the street, at the southeast corner of Center Avenue and Mt. Vernon Avenue. | 5:40 p.m. | 56.6 | Light traffic on Center Avenue and Mt. Vernon Avenue and a helicopter flyover a quarter mile away. | Intersection has an all-way stop sign. |
| 23 | 15 feet from the street, at the southeast corner of Arrowhead Boulevard and 28th Street. | 10:35 a.m. | 65.2 | Traffic on 28th Street and Arrowhead Boulevard and agricultural equipment nearby. | Intersection is a three-legged intersection; free-flowing traffic on 28th Street; Highway 78 is to the east. |
| 24 | 15 feet from the street, at the northwest corner of Highway 86 and 62nd Avenue. | 1:05 p.m. | 76.1 | Heavy tractor trailer traffic on Highway 86, agricultural tractors to the southwest. | Intersection is a two-way controlled stop; tractors in operation were about 70 yards from the meter. |
| 25 | 15 feet from the street, at the northwest corner of Adams Street and 42nd Avenue. | 2:15 p.m. | 67.5 | Traffic on Adams Street and 42nd Avenue. | Intersection is an all-way controlled stop; residential development in three corners. |
| 26 | 15 feet from the street, at the southeast corner of Ramon Road and Via Las Palmas. | 3:15 p.m. | 70.5 | Traffic on Ramon Road and Via Las Palmas. | Three-way intersection; free-flowing traffic on Ramon Road; many residential developments north of the intersection. |
| 27 | 15 feet from the street, at the northwest corner of Broadway Road and Bonita Avenue. | 4:30 p.m. | 65.7 | Traffic on Broadway Road and Bonita Avenue. | Free-flowing traffic on Broadway Road; residential developments at the southeast corner of the intersection. |
| Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 1999. | |||||
Existing Vehicular Traffic Noise
Noise from motor vehicles is generated by engine vibrations, the interaction between tires and the road, and the exhaust system. Reducing the average motor vehicle speed reduces the noise exposure of receptors adjacent to the road. Each reduction of five miles per hour reduces noise by one to two dBA. The FHWA highway traffic noise prediction model (FHWA RD-77-108), currently used throughout the United States, was used to estimate freeway and highway traffic-related noise levels in the unincorporated Riverside County area. This model requires various parameters, including traffic volumes, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute typical equivalent noise levels during daytime, evening, and nighttime hours. The average daily traffic (ADT) volumes in the area are taken from the County's traffic counts. The resultant noise levels are weighed and summed over 24-hour periods to determine the Ldn value. Ldn contours are derived through a series of computerized iterations to isolate the 60, 65, and 70 dBA Ldn contours for traffic noise levels.
Table 4.13.B provides the traffic noise levels adjacent to representative segments of the freeways and major roads in western Riverside County. These noise levels represent the worst-case scenario, which assumes no shielding is provided between the highway traffic and the location where the noise contours are drawn. Table 4.13.B shows that traffic noise level measured at 50 feet from the outermost travel lane for these roadways ranges from a low of 63.2 dBA Ldn along Redlands Boulevard to a high of 80.1 dBA Ldn along I-215.
| Table 4.13.B - Existing Traffic Noise Levels Table | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roadway Segment | ADT | Centerline to 70 Ldn, feet |
Centerline to 65 Ldn, feet |
Centerline to 60 Ldn, feet |
Ldn (dBA) 50 feet from outermost lane |
| La Sierra Avenue at El Sobrante Road | 12,200 | < 501 | 81 | 171 | 66.2 |
| Van Buren Boulevard at Mockingbird Canyon Road | 24,540 | 61 | 127 | 271 | 69.2 |
| Alessandro Boulevard at West Frontage Road | 21,126 | 56 | 115 | 246 | 68.6 |
| Felspar Street at Galena Street | 21,256 | 56 | 116 | 247 | 68.6 |
| Iowa Avenue at Center Street | 15,200 | < 50 | 93 | 197 | 67.2 |
| Market Street at Via Cerro | 13,400 | < 50 | 86 | 182 | 66.6 |
| Mission Boulevard at Etiwanda Avenue | 27,000 | 65 | 135 | 289 | 69.7 |
| North Main Street at Placentia Lane | 15,500 | < 50 | 94 | 200 | 67.2 |
| Riverview Drive at Mission Boulevard | 12,618 | < 50 | 83 | 175 | 66.4 |
| Sierra Avenue at Armstrong Road | 11,700 | < 50 | 79 | 166 | 66.0 |
| Van Buren Boulevard at Jurupa Road | 22,714 | 58 | 121 | 258 | 68.9 |
| McCall Boulevard at Sun City Boulevard | 10,500 | < 50 | 74 | 155 | 65.6 |
| Newport Road at Murrieta Road | 24,200 | 61 | 126 | 269 | 69.2 |
| Palm Drive at Dillon Road | 17,600 | < 50 | 102 | 218 | 67.8 |
| Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Margarita Road | 11,528 | < 50 | 78 | 165 | 66.0 |
| McCall Boulevard at Sherman Avenue | 10,252 | < 50 | 73 | 152 | 65.5 |
| Ramon Road at Bob Hope Drive | 20,266 | 54 | 112 | 239 | 68.4 |
| Van Buren Boulevard at I-215 | 24,900 | 62 | 128 | 274 | 69.3 |
| Van Buren Boulevard at Suttles Drive | 29,500 | 68 | 143 | 306 | 70.0 |
| Green River Road at Fresno Road | 13,000 | < 50 | 84 | 178 | 66.5 |
| Serfas Club Drive at Pinecrest Drive | 10,800 | < 50 | 75 | 158 | 65.7 |
| Grand Avenue at Baldwin Boulevard | 12,500 | < 50 | 82 | 174 | 66.3 |
| Limonite Avenue at Etiwanda Avenue | 17,300 | < 50 | 101 | 215 | 67.7 |
| Stetson Avenue at Dartmouth Street | 19,284 | < 50 | 109 | 231 | 68.2 |
| Washington Street at Fred Waring Drive | 23,610 | 60 | 124 | 264 | 69.1 |
| Indian Avenue at Dillon Road | 11,890 | < 50 | 80 | 168 | 66.1 |
| La Sierra Avenue at Cleveland Avenue | 10,190 | < 50 | 72 | 152 | 65.4 |
| Van Buren Boulevard at Ridgeway Avenue | 34,864 | 76 | 160 | 342 | 70.8 |
| Palm Drive at Varner Road | 13,168 | < 50 | 85 | 180 | 66.5 |
| Van Buren Boulevard at Canyonview Drive | 26,248 | 64 | 133 | 284 | 69.5 |
| Cajalco Road at Haines Street | 27,448 | 65 | 137 | 292 | 69.7 |
| Rubidoux Boulevard at 30th Street | 20,840 | 55 | 114 | 243 | 68.5 |
| Newport Road at Avenida De Cortez | 14,176 | < 50 | 89 | 189 | 66.9 |
| Cajalco Road at Brown Street | 13,124 | < 50 | 85 | 179 | 66.5 |
| Mission Boulevard at Rubidoux Boulevard | 25,420 | 62 | 130 | 278 | 69.4 |
| Van Buren Boulevard at Clay Street | 46,690 | 91 | 194 | 416 | 72.0 |
| Grand Avenue at Stoneman Street | 10,166 | < 50 | 72 | 151 | 65.4 |
| Magnolia Avenue at McKinley Street | 16,548 | < 50 | 98 | 209 | 67.5 |
| Mission Boulevard at Valley Way | 16,708 | < 50 | 99 | 210 | 67.6 |
| Rubidoux Boulevard at 34th Street | 25,434 | 62 | 130 | 278 | 69.4 |
| Limonite Avenue at Clay Street | 15,642 | < 50 | 95 | 201 | 67.3 |
| Mission Boulevard at Glen Street | 10,470 | < 50 | 73 | 154 | 65.5 |
| McCall Boulevard at Bradley Road | 11,112 | < 50 | 76 | 161 | 65.8 |
| Limonite Avenue at Collins Street | 15,746 | < 50 | 95 | 202 | 67.3 |
| Van Buren Boulevard at Studio Place | 34,218 | 75 | 158 | 338 | 70.7 |
| Bundy Canyon Road at Sellers Road | 10,092 | < 50 | 72 | 151 | 65.4 |
| Magnolia Avenue at Byron Street | 15,856 | < 50 | 96 | 203 | 67.3 |
| Limonite Avenue at Downey Avenue | 24,068 | 60 | 125 | 268 | 69.0 |
| Mission Boulevard at Avalon Street | 26,022 | 63 | 132 | 282 | 69.5 |
| Mission Boulevard at Twining Street | 15,528 | < 50 | 94 | 200 | 67.3 |
| Stetson Avenue at Yale Street | 12,702 | < 50 | 83 | 175 | 66.4 |
| Etiwanda Avenue at Iberia Street | 18,206 | < 50 | 105 | 223 | 67.9 |
| El Sobrante Road at Cajalco Road | 6,112 | < 50 | < 50 | 109 | 63.2 |
| Wood Road at Gentian Avenue | 7,004 | < 50 | 57 | 119 | 63.8 |
| Corydon Street at Grand Avenue | 9,600 | < 50 | 70 | 146 | 65.2 |
| Scott Road at Murrieta Road | 7,300 | < 50 | 59 | 122 | 64.0 |
| Archibald Avenue at River Road | 6,500 | < 50 | 55 | 113 | 63.5 |
| Archibald Avenue at Cloverdale Road | 9,100 | < 50 | 67 | 141 | 64.9 |
| Center Street at Commercial Street | 8,100 | < 50 | 63 | 131 | 64.4 |
| Center Street at Stephen Avenue | 7,100 | < 50 | 58 | 120 | 63.8 |
| Iowa Avenue at La Cadena Drive East | 9,400 | < 50 | 69 | 144 | 65.1 |
| Mission Boulevard at Pyrite Street | 7,344 | < 50 | 59 | 122 | 64.0 |
| Mission Boulevard at Conning Street | 9,070 | < 50 | 67 | 141 | 64.9 |
| Mission Boulevard at Milliken Avenue | 8,200 | < 50 | 63 | 131 | 64.5 |
| Pedley Road at Jurupa Drive | 7,100 | < 50 | 58 | 120 | 63.8 |
| Bradley Road at Cherry Hills Boulevard | 6,420 | < 50 | 54 | 112 | 63.4 |
| McCall Boulevard at Hillpointe Drive | 6,466 | < 50 | 55 | 113 | 63.4 |
| Gilman Springs Road at SR-79 | 6,726 | < 50 | 56 | 116 | 63.6 |
| Simpson Road at Patterson Avenue | 8,000 | < 50 | 62 | 129 | 64.4 |
| Beaumont Avenue at Cherry Valley Boulevard | 8,500 | < 50 | 65 | 135 | 64.6 |
| Highland Spring Avenue at Brookside Avenue | 6,700 | < 50 | 56 | 115 | 63.6 |
| Redlands Boulevard at San Timoteo Canyon Road | 6,162 | < 50 | 53 | 109 | 63.2 |
| Dillon Road at Long Canyon Road | 9,800 | < 50 | 71 | 148 | 65.3 |
| Jefferson Street at Fred Waring Drive | 8,864 | < 50 | 66 | 138 | 64.8 |
| Central Avenue at Sycamore Canyon Boulevard | 9,842 | < 50 | 71 | 148 | 65.3 |
| Murrieta Road at Garboni Road | 7,966 | < 50 | 62 | 129 | 64.3 |
| Reche Canyon Road at Keissel Road | 7,606 | < 50 | 60 | 125 | 64.1 |
| Cajalco Road at Gustin Road | 8,912 | < 50 | 66 | 139 | 64.8 |
| Wood Road at Van Buren Boulevard | 8,500 | < 50 | 65 | 135 | 64.6 |
| Central Street at Palomar Street | 7,000 | < 50 | 57 | 119 | 63.8 |
| Stanford Street at Mayberry Avenue | 9,300 | < 50 | 68 | 143 | 65.0 |
| Temescal Canyon Road at Minnesota Road | 8,400 | < 50 | 64 | 134 | 64.6 |
| Jurupa Road at Van Buren Boulevard | 9,534 | < 50 | 69 | 145 | 65.1 |
| Mission Boulevard at Soto Avenue | 8,600 | < 50 | 65 | 136 | 64.7 |
| Menifee Road at SR-74 | 6,300 | < 50 | 54 | 111 | 63.3 |
| Simpson Road at Lindenberger Road | 7,400 | < 50 | 59 | 123 | 64.0 |
| Ramona Expressway at Warren Road | 9,172 | < 50 | 68 | 142 | 65.0 |
| Cajalco Road at Gavilin Road | 9,416 | < 50 | 69 | 144 | 65.1 |
| Ontario Avenue at El Cerrito Road | 7,114 | < 50 | 58 | 120 | 63.9 |
| Dillon Road at Mountain View Road | 8,176 | < 50 | 63 | 131 | 64.5 |
| Ontario Avenue at Piute Creek | 7,146 | < 50 | 58 | 120 | 63.9 |
| Mission Boulevard at Lindsay Street | 8,526 | < 50 | 65 | 135 | 64.6 |
| Jurupa Road at Rigel Way | 7,682 | < 50 | 61 | 126 | 64.2 |
| Valley Way at Jurupa Road | 9,732 | < 50 | 70 | 147 | 65.2 |
| Murrieta Road at East Winchester Road | 8,588 | < 50 | 65 | 136 | 64.7 |
| Murrieta Road at Ridgemoor Road | 9,850 | < 50 | 71 | 148 | 65.3 |
| Cajalco Road at Clark Street | 7,736 | < 50 | 61 | 127 | 64.2 |
| Rubidoux Boulevard at 28th Street | 9,408 | < 50 | 69 | 144 | 65.1 |
| Reche Canyon Road at Reche Vista Drive | 7,800 | < 50 | 61 | 127 | 64.3 |
| Archibald Avenue at Schleisman Road | 7,278 | < 50 | 59 | 122 | 64.0 |
| Stetson Avenue at Columbia Avenue | 9,662 | < 50 | 70 | 147 | 65.2 |
| Mission Boulevard at Glen Street | 8,830 | < 50 | 66 | 138 | 64.8 |
| McCall Boulevard at Aspel Road | 7,888 | < 50 | 62 | 128 | 64.3 |
| Wood Road at Mariposa Avenue | 9,730 | < 50 | 70 | 147 | 65.2 |
| Pyrite Street at Mission Boulevard | 8,648 | < 50 | 64 | 134 | 64.6 |
| Reche Canyon Road at Mercadante Lane | 7,562 | < 50 | 60 | 125 | 64.1 |
| Mission Boulevard at Pedley Road | 9,258 | < 50 | 68 | 142 | 65.0 |
| Stetson Avenue at Stanford Street | 7,502 | < 50 | 60 | 124 | 64.1 |
| Market Street at Agua Mansa Road | 9,796 | < 50 | 70 | 148 | 65.2 |
| Hamner Avenue at Mission Boulevard | 8,286 | < 50 | 64 | 132 | 64.5 |
| SR-243 at Pinecrest Avenue | 6,500 | < 50 | 101 | 209 | 66.7 |
| SR-79 at Auld Road | 9,734 | 65.6 | 129 | 273 | 68.4 |
| SR-60 at I-15 | 139,000 | 345 | 741 | 1,595 | 80.0 |
| SR-60 at Market Street | 80,000 | 240 | 513 | 1,104 | 77.6 |
| I-215 at Fair Isle Drive | 143,000 | 352 | 755 | 1,625 | 80.1 |
| SR-60 at Jack Rabbit Trail | 30,500 | 129 | 271 | 581 | 73.4 |
| I-10 at San Timoteo Canyon Road | 48,000 | 172 | 357 | 785 | 75.4 |
| I-10 at Washington Street | 44,500 | 164 | 348 | 747 | 75.0 |
| I-15 at Magnolia Avenue | 87,000 | 253 | 542 | 1,167 | 78.0 |
| SR-74 at Briggs Road | 17,612 | 92 | 189 | 403 | 71.0 |
| Notes: 1 Traffic noise within 50 feet of the roadway centerline requires site specific analysis. Source: LSA Associates, Inc. 1999. |
|||||
Only roadway segments with traffic volumes higher than 6,000 ADT and representative of the subareas covering the majority of the unincorporated Riverside County were selected for analysis. In some subareas where several ADTs were presented at close range, only the segment with the highest ADT was analyzed. Along roadway segments with traffic volumes less than 6,000 ADT, the 70 and 65 dBA Ldn noise contours would be confined within the roadway right-of-way (i.e., within 50 feet of the roadway center-line). Therefore, no modeling of the traffic noise along these roadway segments was provided.
Typical noise contour diagrams for representative portions of the freeways, arterials, major and secondary roads in the unincorporated Riverside County area are shown in Figures 4.13.3 through 4.13.21.
Existing Railroad Noise
Railroads are another significant noise source within the Riverside County. Currently, Union Pacific Railroad (UP) and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) have railroad operations in the County. Amtrak and Metrolink utilize railroad tracks owned and operated by UP and BNSF.
Discussion with railroad officials indicated that the amount of traffic along the principal railroad lines fluctuates considerably since trains (principally freight) are operated in response to demand and not on the basis of permanent schedules. Staff at the Riverside County Transportation Commission provided the following railroad operations data:
• The number of daily freight trains operating in the Riverside County is 58 in the High Grove area, 24 in Pedley, and 34 in the Green River area (southwest of Corona).
• The number of Amtrak trains is two at the High Grove area and two in the Green River area.
• Metrolink has 9 trains operating in the High Grove area, 12 in the Green River area, and 12 in the Pedley area.
• There is little data available for rail systems operating in the Coachella Valley at the current time.
• Most of the rail tracks in western Riverside County are welded.
• There are no engines that are strictly electric, however, some engines are a combination of electric and diesel.
• The average daily speeds of freight and passenger trains are not available. The size of the train along with the number of locomotives can cause the train speed to fluctuate.
Typical diagrams of railroad noise for representative sections of the major railroad lines in the County are shown in Figures 4.13.22 through 4.13.24.
Existing and Future Airport Noise
Most of the airports in Riverside County have published airport noise contour maps as noted below.
• Banning Airport: Includes noise contours for 1990 and 2008; last updated in 1990.
• Bermuda Dunes Airport: Includes noise contours for 1986 and an unknown future year, last updated in 1986.
• Blythe Airport: Includes noise contours for 2015.
• Chiriaco Summit Airport: Includes noise contours for 2015.
• Corona Municipal Airport: Includes noise contours for 1990 and 1997, last updated in 1993.
• Desert Center Airport: Includes noise contours for 2015.
• Desert Resorts Regional Airport: Includes noise contours for 2010.
• Flabob Airport: Includes noise contours for 1985.
• French Valley Airport: Includes noise contours for 1993 and 2013, last updated in 1995.
• Hemet-Ryan Airport: Includes noise contours for 1986 and an unknown future year, last updated in 1986.
• March Air Reserve Base: Include noise contours for 1998, last updated in 1999.
• Palm Springs Regional Airport: Includes noise contours for 1999 and 2015, last updated in1995.
• Perris Valley Airport: No noise contours map available.
• Riverside Municipal Airport: Includes noise contours for 1989 and 2010, last updated in 1998.
• Skylark Airport: No noise contours map available.
Figure 4.13.25 shows existing noise contours around the airports with existing (pre2000) airport noise contours available. Figure 4.13.25 also shows the existing noise contours for the Chino Airport. Although it is not within the Riverside County Boundary, the noise contours affect areas within the County. Noise contours from LAX do not extend to the Riverside County border, and therefore are not included. Figures 4.13.26 through 4.11.38 show projected future noise contours around the airports.
Existing Industrial/Commercial Noise Sources
There are several major industrial and commercial sites that generate relatively high noise levels that potentially affect their individual neighborhoods. These sources include the following:
• Numerous industrial sites in Mira Loma area.
• Desert Hills Truck Stop/Inspection Facility on I-10 in Cabazon.
• Numerous auto body shops on Mission Avenue in the Rubidoux area.
• Windmills near Palm Springs.
• Lake Elsinore Storm Stadium, located at 500 Diamond Drive in Lake Elsinore.
• El Sobrante Landfill near Corona at 10910 Dawson Canyon Road.
• All American Asphalt mining, located at 400 East 6th Street in Corona.
• 3M mining, located at 18750 Minnesota Road in Corona.
Other Existing Major Noise Sources
In addition to the noise sources described above, there are several noise sources within the unincorporated Riverside County area that are considered to have potential noise impacts to their immediate neighborhoods. These noise sources include the following:
• Mike Raahauges Shooting Range near Norco on River Road off 2nd Street, exit on I-15 .
• Rice Valley Dunes off-road vehicle park, located 5 miles south of Rice Valley, exit on Highway 62.
• Ira G. Long off-road vehicle park, in Palm Springs.
• Gas line pressure release valves in various locations.
• Water activities on the Colorado River.
• Water wells in various locations.
No specific noise information is available for these stationary noise sources. Therefore, no noise contour maps were provided for these sources.
Existing Policies and Regulations
Federal Standards
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has set a goal of 65 dBA Ldn as a desirable maximum exterior standard for residential units developed under HUD funding. This level is also generally accepted within the State of California. While HUD does not specify acceptable interior noise levels, standard construction of residential dwellings constructed under Title 24 standards typically provides in excess of 20 dBA of attenuation with the windows closed. Based on this premise, the interior Ldn should not exceed 45 dBA Ldn.
State of California Standards and Guidelines
The State of California's Office of Noise Control has established standards and guidelines for acceptable community noise levels based on the CNEL and Ldn rating scales. The purpose of these standards and guidelines, summarized in Figure 4.13.39, is to provide a framework for setting local standards for human exposure to noise and for preparing local General Plan noise elements.
As shown in Figure 4.13.39, a normally acceptable designation indicates that a specified land use would achieve all noise reduction requirements with standard construction. By comparison, a conditionally acceptable designation implies that new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements for each land use type is made, and the needed noise insulation features are incorporated by design. In general, sensitive land uses should not be exposed to noise levels indicated by normally unacceptable conditions, or clearly unacceptable conditions.
Sensitive receptors are those land uses that require serenity or are otherwise adversely affected by noise events or conditions. These land uses include, but are not limited to, schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, and residential uses. In addition, many of the open space areas within the Riverside County have been set aside to preserve their serenity, as well as to preserve significant habitat areas, and should also be considered as "sensitive receptors."
Single-family and multifamily residential uses, schools, libraries, and churches have a normally acceptable community noise exposure range of 60 dBA CNEL to 70 dBA CNEL. Most communities use 60 dBA CNEL or 65 dBA CNEL as their exterior residential noise standard. Office buildings are normally acceptable up to 70 dBA CNEL. Industrial and manufacturing land uses, being less sensitive to noise, are normally acceptable where the exterior noise levels are 75 dBA CNEL or less.
Low-density single-family, duplex, and mobile homes are normally acceptable from below 55 dBA to 60 dBA CNEL. Multifamily homes are normally acceptable from below 55 dBA to 65 dBA CNEL. Schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, and nursing homes are normally acceptable from below 55 dBA to 65 dBA.
4.13.2 Noise Thresholds of Significance
Substantial Noise Increase
Mobile sources of noise, such as truck deliveries and railroad operations are exempt from local ordinance but are still subject to CEQA and would be significant if a project generates a volume of traffic that would result in a substantial increase in mobile source-generated noise or site sensitive land uses in incompatible noise areas.
CEQA does not define "substantial increase." Webster's Dictionary defines "substantial" as "considerable in quantity." As noted earlier in the discussion of noise definitions, the human ear can detect changes of 3 dBA and changes of less than 3 dBA, while audible under controlled circumstances, are not readily discernable in an outdoor environment. Thus, a change of 3 dBA is considered as a barely audible change. But CEQA uses a "substantial change" as its criterion. Because most people can readily hear a change of 5 dBA Ldn in an exterior environment, this value was established for the proposed General Plan as the CEQA criterion for substantial change. As a point of reference, Caltrans defines a noise increase as substantial when the predicted noise levels with the project would exceed existing noise levels by 12 dBA Leq.
The proposed General Plan would have a significant effect on noise if implementation of its policies would result in:
• Exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; or
• An increase in long-term ambient noise by 5 dBA Ldn or more.
4.13.3 Noise Impacts and Mitigation
Potentially Significant Impacts
Short-Term Construction Noise Impacts
Impact 4.13.1 Noise levels from grading and other construction activities would potentially result in noise levels reaching 91 dBA Lmax at off-site locations 50 feet from the site boundary. This would result in potentially significant noise impacts to off-site sensitive receptors adjacent to the individual construction site. Compliance with the County's noise ordinance construction hours would be required to reduce construction-related noise impacts to a less than significant level.
Analysis of Impact Short-term noise impacts would be associated with excavation, grading, and erecting buildings during construction of individual projects allowed through the implementation of the proposed General Plan. Construction-related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the project area today, but would no longer occur once construction of the project is completed.
Two types of short-term noise impacts would occur during construction of any individual project site. First, construction crew commute and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the specific project site would incrementally increase noise levels on access roads leading to the site. Although there would be a relatively high single event noise exposure potential, i.e., up to 87 Lmax dBA at 50 feet from passing trucks resulting in potential short-term intermittent annoyances, the effect in long-term ambient noise levels would be small when averaged over a longer period of time. In addition, truck traffic on public roads is regulated by federal and State governments, not local governments. Therefore, short-term construction-related impacts associated with worker commute and equipment transport to the project site would be less than significant.
The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated during excavation, grading, and building erection on the specific individual project site. Construction is performed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on the site and, therefore, the noise levels surrounding the site as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Table 4.13.C lists typical construction equipment noise levels recommended for noise impact assessments, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor.
Typical noise levels range up to 91 dBA Lmax at 50 feet during the noisiest construction phases. The site preparation phase, which includes excavation and grading of the site, tends to generate the highest noise levels, because the noisiest construction equipment is earthmoving equipment. Earthmoving equipment includes excavating machinery, such as backfillers, bulldozers, draglines, and front loaders. Earthmoving and compacting equipment includes compactors, scrapers, and graders. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings.
| Table 4.13.C - Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type of Equipment | Range of Sound Levels Measured (dBA at 50 feet) |
Suggested Sound Levels for Analysis (dBA at 50 feet) |
|||
| Pile Drivers, 12,000 to 18,000 ft-lb/blow | 81 to 96 | 93 | |||
| Rock Drills | 83 to 99 | 96 | |||
| Jack Hammers | 75 to 85 | 82 | |||
| Pneumatic Tools | 78 to 88 | 85 | |||
| Pumps | 68 to 80 | 77 | |||
| Dozers | 85 to 90 | 88 | |||
| Tractors | 77 to 82 | 80 | |||
| Front-End Loaders | 86 to 90 | 88 | |||
| Hydraulic Backhoe | 81 to 90 | 86 | |||
| Hydraulic Excavators | 81 to 90 | 86 | |||
| Graders | 79 to 89 | 86 | |||
| Air Compressors | 76 to 86 | 86 | |||
| Trucks | 81 to 87 | 86 | |||
| Source: Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants, Bolt, Beranek & Newman, 1987. | |||||
Construction is expected to require the use of earthmovers, bulldozers, and water and pickup trucks. This equipment would be used on the project site. As seen in Table 4.13.C, the maximum noise level generated by each earthmover is assumed to be 88 dBA at 50 feet from the earthmover. Each bulldozer would also generate 88 dBA at 50 feet. The maximum noise level generated by water and pickup trucks is approxi-mately 86 dBA at 50 feet from these vehicles. Each doubling of the sound sources with equal strength increases the noise level by 3 dBA. Assuming that each piece of construction equipment operates as an individual noise source, the worst-case combined noise level at each off-site receptor location would be 91 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from an active construction area. Each individual project would be required to comply with the construction hours specified in the County's noise control ordinance to reduce the construction noise impacts to a less than significant level.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan contains policies to minimize the impacts of construction noise. Although the policies reduce the effect of construction noise on sensitive land uses, additional mitigation is provided to further lessen the impacts of construction noise. Those polices are as follows:
Noise Policy 12.1 Minimize the impacts of construction noise on adjacent uses within acceptable practices.
Noise Policy 12.2 Ensure that construction activities are regulated to establish hours of operation in order to prevent and/or mitigate the generation of excessive or adverse noise impacts on surrounding areas.
Noise Policy 12.3 Condition subdivision approval adjacent to developed/occupied noise-sensitive land uses (see policy N 1.3) by requiring the developer to submit a construction-related noise mitigation plan to the County for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. The plan must depict the location of construction equipment and how the noise from this equipment will be mitigated during construction of this project, through the use of such methods as
a. Temporary noise attenuation fences;
b. Preferential location of equipment; and
c. Use of current noise suppression technology and equipment.
Noise Policy 12.4 Require that all construction equipment utilizes noise reduction features (e.g., mufflers and engine shrouds) that are no less effective than those originally installed by the manufacturer.
Effectiveness of Proposed General Plan Policies While the proposed General Plan policies above provide guidance and some standards for reducing noise impacts due to construction, significant impacts could remain. Additional measures are provided to further ensure that the impacts are reduced to less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation Measures
4.13.1A Prior to the issuance of any grading plans, the County shall condition approval of subdivisions adjacent to any developed/occupied noise-sensitive land uses by requiring applicants to submit a construction-related noise mitigation plan to the County for review and approval. The plan should depict the location of con-struction equipment and how the noise from this equipment will be mitigated during construction of the project through the use of such methods as:
• The construction contractor shall use temporary noise attenuation fences where feasible, to reduce construction noise impacts on adjacent noise sensitive land uses.
• During all project site excavation and grading on site, the construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers' standards. The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site.
• The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction.
• The construction contractor shall limit all construction-related activities that would result in high noise levels to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. No construction shall be allowed on Sundays and public holidays.
4.13.1B The construction-related noise mitigation plan required shall also specify that haul truck deliveries be subject to the same hours specified for construction equipment. Additionally, the plan shall denote any construction traffic haul routes where heavy trucks would exceed 100 daily trips (counting those both to and from the construction site). To the extent feasible, the plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. Lastly, the construction-related noise mitigation plan shall incorporate any other restrictions imposed by County staff.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have not altered the policies that pertain to short-term construction noise impacts. Furthermore, because the policies and mitigation measures address noise impacts on a project-by-project basis, their effectiveness will not be reduced by the reconfiguration of land use designations associated with the revised proposed General Plan. Therefore, the policies and mitigation measures will remain effective in reducing impacts associated with short-term construction to a less than significant level.
Long-Term Vehicular Traffic Noise Impacts
Impact 4.13.2 The implementation of the proposed General Plan update would result in potential project-related long-term vehicular noise than would affect sensitive land uses along the roads. New development, particularly residential uses along and adjacent to major transit corridors, could be exposed to excessive traffic-related noise levels. To ensure that all new noise-sensitive proposals are carefully reviewed with respect to potential noise impacts, the County shall review new development using noise guidelines in combination with the land use compatibility standards.
Proposed General Plan Policies Policies and strategies in the proposed General Plan address existing noise issues and ways of reducing noise generation associated with new development and redevelopment, which produce both short-term impacts during construction and long-term operational impacts, such as traffic.
The goal of the Noise Element, compiled under the mandate of Section 65302(g) of the California Government Code and guidelines prepared by the California Department of Health Services (DHS), is to identify and control noise levels appropriate to specific areas consistent with mental and physical health and enjoyment of the environment.
A primary way of reducing the potential for noise impacts is to ensure separation between noise-sensitive uses Ssuch as residences, schools and churches Sand noise generators, such as manufacturing businesses and major transportation corridors. However, since such incompatibilities already exist, measures should be taken to minimize noise impacts. These include site planning, design and construction methods that absorb or deflect sound.
The proposed General Plan incorporates the standards contained in Figure 4.13.39, above, as its definition of noise compatible land use. The proposed General Plan Noise Element also contains the following specific land use standards.
• Single and multiple family residential, group homes, hospitals, schools and other learning institutions, and parks and open space where "quiet is a basis for use" are defined as noise-sensitive land uses, and are "discouraged" in areas where noise is in excess of a 65 dBA CNEL.
• Businesses and professional offices where effective communication is required are to mitigate interior noise levels to 45 dBA.
• In areas adjacent to major roadways, noise levels are to be determined based on the roadway's design capacity, rather than on existing or projected traffic volumes.
Policies that relate to vehicular traffic are as follows:
Mobile Noise Sources
Noise Policy 6.1 Consider noise reduction as a factor in the purchase of County maintenance equipment and their use by County contractors and permittees.
Noise Policy 6.2 Investigate the feasibility of retrofitting current County-owned vehicles and mechanical equipment to comply with noise performance standards consistent with the best available noise reduction technology.
Noise Policy 6.3 Require commercial or industrial truck delivery hours be limited when adjacent to noise-sensitive land uses unless there is no feasible alternative or there are overriding transportation benefits.
Noise Policy 6.4 Restrict the use of motorized trail bikes, mini-bikes, and other off-road vehicles in areas of the County except where designated for that purpose. Enforce strict operating hours for these vehicles in order to minimize noise impacts on sensitive land uses adjacent to public trails and parks.
Vehicular Noise
Noise Policy 8.1 Enforce all noise sections of the State Motor Vehicle Code.
Noise Policy 8.2 Ensure the inclusion of noise mitigation measures in the design of new roadway projects in the County.
Noise Policy 8.3 Require development that generates increased traffic and subsequent increases in the ambient noise level adjacent to noise-sensitive land uses to provide for appropriate mitigation measures.
Noise Policy 8.4 Require that the loading and shipping facilities of commercial and industrial land uses, which abut residential parcels be located and designed to minimize the potential noise impacts upon residential parcels.
Noise Policy 8.5 Employ noise mitigation practices when designing all future streets and highways, and when improvements occur along existing highway segments. These mitigation measures will emphasize the establishment of natural buffers or setbacks between the arterial roadways and adjoining noise-sensitive areas.
Noise Policy 8.6 Require that all future exterior noise forecasts use Level of Service C, and be based on designed road capacity or 20-year projection of development (whichever is less) for future noise forecasts.
Noise Policy 8.7 Require that field noise monitoring be performed prior to siting to any sensitive land uses along arterial roadways. Noise level measurements should be of at least 10 minutes in duration and should include simultaneous vehicle counts so that more accurate vehicle ratios may be used in modeling ambient noise levels.
Effectiveness of Proposed General Plan Policies Although the policies reduce the effect of mobile and vehicular noise on sensitive land uses, significant impacts could still occur with regard to mobile noise sources. Additional mitigation is provided to guarantee that the impacts of mobile noise will be reduced to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures
4.13.2A All new residential developments within the County shall conform to a noise exposure standard of 65 dBA Ldn for outdoor noise in noise-sensitive outdoor activity areas and 45 dBA Ldn for indoor noise in bedrooms and living/family rooms. New development, which does not and cannot be made to conform to this standard, shall not be permitted.
4.13.2B Acoustical studies, describing how the exterior and interior noise standards will be met, shall be required for all new residential developments with a noise exposure greater than 65 dBA Ldn. The studies shall also satisfy the requirements set forth in Title 24, Part 2, or the California Administrative Code, Noise Insulation Standards, for multiple family attached homes, hotels, motels, etc., regulated by Title 24. No development permits or approval of land use applications shall be issued until an acoustic analysis is received and approved by the County Planning Department.
4.13.2C The County shall require that proposed new commercial and industrial developments prepare acoustical studies, analyzing potential noise impacts on adjacent properties, when these developments abut noise-sensitive land uses. The County will require that all identified direct impacts to noise-sensitive land uses be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable a less than significant level.
4.13.2D Ensure that all new schools, particularly in subdivisions and specific plans, are sited more than 2 miles away from any airport.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have not substantially altered the policies that pertain to long-term vehicular noise impacts. Furthermore, because the policies and mitigation measures address noise impacts on a project-by-project basis, their effectiveness will not be reduced by the reconfiguration of land use designations associated with the revised proposed General Plan. Therefore, the policies and mitigation measures will remain effective in reducing impacts associated with long-term vehicular traffic to a less than significant level.
Long-Term Stationary Source Noise Impacts
Impact 4.13.3 New development associated with implementation of the proposed General Plan could expose existing and/or new sensitive uses to stationary noise sources, such as industrial and/or commercial uses.
Analysis of Impact New projects developed under the proposed General Plan would be subject to the County's noise ordinances and the strategies associated with the policies in the proposed General Plan. They would be the County's tool to ensure that existing residences and sensitive uses would not be exposed to excessive noise from non-traffic noise sources.
Proposed General Plan Policies Policies and strategies in the proposed General Plan address existing noise issues and ways of reducing noise generation associated with new development and redevelopment, which produce and long-term stationary noise sources. See discussion of the proposed General Plan policies under Impact 4.13.2 above.
Noise Policy 1.1 Protect noise-sensitive land uses from high levels of noise by restricting noise-producing land uses from these areas. If the noise producing land use cannot be relocated, then noise buffers such as setbacks, landscaping, or block walls shall be used.
Noise Policy 1.2 Guide noise-tolerant land uses into areas irrevocably committed to land uses that are noise-producing, such as transportation corridors or within the projected noise contours of any adjacent airports.
Noise Policy 1.3 Consider the following uses noise-sensitive and discourage these uses in areas in excess of 65 dBA CNEL:
• Schools;
• Hospitals;
• Rest Homes;
• Long-term Care Facilities;
• Mental Care Facilities;
• Residential Uses;
• Libraries;
• Passive Recreation Uses; and
• Places of worship.
According to the State of California Office of Planning and Research General Plan Guidelines, an acoustical study may be required in cases where these noise-sensitive land uses are located in an area of 60 dBA CNEL or greater. Any land use that is exposed to levels higher than 65 dBA CNEL will require noise attenuation measures.
Areas around airports may have different noise standards than those cited above. Each Area Plan affected by a public-use airport includes one or more Airport Influence Areas, one for each airport. The applicable noise compatibility criteria are fully set forth in the technical appendices of the General Plan and summarized in the Policy Area section of the affected Area Plan.
Noise Policy 1.4 Determine if existing land uses will present noise compatibility issues with proposed projects by undertaking site surveys.
Noise Policy 1.5 Prevent and mitigate the adverse impacts of excessive noise exposure on the residents, employees, visitors, and noise-sensitive uses of Riverside County.
Noise Policy 1.6 Minimize noise spillover or encroachment from commercial and industrial land uses into adjoining residential neighborhoods or noise sensitive uses.
Noise Policy 1.7 Require proposed land uses, affected by unacceptably high noise levels, to have an acoustical specialist prepare a study of the noise problems and recommend structural and site design features that will adequately mitigate the noise problem.
Noise Policy 1.8 Limit the maximum permitted noise levels that cross property lines and impact adjacent land uses, except when dealing with noise emissions from wind turbines.
Noise Policy 2.1 Create a County Noise Inventory to identify major noise generators and noise-sensitive land uses, and to establish appropriate noise mitigation strategies.
Noise Policy 2.2 Require a qualified acoustical specialist to prepare acoustical studies for proposed noise-sensitive projects within noise-impacted areas to mitigate existing noise.
Noise Policy 2.3 Mitigate exterior and interior noises to the levels listed in the table below to the extent feasible, for stationary sources:
| Land Use | Interior Standards | Exterior Standards |
|---|---|---|
| Residential 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. |
40 Leq (10 minute) 55 Leq (10 minute) |
45 Leq (10 minute) 65 Leq (10 minute) |
Noise Policy 3.1 Protect Riverside County's agricultural resources from noise complaints that may result from routine farming practices, through the enforcement of the Riverside County Right-to-Farm Ordinance.
Noise Policy 3.2 Require acoustical studies and subsequent approval by the Planning Department and the Office of Industrial Hygiene to help determine effective noise mitigation strategies in noise-producing areas.
Noise Policy 3.3 Ensure compatibility between industrial development and adjacent land uses. To achieve compatibility, industrial development projects may be required to include noise mitigation measures to avoid or minimize project impacts on adjacent uses.
Noise Policy 3.4 Identify point-source noise producers such as manufacturing plants, truck transfer stations, and commercial development by conducting a survey of individual sites.
Noise Policy 3.5 Require that a noise analysis be conducted by an acoustical specialist for all proposed projects that are noise producers. Include recommendations for design mitigation if the project is to be located either within proximity of a noise-sensitive land use, or land designated for noise-sensitive land uses.
Noise Policy 3.6 Discourage projects that are incapable of successfully mitigating excessive noise.
Noise Policy 3.7 Encourage noise-tolerant land uses, such as commercial or industrial, to locate in areas already committed to land uses that are noise-producing.
Stationary Sources
Noise Policy 4.1 Prohibit facility-related noise, received by any sensitive use, from exceeding the following worst-case noise levels: (AI 105)
a. 45 dBA-10-minute Leq between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
b. 65 dBA-10-minute Leq between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
Noise Policy 4.2 Develop measures to control non-transportation noise impacts.
Noise Policy 4.3 Ensure any use determined to be a potential generator of significant stationary noise impacts be properly analyzed, and ensure that the recommended mitigation measures are implemented.
Noise Policy 4.4 Require that detailed and independent acoustical studies be conducted for any new or renovated land uses or structures determined to be potential major stationary noise sources.
Noise Policy 4.5 Encourage major stationary noise-generating sources throughout the County of Riverside to install additional noise buffering or reduction mechanisms within their facilities to reduce noise generation levels to the lowest extent practicable prior to the renewal of Conditional Use Permits or business licenses or prior to the approval and/or issuance of new Conditional Use Permits for said facilities.
Noise Policy 4.6 Establish acceptable standards for residential noise sources such as, but not limited to, leaf blowers, mobile vendors, mobile stereos and stationary noise sources such as home appliances, air conditioners, and swimming pool equipment.
Noise Policy 4.7 Evaluate noise producers for the possibility of pure tone-producing noises. Mitigate any pure tones that may be emitted from a noise source.
Noise Policy 4.8 Require that the parking structures, terminals, and loading docks of commercial or industrial land uses be designed to minimize the potential noise impacts of vehicles on the site as well as on adjacent land uses.
Noise Policy 11.1 Utilize natural barriers such as hills, berms, boulders, and dense vegetation to assist in noise reduction.
Noise Policy 11.2 Utilize dense landscaping to reduce noise effectively. However, when there is a long initial period where the immaturity of new landscaping makes this approach only marginally effective, utilize a large number of highly dense species planted in a fairly mature state, at close intervals, in conjunction with earthen berms, setbacks, or block walls.
Effectiveness of General Plan Policies Although the policies would reduce the effect of stationary noise producers on sensitive land uses, additional mitigation measures are provided to guarantee that the impacts will be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
4.13.3A Acoustical studies shall be required for all new noise-sensitive projects that may be affected by existing noise from stationary sources.
4.13.3B To permit new development of residential and noise-sensitive land uses where existing stationary noise sources exceed the County's noise standards, effective mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce noise exposure to or below the allowable levels of the zoning code/noise control ordinance.
4.13.3C No industrial facilities shall be constructed within 500 feet of any commercial land uses or within 2,800 feet of any residential uses without the preparation of a noise impact analysis. This analysis shall document the nature of the industrial facility as well as "noise producing" operations associated with that facility. Furthermore, the analysis shall document the placement of any existing or proposed commercial or residential land uses situated within the noted distances. The analysis shall determine the potential noise levels that could be received at these commercial and/or residential land uses and specify measures to be employed by the industrial facility to ensure that these levels do not exceed County noise requirements. Such measures could include, but are not limited to, the use of enclosures for noisy pieces of equipment, the use of noise walls and/or berms for exterior equipment and/or on-site truck operations, and/or restrictions on hours of operations. No development permits or approval of land use applications shall be issued until an acoustic analysis is received and approved by the County staff.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have not altered the policies that pertain to long-term stationary noise impacts. Furthermore, because the policies and mitigation measures address noise impacts on a project-by-project basis, their effectiveness will not be reduced by the reconfiguration of land use designations associated with the revised proposed General Plan. Therefore, the policies and mitigation measures will remain effective in reducing impacts associated with long-term stationary noise sources to a less than significant level.
Long-Term Railroad Noise Impacts
Impact 4.13.4 Although the proposed General Plan update would not necessarily result in potential project-related increases in railroad noise, there could be new proposed sensitive land uses along and adjacent to the railroads that would be affected by high railroad noise.
Analysis of Impact New development, particularly residential uses along and adjacent to major railroad corridors, could be exposed to excessive train-related noise levels. To ensure that all new noise-sensitive proposals are carefully reviewed with respect to potential noise impacts, the County shall review new development using the following mitigation in combination with the land use compatibility standards.
Proposed General Plan Policies Policies and strategies in the proposed General Plan address existing noise issues and ways of reducing noise generation associated with new development and redevelopment, which produce and long-term stationary noise sources. See discussion of the proposed General Plan policies under Impact 4.13.1, above. Policies are as follows:
Noise Policy 10.1 Check all proposed projects for possible location within railroad noise contours using typical noise contour diagrams.
Noise Policy 10.2 Minimize the noise effect of rail transit (freight and passenger) on residential uses and other sensitive land uses through the land use planning process.
Noise Policy 10.3 Locate light rail and fixed rail routes and design rail stations in areas that are accessible to both residential and commercial areas, but also minimize noise impacts on surrounding residential and sensitive land uses.
Noise Policy 10.4 Install noise mitigation features where rail operations impact existing adjacent residential or other noise-sensitive uses.
Noise Policy 10.5 Restrict the development of new sensitive land uses to beyond the 65 dBA CNEL contour along railroad rights-of-way.
Effectiveness of Proposed General Plan Policies Although the policies reduce the effect of railroad noise on sensitive land uses, additional mitigation is provided that will further guarantee that the impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures
4.13.4A All new residential developments within the County shall conform to a noise exposure standard of 65 dBA Ldn for outdoor noise in noise-sensitive outdoor activity areas and 45 dBA Ldn for indoor noise in bedrooms and living/family rooms. New development, which does not and cannot be made to conform to this standard, shall not be permitted.
4.13.4B Acoustical studies, describing how the exterior and interior noise standards will be met, shall be required for all new residential developments with a noise exposure greater than 65 dBA Ldn. The studies should also satisfy the requirements set forth in Title 24, Part 2, or the California Administrative Code, Noise Insulation Standards, for multiple family attached homes, hotels, motels, etc., regulated by Title 24.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have not altered the policies that pertain to long-term railroad noise impacts. Furthermore, because the policies and mitigation measures address noise impacts on a project-by-project basis, their effectiveness will not be reduced by the reconfiguration of land use designations associated with the revised proposed General Plan. Therefore, the policies and mitigation measures will remain effective in reducing impacts associated with long-term railroad traffic to a less than significant level.
4.13.4 Noise Level of Significance after Mitigation
After implementation of the proposed General Plan policies and mitigation measures identified above, short-term construction and long-term mobile, stationary, and railroad noise impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.
4.14 Parks and Recreation
This section assesses the potential impacts on parks and recreation that could occur with the development projected under the proposed General Plan. Please note that trails are discussed in Section 4.16, Transportation and Circulation.
4.14.1 Parks and Recreation Existing Setting
With an increasingly urban population developing in Riverside County, greater demands are being placed upon available parks and recreational facilities. In addition, parks provide valuable buffers between built-up urban spaces. The County of Riverside currently maintains 35 regional parks, encompassing approximately 22,317 acres. More than half of these parks are located in the western portion of the County, with other facilities scattered in the desert, mountains, and Colorado River regions. Riverside County also contains 4 park and recreation districts. These 4 park districts provide approximately 27 neighborhood and community parks accounting for approximately 275 acres of parkland. Table 4.14.A provides a summary of the existing parks within the County of Riverside. Figure 4.14.1 identifies approximate park and recreation locations within Riverside County. A more detailed examination of Riverside County park, recreational, and open space resources is included in Sections 4.7 and 4.9 of the Riverside County Integrated Plan Existing Setting Report (incorporated by reference).
| Table 4.14.A - County of Riverside Existing Parks and Facilities | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Type of Park | Number of Parks |
Total Acres |
General Description |
| National | 1 | 794,0001 | Joshua Tree National Park |
| State of California | 7 | 39,423 | State-maintained open space and recreation areas. |
| Riverside County2 | 35 | 22,317 | County regional park locations offer a wide range of recreational activities. |
| Riverside County Park Districts | 27 | 2753 | Neighborhood and community parks offer a wide range of recreational activities. |
| Notes: 1 Total acreage for Joshua Tree National Park is 1,017,748. 2 County of Riverside maintained regional parks. 3 Accounts for Park and Recreational facilities in County of Riverside park districts. |
|||
In addition to the parks available within unincorporated areas, cities within Riverside County currently maintain approximately 215 parks encompassing over 1,534 acres. Parks run by the State of California within Riverside County include California Citrus (in the City of Riverside), Mt. San Jacinto, and Lake Perris all in western Riverside County and Indio Hills Palms and Salton Sea in eastern County. A portion (297 acres) of Chino Hills State Park is in Riverside County, the remainder of the park is in San Bernardino and Orange Counties. The 600,000-acre Anza Borrego State Park is located in River side, San Diego and Imperial Counties. Approximately 21,500 acres of Anza Borrego State Park are in Riverside County. The County contains one National Park, Joshua Tree National Park, 794,000 acres of which are in the County of Riverside and 223,748 acres of which are in San Bernardino County. Riverside County also contains the 272,000-acre Santa Rosa Mountains National Monument that is administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.
Private recreational facilities are found primarily in planned communities and apartment complexes. These facilities usually include tennis/basketball courts, pools/spas, and/or playgrounds. However, the existing facilities are generally small and are so few in number that they have a minor impact in the overall provision of recreational facilities within Riverside County.
There are also several existing and proposed commercial recreational facilities within Riverside County. These include golf courses, polo and equestrian centers, and water/amusement parks.
Existing Policies and Regulations
The following policies/regulations are intended to ensure the dedication and preservation of parks and recreational facilities in Riverside County:
Riverside County Ordinance 460.139 section 10.35 Riverside County has adopted provisions within Ordinance 460.137 (Subdivisions), implementing the Quimby Act by establishing a requirement for dedication of 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 population, or payment of a fee in lieu of such dedication. The fee and/or land dedications or improvements, can only be used to provide neighborhood and community parks that serve the proposed development.
Quimby Act (California Government Code 66477) This State Policy requires the dedication of land and/or imposes a requirement of fees for park and recreational purposes as a condition of approval of tentative map or parcel map.
4.14.2 Parks and Recreation Thresholds of Significance
The proposed General Plan would result in a significant impact on parks and recreational facilities and/or services if growth anticipated with implementation of the proposed General Plan would:
• Require additional staff and/or equipment to maintain acceptable facilities and/or levels of service;
• Result in a substantial need for new, altered, or expanded parks and/or recreational facilities and/or services; and /or
• Does not meet a standard of three (3) acres of neighborhood or community parkland per 1,000 population.
4.14.3 Parks and Recreation Impacts and Mitigation
Potentially Significant Impacts
Increase the Use of Existing Facilities and Create a Need for New Facilities
Impact 4.14.1 Build out within now vacant unincorporated areas of the County will result in a substantial increase in population, residential and non-residential structures; potentially increasing the use of existing parks and recreation facilities. Based on increased population figures and current staffing levels, development associated with the proposed General Plan would require additional neighborhood and/or community parkland and recreational facilities. Therefore, the proposed General Plan could result in significant impacts on existing parks, recreation services and facilities. These impacts will require the expansion of existing facilities and recreation programs or the construction of new parks and recreational facilities. An increase in staff and/or equipment will be needed to maintain the new parkland and recreational facilities.
Analysis of Impact The proposed General Plan identifies and guides future growth, development, and environmental management throughout Riverside County over the long-term. This anticipated growth and development would increase the demand for park and recreation facilities, and would require the construction of new parks and facilities. With the proposed General Plan, it is anticipated that there would be a build out population of 1.77 1.67 million, who would require approximately 5,314 5,000 acres of neighborhood and/or community parkland, according to the park acreage per resident ratio. Currently the County has approximately 275 acres of neighborhood or community parkland located in unincorporated Riverside County. Depending upon the location and function of these new parks, it is possible that park construction or expansion pursuant to the proposed General Plan build out could result in adverse physical effects on the environment.
The physical effects on the environment from the construction of new parks and recreational facilities are mitigated through the implementation of policies and mitigation provided in the land use, air quality, noise, traffic, public service and biological resources sections of the EIR. No further mitigation is required.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan includes the following policies to reduce or minimize the effects of future growth on parks and recreational facilities. This is achieved through the policies performance standards, which require that absorption of dedicated recreational lands by non-recreational uses be replaced with similar or improved facilities and programs. These policies require that construction of recreation facilities occurs concurrent with other development in an area. As specified in these policies, new development shall also meet the parkland requirements as established in the Quimby Act and County enabling ordinances. Implementation of the performance standards contained within the proposed General Plan policies related to parks and recreational facilities would minimize the effects of growth and development.
Open Space Policy 20.3 Discourage the absorption of dedicated recreational lands by public or private non-recreational uses. Where absorption is unavoidable, replace lands that are absorbed by other uses with similar or improved facilities and programs.
Open Space Policy 20.5 Require that development of recreation facilities occurs concurrent with other development in an area.
Open Space Policy 20.6 Require new development to provide implementation strategies for the funding of both active and passive parks and recreational sites.
Land Use Policy 19.1 The County shall develop and maintain a regional park system that provides recreational opportunities for residents of and visitors to Riverside County at a ratio of 3 acres of active parkland per 1,000 residents.
Land Use Policy 19.2 Provide for a balanced distribution of recreational amenities in Open Space, Rural and Community Development General Plan land uses.
Land Use Policy 19.3 Require that park facilities be accessible to the community, regardless of age, physical limitations or income level.
Land Use Policy 19.5 Require that new development meet the parkland requirements as established in the Quimby Act and County enabling ordinances such as Riverside County Ordinance 460.137.
Effectiveness of Proposed General Plan Policies Performance standards contained within the proposed General Plan policies will minimize the effects of growth and development to a less than significant level. These performance standards contained within the proposed General Plan policies will guarantee that the future residents of the County will be provided with adequate parks and recreation facilities. Implementation of proposed policies would lessen the potential impacts on park and recreation facilities and/or services to less than significant levels and no mitigation is required.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have not substantially altered the meaning and applicability of the policies that pertain to parks and recreations. The overall population at build out has increased due to changes in land use designations; however, it does not alter the ratio of park land per capita. There were no changes to the policies regarding parks and recreation. No changes to the analysis and conclusions are necessary, since the policies effectively mitigate increases of population on parks.
4.14.4 Parks and Recreation Level of Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of the performance standards contained within the proposed General Plan policies would lessen the potential impacts on park and recreation facilities and/or services to less than significant levels and no mitigation is required.
4.15 Public Services
This section discusses public services, which include fire protection, Sheriff protection, solid waste management, wastewater, schools, libraries, and medical facilities. Public Services is not a section that is included in the 2002 Riverside County General Plan, as it is not one of the required seven elements (Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Noise, Open Space, and Safety). Implementation of the proposed General Plan will permit development that will impact public services. This EIR section examines the effects of build out of the proposed General Plan on public services.
4.15.1 Fire Protection
Fire Protection Existing Setting
The existing setting is summarized from the information contained within Section 9.0 of the Riverside County Existing Setting Report prepared for the 2002 Riverside County General Plan (incorporated by reference).
The Riverside County Fire Department operates 85 fire stations. A total of 51 of these stations, as well as three stations operated by the California Department of Forestry, are located in the unincorporated portion of Riverside County. In addition to providing fire protection services to unincorporated areas, the Riverside County Fire Department provides fire protection services to 16 cities on a contractual basis. They include the following:
• Banning
• Indian Wells
• Palm Desert
• Beaumont
• Indio
• Perris
• Calimesa
• La Quinta
• Rancho Mirage
• Canyon Lake
• Lake Elsinore
• San Jacinto
• Coachella
• Moreno Valley
• Temecula
• Desert Hot Springs
In the case of a fire response, the County is part of a mutual aid program with all of the cities in the County. Upon the receipt of a call for mutual aid through the County's Emergency Command Center (ECC), the County's mutual aid coordinator will determine whether a city or the County will provide a response. The ECC is a combined County, State, and local agency dispatch center. The facility is responsible for alerting and handling incidents over a 7,200-square mile area. Staffing is a mix of paid State and County dispatchers, with volunteer call taker support. Located in the City of Perris, it houses a dispatch center and associated functions.
Most Riverside County fire stations have a minimum of two career firefighters (typically, a Captain and a firefighter) on duty at all times. Volunteer firefighters typically augment the career firefighters on the first-roll engine. Additional volunteer firefighters may respond on a rescue squad or second-roll fire engine, which is exclusively staffed by volunteer firefighters.
State and Local Fire Polices and Regulations
Fire policies and regulations governing the unincorporated areas of Riverside County include Riverside County Ordinance No. 787, Riverside County Master Fire Protection Plan, the California Public Resources Code No. 4290, the Uniform Fire Code, and the Uniform Building Code.
Riverside County Ordinance No. 787 is based on the Uniform Fire Code, and outlines fire protection standards for the safety, health, and welfare of the citizens of the County. Among the items regulated by Ordinance No. 787 are access to a project, storage of hazardous materials, building design, water supply, and brush clearance.
The Riverside County Master Fire Protection Plan outlines the fire protection performance standards for both rural and urban areas, and establishes guidelines for facility and personnel minimum requirements.
The California Public Resources Code No. 4290 includes provisions for the protection of areas that are designated as State responsibility areas.
The Uniform Fire Code established by the International Fire Code Institute and the Uniform Building Code established by the International Conference of Building Officials both prescribe performance characteristics and materials to be used to achieve acceptable levels of fire protection.
The Riverside County standard for the establishment of a new fire station is the development of 2,000 dwelling units or 3.5 million square feet of commercial or industrial uses. Riverside County also requires the payment of mitigation fees to collect revenue for the establishment of new stations. Riverside County currently requires new development proponents to pay mitigation fees to help offset the cost of providing new fire facilities. The current Riverside County fire fees are$400.00 per single family dwelling unit and$0.25 per square foot for all other types of development.
Fire Protection Thresholds of Significance
An impact to fire protection is considered significant if one or more of the following conditions would result from implementation of the proposed General Plan:
• Place residents or the general public in a situation of endangerment as a result of inadequate services, resources, and/or safety measures;
• Create or exacerbate an existing fire hazard, or expose people to high fire hazard conditions without adequate fire protection;
• Result in an increase in response times in excess of seven minutes for urban areas or 20 minutes for rural areas, as established by the Riverside County Fire Department (e.g., urban development is located more than 3 miles from a County fire station or rural development is located more than 5 miles from a County fire station); and /or
• Locate development in a High Fire Hazard Area that does not provide a community water system.
Fire Protection Impacts and Mitigation
Potentially Significant Impact
Impact 4.15.1 Build out of unincorporated areas of the County will result in a substantial increase in population and residential and non-residential structures, increasing the need for fire emergency services and facilities. Based on increased population figures and current staffing levels, development associated with the proposed General Plan would require additional on-duty firefighters. Therefore, the proposed General Plan could result in significant impacts on existing fire protection services and require expansion of fire protection services.
Analysis of Impact As shown in Table 4.15.A, based on existing standards, the County would require 438 fire stations at build out. Currently, Riverside County has 85 fire stations. Therefore, the Riverside County Fire Department would need 379 353 new fire stations to accommodate growth projected with build out of the proposed General Plan over the next 40 years.
The Riverside County Fire Department's ability to support the needs of future growth is dependent upon its ability to secure sites for, construct, and equip new fire stations in a timely manner. The County's reliance on volunteer firefighters also requires that a sufficient number of volunteer firefighters be recruited and maintained.
| Table 4.15.A - Fire Stations Needed at General Plan Build Out | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Proposed Land Use | Build Out Total | Generation Factor (One Fire Station per) |
Fire Stations Needed at Build Out |
| Residential | 591,209 units |
2,000 units |
296 |
| Commercial | 151,894,591 square feet |
3,500,000 square feet |
43 |
| Industrial1 | 438,109,927 square feet |
3,500,000 square feet |
125 |
| Total | 464 |
||
| 1 Includes the following land uses: Light industrial, Heavy Industrial, and Business Park. | |||
The provision of fire stations varies more as a function of the geographic distribution of structures than of population increases. One of the most important criteria for effective firefighting is the response time needed to reach the site of the fire. Existing stations are strategically located to ensure adequate service within the area. Nevertheless, having more structures at build out suggests that the potential for structural fires would increase with the proposed General Plan.
Providing fire service to foothill areas is currently difficult and will continue to be a hazard in the future. These foothill areas have a greater chance of being exposed to wildland fires. The foothill areas also have a greater density of vegetation, which has a very high oil content that creates fire danger. Wildland fires are a serious and growing hazard. In Riverside County, an increasing number of people is living and playing in wildland/urban intermix areas. Wildland/urban interfaces create extremely dangerous and complex fire conditions, posing a safety threat to the public and firefighters.
Additional development, particularly industrial, would increase the amount of hazardous materials, such as gasoline, crude oil, and acids stored or used within Riverside County. Service calls regarding the containment of hazardous materials are serious and may require the assistance of specialists. Development of additional roadways and increased traffic would increase the potential for hazardous material accidents along roadways within Riverside County.
The increase in residential population and employment opportunities with the proposed General Plan and resulting demand for fire protection and emergency medical services is considered a significant impact.
To achieve fire protection for all residents of the County, the County Department of Building and Safety and the County Fire Department enforce fire standards as they review building plans and conduct building inspections. Additional programs implemented to ensure compliance with established fire standards include: the maintenance of a Countywide Information Map, showing area of high fire hazard areas; the provision of uniform fire improvement standards for various land uses; and the continued updating of the of a Fire Protection Master Plan.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan, although it does not include a Public Services Element, does include the following policies intended to address the effects of fire hazards on future residents and habitable structures. These policies reduce the effects of fire hazards by both reducing the fire threat and by maintaining adequate fire protection plans. The proposed General Plan policies related to fire services are public policy but not mitigation under CEQA. Implementation of the listed policies along with the implementation of the Riverside County Ordinance No. 787, Riverside County Master Fire Protection Plan, the California Public Resources Code No. 4290, the Uniform Fire Code, and the Uniform Building Code will reduce the effects of development on fire protection service impacts to a less than significant level.
Safety Policy 5.2 Reduce the threat of fires and strengthen firefighting capability so that the County can successfully respond to multiple fires.
Safety Policy 5.4 Riverside County should utilize ongoing brush clearance fire inspections to educate homeowners on fire prevention tips.
Safety Policy 5.5 Conduct and implement long-range fire safety planning, including stringent building, fire, subdivision, and municipal code standards, improved infrastructure, and improved mutual aid agreements with the private and public sector.
Safety Policy 5.6 Ensure coordination between the Fire Department and the Transportation Land Management Agency, Environmental Health Department and private and public water purveyors County Engineer and Riverside County Fire Department to improve firefighting infrastructure, during implementation of the County's capital improvement programs, by obtaining:
• Replacement and/or relocation of old cast-iron pipelines and inadequate water mains when street improvements are planned;
• Assessment of impact fees as a condition of development; and
• Redundant emergency distribution pipelines in areas of potential ground failure or where determined to be necessary.
Safety Policy 5.7 Develop a program to utilize existing reservoirs, tanks, and water wells in the County for emergency fire suppression water resources.
Safety Policy 5.8 Periodically review Strengthen inter-jurisdictional fire response agreements, and improve firefighting resources as recommended in the County Fire Protection Master Plan to keep pace with development, including construction of additional high-rises, mid-rise business parks, increasing numbers of facilities housing immobile populations, and the risk posed by multiple ignitions to ensure that (AI 4, AI 88):
• Fire reporting and response times do not exceed those listed in the County Fire Protection Master Plan identified for each of the development densities described 4.0 minutes;
• Fire flow engine requirements (water for fire protection) are consistent with Insurance Service Office (ISO) recommendations; and
• The planned deployment and height of aerial truck ladders and other specialized equipment and apparatus are is sufficient. for the intensity of development desired.
Safety Policy 5.9 Continue Direct the Riverside County Fire Department collaboration to collaborate with the Transportation Land Management Agency (TLMA) to update produce development guidelines for the urban/wildland areas boundary. These guidelines should include increasing the development area.
Safety Policy 5.10 Continue to utilize the Riverside County Fire Protection Master Plan as the base document to implement the goals and objectives of the Safety Element.
Land Use Policy 5.2 Monitor the capacities of infrastructure and services in coordination with service providers, ensuring that growth does not exceed acceptable levels of service.
Land Use Policy 9.1 Require that new development proponents contribute their "fair share" to fund infrastructure and fire facilities.
Other Existing County of Riverside Requirements
• The County requires development applicants to pay established fire protection mitigation fees that are to be used by the County Fire Department to construct new fire protection facilities or provide facilities in lieu of the fee as approved by the Riverside County Fire Department.
• The County requires a development within a high fire hazard area to design and implement a fuel modification programs for the interface between developed and natural areas within and adjacent to the proposed project area. Such fuel modification plans shall be subject to approval by the Riverside County Fire Department. The fuel modification programs shall be achieved though gradu ated transition from native vegetation to irrigated landscape. The program shall also establish parameters for the percent, age, extent, and nature of native plant removal necessary to achieve the County fire prevention standards to protect human lives and property, while preserving as much natural habitat as practicable.
• The County requires all new structures constructed in unincorporated areas comply with the construction requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 787, and shall be provided with fire-retardant roofing material as described in the Uniform Building Code.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have not substantially altered the meaning and applicability of the policies that pertain to Fire Protection Public Services. The overall number of fire stations needed at build out has decreased due to changes in population and the changes in the acreage designated for the various land use designations; however, it is consistent with the originally analyzed ratio of need based on population and land use designations. Changes to the policies have ensured improvement to the fire fighting infrastructure; insured that interjurisdictional fire response agreements and planned fire equipment to be deployed are periodically reviewed; continuation of the collaboration between the County Fire Department and the Transportation Land Management Agency; and ensured the goals and objectives of the Safety Element utilize the County's Fire Protection Master Plan as its base document. Thus, no changes to the analysis and conclusions are necessary.
Fire Protection Level of Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of the General Plan policies and County requirements would reduce potential impacts related to the effects of future development on fire protection services by reducing the threat of fire, improving the firefighting infrastructure, and ensuring that growth does not exceed acceptable levels of service. Therefore, potential impacts related to fire protection services will be reduced to a less than significant level and no mitigation is required.
4.15.2 Sheriff Protection
Sheriff Protection Existing Setting
Riverside County provides community policing and the operation and maintenance of correctional facilities. The Riverside County Sheriff's Department has 2,720 employees, including 1,330 sworn personnel to provide for community policing services. Nine sheriff sub-stations are located throughout Riverside County to provide area-level community service. In addition, the Sheriff's Department operates the Moreno Valley Police Department station in the City of Moreno Valley. The Sheriff's Department is a "demand response" agency that maintains limited patrol services. The Sheriff's Department also operates five adult correction or detention centers located throughout the County, as well as juvenile detention facilities.
Riverside County Sheriff's Department has established the following criteria for its staffing requirements in unincorporated areas of the County.
• One sworn officer per 1,000 population
• One supervisor and one support staff employee per seven officers
• One patrol vehicle per three sworn officers
• One school resource officer per school
Sheriff Protection Thresholds of Significance
The proposed General Plan is considered to have a significant impact on sheriff services if it would result in a substantial need for such services that cannot be adequately met by available Sheriff's Department personnel or equipment.
Sheriff Protection Impacts and Mitigation
Potentially Significant Impacts
Impact 4.15.2 Increases in population and employment anticipated with the proposed General Plan would increase the need for sheriff protection and sheriff services, requiring additional emergency responses and the need for additional sheriff personnel and related support facilities. This increased demand for officers and facilities is considered a significant impact.
Analysis of Impact Currently, the Riverside County Sheriff's Department has 1,330 sworn personnel. With a population of 1,771,299 1,671,848 at build out and a generation factor of 1.5 sworn personnel per 1,000 population, there would be a need for 2,657 2,508 sworn personnel. Hence, the department would need to grow by 1,327 1,178 deputies with the General Plan build out to meet the needs of Riverside County.
The ability of the Sheriff's Department to support the needs of future growth is dependent upon its financial ability to hire additional sworn personnel. In addition, a growing population would require that the Sheriff's Department secure sites and construct new detention facilities on a timely basis.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan, although it does not include a Public Services Element, does include the following policies intended to address the effects of future residents on sheriff protection services. These policies ensure adequate sheriff protection as development occurs. The effectiveness of the policies at reducing such impacts is analyzed below and additional mitigation measures are provided to ensure that future development in the County would not have significant adverse impacts on sheriff protection services.
Land Use Policy 5.1 Ensure that development does not exceed the ability to adequately provide supporting infrastructure and sheriff services.
Land Use Policy 5.2 Monitor the capacities of sheriff services, outside agencies, and jurisdictions to ensure that planned growth does not exceed acceptable levels of service.
Land Use Policy 9.1 Riverside County shall require that new development proponents contribute their "fair share" to fund Sheriff services facilities.
Effectiveness of General Plan Policies The General Plan policies focus on the assurance that development does not exceed the ability of the County to provide sheriff protection. The policies do not ensure that communities and large private facilities will provide private security, nor do the policies set specific levels of service. In conjunction with the proposed General Plan policies, the following mitigation measures will be implemented.
Mitigation Measures
4.15.2A The County shall require as a part of the development review process, proponents of new businesses, recreational, and commercial land uses such as shopping centers, health clubs, large hotels over 200 rooms, convention centers, and commercial recreational activities be required to provide on-site security.
4.15.2B The TLMA shall inform the Riverside County Sheriff's Department of the existence of all new homeowner's associations within the County. The Riverside County Sheriff's Department shall coordinate with homeowner's associations to establish a Neighborhood Watch Program.
4.15.2C Riverside County shall meet and maintain a goal of 1.5 sworn officers per 1,000 population, as recommended by the International City Managers' Association.
4.15.2D The County shall require the development applicant to pay the County Sheriff's established development mitigation fee prior to issuance of a certifi-cate of occupancy on any structure as they are developed. The fees are for the acquisition and construction of public facilities.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have not substantially altered the meaning and applicability of the policies that pertain to Sheriff Protection Public Services. The overall number of deputies needed at build out has increased due to changes in population and the changes in the areas designated for the various land use designations; however, it is consistent with the originally analyzed ratio of need based on population. The increase in the number of deputies required at build out is not substantial because it represents only a 6 percent increase in population and the increase in dwelling units and tax base will provide additional property taxes that can be used for funding for additional sheriff protection. There has been no change in the polices regarding sheriff protection. Thus, no changes to the analysis and conclusions are necessary.
Sheriff Protection Level of Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of the proposed General Plan polices and proposed mitigation measures would ensure the provision of security and ensure the funding for additional personnel and facilities, thereby reducing potential impacts related to a future development's effects on sheriff protection services to a less than significant level.
4.15.3 Solid Waste Management
Solid Waste Management Existing Setting
Decreasing landfill disposal capacity and the increasing difficulty to site or expand waste disposal facilities, whether from public opposition or the enactment of more stringent environmental regulations, led to the passage of the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 [Assembly Bill 939, Chapter 1095, Statutes of 1989, et seq. (AB 939)]. AB 939 was adopted in an effort to reduce the volume and toxicity of solid waste that is disposed. With its passage, solid waste management practices were redefined by 1) requiring each of the cities and unincorporated portions of counties throughout the State of California to divert, 25 percent by 1995, and, as of the year 2000, 50 percent of the solid waste that is disposed, and, 2) requiring local governments to prepare and implement plans to improve waste resource management by integrating solid waste management principles that place importance on first reducing solid waste through source reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting before disposing of it through environmentally safe landfill disposal or transformation (e.g., regulated incineration of solid waste materials).
The Riverside Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP), adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on January 14, 1997, and approved by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) on September 23, 1998, outlines the goals, policies, and programs the County and its cities will implement to create an integrated and cost effective waste management system that complies with the provisions of AB 939 and its diversion mandates. The CIWMP is composed of the Riverside Countywide Summary Plan, the Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) for the County and each of its cities, the Nondisposal Facility Element (NDFE) for the County and each of its cities, the Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE) for the County and each of its cities, and the Riverside Countywide Siting Element.
The Riverside County Waste Management Department (RCWMD) is specifically charged with the responsibility of: 1) implementing programs that adhere to the goals, policies, and objectives outlined in the County's SRRE that enable the unincorporated portion of Riverside County to achieve 50 percent diversion of solid waste from landfill disposal; 2) implementing programs that adhere to the goals, policies and objectives outlined in the County's HHWE to reduce the amount of household hazardous waste (HHW) that is disposed within landfills; 3) meeting the solid waste disposal needs of all Riverside County residents; and 4) maintaining and updating the CIWMP and reporting to the CIWMB on the County's progress in complying with AB 939.
The County's SRRE provides the framework for the County's diversion efforts, identifying programs (e.g., public educational programs, backyard composting programs, etc.) and a network of facilities that serve to reduce and/or recycle solid waste, including one bio-mass facility (Colmac Energy), several green/woody waste recyclers, several construction and demolition recyclers, and nondisposal facilities, as identified and described within the County's NDFE, that include composting facilities, transfer stations, and solid waste collection or drop-off facilities. The County's HHWE, on the other hand, provides the framework for recycling, treating, and disposal practices for household hazardous waste. Like the SRRE, the HHWE includes a public educational component.
The Countywide Siting Element identifies and describes those waste facilities that will be used for the development of adequate transformation or disposal capacity for solid waste that has first been reduced through source reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting. Because transformation facilities are not currently operated or proposed within the jurisdictional boundaries of Riverside County and its cities, the Countywide Siting Element focuses entirely on landfills. However, the goals and policies do not preclude the development of future transformation facilities. The Siting Element serves as a policy manual that outlines various strategies for meeting the disposal needs of all Riverside County residents and enabling the County to provide a minimum of 15 years of disposal capacity.
RCWMD prepares an Annual Report each August that is submitted to the CIWMB. The Annual Report serves as a basis for determining if the Siting Element and Summary Plan should be revised to include additional disposal capacity, reflect new or changed local and regional solid waste management issues, or reflect new or changed goals and objectives. The Annual Report is reviewed by the CIWMB to determine if the County is making progress toward meeting its goals and objectives. The CIWMP is also subject to a five-year review to assess if revision is necessary and to determine that the County's waste management practices remain consistent with the hierarchy of waste management practices. The Riverside County Annual Report for 2000 (prepared in August 2001) documents that the County's disposal facilities provide more than 15 years of disposal capacity, based on projected growth in disposal with a 50 percent diversion rate. These disposal facilities include eight active landfills within the unincorporated area of Riverside County; seven of which are operated by the Department, and the eighth, El Sobrante Landfill, is privately owned and operated under an agreement with the County of Riverside (refer to Table 4.15.B, Active Landfills in Riverside County). Another private landfill, the Eagle Mountain Landfill, while non-active, is fully permitted to operate.1 In addition to these active landfills, the Department is involved in the closure and post-closure of another 30 disposal sites, which may include construction, monitoring, and/or maintenance activities.
1 County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County is in escrow with the owners of this landfill to purchase Eagle Mountain Landfill. The Sanitation Districts may have as much as 10 years from the time the escrow closes to open the landfill. The Development Agreement adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors guarantees the County 2,000 tons per day of disposal capacity during the life of the landfill.
| Table 4.15.B - Active Landfills in Riverside County | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Landfill Sites | Estimated Closure Year |
Permitted Capacity (Tons/Day) |
Permitted Capacity (Tons/Year) |
Remaining Capacity As of July 1, 2001* (Tons) |
| Badlands | 2018 | 4,000 | 1,248,000 | 10,515,251 |
| Blythe | 2034 | 400 | 129,600 | 1,644,325 |
| Edom Hill | 2004 | 2,651 | 858,920 | 1,072,355 |
| El Sobrante | 2031 | 10,000 | 3,120,000 | 42,033,286 |
| Lamb Canyon | 2024 | 1,900 | 615,600 | 5,496,571 |
| Mecca II (open 2 days/week) |
2005 | 400 | 41,600 | 18,208 |
| Desert Center (open 2 days/year) |
2011 | 60 | 120 | 18,261 |
| Oasis (open 2 days/year) |
2186 | 41 | 82 | 75,686 |
| Total | 6,013,922 | 60,873,943 | ||
| *Source: 2001 Governmental Accounting Standard Board (GASB) – Engineering Estimate, per Riverside County Waste Management Department | ||||
Commercial and residential municipal solid waste (MSW) is delivered to County landfills by both waste hauling companies and self-haulers. Within the unincorporated portion of the County, the waste hauling companies operate under franchise agreements with the Riverside County Environmental Health Department. Through these agreements, the haulers are required to implement residential curbside recycling programs and some commercial recycling. Within the cities, solid waste is either collected by the city itself or by a waste hauler pursuant to a franchise agreement with the city, and the cities or their haulers carry out similar source reduction and recycling programs.
To conserve landfill capacity and promote recycling, the Department also operates several recycling programs at the County landfills. Metals, appliances, and tires are some of the materials recycled through these programs. In addition, clean green waste that has been ground by local green waste/woody waste recyclers is used for alternative daily cover on landfill surfaces.
All of the active landfills currently located in Riverside County are classified as Class III landfills, as per Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), which accept only nonhazardous, municipal solid wastes. Hazardous waste that inadvertently enters the County landfills is handled through a Load Check Program, which consists of: 1) random waste load inspections, 2) temporary storage of the recovered hazardous waste at the Lamb Canyon's central accumulation facility, and 3) removal of the accumulated hazardous waste by a licensed hazardous waste hauler for recycling and disposal. In order to provide alternative outlets for the recycling and proper disposal of the most common HHW, such as antifreeze, batteries, oil, and paints (ABOP), the County Environmental Health Department operates three permanent ABOP facilities. In addition, the Environmental Health Department and the Waste Management Department each sponsor mobile programs for residents of the County and its cities to periodically collect ABOP, as well as other HHW. Multiple used motor oil drop-off centers are located throughout the County to collect used oil and recycle it. Hazardous waste management is more specifically discussed in Section 4.11, Hazardous Materials.
Solid Waste Management Existing Policies and Regulations
The following are existing policies of the County of Riverside Solid Waste Management Plan 1996.
• Operate a cost-effective integrated waste management system that will be adequately financed to meet AB 939 requirements, as well as operational and maintenance needs.
• Facilitate a cooperative effort by communicating and coordinating all significant solid waste policy and major fiscal matters to all jurisdictions participating in the waste management system.
• Promote an integrated waste management system that emphasizes source reduction as its first priority, recycling and composting as secondary priorities, and environmentally safe landfill disposal and transformation when recycling is not possible.
• Cooperatively assess the need for and development of non-disposal facilities.
• Continue to review and evaluate new waste management technologies to implement a more efficient integrated waste management system.
• Work cooperatively to develop programs that assist jurisdictions in achieving long-term economies of scale, resulting in cost savings that could not be achieved individually.
• Pursue State and federal grants for establishing and enhancing reduction programs.
• Continue to examine countywide policies, practices, and/or ordinances that can be implemented to reduce illegal dumping.
Solid Waste Management Thresholds of Significance
An impact to the County's waste management system would occur if the build out of the proposed General Plan would create demands for waste management services that exceed the capabilities of the County's waste management system. The impact would be considered significant if, 1) there is no expansion capability or an expansion project or a new waste facility cannot be approved due to environmental constraints, land use conflicts, or political factors, 2) the proposed General Plan land use policies preclude or do not promote expansion or development of waste facilities and new technologies and/or create compatibility issues or land use conflicts; and/or, 3) the existing solid waste services are significantly disrupted (e.g., natural disasters, land use constraints, political factors).
Solid Waste Impacts and Mitigation
Potentially Significant Impact
Impact 4.15.3 Increases in population and employment with the proposed General Plan could result in the incremental increase of solid waste throughout unincorporated Riverside County. This could increase the need for solid waste disposal, requiring additional landfill capacity and related support facilities. This increase is considered substantial and could result in a significant impact on existing solid waste facilities.
Analysis of Impact Table 4.15.C quantifies the generation of solid waste with the proposed General Plan at build out. Proposed General Plan build out is assumed in 2040 based on the Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG) projected rate of growth in the County.
| Table 4.15.C - Generation of Solid Waste at General Plan Build Out | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Land Use | Development at Build Out | Solid Waste Generation Rate | Solid Waste Generation |
| Residential | 591,209 |
0.41 tons/unit/year | 242,396 tons/year |
| Commercial | 151,894,591 |
0.0024 tons/sf/year | 364,547 tons/year |
| Industrial | 438,109,927 |
0.0108 tons/sf/year | 4,731.587 tons/year |
| Public/Quasi-Public | 273,868,690 |
0.0108 tons/sf/year | 2,957,782 tons/year |
| Total | 8,296.312 tons/year |
||
| Notes: sf = square feet. 1 Includes 111 dwelling units at the March Inland Port. Source: Integrated Waste Management Board, at www.ciwmb.ca.gov. |
|||
As shown in previously referenced Table 4.15.B, the yearly permitted capacity of the landfills that serve Riverside County is currently 6,013,920 tons. The Mecca Landfill II will close January 1, 2005, which would reduce the yearly capacity of the landfills by 41,600 tons. Thereafter, Riverside County would be able to dispose of 5,972,320 of solid waste within the existing landfills each year. Table 14.15.C projects the County's generation of solid waste at build out, at 8,296,312 tons per year. AB 939 mandates the reduction of waste disposal in landfills. The Bill mandated a minimum 50 percent diversion goal by the year 2000. With the implementation of AB 939 provisions, the amount of solid waste disposed of in landfills by build out will be 4,148,156 tons per year.
As stated above, SCAG projects that Riverside County build out will occur in approximately 40 years. While all the currently active landfills have estimated closure dates that predate the build out year of 2040, expansions of the Badlands and Lamb Canyon Landfills are planned that may extend the life of these landfills. In addition, the County has guaranteed disposal capacity of 2,000 tons of solid waste per day at the Eagle Mountain Landfill. While not currently active, it is fully permitted, and has an estimated closure date of 2085, with expansion capability that adds approximately 38 more years of life.
The 15-year projection of disposal capacity is prepared each year by the RCWMD as part of the annual reporting requirements for the CIWMP. A copy of the 15-year projection that was prepared in 2001 and submitted to the CIWMB is shown in Table 4.15.D. The County's projection is a disposal-based projection, accounting for both growth in disposal needs or demand (4 percent per year) and diversion requirements. In addition, the projection assumes Eagle Mountain Landfill will become operational in 2010. Six years of County-reserved disposal capacity (2,000 tons per day x 307 days/ year x 6 years = 3,684,000 tons) was added to the County's disposal capacity in 2011.
| Table 4.15.D - Disposal Capacity for Riverside County (Tons), 2001 - 2016 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Year End | Countywide Disposal | Countywide Remaining Capacity | Additional Capacity Needed |
| 2000 | 22,108,032 | 0 | |
| 2001 | 1,725,541 | 60,382,491 | 0 |
| 2002 | 1,794,563 | 58,587,928 | 0 |
| 2003 | 1,866,345 | 56,721,583 | 0 |
| 2004 | 1,940,999 | 54,780,584 | 0 |
| 2005 | 2,018,639 | 52,761,945 | 0 |
| 2006 | 2,099,384 | 50,662,561 | 0 |
| 2007 | 2,183,360 | 48,479,201 | 0 |
| 2008 | 2,270,694 | 46,208,507 | 0 |
| 2009 | 2,361,522 | 43,846,985 | 0 |
| 2010 | 2,455,983 | 41,391,002 | 0 |
| 2011 | 2,554,222 | 42,520,780 | 0 |
| 2012 | 2,656,391 | 39,864,389 | 0 |
| 2013 | 2,762,647 | 37,101,742 | 0 |
| 2014 | 2,873,153 | 34,228,589 | 0 |
| 2015 | 2,988,079 | 34,113,663 | 0 |
| 2016 | 3,107,602 | 31,120,987 | 0 |
| Source: Landfill System Capacity Projection Study, August 2001. | |||
Therefore, by the build out of Riverside County (in approximately 40 years) the County will need to dispose of 4,148,156 3,319,941 tons of solid waste in landfills each year. The amount of landfill capacity needed to accommodate this solid waste is directly in line with the County's projected increased landfill need (4 percent per year). Hence, the proposed General Plan would not create demands for waste management services that exceed the capabilities of the County's waste management system and impacts to solid waste facilities associated with future build out of the General Plan are less than significant.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan does not include any land use policies that protect existing and future waste facilities from conflicting land uses, which could result in the premature closure of these facilities. The proposed General Plan, although it does not include a Public Services Element, does include the following policies to address the effects of future development on solid waste facilities. The effectiveness of the policies at reducing such impacts are analyzed below and additional mitigation measures are provided to ensure that development in the County would not have significant adverse impacts on solid waste management.
Land Use Policy 5.1 Ensure that development does not exceed the ability to adequately provide supporting infrastructure and services for solid waste.
Land Use Policy 5.2 Monitor the capacities of landfills in coordination with service providers, outside agencies, and jurisdictions to ensure that projected growth does not exceed acceptable levels of service for landfills.
Effectiveness of Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan policies focus on the assurance that development does not overwhelm the solid waste management infrastructure system. The policies do not discuss solid waste reduction or recycling, nor do they discuss specific goals and progress reports. In conjunction with the proposed General Plan policies, the following mitigation measures will be implemented.
Mitigation Measures
4.15.3A Riverside County shall work with its franchise hauling companies to expand curbside and commercial recycling services throughout the unincorporated area of the County.
4.15.3B Riverside County shall follow State regulations in implementing the goals, policies, and programs identified in the Riverside County Integrated Waste Management Plan in order to achieve and maintain a 50 percent reduction in solid waste disposal through source reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting.
4.15.3C In accordance with State regulations, Riverside County shall prepare an annual report of progress for the CIWMB to determine the County's progress toward meeting its diversion goals and objectives, to project the County's waste disposal needs, and to determine if any of the elements that comprise the Riverside CIWMP require revision to include additional disposal capacity, reflect new or changed local and regional solid waste management issues, or reflect new or changed goals and objectives.
4.15.3D In accordance with CCR Section 18788, Riverside County shall review the Riverside CIWMP every five years to determine if the County's waste management practices remain consistent with waste diversion goals and objectives and to assess if revision is required.
4.15.3E The County shall require all future commercial, industrial and multifamily residential development to provide adequate areas for the collection and loading of recyclable materials (i.e., paper products, glass, and other recyclables) in compliance with the State Model Ordinance, implemented on September 1, 1994, in accordance with AB 1327, Chapter 18, California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991.
4.15.3F The County shall require all development projects to coordinate with appropriate County departments and/or agencies to ensure that there is adequate waste disposal capacity to meet the waste disposal requirements of the project, and the County shall recommend that all development projects incorporate measures to promote waste reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have not substantially altered the meaning and applicability of the policies that pertain to solid waste management. The overall total amount of solid waste to be disposed of at build out has increased due to changes in population and the changes in the areas designated for the various land use designations; however, it is consistent with the originally analyzed ratio of need based on dwelling units and land use designation. The increase in the total tonnage to be disposed of in landfills at build out is not substantial because it represents a 24 percent increase, and adequate capacity at the County's landfills will still exist. There have been no changes to the policies regarding solid waste management. Thus, no changes to the analysis and conclusions are necessary.
Solid Waste Management Level of Significance after Mitigation
The implementation of the proposed General Plan policies and proposed mitigation measures for solid waste collection and disposal services and facilities will result in a less than significant impact.
4.15.4 Wastewater
Wastewater Existing Setting
Wastewater treatment facilities within Riverside County process millions of gallons of effluent daily. There are multiple wastewater collection and/or treatment districts that serve different geographical areas within the County. The principal wastewater collection and/or treatment agencies and their levels of service in Riverside County are:
| • Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) | 250 gallons/household/day |
| • Home Gardens Sanitary District | 250 gallons/household/day |
| • Rubidoux Community Service District | No factors available |
| • Edgemont Community Service District | 110 gallons/household/day |
| • Jurupa Community Service District | 280 gallons/household/day |
| • Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District | 250 gallons/household/day |
| • Lee Lake Water District | 260 gallons/household/day |
| • Rancho California Water District | 250 gallons/household/day |
| • Lake Hemet Municipal Water District | No factors available |
| • Idyllwild Water District | 100 gallons/household/day |
| • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) | 252 gallons/household/day |
| • Mission Springs Water District | No factors available |
| • Valley Sanitary District | 300 gallons/household/day |
| • Desert Water Agency | No factors available |
For specific areas of service that each agency serves, refer to the Riverside County Existing Setting Report, Section 9.4. In addition, there are multiple areas within the County that do not have sewage systems and depend on septic tanks. These areas include the unincorporated portions of the San Gorgonio Pass area, the entire Riverside Extended Mountainous Area Plan (REMAP) area, and the entire Eastern Desert and the Palo Verde Valley areas with the exception of the City of Blythe.
Wastewater Thresholds of Significance
The proposed General Plan is considered to have a significant impact on wastewater service if existing or planned facilities and supplies are not adequate to serve proposed land uses or if existing wastewater service is significantly disrupted.
Wastewater Impacts and Mitigation
Potentially Significant Impacts
Impact 4.15.4.1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan would generate increases in population and housing, in addition to increases of commercial, and industrial land uses. This growth would incrementally generate wastewater, which will necessitate increased wastewater treatment capacity. Due to the large-scale projected growth, this increase is considered substantial and may result in a significant impact on existing wastewater service and facilities.
Analysis of Impact In 1997, there were 458,021 households in Riverside County, which produced 105,344,830 gallons per day of wastewater. With the build out of the proposed General Plan, the number of households would grow to 591,209 557,849 in the next 40 years. These households would produce 135,978,070 128,305,270 gallons of wastewater per day. This would be an increase of 30,633,240 22,960,440 gallons of wastewater per day. Some of the projected dwelling units will use wastewater treatment facilities and some will require septic facilities. In addition, commercial and industrial growth will also produce wastewater that will require treatment.
The districts within the County providing wastewater service have stated that they will continue to expand their treatment capacity consistent with growth projections and associated increased demand. However, it is not clear if the wastewater providers are aware of the projected growth anticipated by the proposed General Plan. Conservation methods and the increased use of reclaimed water would help decrease the need for treatment capacity and provide a beneficial reuse of water resources. However, without the expansion of facilities to treat wastewater, development cannot occur on a long-term basis.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan, although it does not include a Public Services Element, does include the following policies to address the effects of future development on wastewater facilities. These policies ensure adequate wastewater facilities as development occurs. Implementation of the proposed General Plan policies related to wastewater services would reduce the effects of development to a less than significant level.
Land Use Policy 5.1 Ensure that development does not exceed the ability to adequately provide supporting wastewater infrastructure and services.
Land Use Policy 5.2 Monitor the capacities of the wastewater infrastructure and services in coordination with service providers, outside agencies, and juris-dictions to ensure that projected growth does not exceed acceptable levels of service.
Land Use Policy 9.1 Require that new development contribute its "fair share" to fund wastewater infrastructure and public facilities.
Open Space Policy 3.1 Encourage innovative and creative techniques for wastewater treatment, including the use of local water treatment plants.
Effectiveness of Proposed General Plan Policies Implementation of the proposed General Plan policies related to wastewater would ensure adequate wastewater facilities as development occurs, thereby, reducing the effects of future development to less than significant. No further mitigation is required.
Impact 4.15.4.2 The proliferation of septic systems in rural communities may potentially contaminate groundwater with nitrates, ammonia, salts, metals, organic solvents, grease and oil, and other substances, impairing the beneficial uses of local water supplies. This is a potentially significant impact.
Analysis of Impact The purpose of a septic system is to effectively accept and treat liquid wastes from a residence, commercial, or industrial facility, and to prevent biological and nutrient contaminants from polluting water supplies and water bodies. Most of this treatment happens in the soil below the absorption field. The physical and chemical properties of the soils combine with microscopic organisms to decompose or prevent movement of contaminants.
In soil not saturated with water, biological contaminants (bacteria and viruses) are usually absorbed and rendered inactive within a few feet of the absorption field. Some nutrients, on the other hand, can travel much greater distances, depending on the type of soil, the amount of concentration of waste, and the age of the system. Loam and clay soils, for example, have a greater long-term ability to absorb nutrients and prevent them from moving through the soil than do sand and muck soils. In their journey, nutrients or biological contaminants that encounter soil saturated with water can move much greater distances, in some instances, as much as several hundred feet.
If not located, constructed, and operated properly, septic tanks can contaminate drinking water sources with pathogens or nutrients. A single failing septic tank system can pose an infection risk, and even an immediate health threat if the infectious agent is not controlled by water treatment. The risk from nutrients is related less to individual septic tank systems than to the cumulative effects of many systems. The nutrient load from one septic tank system is unlikely to be significant. An average human excretes between 4 kilograms (kg) and 5 kg of nitrogen wastes per year, about half of which will be released into the soil. However, adding new systems in an area that already has high nutrient levels may trigger problems. Nutrients can build up in the soil and groundwater over time to unhealthy levels, or encourage the growth of algae that make water treatment more expensive.
The proposed General Plan will continue to allow and encourage development of rural residential land uses in areas that are not served by municipal sewer facilities. This is a potential significant effect of the General Plan by continuing to allow septic facilities within the unincorporated areas of the County.
The County of Riverside has ordinances that strictly regulate the construction and maintenance of septic tanks. Section 8.124.030 of the County of Riverside Government Code states that all septic facilities require written approval for construction from the County Health Officer. Approval for septic tanks require detailed review and on-site inspections, which include a scaled, contoured plot plan, a soils feasibility report that adequately evaluates soil percolation, a special feasibility boring report (groundwater and/or bedrock), and an engineered topographical map.
Additionally, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established standards governing the placement of septic systems in the proximity of water supply wells. The EPA's "Zone A" is classified as a potential area of direct microbiological and chemical contamination based on an estimated two-year time of (contaminant) travel within an aquifer from the wellhead to the potential source of contamination. Waste discharges from conventional septic tank/subsurface disposal systems may adversely affect both the quality and beneficial uses of the water and/or violate local, regional or State water quality standards. As excerpted from EPA's Design Manual On-Site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems, "... State Codes that specify 100-foot separation distances between convention subsurface wastewater infiltration system treatment units and down-gradient wells or surface waters should not be expected to always protect these resources from dissolved, highly mobile contaminants ... published data indicate that viruses that reach groundwater can travel at least 220 vertical feet and 1,338 feet laterally in some porous soils and still remain effective." Any such degradation of water quality would be a potentially significant impact.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan, although it does not include a Public Services Element, does include the following policy to address the effects of future development in rural areas on septic facilities. Implementation of the proposed General Plan policy related to septic facilities and the Riverside County Government Code 8.124.030 regulating construction of septic facilities would ensure that future development in rural areas of the County would not have any significant adverse impacts on water quality from septic facilities.
Open Space Policy 3.2 Encourage wastewater treatment innovations in rural areas.
Effectiveness of Proposed General Plan Policy. Implementation of the proposed General Plan policies, and existing County regulations related to wastewater, and the following measure will reduce potential wastewater impacts resulting from future development to a less than significant level. would reduce the effects of future development to less than significant and no further mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measure
4.15.4A Conventional septic tanks/subsurface disposal systems shall be prohibited within any designated Zone A of an EPA wellhead protection area. Where a difference between Riverside County and EPA septic tank setback distance requirements exists, the EPA standard shall apply.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have not substantially altered the meaning and applicability of the policies that pertain to wastewater. The overall number of gallons of wastewater generated daily at build out has increased due to changes in population and the changes in the areas designated for the various land use designations; however, it is consistent with the originally analyzed ratio of need based land use designation. The increase in the total wastewater produced at build out is not substantial because it represents only a 6 percent increase and adequate treatment capacity can be constructed to meet the increased demand. Changes to the policies have ensured that water supply wells are protected from the effects of septic tanks being placed too close to the wells. Thus, no changes to the analysis and conclusions are necessary.
Wastewater Level of Significance after Mitigation
The implementation of the preceding General Plan policies and existing Riverside County regulations will result in a less than significant impact on wastewater services and facilities and water quality issues associated with septic systems.
4.15.5 Schools
Schools Existing Setting
The Riverside County Existing Setting Report analyzes school services by fiscal analysis area. Most of the school districts serving Riverside County that provide K-12 educational services expect a significant increase in students with the implementation of the proposed General Plan. Most of these school districts do not have the ability to meet the needs of future growth. In general, school districts are lacking in revenue to expand existing school facilities due to local and State fiscal constraints. Adequate revenue cannot be collected from the State nor from local developer fees to construct new facilities and upgrade existing ones. Reductions in class size for lower grades have further constrained existing school facilities. For a more detailed discussion on school construction funding, see Appendix B of the Riverside County Existing Setting Report.
Some schools districts have some schools that are within the identified capacity. The Hemet Unified School District cannot meet its current needs. The school district has already substantially exceeded its capacity, as calculated by the Education Code, for the elementary and middle school grades. However, high school classrooms are currently within the identified capacity.
The Eastern Desert and Palo Verde Valley Area are projected to be able to meet future growth needs. The Desert Center Unified School District has indicated it does not expect growth within its boundaries, other than that related to the development of the Eagle Mountain Landfill. The Palo Verde Unified School District indicated that its facilities are not at capacity, and they are projected to be adequate for the next five years.
In Riverside County there are several Community College Districts that provide advanced educational instruction. These include the Riverside Community College District, Mt. San Jacinto Community College District, and Palo Verde Community College. The Riverside Community College District has three separate campuses located in the cities of Riverside, Moreno Valley, and Norco. The Moreno Valley and Norco campuses will be separate from the Riverside Community College District in 2003 when each will form its own district. All the Community College Districts in Riverside County have planned growth of at least 10 percent per year. Mt. San Jacinto Community College District indicated its facilities were currently at capacity, and the facilities would not be adequate to meet future needs.
Schools Thresholds of Significance
The proposed General Plan is considered to have a significant impact on school districts and schools if the existing or planned facilities are not adequate to serve the County's public educational needs or when the capacity of the affected school district is exceeded and any additional students would exacerbate the problem.
Schools Impacts and Mitigation
Potentially Significant Impacts
Impact 4.15.5 Implementation of the proposed General Plan will result in increased development and associated student population throughout the unincorporated areas of the County. Most school districts either cannot meet their current need or will be unable to meet future needs resulting from projected growth.
Analysis of Impact Existing school districts lack revenue to expand existing school facilities. Adequate revenue cannot be collected from the State or from local developer fees to construct new facilities and upgrade existing ones. In addition, recent legislation and funding agreements authorized by the State for new schools provide that local jurisdictions are no longer responsible for the funding and construction of school facilities. Table 4.15.E shows the generation factors and number of grade school students at the proposed General Plan build out.
| Table 4.15.E - Number of Students at Build Out Table | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| School | Build Out | Generation Factor | Number of Students at Build Out |
| Elementary | 591,209 dwelling units |
0.369 | 218,156 |
| Middle | 591,209 dwelling units |
0.201 | 118,833 |
| High | 591,209 dwelling units |
0.246 | 145,437 |
| Total | 482,426 |
||
Existing State of California Policies
The proposed General Plan does not provide policies for the provision of schools. However, the State of California has adopted the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 (SB50). The California State Legislature enacted SB50, which made significant amendments to existing State law governing school fees.
In particular, SB50 amended prior Government Code 65995(a) to prohibit State or local agencies from imposing school impact mitigation fees, dedications, or other requirements in excess of those provided in the statute in connection with "any legislative or adjudicative act...by any state or local agency involving...the planning, use, or development of real property ..."
The legislation also amended Government Code 65996(b) to prohibit local agencies from using the inadequacy of school facilities as a basis for denying or conditioning approvals of any "legislative or adjudicative act...involving...the planning, use or development of real property..."
SB50 establishes the base amount of allowable developer fees at$1.93 per square foot for residential construction and$0.31 per square foot for commercial (See Government Code 65995(b)). These base amounts are commonly called "Level 1 fees" and are the same caps that were in place at the time SB50 was enacted. Level 1 fees are subject to inflation adjustment every two years.
In certain circumstances, for residential construction, school districts can impose fees that are higher than Level 1 fees. School districts can impose Level 2 fees, which are equal to 50 percent of land and construction costs if they (1) prepare and adopt a school needs analysis for facilities, (2) are determined by the State Allocation Board to be eligible to impose these fees, and (3) meet at least two of the following four conditions:
• At least 30 percent of the district's students are on a multi-track year-round schedule;
• The district has placed on the ballot within the previous four years a local school bond that received at least 50 percent of the votes cast;
• The District has passed bonds equal to 30 percent of its bonding capacity; or
• At least 20 percent of the district's teaching stations are relocatable classrooms.
Additionally, if the State's bond funds are exhausted, a school district that is eligible to impose Level 2 fees will be authorized to impose even higher fees, which are commonly referred to as "Level 3 fees," equal to 100 percent of land and construction costs of new schools required as a result of new developments.
Proposed General Plan Policies As stated previously, the proposed General Plan does not contain a Public Services Element. The following policy is provided in the General Plan to encourage the County to coordinate with public service agencies.
Land Use Policy 5.2 Monitor the capacities of infrastructure and services in coordination with service providers, utilities, and outside agencies and jurisdictions to ensure that growth does not exceed acceptable levels of service.
Effectiveness of Proposed General Plan Policies The policy in the proposed General Plan does not protect the school districts in the County from the increase in school children anticipated with build out of the proposed General Plan. However, as discussed below, State law limits the power of the County to impose mitigation for development impacts on schools.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have not substantially altered the meaning and applicability of the policies that pertain to schools. The overall number of students projected at build out has increased due to changes in population and the changes in the areas designated for the various land use designations; however, it is consistent with the originally analyzed ratio of need based on population and land use designation. The total number of students projected at build out is not substantial because it represents only a 6 percent increase in students. Also, school districts collect mitigation fees and are eligible for State funding; thus, there would be adequate school capacity to meet the increased demand. There were no changes to the policies regarding schools. Thus, no changes to the analysis and conclusions are necessary.
Schools Level of Significance after Mitigation
SB50 states that the exclusive method of mitigating the impact of school facilities according to CEQA is to pay the maximum school fees and that such fees are "deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation" related to the adequacy of school facilities when considering the approval or the establishment of conditions for the approval of a development project (Government Code 65996(a) and (b)). Because the Government Code states that compliance with SB50 will provide full and complete mitigation, no significant impact would occur.
4.15.6 Libraries
Libraries Existing Setting
The County of Riverside operates a system of 35 libraries and 2 book mobiles to serve unincorporated populations. In addition, the Riverside County Library System operates an automated network that currently deploys approximately 350 computer/terminal workstations in the library branches of the Riverside County Library System, Riverside Public Library, Moreno Valley Library, Murrieta Public Library, Murrieta Valley High School, and College of the Desert. The network can also be accessed by County residents via the Internet. The library system manages the library catalog of the 1.3 million items in the library system and the annual checkout of over 3.5 million books/audios/videos.
In addition to providing the opportunity to review and/or check-out materials for personal use, the County also operates a number of specific programs including adult and family literacy, and after-school and pre-school programs. The County's ability to support the needs of future growth is dependent upon its ability to secure sites for, construct, and stock new libraries on a timely basis. At present, there is no specific funding mechanism for expansion of library facilities.
Libraries Thresholds of Significance
This proposed General Plan is considered to have a significant impact on library services if the existing or planned facilities and supplies are not adequate to serve the County's future residents.
Libraries Impacts and Mitigation
Potentially Significant Impacts
Impact 4.15.6 The population increase anticipated in the proposed Riverside County General Plan would potentially increase the use of existing library facilities and services to the extent that the construction and/or expansion of facilities would be required.
Analysis of Impact With implementation of the proposed General Plan, it is anticipated that approximately 1.77 1.67 million residents with an associated 591,209 557,849 dwelling units would occur at build out. This increase in residents would substantially intensify the demand for library services and facilities. As stated in Section 4.6 of the Existing Setting Report prepared for the Riverside County General Plan, the American Library Association suggests that an appropriate service criteria for library facilities and reserves should be at a rate of 0.5 square foot of library space and 2.5 volumes per capita. Incorporating this service criteria into build out estimates, the County will need to provide approximately 885,649 835,924 square feet of library space and an additional 4.42 4.17 million volumes. Therefore, the increase in residents associated with the proposed General Plan build out would significantly affect existing library facilities and services.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan, although it does not include a Public Services Element, does include the following policy to address the effects of future development on library facilities. This policy would help ensure adequate library facilities as development occurs. The effectiveness of the policies at reducing such impacts is analyzed below and additional mitigation measures are provided to ensure that future development in the County would not have significant adverse impacts on library resources.
Land Use Policy 5.1 Ensure that development does not exceed the ability to adequately provide supporting infrastructure and services for libraries.
Effectiveness of Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan policy focuses on the ability to provide adequate library services. However, the policy does not set specific standards for libraries. In conjunction with the proposed General Plan policy, the following mitigation measure will be implemented.
Mitigation Measures
4.15.6A Riverside County shall provide a minimum of approximately 0.5 square foot of library space and 2.5 volumes per County resident.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have not substantially altered the meaning and applicability of the policies that pertain to libraries. The overall square footage for libraries and the total number of books at build out has increased due to changes in population and the changes in the areas designated for the various land use designations; however, it is consistent with the originally analyzed ratio of need based on land use type. The total increase in library space is not substantial because it represents only a 6 percent increase. The increase in the County's tax base and the availability of State funding will provide funding for the future need. There were no changes to the policies analyzed regarding libraries. Thus, no changes to the analysis and conclusions are necessary.
Libraries Level of Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of the above policy and mitigation measure would lessen the potential impact on library facilities and/or services to less than significant levels.
4.15.7 Medical Facilities
Medical Facilities Existing Setting
The existing setting is summarized from the information contained within Section 9.3 of the Existing Setting Report prepared for the Riverside County General Plan (incorporated by reference). The County of Riverside operates one hospital and nine clinics. Additional medical facilities and services, such as private/for profit and municipal, exist within the County that are not addressed in this analysis.
Hospitals The County operates a hospital facility in Moreno Valley. The hospital is licensed for 364 beds within the 520,000-square foot facility. It is estimated that the facility can provide 200,000 annual patient visits in specialty outpatient clinics, an increase of 80,000 from the previously existing facility in Riverside. The emergency room/trauma unit has the capacity to manage 100,000 annual patient visits, which is 40,000 more than the previously existing facility.
Riverside County Hospital provides a variety of services, but some of the more extensive or unique programs include the following:
• Trauma center;
• Sexual assault team for adults and children;
• Pediatric and neo-natal intensive care; and
• Teaching/instruction for medical professionals.
Community-Based Clinics In addition to the hospital in Moreno Valley, Riverside County operates nine separate clinics that are located throughout the County. A tenth clinic is located within the County hospital. In general, the clinics will see anyone, regardless of residency and ability to pay. Each clinic has a family practice physician on staff, and is open from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The general services provided by each clinic include the following:
• Primary care, including ambulatory care for acute and chronic illnesses for adults and children;
• Pediatric and adult immunizations;
• Anonymous and confidential HIV testing;
• Tuberculosis testing;
• Sexually transmitted disease testing and treatment;
• Family planning;
• Comprehensive perinatal services program;
• Child health exams;
• Nutrition services; and
• Cancer screening.
Medical Facilities Thresholds of Significance
Growth as a result of the proposed General Plan is considered to have a significant impact on medical services and facilities if the existing or planned facilities and services/supplies are not adequate to serve the County's future residents.
Medical Facilities Impacts and Mitigation
Potentially Significant Impact
Impact 4.15.7 The population increase to 1.77 1.67 million people in the County over the next 40 years anticipated with the implementation of the proposed General Plan would increase the demand of existing medical facilities and services beyond what is currently available. Projected growth may have a significant impact on medical facilities and services in Riverside County.
Analysis of Impact The Riverside County Health Department reported that it had adequate hospital capacity to meet current needs. In addition, the Department noted that community-based clinics were sized to meet current needs. Future development anticipated with the proposed General Plan would result in incremental increase to approximately 1.77 1.67 million residents with an associated 591,209 557,849 dwelling units during the next 40 years. Based on the County's existing medical facilities, the incremental increase in residents would require new facility construction or large-scale expansion of existing facilities to accommodate the additional beds required to treat and provide medical services to the growing County over the next 40 years.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan, although it does not include a Public Services Element, does include the following policy to address the effects of future development on medical facilities by ensuring that development does not exceed adequate medical services. The effectiveness of the policy at reducing such impacts is analyzed below and additional mitigation measures are provided to ensure that future development in the County would not have significant adverse impacts on medical facilities.
Land Use Policy 5.1 Ensure that development does not exceed the ability to provide adequate supporting infrastructure and services for County medical services.
Effectiveness of Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan policy focuses on the ability to provide adequate medical facilities and services. However, the policy does not specifically detail how and when the adequacy of the facilities and services will be determined. In conjunction with the proposed General Plan policy, the following mitigation measures will be implemented.
Mitigation Measures
4.15.7A Riverside County shall perform a periodic medical needs assessment to evaluate the current medical demand and level of medical service provided within each Area Plan. A periodic medical needs assessment shall be conducted every three years.
4.15.7B Riverside County shall fund the new construction and/or expansion of existing medical facilities according to the level of demand for medical services. The level of demand will be based on and determined by the outcome of the periodic medical needs assessments.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR have not substantially altered the meaning and applicability of the policies that pertain to medical facilities. The increase in total population at build out is not substantial because the increase in the County's tax base will provide additional funding for medical facilities that will be determined by periodic medical needs assessments. The only changes regarding medical facilities was to reflect the change in the total population and the number of dwelling units at build out. Thus, no changes to the analysis and conclusions are necessary.
Medical Facilities Level of Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of the above proposed General Plan policy and mitigation measures would reduce the potential impact on medical facilities and/or services to less than significant levels.
4.16 Transportation and Circulation
This section assesses the potential impacts on transportation and circulation that could occur with the development projected with the proposed General Plan.
4.16.1 Transportation and Circulation Existing Setting
The existing setting is summarized from the information contained within the Existing Setting Report prepared for the 2002 Riverside County General Plan (incorporated by reference).
Riverside County's existing circulation and transportation system is composed of several separate modes or types of passenger travel and goods movement. These modes of travel and goods movement include passenger vehicles and trucks on area roadways and highways, transit, passenger and freight rail, passenger and cargo air, and bicycle facilities.
Roadways and Highways
Riverside County's transportation system is composed of numerous State highways, (both freeways and arterial highways), as well as numerous County and city routes. The County's public transit system includes fixed route public transit systems, common bus carriers, AMTRAK (intercity rail service), MetroLink (commuter rail service), and other local agency transit and paratransit services. In addition, the County transportation system includes general aviation facilities, limited passenger air service, freight rail service, bicycle facilities, and other non-motorized forms of transportation (pedestrian and equestrian trails).
Due to the interrelationship of urban and rural activities (employment, housing and services), and the low average density of existing land uses, the private automobile is the dominant mode of travel within Riverside County. Trips by transit currently represent less than 2 percent of all trips made in the County. Public transportation, where service is available, is utilized primarily by a transit-dependent population (senior citizens, students, low-income residents, and the physically disabled) that generally do not have access to automobiles.
The County's industrial and agricultural economies depend on safe and efficient goods movement. The County is responsible for maintaining an extensive network of low volume rural roads in sparsely settled areas to service goods movement and the agricultural industry. Large trucks are the primary means of transporting such goods. In addition, freight rail is an important backbone of the goods movement industry in Riverside County.
Riverside County is linked to Los Angeles and Orange Counties principally by SR-60 (Pomona Freeway), I-10 (San Bernardino Freeway), SR-91 (Riverside Freeway), and SR-74 (Ortega Highway). The I-15 freeway and other minor conventional highways provide links to San Diego County. Links to San Bernardino County are provided by I-15 and I-215, as well as by other major and minor local roadways. The I-10 freeway also provides connection to destinations in Arizona, and I-15 and I-215 provide access through San Bernardino County to Nevada including its primary recreation areas (the City of Las Vegas and Lake Mead). In addition, I-15 provides access south to San Diego and its many tourist and recreational amenities, and to Mexico via I-5 and I-805.
In addition, the highway system includes numerous County roadways, as well as roadways within each of the 24 cities in the County. Some of the major roadways in the County include Alessandro Boulevard, Arlington Avenue, Gene Autry Trail, La Sierra Avenue, Limonite Avenue, Magnolia Avenue, Market Street, Mission Boulevard, Monterey Avenue, Palm Drive, Perris Boulevard, Ramon Road, Ramona Expressway, Rancho California Road, San Jacinto Road, Van Buren Boulevard, and Washington Street.
An analysis was undertaken at the outset of the General Plan program (1999) to identify existing traffic conditions withing Riverside County. The results of that analysis indicate that the majority of the County's roadway and highway system operated at Level of Service (LOS) C or better, meaning that motorists on most roadways do not experience substantial delays, even during peak travel hours. Tables 4.16.A and 4.16.B identify LOS characteristics. There are, however, a number of heavily congested roadway and highway segments within the County. Table 4.16.C identifies segments of interstate and state routes that currently operate at less than LOS C, while Table 4.16.D identifies local facilities that currently operate at less than LOS C. Referencing those tables, 27 of the segments are operating at LOS D, 17 are operating at LOS E, and 59 facility segments are currently operating at LOS F.
Most of the local, interstate, and state route facilities operating at less than LOS C are located in the western portion of Riverside County. In addition, most of the segments operating at below LOS C occur on the freeway system and other major arterials.
Existing Public Transit Systems
Fixed-route transit services and demand response (dial-a-ride) transit services are provided by the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) for the western portion of Riverside County and by SunLine Transit in the Coachella Valley. Currently, RTA operates 40 fixed bus routes and demand responsive services within a 2,500-square mile area of western Riverside County. RTA's fixed routes have been designed to establish transportation connections between all the cities and unincorporated communities in western Riverside County. RTA also participates with OmniTrans in San Bernardino County to provide express bus service between downtown Riverside and downtown San Bernardino, connecting with express service to Ontario. RTA also coordinates with OCTA in Orange County and Metrolink to provide connecting service. RTA is currently operating 76 full-size buses, 67 mini-buses and vans, and two trolleys. The system carries approximately 7 million passengers annually, which is about 19,000 passengers per day. All of the RTA vehicles are wheelchair accessible and all full-size buses include bike racks.
| Table 4.16.A - Uninterrupted Traffic Flow Facilities Level of Service | |
|---|---|
| Level of Service |
Definition |
| A | |
| B | |
| C | |
| D | |
| E | |
| F | |
| SOURCE: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000. | |
| Table 4.16.B - Interrupted Traffic Flow Facilities Level of Service | |
|---|---|
| Level of Service |
Definition |
| A | |
| B | Describes operations with average intersection stopped delay in the range of 5.1 to 15.0 seconds per vehicle, and with reasonably unimpeded operations between intersections. Describes operations with control delay greater than 10 and up to 20 seconds per vehicle. This level generally occurs with good progression, short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of delay. |
| C | |
| D | |
| E | |
| F | |
| SOURCE: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000. | |
| Table 4.16.C - Existing Roadway Capacity Analysis (Interstate and State Routes) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roadway Segment |
Limits | Existing Conditions (1999) | |||
| Facility Type1 |
No. of Lanes2 |
ATD3 | LOS4 | ||
| I-15 | Temecula, Jct. Rte. 79 - Jct. Rte. 215 No. | Freeway | 8 | 131600 | D |
| Corona, Magnolia Ave. - Corona, Jct. Rte. 91 | Freeway | 8 | 130600 | D | |
| Corona, Jct. Rte. 91 - Norco, 2nd St. | Freeway | 8 | 133700 | D | |
| Norco, 2nd St. - Norco, 6th St | Freeway | 6*6 | 125500 | F | |
| Norco, 6th St. - Limonite Ave | Freeway | 6*6 | 122400 | F | |
| Limonite Ave. - Jct. Rte. 60 | Freeway | 6 | 111200 | E | |
| Jct. Rte. 60 - San Bernardino Co. Line* | Freeway | 9*6 | 175500 | F | |
| SR 60 | San Bernardino Co. Line - Milliken Ave. | Freeway | 6*5 | 197900 | F |
| Milliken Ave. - Jct. Rte. 15 | Freeway | 6*5 | 189800 | F | |
| Jct. Rte. 15 - Van Buren Blvd. | Freeway | 6*6 | 122400 | F | |
| Van Buren Blvd. - Etiwanda Ave. | Freeway | 6*6 | 91800 | C | |
| Etiwanda Ave. - Mission Blvd. | Freeway | 6 | 101000 | D | |
| Valley Way - Rubidoux, Rubidoux Blvd. | Freeway | 4*5 | 89800 | F | |
| Rubidoux, Rubidoux Blvd. - Riverside, Crestmore Ave. | Freeway | 4*5 | 96900 | F | |
| Riverside, Crestmore Ave - Riverside, Main St. | Freeway | 4*5 | 103100 | F | |
| Riverside, Main St. - Riverside, Orange St. | Freeway | 4*5 | 98000 | F | |
| Riverside, Orange St. - Riverside, E. Jct. Rte. 215 | Freeway | 4*5 | 100000 | F | |
| Riverside, E. Jct. Rte. 215 - Riverside, Day St. | Freeway | 4*5 | 105100 | F | |
| Riverside, Day St. - Moreno Valley, Pigeon Pass Rd. | Freeway | 4*5 | 108200 | F | |
| Moreno Valley, Pigeon Pass Rd. - Moreno Valley, Heacock St. | Freeway | 4*5 | 83700 | F | |
| Moreno Valley, Heacock St. - Moreno Valley, Perris Blvd. | Freeway | 4# | 68400 | D | |
| SR 71 | Riverside Co. Line - Jct. Rte. 91 | Arterial | 2*5 | 33700 | F |
| SR 74 | Elsinore, Grand Ave. - Elsinore, Lake Shore Dr. | Arterial | 2*5 | 20100 | F |
| Elsinore, Lake Shore Dr. - Gunnerson St./ Strickland Ave. | Arterial | 2# | 17200 | E | |
| Gunnerson St./Strickland Ave. - Elsinore, Jct. Rte. 15 | Arterial | 2# | 17600 | E | |
| Elsinore, Jct. Rte. 15 - Perris Seventh St. | Arterial | 2 | 16400 | E | |
| Perris Seventh St. - Perris, D St. | Arterial | 2 | 16900 | E | |
| Hemet, Lyon Ave. - Hemet, State St. | Arterial | 4# | 29100 | D | |
| Hemet, State St. - Hemet, Jct. 79 No, San Jacinto St. | Arterial | 4# | 30600 | D | |
| SR 79 | Sage Rd. - Temecula, Pala Rd. | Arterial | 2% | 18200 | F |
| Temecula, Pala Rd. - South Jct. Rte. 15, Temecula So. | Arterial | 2% | 30100 | F | |
| Temecula, No. Jct. Rte. 15 - Borel St. | Arterial | 4 | 32700 | E | |
| Central Ave./State St. - Ramona Expressway | Arterial | 2 | 14900 | D | |
| Soboba Rd - California Ave. | Arterial | 2 | 14900 | E | |
| SR 86 | Coachella, So. Jct. Rte. 111 - Coachella, Dillon Rd./Ave. 48 | Arterial | 4 | 35200 | E |
| SR 91 | Orange Co. Line - Green River Dr. | Freeway | 8*5 | 228500 | F |
| Green River Dr. - Jct. Rte. 71 No. | Freeway | 8*5 | 220400 | F | |
| Jct. Rte. 71 No. - Serfas Club Dr. | Freeway | 8*5 | 219300 | F | |
| Serfas Club Dr. - Corona, Maple St. | Freeway | 8*5 | 222400 | F | |
| Corona, Maple St. - Corona, Lincoln Ave. | Freeway | 8*5 | 215300 | F | |
| Corona, Lincoln Ave. - Corona, West Grand Blvd. | Freeway | 8*5 | 226500 | F | |
| Corona, West Grand Blvd. - Corona, Main St. | Freeway | 8*5 | 219300 | F | |
| Corona, Main St. - Jct. Rte. 15 | Freeway | 8*5 | 235700 | F | |
| Jct. Rte. 15 - McKinley St. | Freeway | 8*5 | 211200 | F | |
| McKinley St. - Pierce St. | Freeway | 8*5 | 185700 | F | |
| Pierce St. - Magnolia Ave. | Freeway | 8*5 | 163200 | F | |
| Magnolia Ave. - La Sierra Ave. | Freeway | 8*5 | 168300 | F | |
| La Sierra Ave. - Tyler St. | Freeway | 8*5 | 166300 | F | |
| Tyler St. - Van Buren Blvd. | Freeway | 8*5 | 170400 | F | |
| Van Buren Blvd. - Adams St. | Freeway | 8*5 | 162200 | F | |
| Adams St. - Madison St. | Freeway | 8*5 | 165300 | F | |
| Madison St. - Arlington Ave. | Freeway | 8*5 | 165300 | F | |
| Arlington Ave. - Central Ave./State St. | Freeway | 8*5 | 168300 | F | |
| Central Ave./State St. - Fourteenth St. | Freeway | 8*5 | 168300 | F | |
| Fourteenth St. - Eighth St. | Freeway | 8*5 | 167300 | F | |
| Eighth St. - LaCadena Dr./Poplar and Spruce St. | Freeway | 8*5 | 162200 | F | |
| LaCadena Dr./Poplar and Spruce St. - Jct. Rte. 60, Jct. Rte. 215 No. | Freeway | 8*5 | 160200 | F | |
| SR 111 | Washington St. - Racquet Club Dr. | Arterial | 4 | 31100 | D |
| Racquet Club Dr. - Miles/Manitou Ave. | Arterial | 4 | 31100 | D | |
| Miles/Manitou Ave. - Cook St. | Arterial | 4 | 30700 | D | |
| Cook St. - Indian Wells City Limits | Arterial | 4 | 31200 | D | |
| Indian Wells City Limits - Portola Ave. | Arterial | 4# | 31200 | D | |
| Portola Ave. - Jct. Rte. 74 So. | Arterial | 4*5 | 39500 | F | |
| Jct. Rte. 74 So. - Bob Hope Dr. | Arterial | 4*5 | 33800 | F | |
| Bob Hope Dr. - Country Club Dr.(40th Ave.) | Arterial | 4# | 36400 | E | |
| Country Club Dr.(40th Ave.) - Frank Sinatra Dr. | Arterial | 4*5 | 38500 | F | |
| Frank Sinatra Dr. - Date Palm Ave./Broadway | Arterial | 4*5 | 40100 | F | |
| Date Palm Ave./Broadway - Golf Club Dr. | Arterial | 4*5 | 41600 | F | |
| Golf Club Dr. - Gene Autry Trail | Arterial | 4*5 | 42700 | F | |
| I-215 | So. Jct. Rte. 74, Case Rd. - No. Jct. Rte. 74; Fourth St. | Freeway | 4 | 61200 | D |
| Jct. Rte. 60 East - Fair Isle Dr. | Freeway | 6*5 | 174800 | F | |
| Fair Isle Dr. - Central Ave. | Freeway | 6*5 | 180000 | F | |
| Central Ave. - Pennsylvania Ave. | Freeway | 6*5 | 174800 | F | |
| Pennsylvania Ave. - University Ave. | Freeway | 6*5 | 173700 | F | |
| University Ave. - 3rd/Blaine St. | Freeway | 6*5 | 172000 | F | |
| 3rd/Blaine St. - Spruce St. | Freeway | 8*5 | 177900 | F | |
| Spruce St. - Jct. Rte. 60 & 91 West | Freeway | 8*5 | 178900 | F | |
| Jct. Rte. 60 & 91 West - Columbia Ave. | Freeway | 8# | 151900 | E | |
| Columbia Ave. - Center St. | Freeway | 6*5 | 147700 | F | |
| Center St. - San Bernardino Co. Line | Freeway | 6*5 | 143600 | F | |
| Notes: I-15: Jct. Rte 60 - San Bernardino Co. Line -Analyzed as a 9-lane Freeway. All counts increased 2 percent per year to reflect 1999 Conditions. 1 Referenced from SCAG RIVSAN/CTP Base Year Model or CVAG CVATS Base Year Model. 2 Referenced from SCAG RIVSAN/CTP Base Year Model or CVAG CVATS Base Year Model. 3 Referenced from Riverside County GIS System - Traffic Count Database or from CVAG Manual or from Caltrans Count Manual. 4 Derived by VRPA Technologies based upon methodology referenced in Appendix D and E. 5 Exempt from CMP requirements because the facility segment has been LOS F since 1991. 6 Not exempt from CMP Requirements. # The Riverside County Congestion Management Program has identified this segment as LOS "F" and exemptfrom CMP requirements since 1991. % Currently undergoing roadway improvements. Resultant roadway improvement should improve Level of Service. The LOS shown in this table may differ from the LOS reported in the CMP. This can occur because the CMP is based on a different methodology than this table or because lanes have been added to the facility since the time it was declared to be exempt. |
|||||
| Table 4.16.D - Existing Roadway Capacity Analysis (Classified Local Facilities*1) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roadway Segment |
Limits | Existing Conditions (1999) | |||
| Facility Type1 |
No. of Lanes2 |
ATD3 | LOS4 | ||
| 44th Ave | Washington St - Clinton St | Arterial | 4 | 32000 | D |
| Alessandro Blvd | Frederick St - Heacock St | Arterial | 4 | 33100 | E |
| Alessandro Blvd | Overlook Pkwy - Trautwein | Arterial | 4 | 30700 | D |
| Arlington Ave | Adams - Magnolia Ave | Arterial | 4 | 34300 | E |
| Arlington Ave | Victoria Ave Chicago Ave | Arterial | 4 | 29500 | D |
| Chicago Ave | Central Ave - Alessandro Blvd | Arterial | 4 | 30000 | D |
| Gene Autry | I-10 - Palm Springs Bypass | Arterial | 2 | 14900 | D |
| Gene Autry | Palm Springs Bypass - Vista Chino | Arterial | 2 | 15200 | D |
| Indiana Ave | Cajalco St - Fillmore St | Collector | 2*8 | 13700 | F |
| Jefferson Ave | Winchester Ave - Date St | Arterial | 2 | 14600 | D |
| La Sierra Ave | Arlington Ave - Gramercy Ave | Arterial | 2*6 | 27900 | F |
| La Sierra Ave | Magnolia Ave - SR 91 | Arterial | 4 | 28800 | D |
| Limonite Ave | I-15 - Etiwanda Ave | Arterial | 2 | 17100 | E |
| Limonite Ave | Etiwanda Ave - Bain St | Arterial | 2 | 17500 | E |
| Magnolia Ave | SR 91 - La Sierra Ave | Arterial | 4 | 32200 | D |
| Magnolia Ave | Harrison St Van Buren Blvd | Arterial | 4 | 29000 | D |
| Magnolia Ave | Van Buren Blvd Arlington Ave | Arterial | 4 | 30300 | D |
| Magnolia Ave | Arlington Ave - 7th St | Arterial | 4 | 35100 | E |
| Monterey Ave | Frank Sinatra Dr - SR 111 | Arterial | 4 | 28900 | D |
| Palm Dr | Two Bunch Palms Tr - Dillon Rd | Arterial | 2*8 | 22600 | F |
| Palm Dr | Dillon Rd - Varner Rd | Arterial | 2 | 17600 | E |
| Palm Dr | Varner Rd - I-10 | Arterial | 2 | 17600 | E |
| Perris Blvd | Reche Vista Dr - SR 60 | Arterial | 2*8 | 32900 | F |
| Perris Blvd | SR 60 - Eucalyptus Ave | Arterial | 4 | 33300 | E |
| Perris Blvd | Alessandro Blvd - Cajalco Expressway | Arterial | 4 | 28900 | D |
| Ramon Rd | Gene Autry Tr - Da Vall Dr | Arterial | 4 | 31300 | D |
| Ramon Rd | Da Vall Dr - Bob Hope Dr | Arterial | 2*6 | 20100 | F |
| Ramona Expressway | I-215 - Patterson Ave | Arterial | 4 | 31000 | D |
| San Jacinto | Main St - Commonwealth Ave | Arterial | 2 | 17700 | E |
| San Jacinto | Menlo Ave - Florida Ave | Arterial | 2*8 | 36000 | F |
| Stetson Ave | State Ave - Stanford St | Arterial | 2 | 16400 | E |
| Van Buren Blvd | Washington St - Wood Rd | Arterial | 4 | 34600 | E |
| Van Buren Blvd | Limonite Ave - Jurupa Ave | Arterial | 4# | 31200 | D |
| Van Buren Blvd | Jurupa Ave - Arlington Ave | Arterial | 4# | 31200 | D |
| Van Buren Blvd | Arlington Ave - Magnolia Ave | Arterial | 4 | 31800 | D |
| Van Buren Blvd | Magnolia Ave - SR 91 | Arterial | 4 | 30800 | D |
| Notes: 1 Identified by VRPA Technologies to reflect Existing Conditions on a "regional basis." 2 Referenced from SCAG RIVSAN/CTP Base Year Model or CVAG CVATS Base Year Model. 3 Referenced from SCAG RIVSAN/CTP Base Year Model or CVAG CVATS Base Year Model. 4 Referenced from Riverside County GIS System - Traffic Count Database, CVAG Traffic Count Manual or Caltrans Traffic Count Manual. All counts increased 2% per year to reflect 1999 Conditions. 5 Derived by VRPA Technologies based upon methodology referenced in Appendix D and E. 6 Exempt from CMP requirements. The facility segment has been LOS F since 1991. 7 Not exempt from CMP Requirements. 8 Not on the CMP System. # The CMP has identified this segment as LOS "F" and exempt from CMP requirements since 1991. The LOS shown in this table may differ from the LOS reported in the CMP. This can occur because the CMP is based on a different methodology than this table (peak hour analysis vs. AADT) or because lanes have been added to the facility since the time it was declared to be exempt (1991). |
|||||
SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) provides public transit services for the Coachella Valley area, covering approximately 1,120 square miles with a permanent population of over 270,000 residents. SunLine operates 12 fixed routes, with approximately 900 stop locations, serving over 3.7 million passengers annually. The agency currently operates a fleet of 46 buses. SunLine also operates the SunDial System, which provides curb to curb demand responsive (dial-a-ride) service for members of the community requiring such assistance. The SunDial fleet includes 23 vehicles and serves over 40,000 passenger trips annually.
In addition to fixed route and demand-responsive services provided by RTA and SunLine, specialized public transportation services are also available through services operated by four municipal operators - the City of Riverside, City of Corona, City of Banning, and City of Beaumont. Additionally, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) supports a number of specialized transportation programs including shared ride and vanpool services, social service dial-a-ride, and specialized services for seniors and persons with disabilities.
Greyhound Bus Lines provides private transportation services that link the principal population centers of the County with other regions. This includes east-west service connecting Blythe, Indio, Palm Springs, Banning/Beaumont, and Riverside (via San Bernardino). The service continues westward to downtown Los Angeles and intermediate stops. North-south service connects Riverside with Temecula, continuing southward to San Diego.
RTA, SunLine, OmniTrans in San Bernardino County, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), and each of the city transit service providers coordinate their respective schedules and transfer stops to provide for an enhanced level of transit service. RTA's main terminal in Riverside is located between University Avenue and Mission Inn Avenue, one block west of Market Avenue. RTA also provides connections to selected Metrolink stations for both inbound and outbound trains.
Existing Rail Transportation
AMTRAK currently serves s Riverside County at two locations. The Palm Springs station provides access to AMTRAK's Desert Wind Service, which provides connections points west including Los Angeles and to points east including Tucson, Arizona and El Paso, Texas. AMTRAK's Southwest Chief Service recently began stopping at the Downtown Riverside Metrolink Station and provides connections to Los Angeles and points east including Flagstaff, Albuquerque, St. Louis, and Chicago.
Three Metrolink commuter rail lines serve western Riverside County and provide connections to destinations in Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Ventura Counties. Service is available seven days a week. There are currently four commuter rail stations serving Riverside County: Riverside - Downtown, Pedley, Riverside - La Sierra, and West Corona. The North Main Corona Station will be open in fall 2002. Metrolink's long-term plan calls for extension of service to Perris and Hemet.
Non-Motorized Transportation
Bicycling occurs throughout the County, but is more concentrated in the cities and urbanized portions of unincorporated areas, and is more recreational than commute-oriented. Although the County's current bicycle plan provides for connections between major urban and recreational facilities within the County, implementation of the plan has occurred only to a limited extent. Two major facilities, the Santa Ana River Bikeway and the Santa Ana River Trail, are proposed to extend along the Santa Ana River from the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains to the Pacific Ocean.One of the major regional bikeway paths is located along the Santa Ana River, which has been completed from the Orange/Riverside County boundary to downtown Riverside. The Santa Ana River Bikeway is paved. The Santa Ana River Trail is surfaced with decomposed granite, and is used by equestrians, mountain bicyclists, hikers, and joggers. Some segments of both trails are in existence in the Riverside and Orange Counties; however, a major coordination project for Orange and Riverside County planners (in concert with the Wildlands Conservancy) is the closure of the gap between the existing bikeway segment in the City of Riverside and the boundary with Orange County.
Aviation Services
There are approximately 60 airports in the Southern California region. The majority of passenger air traffic is handled by six commercial airports: Los Angeles International, Burbank, John Wayne/Orange County, Ontario International, and the Palm Springs and Long Beach Municipal Airports. With the exception of Palm Springs Airport, which is located within the City of Palm Springs, there is no passenger air service within Riverside County. There are currently eight public use general aviation airports located in unincorporated Riverside County: Flabob, French Valley, Hemet-Ryan, Bermuda Dunes, Desert Resorts Regional, Chiriaco Summit, Desert Center, and Blythe.
Existing Goods Movement
Truck Travel Primary generators of truck traffic in Riverside County are agricultural and industrial uses. Since agriculture is a relatively mature industry in the County, overall truck traffic volume generated by agricultural uses should remain stable in the future. However, relocation and replacement of individual agricultural processing plants and other new industries can significantly alter both regional and localized patterns and concentrations of truck traffic in cities and established communities in the County. As healthy industrial growth is expected within the County, the scale of industrial-related truck traffic will continue to increase. Currently, trucks comprise at least 15 percent of the daily traffic volume on some of the primary goods movement corridors in Riverside County: I-15 from Temecula to Ontario, SR-60 westward from I-215, and I-10 in the Coachella Valley and San Gorgonio Pass areas.
Because of the operational characteristics of trucks, their net effect on traffic flow is two to three times that of an equivalent number of passenger cars on level terrain, and could be considerably more than that on long upgrades, such as I-215/SR-60 eastbound in the Box Springs area and I-10 westbound west of Palm Springs. Traffic engineers describe the effect of trucks in terms of passenger car equivalents or PCEs. Thus, a roadway with 15 percent of the traffic as trucks could be regarded as having 30 to 40 percent of its capacity consumed by trucks in terms of PCEs. In most cases, the truck percentage in the peak commuting periods is lower (usually no more than 4 to 6 percent), as the passenger car volume is higher and some trucks tend to avoid those hours because of the slow speeds. Table 4.14.E lists the daily truck volumes for selected facilities and locations in Riverside County.
| Table 4.16.E - Daily Truck Volumes on Freeways in Riverside County (Bi-Directional) | |
|---|---|
| Location | Daily Truck Volumes |
| I-10, Junction Route 111 | 13,800 |
| I-10, Banning | 12,300 |
| SR-60, East of Moreno Valley | 5,800 |
| SR-60, East of I-15 | 19,100 |
| I-15, at SR-79 | 15,100 |
| I-15 at SR-60 | 39,100 |
| SR-91 at Main Street | 23,200 |
| SR-91 at 14th Street | 8,600 |
| I-215, Perris | 7,500 |
| I-215/SR-60, Spruce Street | 13,000 |
| Source: 1997 Caltrans Truck Count Book adjusted by 2 percent to reflect 1999 volumes. | |
Freight Railroads The Union Pacific (UP) and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroads provide freight service in Riverside County, connecting the County with major markets in California and the nation. Freight terminals and service to specific industries are located throughout the County. The SCAG Regional Transportation Plan estimates train volume on the UP line between Colton and Indio to be 26 daily. An estimated 28 to 50 daily trains move on the Riverside to Atwood portion of the BNSF line.
Although the railroads are reluctant to provide information on the amount of freight originating in the County, it is likely that the predominant mode for freight movements in the County will continue to be by truck in the foreseeable future. This is certainly the trend expected for raw agricultural commodities moving to packing and processing facilities. For long-distance trips (i.e., outside the 800-mile threshold), SCAG has estimated that trains will carry approximately 50 percent of the freight into the region, by tonnage.
Existing Policies and Regulations
Existing Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan The existing Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan establishes Level of Service C as a target for all county maintained roadways and conventional State highways, except that LOS D could be allowed in urban areas at intersections of any combination of Major Streets, Arterials, Expressways, or conventional State highways within one mile of a freeway interchange, and also at freeway ramp intersections. Current policy requires development projects to mitigate impacts on roadways based on the LOS C standard. Current General Plan policy also permits allowing development projects to mitigate to LOS D, subject to Board of Supervisors approval, in those instances where mitigation to LOS C is deemed to be impractical.
Riverside County Congestion Management Program The passage of Proposition 111 in June 1990 established a process for each metropolitan county in California, including Riverside, to prepare a Congestion Management Plan (CMP). The CMP, which was prepared by the RCTC in consultation with the County and the cities in Riverside County, is an effort to more directly align land use, transportation, and air quality management efforts, to promote reasonable growth management programs that effectively use statewide transportation funds, while ensuring that new development pays its fair share of needed transportation improvements.
The focus of the CMP is the development of an Enhanced Traffic Monitoring System in which real-time traffic count data can be accessed by RCTC to evaluate the condition of the Congestion Management System (CMS) as well as meet other monitoring requirements at the State and Federal levels. Per the adopted Level of Service (LOS) standard of "E," when a CMS segment falls to "F," a deficiency plan must be required. Preparation of a deficiency plan will be the responsibility of the local agency where the deficiency is located. Other agencies identified as contributors to the deficiency will also be required to coordinate with the development of the plan. The plan must contain mitigation measures, including Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies and transit alternatives, and a schedule of mitigating the deficiency. To ensure that the CMS is appropriately monitored to reduce the occurrence of CMP deficiencies, it is the responsibility of local agencies, when reviewing and approving development proposals, to consider the traffic impacts on the CMS.
4.16.2 Transportation and Circulation Thresholds of Significance
Impacts to transportation and circulation are considered to be significant if any of the following would occur.
1. Decrease the level of service on a County-maintained road or conventional State highway below LOS D within Community Development Areas designated by the proposed County General Plan and within adjacent jurisdictions, or below LOS C within those portions of unincorporated Riverside County outside of Community Development Areas1 .
2. Decrease the level of service on a freeway segment below Level of Service E.
3. Increase traffic on a County-maintained road, conventional State highway, or freeway segment that is currently operating at less than the level of service standards identified in thresholds 1 or 2 above.
1The proposed General Plan Circulation Element presents a comprehensive roadway system for Riverside County, aimed at ensuring adequate roadway rights-of-way within its unincorporated territory (see 2020 Riverside County General Plan, Chapter 4: Circulation Element, Riverside County Circulation Plan, Figure C-1). The LOS thresholds and analyses used in this EIR address segment-level operations, and are used to determine whether operational deficiencies will exist on the roadway system at build out. Analysis of intersection levels of service requires detailed understanding of the dynamics of individual movements through each intersection, as well as information on intersection geometrics, which is not practical for the systemwide planning and environmental analysis undertaken for a General Plan. Thus, the EIR for the 2002 Riverside County General Plan analyzes the overall adequacy of the proposed roadway and highway system contained in the Circulation Element. The proposed General Plan policies require individual development projects to analyze LOS at the individual intersection level to ensure that development projects do not create bottlenecks at the intersections of the roadway system whose roadway widths and rights-of-way were previously examined as part of the General Plan and its environmental analysis.
4.16.3 Transportation and Circulation Impacts and Mitigation
Potentially Significant Impacts
Potential to Degrade Roadway Levels of Service
Impact 4.16.1 Future growth occurring as the result of implementing the proposed 2002 Riverside County General Plan will increase area-wide traffic volumes with the potential to degrade roadway and freeway performance below applicable performance standards.
Analysis of Impact Future growth associated with the implementation of the proposed General Plan will result in a substantial increase in the traffic that is generated throughout unincorporated Riverside County. This traffic will affect unincorporated areas and cities within Riverside County, as well as adjacent jurisdictions, particularly in San Bernardino County at the terminus of the proposed bi-County CETAP corridor.
Future traffic conditions at the theoretical build out of Riverside County, including a cumulative analysis of build out of the cities within the County were analyzed by the firm Transcore. A detailed discussion of these models, including the proposed General Plan build out circulation system and proposed Circulation Element (maps), is provided in the document titled Summary of the Transportation Analysis for the Circulation Element of the Proposed Riverside County General Plan provided in Appendix C. Several types of analysis results are presented:
• Overview maps showing the volume/capacity (V/C) ratios for build out of the proposed General Plan. One map shows the area included in the "RIVSAN" model inwestern Riverside County (Figure 4.16.1), and another shows the "CVATS model"area in the Coachella Valley (Figure 4.16.2). Projected levels of service are colorcoded. These figures show cumulative build out conditions in these two areas,including build out of both city and unincorporated areas of Riverside County.
• Similar overview maps showing V/C ratios for cumulative future without projectconditions, which assume build out of the cities within Riverside County, but nofuture development occurring within unincorporated Riverside County1. Figures 4.16.3 and 4.16.4 show the V/C ratios for cumulative future without project conditions for Western County and the Coachella Valley, respectively. Differences between figures depicting V/C ratios for build out of the proposed General Plan andcumulative future without project conditions are attributable to the build out of the2002 Riverside County General Plan, and constitute the projected impacts of theproposed General Plan.
• Results of the proposed General Plan traffic analysis for the Central Mountains and Eastern Desert areas are presented in Tables 4.16.F and 4.16.G, respectively.
• A summary table showing the changes in several important aggregate statistics (vehicle miles of travel, vehicle hours of travel, and average speeds) that would result from for the proposed General Plan.
• A series of comparisons between the proposed General Plan and traffic conditions that would result in the absence of any development within unincorporated Riverside County.
1The No Project/No Build alternative assumes that no development occurs and that existing land use conditions remain in unincorporated Riverside County. Because no future land development is assumed under this alternative, the alternative further assumes that no roadway improvements will occur within unincorporated areas.
Tables 4.16.F and 4.16.G indicate V/C ratios projected for the build out of the proposed General Plan for the Central Mountains and Eastern Desert areas (including build out of Blythe), respectively. For community development areas, any V/C ratio over 0.90 would indicate an unacceptable level of service (E or F). Outside community development areas, any V/C ratio over 0.80 would indicate an unacceptable level of service (i.e., LOS D or worse). The levels of service apply to the peak hour and peak direction of travel on each facility. Other hours and the off-peak directions would have better levels of service than shown in these figures.
In western Riverside County, Figure 4.16.1 indicates that the vast majority of the arterial roadways (non-freeways) are projected to operate at LOS D or better at the build out of the proposed General Plan for the County, including build out of cities and anticipated increases in background through traffic. The freeways, however, indicate LOS F throughout most of the freeway network during the peak hour in the peak direction. One of the reasons for the forecast degraded operation of the freeways is the topography of western Riverside County, which does not allow for as much of a parallel supporting arterial network as in other counties. For example, I-15 generally follows a canyon, and traffic funnels into the I-15 corridor without much of a supporting parallel arterial system (Temescal Canyon Road is the only one in the northern section of I-15). The I-215 has topographic constraints as well, although they are not as severe.
Figure 4.16.2 shows V/C ratios for cumulative build out within the Coachella Valley. In this case, the only freeway in the Valley, I-10, is projected to operate at LOS E or better, with anticipated widening to five lanes in each direction at build out. Most arterial roadways in the unincorporated areas are projected to operate at better than the targeted levels of service. The main exception is in the area around Desert Resorts Regional Airport (Thermal airport), where substantial non-residential development is planned. More specific traffic studies conducted in this area, with more specificity as to land use type and density, have indicated that this area should operate at an acceptable level of service. Some of the city roadways (e.g., SR-111, Ramon Road, Monterey Avenue, Fred Waring Drive, and Cook Street) are projected to operate at congested V/C ratios over 1.0 in the build out condition.
Within the Central Mountains area, all proposed General Plan roadways and highways are projected to operate at LOS A or B at build out of the proposed General Plan (see Table 4.16.F). Within the Eastern Desert area, all proposed General Plan roadways and highways, including the I-10 freeway, are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service.
| Table 4.16.F - Traffic Analysis of the Proposed General Plan and Alternatives for the Central Mountain Area | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roadway Segment |
Limits | Existing Conditions (1999) | Existing General Plan | Proposed General Plan | Existing Land Use | |||||||||||||
| Facility Type |
# of Lanes | ADT | 1999 Capacity |
V/C Ratio | LOS | Bldout # of Lanes* |
Bldout Capacity | ADT | V/C Ratio | LOS | ADT | V/C Ratio | LOS | ADT | V/C Ratio | LOS | ||
| SR 74 | San Bernardino National Forest Boundary - Jct. Rte. 243 No., Idyllwild Rd. | Arterial | 2 | 3300 | 18000 | 0.18 | A | 4 | 35900 | 63096 | 1.76 | F | 12936 | 0.36 | A | 3300 | 0.09 | A |
| Jct. Rte. 243 No., Idyllwild Rd. - Jct. Rte. 371 West, Cahuilla Rd. | Arterial | 2 | 2300 | 18000 | 0.13 | A | 4 | 35900 | 43976 | 1.22 | F | 9016 | 0.25 | A | 2300 | 0.06 | A | |
| SR 79 | San Diego Co. Line - Aguanda, Jct. Rte. 371, East, Cahilla Rd. | Arterial | 2 | 1700 | 18000 | 0.09 | A | 4 | 35900 | 32504 | 0.91 | E | 6664 | 0.19 | A | 1700 | 0.05 | A |
| Aguanda, Jct. Rte. 371, East, Cahilla Rd. - Sage Rd. | Arterial | 2 | 5600 | 18000 | 0.31 | A | 4 | 35900 | 107072 | 2.98 | F | 21952 | 0.61 | B | 5600 | 0.16 | A | |
| SR 243 | Jct. Rte. 74, Mountain Center - Country Club Dr. | Arterial | 2 | 3400 | 18000 | 0.19 | A | 4 | 35900 | 65008 | 1.81 | F | 13328 | 0.37 | A | 3400 | 0.09 | A |
| Country Club Dr. - Circle Dr. | Arterial | 2 | 4400 | 18000 | 0.24 | A | 4 | 35900 | 84128 | 2.34 | F | 17248 | 0.48 | A | 4400 | 0.12 | A | |
| Circle Dr. - Pinecrest/Dairy Rd. | Arterial | 2 | 6300 | 18000 | 0.35 | A | 4 | 35900 | 120456 | 3.36 | F | 24696 | 0.69 | B | 6300 | 0.18 | A | |
| Pinecrest/Dairy Rd. - Marion Ridge Dr. | Arterial | 2 | 5800 | 18000 | 0.32 | A | 4 | 35900 | 110896 | 3.09 | F | 22736 | 0.63 | B | 5800 | 0.16 | A | |
| Marion Ridge Dr. - San Gorgonio Ave. | Arterial | 2 | 2700 | 18000 | 0.15 | A | 4 | 35900 | 51624 | 1.44 | F | 10584 | 0.29 | A | 2700 | 0.08 | A | |
| San Gorgonio Ave. - Jct. Rte. 10 | Arterial | 2 | 5500 | 18000 | 0.31 | A | 4 | 35900 | 105160 | 2.93 | F | 21560 | 0.60 | B | 5500 | 0.15 | A | |
| SR 371 | Jct. Rte. 79 - Wilson Valley Rd. | Arterial | 2 | 4300 | 18000 | 0.24 | A | 4 | 35900 | 82216 | 2.29 | F | 16856 | 0.47 | A | 4300 | 0.12 | A |
| Wilson Valley Rd. - Cary Rd. | Arterial | 2 | 4500 | 18000 | 0.25 | A | 4 | 35900 | 86040 | 2.40 | F | 17640 | 0.49 | A | 4500 | 0.13 | A | |
| Cary Rd. - Contreras Rd. | Arterial | 2 | 4800 | 18000 | 0.27 | A | 4 | 35900 | 91776 | 2.56 | F | 18816 | 0.52 | A | 4800 | 0.13 | A | |
| Contreras Rd. - Jct. Rte. 74; Anza East | Arterial | 2 | 6200 | 18000 | 0.34 | A | 4 | 35900 | 118544 | 3.30 | F | 24304 | 0.68 | B | 6200 | 0.17 | A | |
| *Number of lanes possible for this classification. Some sections may not be constructable to four lanes | ||||||||||||||||||
| Table 4.16.G - Traffic Analysis of the Proposed General Plan and Alternatives for the Blythe Area | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roadway Segment |
Limits | Existing Conditions (1999) | Existing General Plan | Proposed General Plan | Existing Land Use | |||||||||||||
| Facility Type |
# of Lanes | ADT | 1999 Capacity |
V/C Ratio | LOS | Bldout # of Lanes* |
Bldout Capacity | ADT | V/C Ratio | LOS | ADT | V/C Ratio | LOS | ADT | V/C Ratio | LOS | ||
| I-10 Mesa | Dr. - Jct Rte 78 South, Neighbors Blvd | Freeway | 4 | 15600 | 76500 | 0.20 | A | 4 | 76500 | 52260 | 0.68 | B | 50700 | 0.66 | B | 18720 | 0.24 | A |
| I-10 | Jct Rte 78 South, Neighbors Blvd - Blythe, 7th St | Freeway | 4 | 16700 | 76500 | 0.22 | A | 4 | 76500 | 55945 | 0.73 | C | 54275 | 0.71 | C | 20040 | 0.26 | A |
| I-10 | Blythe, 7th St - Jct. Rte 95 North, Intake Blve | Freeway | 4 | 17300 | 76500 | 0.23 | A | 4 | 76500 | 57955 | 0.76 | C | 56225 | 0.73 | C | 20760 | 0.27 | A |
| I-10 | Jct. Rte 95 North, Intake Blve - Riviera Dr | Freeway | 4 | 18400 | 76500 | 0.24 | A | 4 | 76500 | 61640 | 0.81 | D | 59800 | 0.78 | C | 22080 | 0.29 | A |
| I-10 | Riviera Dr. - Arizona State line | Freeway | 4 | 18500 | 76500 | 0.24 | A | 4 | 76500 | 61975 | 0.81 | D | 60125 | 0.79 | C | 22200 | 0.29 | A |
| SR-78 | Imperial Co. Line - 32nd Ave./Palo Verde Blvd | Major | 2 | 2800 | 13000 | 0.22 | A | 4 | 34100 | 14840 | 0.44 | A | 14280 | 0.42 | A | 2800 | 0.08 | A |
| SR-78 | 32nd Ave./Palo Verde Blvd. - Rannels Blvd. 28th Ave. | Major | 2 | 1400 | 13000 | 0.11 | A | 4 | 34100 | 7420 | 0.22 | A | 7140 | 0.21 | A | 1400 | 0.04 | A |
| SR-78 | Rannells Blvd./28th St./Neighbors Blvd | Major | 2 | 1800 | 13000 | 0.14 | A | 4 | 34100 | 9540 | 0.28 | A | 9180 | 0.27 | A | 1800 | 0.05 | A |
| SR-78 | 28th St./Neighbors Blvd /Ripley, Broadway St | Major | 2 | 2000 | 13000 | 0.15 | A | 4 | 34100 | 10600 | 0.31 | A | 10200 | 0.30 | A | 2000 | 0.06 | A |
| SR-78 | Ripley, Broadway St - Jct. Rte 10 | Major | 2 | 2900 | 13000 | 0.22 | A | 4 | 34100 | 15370 | 0.45 | A | 14790 | 0.43 | A | 2900 | 0.09 | A |
| US-95 | Jct. Rte. 10 - Hobson Way | Major | 2 | 5600 | 13000 | 0.43 | A | 4 | 34100 | 29680 | 0.87 | D | 28560 | 0.84 | D | 5600 | 0.16 | A |
| US-95 | Hobson Way - Sixth Ave | Major | 2 | 3300 | 13000 | 0.25 | A | 4 | 34100 | 17490 | 0.51 | A | 16830 | 0.49 | A | 3300 | 0.10 | A |
| US-95 | Sixth Ave - Palo Verde Diversion Dam | Major | 2 | 2600 | 13000 | 0.20 | A | 4 | 34100 | 13780 | 0.40 | A | 13260 | 0.39 | A | 2600 | 0.08 | A |
| Lovekin Blvd | South of 18th | Major | 2 | 1200 | 13000 | 0.09 | A | 4 | 34100 | 6360 | 0.19 | A | 6120 | 0.18 | A | 1200 | 0.04 | A |
| Lovekin Blvd | North of Seeley | Major | 2 | 2200 | 13000 | 0.17 | A | 4 | 34100 | 11660 | 0.34 | A | 11220 | 0.33 | A | 2200 | 0.06 | A |
| Hobson Way | W. of SR-78 | Major | 2 | 1200 | 13000 | 0.09 | A | 4 | 34100 | 6360 | 0.19 | A | 6120 | 0.18 | A | 1200 | 0.04 | A |
| C & D Blvd. | S. of 14th | Secondary | 2 | 600 | 13000 | 0.05 | A | 4 | 25900 | 3180 | 0.12 | A | 3060 | 0.12 | A | 600 | 0.02 | A |
| Notes: For I-10, estimated through traffic growth at 1% per year or 40% over 40 years and that 50% of traffic is through traffic Growth for county development based on ratios of dwelling units for General Plan land use (proposed and existing) to existing land use Assumptions on growth of local traffic are believed to be conservatively high (Proposed GP buildout DUs = 5.1 times existing Dus; 5.3 times for existing GP buildout) |
||||||||||||||||||
Comparison of Aggregate Travel Statistics
Table 4.16.H shows the total vehicle miles of travel (VMT), vehicle hours of travel (VHT), and average speeds under build out of the proposed General Plan and under cumulative future without project conditions for both western Riverside County and the Coachella Valley. These measures are good indicators for a general comparison of the overall amount of travel and quality of travel (average speed). For western Riverside County, the total amount of travel (represented by the VMT) is approximately 21 percent higher under build out of the proposed General Plan than under cumulative future without project conditions.
| Table 4.16.H -Area-Wide Travel Statistics for Proposed General Plan at Build Out | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VMT | VHT | Average Speed (mph) |
||||||||||||||||
| Western Riverside County | ||||||||||||||||||
| Proposed General Plan | 67,172,968 |
1,575,701 |
42.6 |
|||||||||||||||
| Cumulative Future w/o Project | 59,660,609 |
1,496,113 |
39.9 | |||||||||||||||
| Change as a result of Project | 7,512,358 |
79,588 |
+2.7 |
|||||||||||||||
| Coachella Valley | ||||||||||||||||||
| Proposed General Plan | 19,610,880 |
463,480 |
42.3 |
|||||||||||||||
| Cumulative Future w/o Project | 14,088,803 |
346,830 |
40.6 |
|||||||||||||||
| Change as a result of Project | 5,522,077 |
116,650 |
-1.7 |
|||||||||||||||
| Notes: VMT - Vehicle Miles Traveled VHT - Vehicle Hours Traveled |
||||||||||||||||||
Another way of stating the impact, is that the future development in the County unincorporated area is forecast to generate approximately 17 percent of the total travel in western Riverside County at build out. The average travel speed in western Riverside County under build out of the proposed General Plan is 2.2 2.7 miles per hour higher than under cumulative future without project conditions. In the Coachella Valley, the total amount of travel is approximately 27 percent higher under build out of the proposed General Plan than under cumulative future without project conditions. The average travel speed in the Coachella Valley under build out of the proposed General Plan is 1.1 1.7 miles per hour slower than under cumulative future without project conditions. This means that the proposed General Plan roadway infrastructure is generally keeping pace with the projected development in the County.
Comparison of Volumes and Volume/Capacity Ratios:
Proposed General Plan vs. Cumulative Future Without Project Conditions
Figure 4.16.5 presents a comparison of daily traffic volumes between build out of the proposed General Plan and cumulative future without project conditions for western Riverside County. The cumulative future without project conditions represent the situation assumed to have no additional development in the unincorporated areas, and no additional roadway building in those areas as well. Under build out of the proposed General Plan, the vast majority of roadways will have higher traffic volumes than under cumulative future without project conditions. Under the proposed General Plan, there are decreases in traffic volumes along SR-60 and SR-91, compared to the no project alternative, largely due to the benefits of the CETAP corridors (which have been incorporated into the proposed General Plan Circulation Element) and expansion of alternative routes through the County.
Figure 4.16.6 presents a comparison of V/C ratios between build out of the proposed General Plan and cumulative future without project conditions for western Riverside County. Roadways such as the Ramona Expressway SR-74 west of Hemet, and SR-79 show substantially lower V/C ratios under build out of the proposed General Plan than under cumulative future without project conditions. There are two major reasons for these differences. First, the proposed General Plan includes the CETAP corridors that will result in lower traffic volumes on freeways such as SR-60 and SR-91. Second, under cumulative future without project conditions, arterial roadways in the unincorporated areas are not improved, so traffic volumes increase, but roadway capacity does not. Under cumulative future without project conditions, freeways are still assumed to be improved, but their improvement may not be feasible without the anticipated growth in the unincorporated areas. If freeway improvements prove infeasible without such growth, the freeway V/C ratios could be worse under cumulative future without project conditions than under build out of the proposed General Plan. With the elimination of a CETAP corridor to provide an alternative to SR-79 in the Final Draft General Plan, substantially lower V/C ratios under build out of the General Plan will not be realized as compared to cumulative future without project conditions.
Figures 4.16.5 and 4.16.6 show that the build out of the proposed General Plan will result in reductions in traffic volumes and improved levels of service along SR-91 east of I-15 and along SR-60 east of I-215, compared to the cumulative future without project conditions. The Final Draft General Plan will result in a slightly greater decrease in traffic volumes along SR-91 east of I-15. Build out of the proposed General Plan will result in only slightly more traffic and marginally lower levels of service along SR-91 west of I-15 and along SR-60 west of I-215 than would occur if no future development ever occurred within unincorporated areas. The net effect of build out of unincorporated areas under the proposed General Plan is to add only 7,300 westbound daily trips and 6,900 daily eastbound trips to the SR-91 freeway west of I-15, with slightly more trips added under the Final Draft General Plan. Therefore, as shown in Figure 4.16.6, the County's relative contribution to future traffic increases along the SR-91 freeway is minor. This is due to the achievement of a balance between jobs and housing, which will tend to internalize future traffic increases resulting from unincorporated development within the County.
However, by 2020, west of I-15, SR-91 will have to accommodate a projected total of approximately 340,000 vehicles per day, with some estimates as high as 430,000 vehicles per day. Currently, west of I-15, SR-91 carries an average of 232,000 vehicles per day. Riverside and Orange Counties both recognize the need for major transportation improvements between the two counties. Beside needed improvements to SR-91, there will need to be a new transportation facility, somewhere between SR-91 and SR-74 to link I-15 in Riverside County to transportation corridors in Orange County.
Figure 4.16.7 presents a comparison of daily traffic volumes between build out of the proposed General Plan and cumulative future without project conditions for the Coachella Valley. The cumulative future without project conditions represent the situation assumed to have no additional development in the unincorporated areas, and no additional roadway building in those areas as well. Under build out of the proposed General Plan, almost all of the roadways will have higher traffic volumes than under cumulative future without project conditions. However, north-south arterials in the southeastern portion of the Coachella Valley will have higher traffic volumes under the Final Draft General Plan than would occur under future without project conditions.
Figure 4.16.8 presents a comparison of V/C ratios between build out of the proposed General Plan and cumulative future without project conditions for the Coachella Valley. Under build out of the proposed General Plan, most roadways in the cities have higher V/C ratios than under cumulative future without project conditions. Some roadways in the County also have higher V/C ratios under the proposed General Plan because traffic volumes will increase to a greater extent than the additional capacity provided on the roadway system by the proposed General Plan. However, some roadways in the County have lower V/C ratios under the proposed General Plan because the increase in capacity with the proposed General Plan is greater than the increase in traffic attributable to development in the County. In general, north-south arterials in the southeastern portion of the Coachella Valley will have higher V/C ratios under the Final Draft General Plan than would occur under future without project conditions.
Percentage of Daily Traffic Volumes on Proposed General Plan Roadways Attributable to the Increased Growth and Development of Roadway Infrastructure in the County Unincorporated Areas
Figure 4.16.9 shows the percentage of daily traffic volumes on proposed General Plan roadways that can be attributed to the increased growth and development of roadway infrastructure in the County unincorporated areas for western Riverside County. In general, the percentages of the volume attributable to the proposed General Plan is greatest in the unincorporated areas, as would be expected. It is least within the incorporated cities. On the freeways, the percentage varies, but is generally in the range of 20 percent or less.
Figure 4.16.10 shows the same percentages for those roadway segments in the cities or unincorporated area for western Riverside County that indicate levels of service worse than D in the proposed General Plan. This isolates the effect of the County growth on segments that do not meet that LOS standard. The diagram indicates that, on the freeways, growth in the County has little impact on SR-91, SR-60, and I-10. These deficiencies are largely attributable to growth in the cities. There is a moderate effect on I15 and I-215, generally less than 20 percent. However, these, together with all of the roadway segments shown in red in Figure 4.16.10, are locations that are significantly impacted by the proposed General Plan.
Figure 4.16.11 shows the percentage of daily traffic volumes on proposed General Plan roadways that can be attributed to the increased growth and development of roadway infrastructure in the County unincorporated areas for the Coachella Valley. In general, the percentages of the volume attributable to the proposed General Plan is greatest in the unincorporated areas, as would be expected. It is least within the incorporated cities, generally decreasing south of I-10 from the southeast to the northwest.
Figure 4.16.12 shows the same percentages for those roadway segments in the cities or unincorporated area for the Coachella Valley region of Riverside County that indicate levels of service worse than D in the proposed General Plan. This isolates the effect of the County growth on segments that do not meet that LOS standard. The most noticeable impact is in the area of Desert Resorts Regional Airport, where substantial growth in the unincorporated area is expected. These, together with all of the roadway segments shown in red in Figure 4.16.12, are locations that are significantly impacted by the proposed General Plan.
Transit
As indicated earlier, the implementation of the "Transit Oasis" express transit system was assumed in the evaluation of the traffic impacts of the proposed General Plan. The description of the system is outlined in the report "The Transit Oasis Strategy: An Initiative in Transportation Choices for Western Riverside County." This document was endorsed by the RCTC in March 2002 as a framework for further development of the system. The system is designed to connect centers of activity in both the cities and unincorporated areas with express transit, either along Metrolink lines or along new express transit corridors (e.g., such as on the freeway HOV lanes). The system would be implemented gradually over time, as western Riverside County grows. It is conceived as a flexible, cost-effective system that can adapt to development as it occurs.
Transit technologies have not been determined, but would likely consist of rubber-tired vehicles running on preferential lanes, in addition to the Metrolink portions of the system. Figure 4.16.13 shows the potential express routes and station locations. The station locations are identified as possible locations that could occur in the build out system. They do not represent specific commitments by the County, cities, transit agencies, or RCTC.
As indicated in the section on assumptions, the analysis of the Transit Oasis system indicated that an approximately 3 percent reduction in vehicle trips could occur in western Riverside County with the full implementation of the system. This compares to the slightly greater than 1 percent share of transit trips in western Riverside County currently. The reduction in trips will largely be focused along the express routes illustrated in Figure 4.16.13. Figure 4.16.14 provides a graphical illustration of the reduction in traffic that resulted from the analysis of the Transit Oasis system using the transportation model. This does not show the inter-county transit trips. The width of the band in Figure 4.16.14 shows the magnitude of reduction in traffic on the various facilities. Conversely, it suggests the magnitude of transit trips that could occur in each corridor. These estimates should be considered approximate, and more detailed transit ridership studies will be needed as portions of the system are implemented.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan includes the following policies to reduce or minimize the effects of prospective growth on transportation and circulation within the County. Implementation of the proposed General Plan policies related to transportation and circulation would help reduce the effects of growth and development; however, to reduce the effects future development in the County would have on traffic and circulation, mitigation is provided below.
General Circulation
Circulation Policy 1.1 Design the transportation system to respond to concentrations of population and employment activities, as designated by the Land Use Element and in accordance with the Circulation Plan.
Circulation Policy 1.2 Support development of a variety of transportation options for major employment and activity centers including direct access to transit routes, primary arterial highways, bikeways, park-n-ride facilities, and pedestrian facilities.
Circulation Policy 1.3 Support the development of transit connections that link the community centers located throughout the County and as identified in the Land Use Element and in the individual area plans.
Circulation Policy 1.4 Utilize existing infrastructure and utilities to the maximum extent practicable and provide for the logical, timely, and economically efficient extension of infrastructure and services.
Circulation Policy 1.5 Evaluate the planned circulation system as needed to enhance the arterial highway network to respond to anticipated growth and mobility needs.
Circulation Policy 1.6 Cooperate with local, regional, State, and federal agencies to establish an efficient circulation system.
Circulation Policy 1.7 Encourage and support the development of projects that facilitate and enhance the use of alternative modes of transportation, including pedestrian-oriented retail and activity centers, dedicated bicycle lanes and paths, and mixed-use community centers.
Circulation Policy 2.1 Maintain the following countywide target Levels of Service: LOS "C" along all County-maintained roads and conventional State highways. As an exception, LOS "D" may be allowed in Community Development areas, only at intersections of any combination of Secondary Highways, Major Highways, Arterials, Urban Arterials, Expressways, conventional State highways or freeway ramp intersections. LOS "E" may be allowed in designated community centers to the extent that it would support transit-oriented development and walkable communities.
Circulation Policy 2.2 Apply level of service standards to new development via a program establishing traffic study guidelines to evaluate traffic impacts and identify appropriate mitigation measures for new developments.
Circulation Policy 2.3 Traffic studies prepared for development entitlements (tracts, plot plans, public use permits, conditional use permits, etc.) shall identify project-related traffic impacts and determine the "significance" of such impacts in compliance with CEQA.
Circulation Policy 2.4 The direct project-related traffic impacts of new development proposals shall be mitigated via conditions of approval requiring the construction of any improvements identified as necessary to meet level of service standards.
Circulation Policy 2.5 The cumulative and indirect traffic impacts of development may be mitigated through the payment of various impact mitigation fees such as County Development Impact Fees, Road and Bridge Benefit District Fees, and Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees to the extent that these programs provide funding for the improvement of facilities impacted by development.
Circulation Policy 2.6 Accelerate the construction of transportation infrastructure in the Highway 79 Policy Area (see Figure C-2). The County shall require that all new development projects demonstrate adequate transportation infrastructure capacity to accommodate the added traffic growth. The County shall coordinate with cities adjacent to the policy area to accelerate the usable revenue flow of existing funding programs, thus assuring that transportation infrastructure is in place when needed.
Circulation Policy 2.7 Establish a program in the Highway 79 Policy Area (see Figure C-2) to insure that overall trip generation does not exceed system capacity and that the system operation continues to meet Level of Service standards. In general, the program would establish guidelines to be incorporated into individual Traffic Impact Analysis which would monitor overall trip generation from residential development to ensure that overall within the Highway 79 Policy Area development projects produce traffic generation at a level that is 9 percent less than the trips projected from the General Plan traffic model residential land use designations. Individually, projects could exceed the General Plan traffic model trip generation level, provided it can be demonstrated that sufficient reductions have occurred on other projects in order to meet Level of Service standards.
Circulation Policy 2.38 Require projects that propose an increase in currently approved density and intensity of land use, must prepare a traffic analysis that evaluates the long-term impacts of the project, demonstrating that the planned road system can support the proposed project, together with those land uses already allowed in the area. The analysis would project average daily traffic of roadway links for the build out situation of the entire area to demonstrate conformance with the target LOS standards. In addition, any individual development proposal may be required to provide a traffic analysis to assess peak hour impacts at affected intersections, identifying needed mitigation measures to achieve or maintain the target LOS. Such impacts may be mitigated by construction of all improvements necessary to achieve the target LOS, by payment of a fee or fees if an appropriate funding mechanism is in place, or by any other appropriate means. If the projected traffic does not exceed the target level, mitigation may include, but is not limited to, compliance with standard conditions of approval, or the construction of improvements or payment of fees necessary to mitigate the incremental impact for each development proposal.
Circulation Policy 3.2 Maintain the existing transportation network, while providing for future expansion and improvement based on travel demand, and the development of alternative travel modes.
Circulation Policy 3.5 Require all major subdivisions to provide adequate collector road networks designed to feed traffic onto General Plan-designated highways.
Circulation Policy 3.6 Require private developers to be primarily responsible for the improvement of streets and highways service access to developing commercial, industrial, and residential areas. These may include road construction or widening, installation of turning lanes and traffic signals, and the improvement of any drainage facility or other auxiliary facility necessary for the safe and efficient movement of traffic or the protection of road facilities.
Circulation Policy 3.10 Require private and public land developments to provide all on-site auxiliary facility improvements necessary to mitigate any development-generated circulation impacts. A review of each proposed land development project shall be undertaken to identify project impacts to the circulation system and its auxiliary facilities. The Transportation Department may require developers and/or subdividers to provide traffic impact studies prepared by qualified professionals to identify the impacts of a development.
Circulation Policy 3.20 Determine location of General Plan road rights of way and levels of road improvements needed based primarily upon land uses and travel demand.
Circulation Policy 4.1 Provide facilities for the safe movement of pedestrians within developments, as specified in the County Ordinances Regulating the Division of Land of the County of Riverside.
Circulation Policy 4.2 Maximize visibility and access for pedestrians and encourage the removal of barriers (walls, easements, and fences) for safe and convenient movement of pedestrians. Special emphasis should be placed on the needs of disabled persons considering Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations.
Circulation Policy 4.3 Assure pedestrian access from developments to existing and future transit routes and terminal facilities through project design.
Circulation Policy 4.4 Plan for pedestrian access that is consistent with road design standards while designing street and road projects. Provisions for pedestrian paths or sidewalks and timing of traffic signals to allow safe pedestrian street crossing shall be included.
Circulation Policy 4.5 Collaborate with local communities to ensure that school children have adequate transportation routes available, such as a local pedestrian or bike path, or local bus service.
Circulation Policy 4.6 Consult the County Transportation Department as part of the development review process regarding any development proposals where pedestrian facilities may be warranted. The County may require both the dedication and improvement of the pedestrian facilities as a condition of development approval.
Circulation Policy 4.7 Encourage safe pedestrian walkways that comply with the ADA requirements within commercial, office, industrial, mixed use, residential, and recreational developments.
Circulation Policy 4.8 Encourage, where feasible, the construction of overpasses or undercrossings where trails intersect arterials, urban arterials, expressways, or freeways.
Circulation Policy 4.9 Coordinate with all transit operators to ensure that pedestrian facilities are provided along and/or near all transit routes, whenever feasible. New land developments may be required to provide pedestrian facilities due to existing or future planned transit routes even if demand for pedestrian facility is not otherwise warranted.
Circulation Policy 4.10 Review all existing roadways without pedestrian facilities when they are considered for improvements (whether maintenance or upgrade) to determine if new pedestrian facilities are warranted. New roadways should also be assessed for pedestrian facilities.
Circulation Policy 6.1 Provide dedicated and recorded public access to all parcels of land, except as provided for under the statutes of the State of California.
Circulation Policy 6.2 Require all-weather access to all new development.
Circulation Policy 6.3 Limit access points and intersections of streets and highways based upon the road's General Plan classification and function. Access points must be located a sufficient distance away from major intersections to allow for safe, efficient operation.
Circulation Policy 6.4 Discourage parcel access points taken directly off General Plan-designated highways. Access may be permitted off of General Plan-designated highways only if no local streets are present.
Circulation Policy 6.5 Provide common access via shared driveways and/or reciprocal access easements whenever access must be taken directly off a General Plan-designated highway. Parcels on opposite sides of a highway shall have access points located directly opposite each other, whenever possible, to allow for future street intersections and increased safety.
Circulation Policy 6.6 Consider access implications associated with adjacent development and circulation plans, and promote efficient and safe access improvements on airport facilities.
Circulation Policy 6.7 Require that the automobile and truck access of commercial and industrial land uses abutting residential parcels be located at the maximum practical distance from the nearest residential parcels to minimize noise impacts.
Circulation Policy 7.1 Work with incorporated cities to mitigate the cumulative impacts of incorporated and unincorporated development on the countywide transportation system.
Circulation Policy 7.3 Incorporate the Regional Transportation Plan, the Riverside County Congestion Management Plan, and the Riverside County Short-and Long-Range Transit Plans into the Circulation Element, and encourage the active participation of Caltrans in the design of state highway capital improvement projects.
Circulation Policy 7.4 Coordinate with transportation planning, programming and implementation agencies such as Caltrans, Riverside County Transportation Commission, Western Riverside Council Of Governments, Coachella Valley Association of Governments, and the cities of Riverside County on various studies relating to freeway, high occupancy vehicle/high occupancy toll lanes, and transportation corridor planning, construction, and improvement in order to facilitate the planning and implementation of an integrated circulation system.
Circulation Policy 7.5 Partner with government agencies and authorities to provide for improvements and alternative transportation corridors to Orange County.
Circulation Policy 7.6 Support the development of a new internal East-West CETAP Corridor in conjunction with a new Orange County CETAP connection. Such corridor(s) would be constructed simultaneously in order avoid further congestion on the I-15 Freeway. Or, in the alternative, the East-West Corridor would be constructed simultaneously with major capacity enhancements on the State Route 91, between Pierce Street and the Orange County line, and the capacity improvement of the 15 (north) to westbound 91 overpass.
Circulation Policy 7.7 Support the analysis of the feasibility of a Pigeon Pass Road extension as part of the Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County CETAP Corridor.
Circulation Policy 7.68 Collaborate with all incorporated cities and all adjacent counties to implement and integrate right-of-way requirements and improvement standards for General Plan roads that cross jurisdictional boundaries. Detailed procedures have been developed and includes the following:
• For development under the County jurisdiction but within the sphere of influence (SOI) of a city having roadway standards different from the County, city and County staff will cooperate and agree on a reasonable choice of design standards for the particular circumstances involved, and negotiate logical transitions from city to County standards.
• In general, for such development under County jurisdiction but within the SOI of an incorporated jurisdiction, city standards should apply if the staffs concur that annexation to the City will logically occur in the short to intermediate range future. Where annexation seems doubtful into the long-term future, County standards should apply.
• Transition areas at meeting points of roadways designed to differing city and County standards or differing functional classifications should be individually designed to facilitate satisfactory operational and safety performance. Further, the County should update the road standards to reflect the intent of this policy and standards agreed upon by the County and other local agencies.
Circulation Policy 8.4 Prepare a multi-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) that establishes improvement priorities and scheduling for transportation project construction over a period of 5 to 7 years. The TIP will be reviewed and updated annually.
Circulation Policy 8.5 Participate in the establishment of regional traffic mitigation fees and/or road and bridge benefits districts to be assessed on new development. The fees shall cover a reasonable share of the costs of providing local and subregional transportation improvements needed for serving new development in the unincorporated area.
Circulation Policy 8.6 Encourage the use of public improvement financing mechanisms, and equitably distribute the costs of road improvements among all those who benefit from the road improvements, including current roadway users.
Circulation Policy 8.8 Seek all available means to finance improvements, including State and federal grants, to ensure that a non-motorized system is implemented.
Public Transportation
Circulation Policy 9.1 Support all operator efforts to maximize revenue sources for short- and long-range transit needs that utilize all funding mechanisms available including federal grants, State enabling legislation, and farebox revenue. This can be accomplished through the RCTC and development of the Short and Long Range Transit Plans.
Circulation Policy 9.2 Support transit operators' programs to foster transit usage.
Circulation Policy 10.1 Support programs developed by transit agencies/operators to provide paratransit service.
Circulation Policy 11.1 Reserve right-of-way to accommodate for designated transit service.
Circulation Policy 11.2 Incorporate the potential for public transit service in the design of developments that are identified as major trip attractions (i.e., community centers, tourist and employment centers), as indicated in ordinances regulating the Division of Land of the County of Riverside.
Circulation Policy 11.3 Design the physical layout of arterial and collector highways to facilitate bus operations. Locations of bus turn outs and other design features should be considered.
Circulation Policy 11.4 Offer incentives to new development to encourage it to locate in a transit-oriented area such as a community center or along a designated transit corridor near a station.
Circulation Policy 11.5 Accommodate transit through higher densities, innovative design, and right-of-way dedication.
Circulation Policy 11.6 Encourage the designation of exclusive transit-only lanes on freeways.
Circulation Policy 11.7 Promote development of transit centers and park-n-rides for use by all transit operators, including development of multi-modal facilities.
Circulation Policy 12.1 Support the development and implementation of the Transit Oasis concept in conjunction with RCTC, local transit operators, and cities.
Circulation Policy 12.2 Support the development of high-speed transit linkages, or express routes, between community centers and other major nodes of activity.
Circulation Policy 12.3 Establish a system of transit priority treatments or dedicated travel lanes to facilitate movement by the Transit Oasis vehicles within community centers and other major nodes of activity, where feasible.
Circulation Policy 12.4 Comply with, to the extent possible, performance standards and guidelines for the development of Transit Oasis established by the RTA and the RCTC. These guidelines should be crafted to integrate each Transit Oasis with the quality, character, and scale of the community centers and/or surrounding development.
Circulation Policy 12.5 Support the development of Transit Oasis by the RCTC utilizing the following guidelines:
a. Locate Transit Oasis in community centers, areas of concentrated development, and areas of high activity.
b. Integrate the Transit Oasis with the quality, design, and character of surrounding development.
c. Provide transit stops within a 5-minute walk (approximately 0.2 miles) of major activity areas.
d. Provide convenient and safe pedestrian access to and from transit stops.
e. Provide adequate off-street parking in appropriate locations.
f. Link each Transit Oasis with the available regional transportation system
g. Design the local Transit Oasis in such a manner that access to the regional transportation system is provided at approximately 10-minute intervals.
Circulation Policy 12.6 Support development of transit centers in community centers, including the dedication of land, where possible.
Circulation Policy 13.1 Support continued development and implementation of the RCTC Rail Program including new rail lines and stations, the proposed California High Speed Rail System with at least two (2) stations in Riverside County, the Coachella Valley Commuter Rail Service, and the proposed Intercity Rail Corridor between Calexico and Los Angeles.
Circulation Policy 13.2 Support continued improvements to AMTRAK and MetroLink rail passenger service within Riverside County and throughout the Southern California region.
Circulation Policy 13.3 Support implementation of the San Jacinto Branch Line to serve planned industrial development.
Circulation Policy 13.4 Construct new grade separations or reconstruct existing grade separations as necessary for the smooth flow of traffic within the County consistent with plans developed by WRCOG and CVAG.
Circulation Policy 13.5 Provide additional grade crossing improvements as determined by the California Public Utilities Commission and the County.
Circulation Policy 13.6 Reserve, where warranted, the future use of abandoned rail right-of-way for alternative transportation purposes so that an integrated and mutually supportive set of transportation projects may be defined for Riverside County.
Circulation Policy 13.7 Dedicate right-of-way and land for future transit centers in community centers and/or major activity areas (high concentrations of employment and residential uses) and in areas that minimize noise impacts on surrounding residential and sensitive land uses.
Circulation Policy 14.1 Promote coordinated long-range planning between the County, airport authorities, businesses, and the public to meet the County and the region's aviation needs. Ensure the development of appropriate land uses near County airports, as specified in the Riverside County Airport Land Use Plan.
Circulation Policy 14.2 Apply a variety of land use planning techniques to maintain the viability of the County's airports.
Circulation Policy 14.3 Encourage the use of noise-reducing flight procedures for airplanes and helicopters, such as maintaining flight altitudes or using flight patterns that avoid noise-sensitive neighborhoods to the extent permitted by Federal Aviation Administration regulations. Enforce federal and State regulations related to land use planning around airport facilities with the cooperation of the County Economic Development Agency.
Non-Motorized Transportation
Circulation Policy 15.1 Implement and later expand an effective non-motorized transportation system. Encourage and support maintenance of existing non-motorized facilities.
Circulation Policy 15.2 Seek financing to implement an effective non-motorized transportation system. This funding can include such things as State and Federal grants. Provide non-motorized alternatives for commuter travel as well as recreational opportunities within the trails network.
Circulation Policy 15.3 Develop a trail system which connects County parks and recreation areas while providing links to open space areas, equestrian communities, local municipalities, and regional recreational facilities (including other regional trail systems).
Circulation Policy 15.4 Review and update the Regional Trail Map in accordance with the review procedures and schedule of the General Plan, in order to assure compatibility with the other elements of the County General Plan, and with the similar plans of Western Riverside County Council of Governments, Coachella Valley Association of Governments, Riverside County Transportation Commission, and all jurisdictions within and abutting Riverside County.
Circulation Policy 15.5 Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards will be assured so as to make the entire trails system user-friendly.
Circulation Policy 16.1 Implement the County trail system as depicted in the Bikeways and Trails Plan, Figure C-5.
Circulation Policy 16.2 Develop a multi-purpose recreational trail network and support facilities that which provide a linkage with regional trail facilities.
Circulation Policy 16.3 Require that trail alignments either provide access to or link scenic corridors, schools, parks, and other natural areas.
a. Require that all development proposals located along a planned trail or trails provide access to the trail system.
i. Ensure that existing and new gated communities do not preclude trails from traversing through their boundaries.
b. Require that existing and proposed trails within Riverside County connect with those in other neighboring jurisdictions.
Circulation Policy 16.4 Identify all existing rights-of-way which have been obtained for trail purposes through the land development process.
a. Once the above task has been accomplished, analyze the existing rights-of-way and determine the most expedient method for connecting the parts.
Circulation Policy 16.5 Allow urban trails in transportation rights-of-way, utility corridors, and irrigation and flood control waterways as a means of mixing uses, bringing together unrelated developments, separating traffic and noise, and providing more services at less cost in one corridor. Examine the use of public access utility easements for trail linkages to the regional trails system and/or other open space areas. These potential corridors include the rights-of-way for:
a. water mains;
b. water storage project aqueducts;
c. irrigation canals;
d. flood control;
e. sewer lines; and
f. fiber optic cable lines.
Circulation Policy 16.6 Adhere to the following trail-development guidelines when siting a trail:
a. Permit urban trails to be located in or along transportation rights-of-way in fee, utility corridors, and irrigation and flood control waterways so as to mix uses, separate traffic and noise, and provide more services at less cost in one corridor.
b. Secure separate rights-of-way for non-motorized trails when physically, financially and legally feasible.
i. Where a separate right-of-way is not feasible, maintain recreation trails within the County right-of-way
c. Use trail design standards which will minimize maintenance due to erosion or vandalism.
d. When a trail is to be reserved through the development approval process, base the precise trail alignments on the physical characteristics of the property, assuring connectivity through adjoining properties.
e. Consider the use of abandoned rail lines as multipurpose "rail-trails" for multi-purpose trails.
f. Place all recreation trails a safe distance from the edge of active aggregate mining operations and separate them by physical barriers.
i. Avoid placing a trail where it will cross an active haul route.
g. Install warning signs indicating the presence of a trail at locations where regional or community trails cross public roads with high amounts of traffic.
h. Take into consideration such issues as sensitive habitat areas, flood potentials, access to neighborhoods and open space, safety, alternate land uses, and usefulness for both transportation and recreation when designing and constructing trails.
i. Coordinate with other agencies and/or organizations (such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Transportation) to encourage the development of multi-purpose trails. Potential joint uses may include historic and environmental interpretation, access to fishing areas and other recreational uses, opportunities for education, and access for the disabled.
j. Work with landowners to address concerns about privacy, liability, security, and trail maintenance.
Circulation Policy 16.7 Require the installation, where appropriate, of a simulated split rail fence with 2 to 3 rails constructed of white PVC material separating road rights of way from adjacent trail easements.
Circulation Policy 16.8 Where land ownership is established, consider using abandoned rail lines as multipurpose "rail-trails" for activities such as equestrian use, bicycling, hiking, and walking, after a petition with the Interstate Commerce Commission has been filed.
Circulation Policy 16.11 Maintain recreation trails within the County right-of-way with the support of local public agencies.
Circulation Policy 16.14 Require that development proposals provide for access to the trails system, where feasible and appropriate.
Circulation Policy 16.15 Identify all required ultimate trail rights-of-way and easements that have been dedicated and approved concurrent with the approval of any development proposal. The approved easements shall be consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and Recreation Trails Plan Map of the General Plan and with current Riverside County design criteria, standards, and practices. Plans for recreational trails must illustrate how trail systems integrate with backbone trails, environmental corridors, recreational facilities, and schools.
Circulation Policy 16.16 Implement trails in a sensitive manner considering concerns related to riparian habitats, flood potentials, access to neighborhoods and open space, safety, sensitivity to land use, and usefulness for both transportation and recreation.
Circulation Policy 16.17 Cooperate with other organizations such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Transportation to encourage multipurpose trail development that includes historic and environmental interpretation; fishing access and education opportunities; and access for the disabled.
Circulation Policy 16.19 Require that trail alignments provide access to and/or link scenic corridors, schools, parks, and other natural areas, where feasible and appropriate.
Circulation Policy 16.20 Encourage the connection of existing and proposed trails within Riverside County with those of other counties and States.
Circulation Policy 17.1 Develop Class I Bike Paths, Class II Bike Lanes, and Class I Bike Paths/Regional Trails (Combo Trails), as shown in the Trails Plan (Figure C-5), to the design standards as outlined in the California Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual, and other County Guidelines.
Circulation Policy 17.2 Develop a trail system that interconnects County parks and recreation areas, while providing linkage opportunities between open space areas, equestrian communities, and regional recreational facilities, including other regional trail systems. Require bicycle access between proposed developments and other parts of the County trail system through dedication of easements and construction of bicycle accessways.
Circulation Policy 17.3 Ensure that the bikeway system incorporates the following:
a. Interconnection of cities and unincorporated communities;
b. Provision of lanes to specific destinations such as State or County parks;
c. Provision for bicycle touring; and
d. Encouragement of bicycle commuting.
Circulation Policy 17.4 Ensure that alternative modes of motorized transportation, such as buses, trains, etc., plan and provide for transportation of recreational and commuting bicyclists and bicycles on public transportation systems.
Circulation Policy 18.1 ACQUISITION
a. Promote public/private partnerships for trail acquisition.
b. Determine which public and/or private agencies have easements or existing, unused rights-of-way, which potentially could be incorporated as trail linkages throughout Riverside County. Such agencies may include the Riverside County Flood Control District, various utility companies/districts, and railroad companies.
c. Evaluate the potential use of private-landowner tax credits for acquiring necessary trail easements and/or rights-of-way. A system such as this would allow a landowner to dedicate an easement for trail purposes in exchange for having that portion of the property assessed as open-space instead of a higher land-use category.
Circulation Policy 18.2 MAINTENANCE
a. Implement maintenance options such as the use of volunteers, associations, or private landowner maintenance agreements, and/or adopt-a-trail programs sponsored by various groups;
b. Implement methods to discourage unauthorized use of trails by motorized vehicles, which may cause trail deterioration, create an unsafe environment, and/or disrupt the enjoyment of the trails by legitimate trail users. These methods may include the installation of gates and motorcycle barriers, posting signs prohibiting unauthorized activities, or implementing educational programs to encourage the proper use of trails.
Circulation Policy 18.3 FUNDING
a. Solicit all possible sources of funding to plan, acquire, and construct recreational trails. Sources can include, but not be limited to, development mitigation fees, private foundation grants, and/or funds from local, regional, State, and Federal government entities.
b. Persuade local communities to finance their own community trail systems through the use of special tax districts. If applicable, these districts should also provide adequate regulation for the keeping of horses.
Circulation Policy 18.2 Develop Class I Bike Paths as shown in the Bikeways and Trails Plan, Figure C-5, to the design standards as outlined in the California Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual, and other County guidelines.
Circulation Policy 18.3 Provide for bicycle travel on arterial highways. Bicycle travel shall be accommodated on arterial highways during roadway construction, widening or other improvements, whenever feasible and practical.
Circulation Policy 18.5 Review and update the Regional Trail Map in accordance with the review procedures and schedule of the General Plan, in order to assure compatibility with the other elements of the County General Plan, and with the bikeways plans of WRCOG, CVAG, RCTC, local cities, and adjacent counties.
Circulation Policy 18.6 Consider bicycle transportation needs in the review of development projects, and where appropriate, require the provision of bicycle access between a proposed development and other parts of the County through dedication of easements and construction of bicycle access ways.
Circulation Policy 18.7 Plan and implement a countywide Bikeway System through the coordinated efforts of County and local agencies.
Circulation Policy 18.8 Develop Class I/Regional Trails (Combo Trails) as shown in the General Plan Bikeways and Trails Plan, Figure C-5.
Circulation Policy 19.1 Explore management methods that will discourage unauthorized use of trails by motorized vehicles, hunting, shooting, and trapping that may cause trail deterioration and/or disrupt the enjoyment of the trails by hikers and riders. These methods may include the installation of gates and motorcycle barriers, posting signs prohibiting unauthorized activities, or having various trails groups or associations sponsor educational programs that will encourage others to use the trails properly.
Circulation Policy 19.2 Explore maintenance options that utilize a maximum of user funding and community contributed service, such as adopt-a-trail programs sponsored by various groups, volunteers, associations, or private landowner maintenance agreements.
Circulation Policy 19.3 Utilize development conditions of approval or other methods of financing such improvements to address implementation and maintenance costs.
Circulation Policy 19.4 Support public/private partnerships for trail acquisition.
Circulation Policy 19.5 Institute joint agreements with public and private agencies such as utility companies, the Riverside County Flood Control District and railroad companies that control easements or unused rights-of-way in order to incorporate such lands into permanent trail linkages throughout the County.
Circulation Policy 19.6 Solicit and utilize all sources of local, regional, State, and federal funds to plan, acquire right-of-way for, and construct bikeways.
Circulation Policy 19.7 Utilize methods other than purchasing of land, whenever possible, for the purpose of establishing trails.
Circulation Policy 19.8 Acquire land for trails in conjunction with a route study approved for inclusion on the map of parks and recreation areas.
Circulation Policy 19.9 Study the feasibility of establishing a system for acquiring open space easement from private landowners for trail corridors in return for tax incentives. This voluntary program would allow a landowner to have a portion of the property assessed for tax purposes on the basis of open space and recreational uses rather than current market value in return for the trail easement by means of a land conservation contract.
Circulation Policy 19.10 Encourage local communities to finance their own community trail systems and provide for adequate regulations for the keeping of horses through the use of special tax districts. Prior to the creation of such districts, public hearings must be held to obtain community agreement and to establish an appropriate tax rate.
Circulation Policy 19.11 Seek State and federal funds to use in acquiring or maintaining recreational facilities. Where required and when budgets allow, the County shall use its general funds to match federal funds.
Circulation Policy 19.12 Investigate private foundation grants as possible sources of funds for recreational development.
Environmental Considerations
Circulation Policy 21.1 Ensure preservation of trees identified as superior examples of native vegetation within road rights-of-way through development proposals review process.
Circulation Policy 21.2 Provide all roadways located within identified flood areas with adequate flood control measures.
Circulation Policy 21.3 Locate roadways outside identified floodplains whenever possible.
Circulation Policy 21.4 Control dust and mitigate other environmental impacts during all stages of roadway construction.
Circulation Policy 21.5 Protect all streets and highways located within identified blow sand areas from blowsand hazards to the extent practicable.
Circulation Policy 21.8 Avoid, where practicable, disturbance of existing communities and biotic resource areas when identifying alignments for new roadways, or for improvements to existing roadways and other transportation system improvements.
Circulation Policy 21.9 Implement the Circulation Plan in a manner consistent with federal, State, and local environmental quality standards and regulations.
Circulation Policy 21.11 Incorporate specific requirements of the General Plan Air Quality Element into transportation plans and development proposals where applicable.
Circulation Policy 21.12 Encourage the use of alternative non-motorized transportation and the use of non-polluting vehicles.
Circulation Policy 21.13 Implement National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Best Management Practices relating to construction of roadways to control runoff contamination from affecting the groundwater supply.
Transportation Systems Management
Circulation Policy 22.1 Encourage the installation and use of HOV lanes. Such lanes should be continuous, linking major population centers with employment centers. If HOV lanes are used, consider making them available for mixed-flow traffic during non-peak periods where warranted and feasible.
Circulation Policy 22.2 Consider the use of HOV lanes when any widening project is undertaken on urban arterials and expressways.
Circulation Policy 22.3 Consider creating HOV lanes by adding additional travel lanes instead of removing existing mixed-flow traffic lanes.
Circulation Policy 22.4 Give priority to TSM strategies to improve level of service, particularly in areas that are fully developed.
Circulation Policy 22.5 Construct and improve traffic signals at appropriate intersections. Whenever possible, traffic signals should be spaced and operated as part of coordinated systems to optimize traffic operation.
Circulation Policy 22.6 Consider roadway expansion at public expense to relieve congestion only after the determination has been made that TSM measures will not be effective.
Circulation Policy 22.7 Install special turning lanes whenever necessary to relieve congestion and improve safety.
Circulation Policy 22.8 Install one-way streets and exclusive or reversible lanes where applicable.
Circulation Policy 22.9 Encourage development of bus-only lanes and signal synchronization so that transit can help to alleviate congestion.
Circulation Policy 23.1 Continue implementation of the County's TDM Design Guidelines.
Circulation Policy 23.2 Coordinate with Caltrans, the RCTC, transit agencies and other responsible agencies to identify the need for additional park-n-ride facilities along major commuter travel corridors and at major activity centers.
Circulation Policy 25.1 Encourage the integration of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) consistent with the principles and recommendations referenced in the Inland Empire ITS Strategic Plan as the transportation system is implemented.
Effectiveness of Proposed General Plan Policies The Circulation Element policies provide a framework for development and implementation of the proposed multi-modal transportation system envisioned by the proposed General Plan. However, the policies do not provide a clear mechanism whereby traffic impacts from individual land development projects are reviewed in relation to roadway capacity and level of service standards. In conjunction with the proposed General Plan policies, the following mitigation measures will be implemented.
Mitigation Measures
4.16.1A As part of its review of land development proposals, the County shall require project proponents to make a "fair share" contribution to required intersection and/or roadway improvements. The required intersection and/or roadway improvements shall be based on maintaining the appropriate level of service (LOS D within Community Development Areas designated by the 2002 Riverside County General Plan and within adjacent jurisdictions; LOS C within those portions of unincorporated Riverside County outside of Community Development Areas). The fair share contribution shall be based on the percentage of project-related traffic to the total future traffic.
4.16.1B As part of its review of land development proposals, the County shall ensure sufficient right-of-way is reserved on critical roadways and at critical intersections to implement the approach lane geometrics necessary to provide the appropriate levels of services.
4.16.1C The County shall add a transportation corridor to its General Plan Circulation Element, if feasible, showing a connection between I-15 and the Orange County freeway system, and complete that portion of the CETAP program involving the bi-County corridor to Orange County as a means of relieving traffic congestion along State Route 91. The transportation corridor shall provide an alternative route for traffic on State Route 91 between I-15 and State Route 241.
Discussion Section 15126.4(D) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that "if a proposed mitigation measure would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the effects of the mitigation measure shall be discussed but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed." The following is a brief discussion of the environmental effects of the transportation corridor proposed as Mitigation Measure 4.16.1C. When detailed plans for this transportation corridor between Riverside and Orange Counties are developed, additional, more detailed environmental analysis will be undertaken, including the analysis of alternative alignments.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.16.1C would result in the construction of a transportation corridor through the Cleveland National Forest between Riverside and Orange Counties. Short- and long-term environmental effects that would occur with construction and implementation of the corridor would be different depending on whether the corridor is above ground or consists of a tunnel, or is a combination of both. The Cleveland National Forest encompasses approximately 567,000 acres, straddling Riverside, Orange, and San Diego Counties. The proposed transportation corridor would be located within the Trabuco Ranger District, which is part of the Cleveland National Forest and encompasses approximately 69,500 acres of Western Riverside County. Because the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness Area, where the corridor would not be permitted, is located south of SR-74 in the Cleveland National Forest, the corridor is assumed to be built north of SR-74 and south of SR-91 from Riverside to Orange Counties.
There are private land holdings in Riverside and Orange Counties and within the National Forest that may be affected by the corridor. An analysis as to whether a transportation corridor would be compatible with the implementation of Riverside and Orange County General Plans and the mission of the National Forest would be required. The new roadway may also have potential community disruption and community character impacts during construction and potentially after the roadway is operational, contingent on the alternative alignments that are studied.
Construction of a new transportation corridor could result in the direct mortality of plants and animals, including federally or State listed threatened or endangered species. In addition, the corridor would have the potential to contribute to habitat fragmentation by introducing a barrier into a contiguous habitat block (the Cleveland National Forest), assuming the corridor through the forest is not a tunnel. This barrier could also interfere with wildlife movement, and could impact keystone predator species such as the mountain lion, which require large territories and linkages between territories to support genetically viable populations. Furthermore, the corridor may necessitate the crossing of sensitive habitat, including riparian corridors, wetlands, or streams. These areas have a higher concentration of species and provide important functions, which may be easily disturbed by construction and operation of the new corridor. Portions of the new transportation corridor would be constructed within the Planning Area of the Orange County Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) (Central and Coastal Subregion and Southern Subregion)/Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP).
The Santa Ana Mountains, which trend northwest to southeast, form the backbone of the Cleveland National Forest. The construction of the proposed transportation corridor through the Santa Ana Mountains may necessitate the modification of the existing topography, which may increase the potential for landslide hazards and may adversely affect visual resources. The proposed transportation corridor would be built across the Elsinore Fault and possibly other fault structures, and during construction and operation, persons and property may be exposed to ground shaking during seismic episodes. Earth disturbance during construction may expose soils to wind and water, thereby increasing the potential for wind-borne or water-borne erosion of soils.
The construction and operation of the proposed transportation corridor may interrupt existing hydrologic processes. These effects may include the following:
• Modifications to the direction, pattern, volume, timing, or frequency of flows;
• Increases in streambed sedimentation;
• Changes in water quality as a result of runoff from paved surfaces;
• Changes in the amount or rate of groundwater recharge due to the installation of paved surfaces;
• Increased use of water required for construction of the corridor; and
• Potential for flooding.
The new transportation corridor would have the potential to cross areas containing mineral resources, including actively mined areas (such as Temescal Canyon). It is unlikely that this would cause an impact to active mineral resource retrieval operations, as the corridor would probably be designed to avoid these areas.
The construction of a transportation corridor may also cause disturbance or destruction of known or undetected subsurface cultural resources (archeological, historic, or paleontology). When a more precise alignment of the corridor is known, the impacts to cultural resources would be evaluated in detail.
The risk of inadvertent or accidental release of hazardous materials increases during the transport of these substances. Locations near the proposed transportation corridor may have an increased risk of exposure to the inadvertent or accidental release of hazardous materials.
Through the implementation of a proposed new corridor, traffic along the SR-91 west of I-15 would be reduced. This reduction in traffic volumes is anticipated to reduce the duration of the peak traffic hours by three hours for the year 2025.
Short-term construction activities and the addition of traffic may also result in noise impacts. In addition, the proposed transportation corridor would reduce the traffic on SR-91; however, the a LOS F would be maintained for peak hour traffic despite the improvements in vehicle commute time. Vehicle idling, corresponding emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), and the formation of CO hotspots may decrease because of the decreased commute time and redistributed traffic. Redirecting traffic from SR-91 may cause no change in the amount of other long-term operations emissions (those emissions resulting from vehicular traffic), as the overall volume of traffic may not change. Short-term construction air quality impacts, specifically particulate emissions (PM10), resulting from the construction of the proposed transportation corridor, would be likely.
The construction and operation of a new roadway would have short- and long-term noise impacts on the surrounding environment. Construction noise has the potential to disturb nesting birds and other wildlife. Long-term impacts could have potential noise effects on sensitive receptors along the roadway.
New roadways generally have the potential to facilitate the development of retail (particularly highway commercial) and residential development. In keeping with the mission of the U.S. Forest Service, it is unlikely that this type of development would be permitted within the Cleveland National Forest along the alignment of the new transportation corridor. Portions of the new transportation corridor would be constructed within the Planning Area of the Orange County NCCP (Central and Coastal Subregion and Southern Subregion)/HCP, and would be subject to any applicable restrictions of that plan.
Any new development that would occur upon implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.16.1C would be required to comply with applicable General Plan designations and zoning ordinances, and would, at most, represent a redistribution of anticipated growth. While some properties might be crossed by the roadway (and thus converted to transportation use), the corridor would be unlikely to result in the addition of new land uses to the surrounding area. Because any new development would occur within a framework which anticipates growth, the new corridor would not itself be significantly growth inducing. Land uses which are easily disturbed, such as recreational or other noise-sensitive uses, may be adversely affected by the new corridor. The corridor would also have the potential to cross farmlands classified as Prime, Unique, or of Statewide Importance, resulting in their conversion to transportation uses.
The construction and operation of the new transportation corridor may facilitate access through an area susceptible to wildfires, and may increase the potential for such events. Therefore, the need for fire protection services may increase. Development of the new roadway would also increase the need for patrols by the California Highway Patrol and for emergency services (i.e., paramedics, ambulances, tow trucks, etc.).
New development resulting from implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.16.1C would, at most, represent a redistribution of anticipated growth. Because any new development would occur within a framework of anticipated growth, there would be no substantial increase in the demand for water, energy, wastewater treatment, or solid waste disposal capacity. The construction of the new roadway may require the relocation of existing utility transmission/delivery facilities. Because no population increases would result from the construction or operation of the new transportation corridor, no effect on the provision of other public services would occur.
Revised General Plan Findings An analysis of the traffic impacts of the Final Draft General Plan was undertaken by Transcore to document differences between the impacts of the Final Draft General Plan and the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. The analysis indicates that the traffic impacts of the Final Draft General Plan will be similar to those described in the Draft EIR. LOS F will result on most of the freeway network during the peak hour in the peak direction with build out of the Final Draft General Plan, as was identified in the Draft EIR. The Final Draft General Plan will result in minor changes to levels of services as compared to the 2002 General Plan analyzed in the Draft EIR. Traffic volumes along the I-15 freeway will be slightly higher than was analyzed in the Draft EIR due to the expansion of east-west roadways connecting the Hemet area to I-15 in anticipation of improvement highway connections to Orange County consistent with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.16.1C. These increased volumes are balanced by reduced traffic volumes on SR-91 between I-15 and I-215 resulting from improved connection between the I-15 and I-215 freeways south of the City of Riverside.
Arterial roadways will perform at similar levels of service under the Final Draft General Plan as they would have under the 2002 General Plan analyzed in the Draft EIR. Some deterioration of level of service would occur under the Final Draft General Plan as compared to the Draft EIR analysis along La Sierra Avenue, where it would connect SR-91 to an east-west CETAP corridor in the vicinity of Lake Mathews. Similarly, by providing better protection to natural habitats and eliminating a north-south CETAP corridor that would have provided traffic relief to SR-79, the Final Draft General Plan would result in lower levels of service along SR-79 than were analyzed in the Draft EIR. Roadway links east of I-15 and west of Diamond Valley Lake that were shown as operating at acceptable levels of service in the Draft EIR will operate at LOS E or F as the result on eliminating the previously proposed CETAP corridor. Some roadway links along east-west arterials connecting SR-79 to I-215 will similarly operate at LOS E or F. The Final Draft General Plan will also result in substantial reductions in traffic volumes along the Ramona Expressway east of I-215.
To address the potential for increased traffic impacts resulting from the Final Draft General Plan along the SR-79 corridor and major east-west arterials west and southwest of Diamond Valley Lake, Policies 2.6 and 2.7 were added to the General Plan. These policies establish a "Highway 79 Policy Area to address projected traffic volumes and levels of service in the area between the cities of Hemet, Murrieta, and Temecula. Policy 2.6 calls for acceleration in the construction of transportation infrastructure in the area, and requires that "all new development projects demonstrate adequate transportation infrastructure capacity to accommodate the added traffic growth." The policy also calls for the County to "coordinate with cities adjacent to the policy area to accelerate the usable revenue flow of existing funding programs, thus assuring that transportation infrastructure is in place when needed." Policy 2.7 calls for establishing a program for the Highway 79 Policy Area to "insure that overall trip generation does not exceed system capacity and that the system operation continues to meet Level of Service standards." As noted in Policy 2.7, the program would monitor overall trip generation from residential development to reduce residential traffic generation by approximately 9 percent from the trips projected from the General Plan traffic model residential land use designations. Policy 2.6 states that individual development projects "could exceed the General Plan traffic model trip generation level, provided it can be demonstrated that sufficient reductions have occurred on other projects in order to meet Level of Service standards" in the area. This policy will ensure that roadway performance within the Highway 79 Policy Area will be at least as good or better than was analyzed in the Draft EIR.
Within the Coachella Valley, the Final Draft General Plan will result in less traffic at build out along I-10 west of SR-62 than would build out of the 2002 General Plan analyzed in the Draft EIR, but would result in higher traffic volumes and lower levels of service in the area north of Palm Desert and Indian Wells. Traffic along SR-111 would remain relatively the same at build out under the Final Draft General Plan as was analyzed in the Draft EIR, with some slight increases in the "cove" area through Cathedral City, Palm Desert, and Indian Wells. Within the southeastern portion of the Coachella Valley, SR-86 will perform significantly better at build out under the Final Draft General Plan than was analyzed for the 2002 General Plan in the Draft EIR. The Final Draft General Plan will result in greater traffic volumes and lower levels of service along Harrison Avenue in the Thermal area.
4.16.4 Transportation and Circulation Level of Significance after Mitigation
Arterials
Implementation of the proposed policies and mitigation measures would reduce a majority of the potential impacts on the County's arterial transportation and circulation system to less than significant, with the exception of the arterial locations shown in orange (LOS E) or red (LOS F) on Figures 4.16.10 (Proposed General Plan Roadways for Locations with LOS Worse than D for Daily Volume/Capacity Ratios for Buildout of Proposed General Plan, Western Riverside County) and 4.16.12 (Proposed General Plan Roadways for Locations with LOS Worse than D for Daily Volume/Capacity Ratios for Buildout of Proposed General Plan, Coachella Valley). For those locations shown in orange or red on Figures 4.16.10 and 4.16.12, the County's LOS threshold of LOS D will not be met and the impact from implementation of the proposed General Plan is considered significant. In addition, Circulation Element Policy 2.510 of the proposed General Plan provides a mechanism for the County to approve projects that do not meet their own LOS standards, based on a determination that the project is a benefit even though the LOS standards are not met. With implementation of the proposed General Plan policies and the mitigation measures identified in this EIR, significant and unavoidable impacts will remain at those locations shown in Figures 4.16.10 and 4.16.12 and potentially at other locations through implementation of Circulation Element Policy 2.510.
Freeways
Implementation of the proposed policies and mitigation measures would reduce a majority of the potential impacts on the freeway system located within the County to less than significant, with the exception of the freeway locations shown in red on Figures 4.16.10 and 4.16.12. For those freeway locations shown in orange or red on Figures 4.16.10 and 4.16.12, the County's LOS threshold of LOS E will not be met. All freeways are under the authority of Caltrans. There is no mechanism for development project proponents to pay fees or make fair share contributions towards improving mainline freeway lanes, and even if there were such a mechanism, there is no way to ensure that such payments would be directed to a specific freeway improvement project. Consequently, there are no feasible mitigation measures for these impacts and they will remain significant and unavoidable.
4.17 Water Resources
4.17.1 Water Resources Existing Setting
A detailed examination of Riverside County water resources is included in Section 4.4 of the Riverside County Existing Setting Report and the proposed General Plan Multipurpose Open Space Element.
Water Supply
Urban development, agriculture, and environmental needs (e.g., maintenance of wetland habitats, fisheries, and wild and scenic rivers) all place demands of the State's water supplies. The State's water supply is "developed" (dammed, diverted, stored, channeled) by federal, state, and local entities. Local surface and groundwater projects are the single largest sources , with the Federal Central Valley Project (CVP), the State Water Project (SWP), and the Colorado River (managed by the federal government) providing most of the balance.
The SWP is a water storage and delivery system of reservoirs, aqueducts, power plants, and pumping plants. Its main purpose is to store and distribute water to 29 urban and agricultural water suppliers throughout the sate. The SWP makes water deliveries that supply water to two-thirds of the state's population. Of the contracted water supply, 70 percent goes to urban users, while 30 percent is utilized for agricultural operations. Within the County, the following agencies contract for SWP deliveries.
• Coachella Valley Water District.
• Desert Water Agency.
• Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.
• San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency.
The economy of western Riverside County is sustained primarily by water imported from Northern California and from the Colorado River. Eastern Riverside County relies heavily on water imported from Northern California, the Colorado River, as well as local groundwater. Most of these sources are at capacity. Every sector of the County's economy, as well as every residential use, requires a steady supply of water. If this water demand is not met, population growth must be curtailed, and business customers must look elsewhere to ensure continued productivity. To achieve a sustainable and vibrant economy and environment, a close coordination among local governments and local water agencies is necessary.
The supply of water for Riverside County is limited by its arid climate, past and current agricultural practices, its projected population growth and the demand associated with such growth, and the dependence on imported water. Due to changing regulations, and despite an ever-increasing demand, the availability of imported surface water has been reduced. Riverside County's water supply is uncertain. Recent apportionments from Northern California have been reduced as part of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, and water deliveries from the Colorado River have been reduced.
Riverside County straddles four distinct watershed areas (Figure 4.17.1). These include the Santa Ana River Basin, San Diego Basin, and the East and West Basins of the Colorado River. These large watersheds are further divided into smaller sections by internal surface water drainage areas and groundwater basins.
A two-day to one-week water supply to meet peak demand is provided by many local water agencies within Riverside County. Long-term storage of large quantities of water is provided only at Metropolitan Water District (Metropolitan) and State of California Department of Water Resources (DWR) facilities. Total storage capacity of Metropolitan's existing reservoir system is 871,000 acre feet (af). With a combined storage capacity of 342,300 af, Lake Mathews, Lake Skinner, and Lake Perris are three storage facilities that are located in Riverside County. The completion of Diamond Valley Lake south of Hemet added 800,000 af and brought the total capacity of these four reservoirs to 1,142,300 af. Other surface water storage areas within Riverside County include Vail Lake, Lake Hemet, Canyon Lake, and Lake Elsinore.
Most groundwater basins within Riverside County store local and imported water for later use to meet seasonal and drought year demands. With these conjunctive-use groundwater programs, groundwater is artificially replenished in wet years with surplus imported water. Water is then extracted during drought years or during emergency situations. Conjunctive use, also known as aquifer storage and recovery, which may also involve the recharge of reclaimed water, enhances the region's ability to meet water demand during years of short supply and increases overall local supply reliability.
The chief challenge to obtaining, conveying, and managing water in Southern California is its location in an arid region and the general lack of local water sources adequate to support the ever-increasing population and growing economy. An intricate network of canals, aqueducts, reservoirs, and distribution lines allows for the continued flow of water from local and more distant sources. Connections between the myriad agencies and private entities that supply and manage the flow of water to Southern California is equally complex. The interaction between the various State, regional, and local agencies tasked with the planning, maintenance and oversight of a water supply system that results in the continued flow of water to the region is an involved and dynamic process.
The State Department of Water Resources (DWR) is charged with the management of water resources within the State. The DWR cooperates with other agencies to benefit the State and to protect, restore, and enhance natural and human environments. Regionally, more than 300 public agencies and private companies provide water on a retail basis to approximately 17 million people living in a 5,200-square mile, six-county area. Some of these, such as Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan), act as regional wholesale providers, while others may be substantially smaller, providing water to a limited area or number of connections. Providing a safe, reliable, and cost-effective water supply requires cooperation between public and private water agencies that emphasizes a regional approach to the water supply problem. Difficulties in identifying, securing, and maintaining a safe, cost-effective, and reliable water supply are compounded by the arid climate, past and current land use practices, projected population growth, and changing governmental regulations. Further complicating this process is the fact that the region spans different watershed areas, which themselves are further divided into smaller sections by internal surface water drainage areas and groundwater basins. In addition to the physical obstacles that must be surmounted, water supply planning and the delivery of water from the source to the tap is overseen by State, regional, and local agencies, which may or may not have a common perception of the water supply or water need.
The supply and management of water resources must take into account not only the flow of water to the spigot, but the ancillary issues involved (i.e., impacts resulting from the use of a particular water source). Besides human consumption, water is utilized beneficially for habitat management, recreation, groundwater recharge, and the maintenance of water quality. Water supply planning must not only consider surface and groundwater water supplies, but water derived from conservation practices and the use of innovative and alternative sources. Such practices such as desalinization and the use of reclaimed water for irrigation and other non-consumptive purposes, which currently supply only a fraction of region's water inventory, may increase in importance in future years. Water planners must plan for climatic conditions that may or may not occur in the future (such as drought years), as well as comply with the requirements mandated by State and local authorities (which may be amended or revised per the changing inclinations of legislators).
While State and regional water demands can be projected based on the demographic and economic variables in the forecast by regional authorities, the use of different planning horizons may complicate or confuse the water planning. The use of different "baseline" projections or planning horizons by local water agencies in their planning documents and the focus on a more precisely defined identification of water supply and demand (versus a more broad regional, or even more broad Statewide approach) may render the analysis of local and regional water supply and demand impacts more difficult.
Coachella Valley Water District The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), encompassing 995 square miles, extends from San Gorgonio Pass to the Salton Sea. The district provides water to approximately 284,700 residents, 72,900 acres of irrigated farmland, and a variety of commercial, resort, and industrial users. Services provided by the CVWD include the delivery of domestic and irrigation water; water conservation; wastewater reclamation and recycling; stormwater protection; agricultural drainage; groundwater recharge; and water education. In addition to groundwater supplies, the CVWD obtains water from the State Water Project, and Metropolitan. The CVWD's SWP entitlement totals 23,100 af/yr. The CVWD does not receive this allotment directly, rather it is delivered to Metropolitan, which in turn delivers to the CVWD an equal amount of Colorado River water.
Total water demand in 1999 was approximately 669,000 af/yr of which 310,000 was for urban uses and 359,000 was for agricultural uses. Groundwater provided approximately 56 percent of the District's 1999 demand. Development within the CVWD has contributed to the continued decline of groundwater resources.
As outlined in Coachella Valley Water Management Plan (September 2002), the CVWD's goal is to assure adequate supplies of safe, high-quality water at the lowest cost to CVWD users. The Plan estimates states that under current conditions, total groundwater overdraft in the CVWD will total 136,700 af/yr in 2035. The Plan states the preferred water management alternative for the CVWD includes water conservation, increased delivery of water supplies to the Coachella Valley, and a combination of source substitution and groundwater recharge.
Metropolitan Water District Water in Southern California is provided through a complex system of infrastructure operated by many institutional entities. More than 300 public agencies and private companies provide water on a retail basis to persons and businesses within the Southern California region. Metropolitan is the primary wholesale provider of imported water for the region, serving 26 member agencies, which in turn serve customers in more than 145 cities and 94 unincorporated communities. Metropolitan is the primary water provider for the majority of the areas that would be developed within the County pursuant to the General Plan. Through its Integrated Resources Plan (IRP), a key objective of Metropolitan is to "... have the full capability to meet full-service demands at the retail level at all times." To meet this objective, Metropolitan, its member agencies, and retail providers must closely coordinate the development of imported and local water resources to meet retail demands in an efficient and affordable way. Key elements of Metropolitan's strategy for achieving this goal include: maintaining a portfolio of diversified water supplies; securing reserves to mitigate supply uncertainties; and maintaining a rate schedule that provides financing capabilities to support the IRP.
Water demands on Metropolitan are projected according to four key parameters: retail demands, local replenishment demands, local supplies, and Metropolitan system storage requirements. To forecast retail demand, Metropolitan utilizes a forecasting system that relates water use to independent variables such as population, housing, employment, income, price, weather, and conservation. The demographic and economic variables in the forecast are based on the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan and the San Diego Association of Government (SANDAG) 2020 forecast. These demographic projections are supported by environmental impact reports and based on city, county, and regional general plans.
Water demands on Metropolitan are calculated as the retail demands plus local replenishment demands less local supplies. Based on the RUWMP, demand on Metropolitan will total 1.9 million acre feet in 2002, increasing to 2.3 million acre feet in 2020. Based on existing supply capabilities, Metropolitan can meet 100 percent of its member agencies projected supplemental demands over the next 20 years in average and wet years; over the next 15 years in multiple dry years; and over the next ten years in single dry years. With the addition of all water supplies that are under development, Metropolitan will have the capability to meet 100 percent of its members agencies' projected supplemental demands over the next 20 years even under a repeat of the worst drought; while providing a 15 to 20 percent reserve supply, and making available sufficient water deliveries for the replenishment of local and regional storage.
Water Quality
Poor water quality in Riverside County has been related to inadequate subsurface sewage disposal, waste disposal management of the Santa Ana River watershed, agricultural operations (e.g., agricultural runoff), the buildup of sediment resulting from construction-related erosion, and urban stormwater runoff. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Regions 7 (Colorado River Basin), Region 8 (Santa Ana River Basin), and Region 9 (San Diego Basin) provide state-level water quality policy for Riverside County. Additionally, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) mandates Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize the adverse effects of pollution and to protect water quality.
Total dissolved solids (TDS) in water supply is an important factor for industry, agriculture, medical services such as dialysis, and many other designated beneficial uses. Riverside County's drinking water supplies range from good to poor, depending on the area, and is measured by the following:
• Good quality if its TDS measures below 300 mg/R (milligrams per liter);
• Acceptable if TDS measures between 300 and 500 mg/R;
• Fair if TDS measures between 500 and 700 mg/R; and
• Poor quality if TDS measures between 700 and 1,000 mg/R.
Existing Policies and Regulations
The following sections outline the Federal and State regulations with respect to water resources.
Federal Regulations
Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act is the principal Federal law that addresses water quality. The primary objectives of the Clean Water Act are to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters," and to make all surface waters "fishable" and "swimmable." The implementation plan for these objectives includes the regulation of pollutant discharges to surface water, financial assistance for public wastewater treatment systems, technology development, and non-point source pollution prevention programs. The Clean Water Act also requires that states adopt water quality standards to protect public health or welfare and enhance the quality of water. The use and value of State waters for public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreation, agriculture, industrial purposes, and navigation must also be considered by the states.
According to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulates discharges of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States," including wetlands. "Waters of the United States" is defined (33 CFR 328.3) as:
(1) All waters that are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce;
(2) All interstate waters, including interstate wetlands;
(3) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams) the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce;
(4) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as Waters of the United States with the definition; and
(5) Tributaries of waters.
Corps typically regulates any body of water displaying an "ordinary high water mark" (OHWM). Corps jurisdiction over non-tidal waters of the United States extends laterally to the OHWM or beyond the OHWM to the limit of any adjacent wetlands, if they are present (33 CFR 328.4). The OHWM is defined as "that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics, such as a clear natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding area" (33 CFR 328.3). Jurisdiction typically extends upstream to the point where the OHWM is no longer perceptible.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act The Federal Water Pollution Control Act requires discharges (from point and non-point sources) into navigable water to meet stringent NPDES permit standards. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has published regulations establishing requirements for application of stormwater permits for specified categories of industries, municipalities, and certain construction activities. The regulations require that discharges of stormwater from construction activity of 5.0 acres or more must be regulated and covered by a NPDES permit. When a construction area exceeds 5.0 acres in size, the applicant must develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to control non-point pollution.
State Regulations
Within California, Corps, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and the RWQCB regulate activities within inland streams, wetlands, and riparian areas. Any development proposal that involves impacts to drainage courses, streams or wetlands on the site through filling, stockpiling, conversion to a storm drain, channelization, bank stabilization, road or utility crossing or any other modifications would require permits from Corps, CDFG, and/or the RWQCB.
California State Laws The California Water Code is the principal State law regulating water quality in California. The Health and Safety Code, Fish and Game Code, Harbors and Navigation Code, and the Food and Agriculture Code all contain water quality provisions that require compliance.
The California Water Code contains provisions regulating water and its use. This portion of the California Water Code, Division 7 (Porter-Cologne Act), establishes a program to protect water quality and beneficial uses of the state water resources and includes groundwater and surface water. The State Water Resources Control Board and the RWQCBs are the principal state agencies responsible for control of water quality. They establish waste discharge requirements, water quality control planning and monitoring, enforcement of discharge permits, and ground and surface water quality objectives. They also prevent waste and unreasonable use of water, and adjudicate water rights.
The Health and Safety Code, Fish and Game Code, Harbors and Navigation Code, and the Food and Agriculture Code all contain provisions concerning water quality. The Health and Safety Code provides for protection of ground and surface waters from hazardous waste and other toxic substances. The Harbors and Navigation Code provides regulations designed to prevent the unauthorized discharge of waste from vessels into surface waters. The Fish and Game Code has provisions to prevent unauthorized diversions of any surface water and discharge of any substance that may be deleterious to fish, plant, animal, or bird life. The Food and Agriculture Code provides for the protection of groundwater that may be used for drinking water supplies.
The California Code of Regulations also contains administrative procedures for the State and RWQCBs in Title 23 and for water quality for domestic uses, wastewater reclamation, and hazardous waste management in Title 22.
The CDFG, through provisions of the California Fish and Game Code (Sections 1601 through1603), is empowered to issue agreements for any alteration of a river, stream, or lake where fish or wildlife resources may be adversely affected. The presence of a channel bed and banks, and at least an intermittent flow of water define streams (and rivers). CDFG regulates wetland areas only to the extent that those wetlands are part of a river, stream, or lake as defined by CDFG.
Surface water quality is the responsibility of the RWQCB, water supply and wastewater treatment agencies, and city and county governments. The principal means of enforcement by the RWQCB is through the development, adoption, and issuance of water discharge permits. The basin plan established by the Santa Ana RWQCB, for example, establishes water quality objectives that are defined as the limits or levels of water quality constituents or characteristics for the reasonable protection of beneficial uses of water.
Water Conservation in Landscaping Act To ensure adequate supplies are available for future uses, and to promote the conservation and efficient use of water, local agencies were required to adopt a water efficient landscape ordinance. When such an ordinance had not been adopted, a finding as to why (based on the climatic, geologic, or topographical conditions) such an ordinance is not necessary, must be adopted. In the absence of such an ordinance or findings, the policies and requirements contained in the "model" ordinance drafted by the State of California shall apply within the affected jurisdiction.
Water Recycling in Landscaping Act This Act requires that a water producer capable of providing recycled water that meets all of the conditions of described in Section 13550 of the State Water Code, shall notify local agencies of the area(s) eligible to receive the recycled water, and the necessary infrastructure that the recycled water producer or retail water supplier will provide to support the delivery of recycled water. Within 180 days of receipt of such a notification from a recycled water producer, a local agency shall adopt and enforce a recycled water ordinance pursuant to this act.
Sections 13550-13556 of the State Water Code These sections of the State Water Code set states that local, regional, or State agencies shall not use water from any source of quality for nonpotable uses if suitable recycled water is available as provided in Section 13550 of the Water Code.
Urban Water Management Planning Act Since 1984, the Urban Water Management Planning Act, has required "urban water suppliers" to develop written "urban water management plans." While generally aimed at encouraging water suppliers to implement water conservation measures, it also created long-term planning obligations. In preparing urban water management plans, urban water suppliers must describe the following:
• Existing and planned water supply and demand;
• Water conservation measures and a schedule for implementing and evaluating such measures; and
• Water shortage contingency measures.
The Urban Water Management Planning Act requires urban water suppliers to use a 20year planning horizon and to update the data in the urban water plans every 5 years. Urban Water Management Plans are exempt from CEQA, and thus do not generate any EIRs of use for future land use or water planning.
In preparing their 20-year management plans, water suppliers must directly address the subject of future population growth. The suppliers must also identify sources of supply to meet demand. The plan must "identify and quantify, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned sources of water available to the supplier." In identifying these future water sources, through, the suppliers need not conduct environmental review.
Senate Bill 221 Signed into law on October 8, 2001, Senate Bill 221 established a process whereby sufficient water supply must be identified and available for new development for any residential development of 500 homes or more, or, in the case wherein a water supplier has fewer than 5,000 service connections or the proposed development would increase the number of connections by at least 10 percent, unless there is proof of adequate water over at least the next 20 years, including long periods of drought.
Senate Bill 901 Signed into law on October 16, 1995, Senate Bill 901 required every urban water supplier to identify as part of its urban water management plan, the existing and planned sources of water available to the supplier over a prescribed 5-year period. SB 901 required additional information to be included as part of an urban water management plan if groundwater is identified as a source of water available to the supplier. Provisions of SB 901 would require an urban water supplier to include in the plan a description of all water supply projects and programs that may be undertaken to meet total project water use. A city or county, at the time it submits the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a project, shall request each public water system serving a project to assess the projected water demand associated with said project and an assessment of whether the projected water demand associated with selected projects was included as part of the most recent Urban Water Management Plan. As part of this assessment, the public water system is required to indicate whether its total projected water supplies available during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry water years will meet the project demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the public water system's existing and planned uses. Compliance with the provisions of SB 901 was required if a project required the adoption of a specific plan; or the amendment to, or revision of the land use element of a general plan or specific plan, that would result in a net increase in the stated population density of building intensity. Pursuant, to Section 10913 of the State Water code, a "project" was specifically defined as development meeting any of the following criteria:
• 500 or more dwelling units;
• Commercial center employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet;
• Office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet; or
• A hotel/motel with 500 or more rooms;
• An industrial, manufacturing, processing plant, or industrial park employing more than 1,000 persons or occupying more than 40 acres, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area;
• A mixed-use project that would demand an amount of water equivalent of equal to the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project; or
• In areas where the public water system has fewer that 5,000 service connections, any development that would increase water demand by 10 percent or greater in the number of existing service connections, or in the case of a mixed-use development, an increase in water required by residential development representing a 10 percent or greater in the number of existing service connections.
After receiving such information, cities and counties may agree or disagree with the conclusions of the water purveyors, but cannot approve projects in the face of documented water shortfalls without first making certain findings.
Senate Bill 610 Signed into law October 9, 2001, Senate Bill 610 resulted in amendments to Section 21151.9 of the Public Resources Code. Additionally, Sections 10631, 10656, 10910, 10911, 10912, and 10915 of the Water Code were amended. Section 10913 of the Water Code was repealed, while portions of Section 10657 were added and/or repealed. Revising provisions established by Senate Bill 901, SB 610 requires that any city or county having determined that a project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to identify any public water system that may supply water for the project and to request those public water systems to prepare a specified water supply assessment. Such an assessment would include, among other information, the identification of existing water entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts relevant to the water supply identified for a proposed project, and the amount of water received pursuant to such entitlements, rights, or contracts. Senate Bill 610 requires the public water system, city, or county to submit plans for acquiring the required water supply for a proposed project if the water supply assessment concludes that water supplies are or will become insufficient. Any such water supply assessment and other information would be included in the environmental document prepared for the project pursuant to CEQA. Pursuant to Section 10912 of the State Water code as amended (Section 10913 was repealed and added to Section 10912), changes to the definition of a "project" were not made, except for the changes pertaining to the definition of a mixed-used project.
4.17.2 Water Resources Thresholds of Significance
The proposed General Plan will be the blueprint for future development within the unincorporated areas of the County. The General Plan Area encompasses an area of approximately 7,200 square miles (roughly the size of the State of New Jersey) extending roughly 200 miles in width from the Colorado River (Arizona border) to within 14 miles of the Pacific Ocean. The General Plan Area overlays portions of four water-sheds (the Santa Ana River Basin, San Diego Basin, and the East and West Basins of the Colorado River). These large watersheds are further divided into numerous hydrological units, areas, and subareas. Additionally, within the County are numerous groundwater basins. The size and hydrological characteristics of surface waters and groundwater basins can vary dramatically. The characteristics of the various hydrologic areas and groundwater basins are determined by a myriad of variables including (but not limited to): seasonal and long-term climatic conditions, the underlying geologic structure, vegetative cover, the extent of adjacent development, and current rates of withdraw.
Complicating the assessment of water supplies is the collection of public water purveyors that have been established throughout the County. While some of these public entities provide water treatment and delivery services to vast areas, the service areas of some are quite restrictive. Because water purveyors vary in size, number of service connections, location, and available water supplies; and because the Water Management Plan(s) prepared by local and regional water agencies do not project demand and supply at build out year (2040) for the proposed General Plan; it is not possible to determine whether water agencies will have adequate water supplies to accommodate the increases in population and the amount of commercial and industrial development that will occur upon implementation of the proposed General Plan.
Implementation of the proposed General Plan will not result in new development. Rather, it will dictate where and in what manner development will occur. New development will only occur when public demand, economic conditions, and compliance with County development policies converge. New development will not require amending of the General Plan; the extent, location, and/or density of development will be determined by the policies and guidelines contained in the proposed General Plan. As such, the proposed General Plan is not a "project," as defined in Section 10912 of the State Water Code.
This EIR is a "Program EIR," which evaluates the broad-scale impacts of the proposed General Plan. Program EIRs are typically prepared for an agency plan, program, or series of actions that can be characterized as one large project, such as a general plan. Tiering refers to the concept of a multilevel approach to preparing environmental documents (CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15152 and 15168). A General Plan EIR, addressing the impacts of countywide and local policy decisions can be thought of as a "first tier" document. It evaluates the large-scale impacts on the environment that can be expected to result from the adoption of the proposed General Plan, but does not necessarily address the site-specific impacts that each of the thousands of individual development projects that will follow. CEQA requires that subsequent development projects be evaluated for their particular site-specific impacts. These site-specific analyses are typically encompassed in second-tier documents, such as Project EIRs, Focused EIRs, or Negative Declarations, which typically evaluate the impacts of a single activity undertaken to implement the overall plan.
Significance thresholds for water resources can be divided into those affecting water supply, water quality, facilities, emergency preparedness, and conservation.
Water Supply
The effects of the proposed General Plan on existing or planned water supplies are considered to be significant if:
• The water demand of the proposed General Plan substantially reduces water supplies and/or exceeds existing or planned supplies;
• Consumption of groundwater is in conflict with a groundwater management plan, monitoring program, and/or proposes groundwater extraction that either individually or cumulatively exceeds the safe yield of the groundwater basin and/or causes a net deficit in the aquifer volume or reduction in the local groundwater table level;
• It will threaten or damage unique hydrologic characteristics or will change hydrologic baseline conditions over an extensive area or period of time, so that resultant conditions are highly controversial, highly uncertain, or involve unique or unknown risks;
• The area available for aquifer recharge is reduced, substantially interfering with the process of groundwater recharge; and/or
• It will reduce water availability to, or interfere with, existing users and/or the production of existing wells.
Water Quality
The effects of the proposed General Plan on existing or planned water quality are considered to be significant if:
• It results in the deterioration of the quality of drinking water or a drinking water source;
• There is substantial degradation in The quality of a ground or surface water resource is degraded below the standard established by local/regional water purveyors and/or regulatory agencies; and/or
• It will cause substantial degradation of water quality in any surface body of water; and/or
• It would result in a substantial a degradation in water quality (as determined by local/regional water purveyors and/or regulatory agencies) such that an existing use or planned use could no longer be supported.
Water Facilities
The effects of the proposed General Plan on existing or planned water facilities are considered to be significant if:
• There is increased demand for water services to a degree that exceeds the limits of existing or planned facilities or personnel intended to provide those services and facilities.
Emergency Preparedness
The effects of the proposed General Plan on existing or planned emergency preparedness are considered to be significant if:
• Emergency supplies are affected due to a substantial increase in demand relative to available supplies (e.g., if there is a difficulty in maintaining fire flows due to excessive non-emergency demand for water).
4.17.3 Water Resources Impacts and Mitigation
Less than Significant Impacts
The following potential water resource impacts were analyzed and found to be less than significant.
Impacts Resulting from Increased Erosion Development within Riverside County has the potential to increase the risk of erosion and sedimentation and/or siltation of surface water. This may occur due to short-term disturbance of large quantities of earth during construction and/or possible increases in erosion in areas of new construction. This impact will be less than significant as each new development in Riverside County will be required to adhere to existing regulations regarding construction practices that minimize risks of erosion and runoff. These regulations include adherence to applicable provisions of County Ordinance 754.1 (Stormwater/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls), following Best Management Practices (BMPs), obtaining and complying with the appropriate building permits, and obtaining and complying with NPDES permits.
BMPs consist of any activity, prohibition, practice, procedure, program, or other measure designed to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants directly or indirectly into waters of the United States. BMPs shall include, but are not limited to, those measures specified in the California Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook for Municipal, Industrial/Commercial and Construction Activity and those measures identified by the Director of the County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency (TLMA). BMPs may include (but shall not be limited to) the following actions:
• Revegetation of disturbed areas and vegetation of non-disturbed but highly erosive areas.
• Use of drought tolerant plants and irrigation systems which minimize runoff.
• Use of other erosion control devices such as rip-rap, gabions, concrete lining, small check dams, etc. to reduce erosion in gullies and active stream channels.
• The retention, to the maximum extent possible, of on-site vegetation.
• Limiting grading disturbance to essential project area.
• Limiting grading activities during the rainy season.
• Balancing and limiting, to the extent possible, the amount of cut and fill.
• The diversion of water entering and exiting the site through the placement of interceptor trenches or other erosion control devices.
• The application of on disturbed areas to limit dust generation.
• The stabilization of the construction entrance to reduce tracking onto adjacent streets.
• Using dikes, drains, swales or other features to divert and/or redirect runoff.
Impacts Related to Fire Flow Requirement An increase in the overall demand for water and the decreased capacity in water distribution systems resulting from growth projected in the proposed General Plan may potentially affect the ability of Riverside County to provide adequate fire protection. Fulfilling fire flow requirements is already a part of the approval process for new development. Future requirements will be incorporated on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. Additionally, the proposed General Plan defines the areas of the unincorporated County that will accommodate growth. Water agencies would be better able to plan for and accommodate the supply and capacity requirements needed to sustain fire flows for new development.
Potentially Significant Impacts
The following impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed General Plan were evaluated and considered potentially significant.
Water Supply
Impact 4.17.1 The population increases projected for Riverside County with implementation of the proposed General Plan will increase the demand for water beyond that which currently exists. A significant impact will occur when and where the demand for water exceeds supply.
Analysis of Impact The population of the unincorporated areas of Riverside County is projected to total approximately 1.67 million persons at build out of the proposed General Plan. Riverside County is located within two hydrologic regions where there is a anticipated to be a water shortage. These two hydrologic regions are:
• South Coast Hydrologic Region: Incorporates basins draining to the Pacific Oceans, spanning an area from the Rincon Creek Basin in western Ventura County to the Mexican border.
• Colorado River Hydrologic Region: Basins east of the South Coast and South Lahontan regions make up this hydrologic region and includes areas that drain into the Colorado River, the Salton Sea, and other closed basins north of the Mexican border.
Every five years, the DWR produces a California Water Plan that includes State and regional watershed water budgets. These water budgets are based on State Department of Finance population projections. With the exception of the North Coast and the San Francisco Bay regions, most of the state's water regions experience average year and drought year shortages. Increased shortages in these regions are forecast by 2020. The largest average year shortages are forecast for the South Coast Region, a region that relies heavily on imported water. Future average year shortages in the South Coast Region reflect anticipated population increases and reduced deliveries from the Colorado River. Water budget forecasts for the South Coast Region are detailed in Table 4.17.A.
| Table 4.17.A - South Coast Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (thousands of acre-feet) |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1995 | 2020 | |||
| Water Use | Average | Drought | Average | Drought |
| Urban | 4,340 | 4,382 | 5,519 | 5,612 |
| Agricultural | 784 | 820 | 462 | 484 |
| Environmental | 100 | 82 | 104 | 86 |
| Total | 5,224 | 5,283 | 6,084 | 6,181 |
| Water Supplies | ||||
| Surface Water | 3,839 | 3,196 | 3,625 | 3,130 |
| Groundwater | 1,177 | 1,371 | 1,243 | 1,462 |
| Recycled and Desalted | 207 | 207 | 273 | 273 |
| Total | 5,224 | 4,775 | 5,141 | 4,865 |
| Shortage | 0 | 508 | 944 | 1,317 |
| Source: Table OS-1, Riverside County Integrated Project General Plan Multipurpose Open Space Element Final Draft, The Planning Center, May 15, 2001. |
||||
Because it encompasses the Coachella Valley and vast expanses of desert land, the Colorado River Region is of particular concern. Irrigation needs in the Coachella Valley are met almost exclusively by imported Colorado River water. The historical extraction of groundwater in the Coachella Valley has caused overdraft of local groundwater basins. An extensive groundwater recharge project that recharges Colorado River water into spreading basins, is currently being undertaken by the Coachella Valley Water District. In other areas of the Colorado River Region, irrigation and domestic water is provided almost exclusively by Colorado River water; approximately 1 percent is provided by groundwater. Water budget forecasts for the Colorado River Region are detailed in Table 4.17.B.
As previously stated, the proposed General Plan increases demand for water services to a degree that exceeds the limits of existing or planned facilities or personnel intended to provide those services and facilities. Water agencies generally operate in a "will serve" capacity and build facilities and hire staff based on demand projections for their service areas. Most of the larger water agencies plan their facilities using a 5-year horizon, usually in the form of a 5-year capital improvements program updated each year. Because of this, any project that uses a planning horizon of more than 5 years is likely to exceed the limits of facilities planned by local water agencies. Such is the case with the proposed General Plan, the build out of which is assumed over a 40-year period.
| Table 4.17.B - Colorado River Region Water Budget with Existing Facilities and Programs (thousands of acre-feet) |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1995 | 2020 | |||
| Water Use | Average | Drought | Average | Drought |
| Urban | 418 | 418 | 740 | 740 |
| Agricultural | 4,118 | 4,118 | 3,583 | 3,583 |
| Environmental | 39 | 38 | 44 | 43 |
| Total | 4,575 | 4,574 | 4,367 | 4,366 |
| Water Supplies | ||||
| Surface Water | 4,154 | 4,128 | 3,920 | 3,909 |
| Groundwater | 337 | 337 | 285 | 384 |
| Recycled and Desalted | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 |
| Total | 4,506 | 4,479 | 4,221 | 4,208 |
| Shortage | 69 | 95 | 147 | 158 |
| Source: Table OS-2, Riverside County Integrated Project General Plan Multipurpose Open Space Element Final Draft, The Planning Center, May 15, 2001. |
||||
Options available to address the project water shortfalls include both infrastructure projects (such as storage facilities and water reclamation plants) and water management strategies (such as conservation practices) that relate to how water is used by and among water users.
The proposed General Plan includes policies (discussed below) that require water management strategies, including conservation, collection of information, decreasing demand, outreach and education programs, assurances of adequate groundwater recharge areas, and water supply monitoring. No adverse impacts are anticipated to result from such strategies, as they would reduce overall water demand and, in some instances, supply additional sources of water for irrigation and other non-potable uses. Infrastructure projects are likely to be proposed both by the County and by water suppliers. The construction of additional water storage facilities, as well as water reclamation plants, would be subject to additional environmental analysis to determine on-site impacts. These additional water sources would not further deplete groundwater supplies or increase reliance on imported water. Securing additional imported water is another way to increase the water supply. This water could come from existing imported sources (i.e., the Colorado River or other State Water Project sources), or could come from yet-to-be negotiated sources. The impacts of drawing water from sources outside the region would require further analysis if such proposals were undertaken. They could include impacts to biological resources (i.e., from decreased water flow in rivers), impacts to other jurisdictions that rely on that water source, growth inducing impacts, and other environmental and economic impacts.
In addition to Riverside County, the South Coast and Colorado Hydrologic Regions encompass areas outside the boundaries of Riverside County. While the DWR water projections presented in Tables 4.17.A and 4.17.B are useful, they do not reflect conditions pertaining specifically to Riverside County alone. Riverside County is served by a myriad of water districts with boundaries spanning multiple counties. Thus, it is not feasible to obtain an estimate of the existing water use within Riverside County, as the districts do not report based on uses per County. The following discussion provides an estimate of future water demand required to support development envisioned in the proposed General Plan. As shown in Table 4.17.C, future water demand is estimated based on generation factors for different land uses.
| Table 4.17.C - Summary of Estimated Annual Water Demand in Unincorporated Riverside County at General Plan Build Out |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Land Use | Demand Factor | Unit | Annual Water Demand | |
| Agriculture | 6.17 af/acre/yr | 180,178 acres | 1,112,877 af/yr | |
| Residential | 1.01 af/du/yr | 591,209 du | 597,121 af/yr | |
| Open Space1 | 1.76 af/ac/yr | 20,388 acres | 35,883 af/yr | |
| Commercial | 3.50 af/acre/yr | 20,239 acres | 70,805 af/yr | |
| Industrial | 0.97 af/acre/yr | 21,818 acres | 21,163 af/yr | |
| Mineral Resources2 | 0.97 af/acre/yr | 8,660 acres | 8,400 af/yr | |
| Public Facilities | 2.4 0 af/acre/yr | 27,857 acres | 66,857 af/yr | |
| Total | 1,913,106 af/yr | |||
| 1 Lands designated as "Open Space-Recreation." 2 Lands designated as "Open Space-Mineral Resources." Note: Land use data based on Countywide Land Use Summary, The Planning Center, September 24, 2003. |
||||
Agriculture In the absence of readily-available generation rates for agricultural uses, a generation factor was calculated based on the composition of crops in Riverside County using crop water demand information from San Diego County. Agricultural water demand for different crops in San Diego was calculated based on the acres of each type of crop (in 1999) presented in Table 3-2 (Citrus/Subtropical, Fruits and Vegetables, Avocados, Flowers/Nurseries, Corn and Field Crops, and Pasture) and the water demand (in 1999) for each crop type presented in Table 8-2 of the Agricultural Water Management Plan (prepared for the San Diego County Water Authority, Valley Center Municipal Water District, Mission Resource Conservation District, and Member Agencies, accessed on the Internet at http://www.sdcwa.org/manage/awmp.phtml).
The following annual rates were determined for each category:
| Citrus/Subtropical | 4.32 | acre-feet (af) per acre (ac) |
| Fruits and Vegetables | 5.67 | af/acres |
| Avocados | 4.14 | af/acres |
| Flowers/Nurseries | 6.11 | af/acres |
| Corn and Field Crops | 5.81 | af/acres |
| Pasture | 3.77 | af/acres |
The primary agricultural uses are field crops (187,000 acres), citrus crops (30,000 acres), and vegetable crops (41,700 acres). To generate an approximate water demand rate for agricultural lands in Riverside County, the rates generated for citrus/subtropical, field crops, and fruits and vegetables in San Diego County were averaged in proportion to their occurrence in Riverside County. Additionally, an extra 10 percent was added to the generation factor to account for the drier climate in Riverside County. The resulting water demand generation rate for agriculture in Riverside County is 6.17 af/ac/yr.
As stated in the Existing Setting Report, Riverside County supported approximately 339,000 acres of agricultural land use in 1998. Thus, the estimated water use for agriculture in 1998 was 2,091,630 af/yr. At build out, Riverside County is estimated to support approximately 180,178 acres of agriculture, resulting in a demand of 1,112,877 acre-feet of water per year.
Open Space This category includes the 20,388 acres designated as "Open Space - Recreation." The water demand for this land use is based on a ‘non-turf' water demand factor of 1.76 af/ac/yr (based on 1,571 gallons per acre per day, Federal Water Use Indices, Federal Emergency Management Program, 2003). A water demand factor was not assigned to open space lands designated for conservation uses. Based on the stated water demand, "Open Space - Recreation" uses would demand approximately 35,883 acre-feet of water each year.
Residential This category includes single- and multi-family residential areas. The demand factor is based on dwelling units and is applied uniformly. Section 9.0 (Public Services and Facilities) of the Riverside County Existing Setting Report identifies water consumption factors utilized by various water utilities throughout the County. Averaging the water consumption factors of nine water utilities throughout the County (Eastern Municipal Water District, Western Municipal Water District, Western San Bernardino County Water District, Lake Elsinore Water District, Lee Lake Water District, Rancho California Water District, Lake Hemet Water District, Pinyon Pines Water District, and Coachella Valley Water District) resulted in a water demand of 902 gallons per day per residential unit, which equals 329,230 gallons (or 1.01 af) per dwelling unit per year year.
At build out of the General Plan, 591,209 dwelling units would be located within unincorporated areas of the County. Using a demand factor of 1.01 af/yr per residential unit, this would result in a residential water demand of approximately 597,121 acre-feet of water each year.
Industrial, Commercial, and Public Facilities This category includes light and heavy industrial; mineral extraction; commercial, office, and business park; and public facility uses. Depending on the unique demands of each use, the water demand within the industrial, commercial, and public facility use varies substantially. As derived from Cucamonga County Water District factors, commercial/office uses were assigned a demand factor of 3.5 af/ac/yr; industrial uses and mineral resource extraction uses were assigned a demand factor of 0.97 af/ac/yr; and public facilities were assigned a factor of 2.4 af/ac/yr. Utilizing land use acreage totals summarized in Table 3.B, the 20,230 acres of commercial uses planned at build out of the proposed General Plan would require 70,805 af/yr; the 21,818 acres of industrial would require 21,163 af/yr; the 8,660 acres of land designated as "Open Space - Mineral Resources" would require 8,400 af/yr; and the 27,857 acres of public facility uses would require 66,857 af/yr.
Combined, the land uses in unincorporated areas of the County envisioned under the proposed General Plan would require approximately 1,913,106 acre feet of water per year. While Metropolitan and non-Metropolitan water purveyors have identified sufficient water supplies to 2020, forecast of water supply beyond the year 2020 is speculative. In the absence of a definitive identification of future water supply, potential impacts associated with water supply and demand must be considered significant and unavoidable.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan includes the following policies to reduce or minimize the effects on water supply. While the proposed General Plan policies seek the consideration of water supply issues and encourage the use of water conservation measures, they do not assure the provision of water supplies adequate to support development that may occur as a result of implementation of the proposed General Plan. The effectiveness of these policies at reducing water supply impacts is identified below and additional mitigation has been identified, the implementation of which will reduce water supply impact, though not to a less than significant level.
Open Space Policy 1.1 Balance consideration of water supply requirements among urban, agricultural, and environmental needs so that sufficient supply is available to meet each of these different demands.
Open Space Policy 1.2 Develop a repository for the collection of County water resource information.
Open Space Policy 1.3 Provide active leadership in the regional coordination of water resource management and sustainability efforts affecting Riverside County and continue to monitor and participate in, as appropriate, regional activities addressing water resources, groundwater, and water quality, such as Groundwater Management Plan, to prevent overdraft caused by population growth.
Open Space Policy 2.1 Encourage the installation and use of water-conserving systems such as dry wells and graywater systems, where feasible, in new developments. The installation of cisterns or infiltrators shall be encouraged to capture rainwater from roofs for irrigation in the dry season and flood control during heavy storms.
Open Space Policy 2.2 Where feasible, decrease stormwater runoff by reducing pavement in development areas, and by design practices, such as permeable parking bays, and porous parking lots with bermed storage areas for rainwater detention.
Open Space Policy 2.3 Encourage the use of native, drought-resistant landscaping planting.
Open Space Policy 2.4 Support and engage in educational outreach programs with other agencies that promote water conservation and widespread use of water-saving technologies.
Open Space Policy 2.5 Encourage continued agricultural water conservation measures, and recommend the following practices where appropriate and feasible: lining canals, recovering tail water at the end of irrigated fields, and appropriate scheduling of water deliveries.
Land Use Policy 5.3 Review all projects for consistency with individual urban water management plans.
Land Use Policy 17.2 Require that adequate and available water resources exist to meet the demands of the proposed land use.
Effectiveness of Proposed General Plan Policies While the aforementioned policies reduce or minimize potential impacts implementation of the proposed General Plan may have on water supply, they do not address potential project-specific water supply impacts that would result indirectly from implementation of the proposed General Plan. Impacts associated with water supply can be further reduced (though not to a less than significant level) through implementation of the following measures.
Mitigation Measures
4.17.1A Proponents of new development within unincorporated areas of Riverside County that consist of a residential development of more than 500 dwelling units; a shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space; a commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space; a hotel/motel development of more than 5,000 rooms; an industrial, manufacturing/processing plant, or industrial park employing more than 1,000 persons or occupying more than 650,000 square feet of floor space or 40 acres of land; a mixed-use development that includes any of the previously referenced projects; or a project with a water demand equivalent to that used by 500 residential units with projected water demand of more than 250 af per year shall be required to submit a water supply assessment report prior to approval of a project. The water supply assessment report shall include the following:
• Project description;
• Water resources environmental setting;
• Conservation and water recycling measures included in the project;
• The identification of existing water entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts relevant to the water supply identified for a proposed project, and the amount of water received pursuant to such entitlements, rights, or contracts;
• Project water demand;
• Water supply alternatives;
• Preferred water supply alternative;
• Impacts associated with use of the preferred water supply alternative;
• Evaluation of compliance with the applicable Urban Water Management Plan;
• Summary and conclusions; and Technical appendices and attachment of supporting documents.
Said water supply assessment report shall be submitted to the County and applicable water supply agencies for review. Development shall not be permitted unless an adequate supply of water, available for use and sufficient to supply a proposed project, in wet and drought years, has been identified. Where water supply adequate to supply a project in its entirety does not exist, development of only those portions of a project with an adequate and available water supply shall be permitted. Evidence of the availability of adequate water supply shall be submitted to the County for review and approval prior to the issuance of development permits.
4.17.1B For projects smaller than those stated in Mitigation Measure 4.17.1A,with an estimated annual water use of 250 af or less, the County shall require evidence that the project is in compliance with the Urban Water Management Plan for the area in which the development is located, prior to the issuance of development permits. Evidence of such compliance shall take the form of written verification by the water provider that the project is in compliance with said plan. As determined necessary by the County, preparation of a water supply plan (as required in Mitigation Measure 4.17.1A, above) shall be required for a project that does not meet the aforementioned thresholds, is estimated to use less than 250 af per year, prior to the issuance of development permits.
To help bridge the projected gap between water supply and water demand, the following water conservation measures shall be required:
4.17.1C Development within unincorporated areas of the County shall not use water of any source of quality suitable for potable domestic use for nonpotable uses, including cemeteries, golf courses, parks, highway landscaped areas, industrial and irrigation uses, or other non-domestic use if suitable recycled water is available as provided in Sections 13550-13566 of the State Water Code and/or Sections 65591-65600 and 65601-65607 of the State Public Resource Code. Prior to the issuance of any land use permit, the County shall determine to what extent and in which manner the use of recycled water is required for individual water projects. Future development shall be designed, constructed, and maintained accordance with the recycled water measures mandated by the County.
4.17.1D Riverside County shall enforce compliance with Federal, State, and local standards for water conservation within residential, commercial, or industrial projects. Prior to approval of any development within the County, the applicant shall submit evidence to Riverside County that all applicable water conservation measures have been met.
4.17.1E For any development within the Palo Verde Planning Area supplied with water from the Colorado River, the project applicant shall enter into a contract with the City of Needles, pursuant to the "Lower Colorado Water Supply Project" program. Evidence of such a contractual agreement shall be submitted to the County prior to the approval of any development entitlement for the project.
Revised General Plan Finding Mitigation Measures 4.17.1A and B have been revised to conform to water supply thresholds set forth in SB 610, while Mitigation Measure 4.17.1E has been added to ensure compliance with the Lower Colorado Water Supply Project. Additionally, the revisions provide an estimate of the annual water demand required at the build out of the General Plan. Despite these revisions to the proposed General Plan (as reflected by revisions to the Draft EIR), assessing the adequacy of the Countywide water supply beyond the Year 2020 would be speculative. The revisions made to the Draft EIR do not alter this conclusion, nor do they alter the meaning and applicability of the policies that pertain to water supply. Water supply impacts remain significant and unavoidable.
Groundwater Supply
Impact 4.17.2 Accommodation of the population increase anticipated at build out of the proposed General Plan will likely require the increased reliance on groundwater sources. This is especially likely in the western part of Riverside County where most of the population growth is expected to occur. Increased and new uses may conflict with a groundwater management plan, monitoring program, or lead to groundwater extraction that either individually or cumulatively exceed the safe yields of groundwater basins and/or cause a net deficit in the aquifer volume or reduction in the local groundwater table level. Any such condition would be potentially significant.
Analysis of Impact The State of California is not authorized by the California Water Code to manage groundwater. California landowners have a correlative right to extract as much groundwater as they can put to beneficial use. In some groundwater basins, this right has been defined by the courts. Groundwater management programs have usually been developed on an ad hoc basis in response to local initiative through local agencies, adjudication, and districts formed through special legislation.
Groundwater levels in many areas of Riverside County were once much higher than they are today. As the groundwater has been and continues to be extracted at a faster rate than it is replenished, the problems associated with overdraft and the lowering of the groundwater table are likely to continue. In the search for new water supplies, groundwater of marginal quality, high in salts or organic compounds, may be extracted and treated to meet drinking water standards and distributed for domestic and municipal uses. This action risks the overuse and overdraft of groundwater in basins with little history of extensive extraction. Increasing demand and the cost and uncertainty of purchasing imported water will make it more attractive for water suppliers to exploit, to the maximum extent possible, the local and sometimes marginal quality groundwater supplies.
Several areas of Riverside County have basins where water rights, including amounts of groundwater extraction, have been determined by adjudication. Adjudication ensures a level of consistency and certainty that can be used in long-term water supply planning for each agency and/or party named in the judgment. Without an area-wide groundwater management and monitoring program, there is little certainty of long-term supply, as a single agency has the power and responsibility to manage the groundwater resources of an area and can change its management strategy at any time. Because of this, there continues to be a risk of overdraft in the non-adjudicated groundwater basins as demand for water increases.
The combination of increased demand for water accommodated by the growth envisioned by the proposed General Plan, uncertainty and cost of imported water supply, uncertainty of long-term supply scenarios in non-adjudicated basins, exploitation of new groundwater sources, and the continuing pattern of basin overdraft, will significantly decrease groundwater supplies unless mitigation is implemented.
Proposed General Plan Policies Potential groundwater supply impacts can be reduced through implementation of the Open Space Policies 1.1-1.3, 2.1-2.5, and 4.1-4.7; and Land Use Policies 5.3 and 17.2.
Effectiveness of Proposed General Plan Policies Adherence to these policies will reduce potential impacts to groundwater supply, however, it remains uncertain if sufficient water supplies are available to accommodate the development envisioned in the proposed General Plan. The following mitigation measure would further reduce this impact.
Mitigation Measures Implementation of the following mitigation measure would further reduce impacts to groundwater supply. However, significant impacts could remain.
4.17.2A In areas where it is not practical to conserve soils suitable for recharge (as determined by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District), water harvesting and recharge facilities shall be built within the same groundwater basin in which the recharge area is lost. The construction of "replacement" recharge areas shall equal the amount of recharge area lost and/or shall incorporate equipment or facilities capable of replacing (at an equal volume) the amount of groundwater recharge capacity lost as a result of development. The identification, designation, location, or installation of "replacement" groundwater recharge capacity shall be reviewed and approved by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District prior to the issuance of grading permits.
Revised General Plan Finding No revisions to the policies or mitigation measures relative to groundwater supply have been made to the Draft EIR. An assessment of the adequacy of future water supplies beyond the Year 2020 (including groundwater) is speculative. The potential water supply impacts associated with implementation of the General Plan remain significant. The revisions to the proposed General Plan (as reflected by revisions in the Draft EIR) do not alter this conclusion, nor do they alter the meaning and applicability of the policies that pertain to groundwater water supply. No changes to the analysis and conclusions pertaining to this issue are necessary.
Groundwater Recharge
Impact 4.17.3 The proposed General Plan will accommodate development in vacant areas that are currently available for groundwater recharge. Development of such areas will reduce the area available for aquifer recharge and could substantially interfere with the process of groundwater recharge. This is a potentially significant impact.
Analysis of Impact The water that recharges aquifers comes from precipitation, excess irrigation, incidental percolation from reclaimed water ponds, and recharge of off-season imported water in recharge ponds managed by water agencies. The majority of groundwater recharge comes from precipitation. Efficient recharge from precipitation depends on a variety of conditions including large areas of permeable surfaces free from oil and grease, and relatively slow flow of water across that surface so that infiltration of water into groundwater basins can occur.
Increased development reduces the amount of permeable surfaces suitable for recharge, increases runoff and the subsequent flow of water in streams, and increases the amount of oil and grease and other non-point source pollutants that enter streambeds and other recharge areas. Groundwater resources in Riverside County are defined by their quality as well as quantity. Most groundwater basins within the County store local and imported water to meet seasonal and drought year demand. With a typical groundwater recharge program, groundwater is artificially replenished in wet years with surplus imported water. Water is withdrawn from groundwater reserves during periods of drought or during emergency situations. Groundwater recharge programs may utilize reclaimed water during recharge activities. Groundwater recharge programs enhance a region's ability to meet water demand during years of short supply and increase the reliability of local water supplies.
Proposed General Plan Policies While the proposed General Plan includes the following policies that "support" or "offer incentives" to minimize the effects of development on groundwater recharge, they do not include any specific measures to limit or replace groundwater recharge capacity that may occur upon implementation of the proposed General Plan. The effectiveness of these policies to reduce potential groundwater recharge impacts is identified below and additional mitigation have been identified, the implementation of which will reduce to below a level of significance, potential groundwater recharge impacts.
Open Space Policy 4.1 Support efforts to create additional water storage where needed, in cooperation with Federal, State, and local water authorities. Additionally, support and/or engage in water banking in conjunction with these agencies where appropriate, as needed.
Open Space Policy 4.2 Participate in the development, implementation, and maintenance of a program to institute recharge aquifers underlying the County. The program shall make use of flood and other waters to offset existing and future groundwater pumping, except where:
• The quality of groundwater resources would be reduced;
• The available groundwater aquifers are full; and/or
• Rising water tables threaten the stability of existing structures.
Open Space Policy 4.3 Ensure that adequate aquifer water recharge areas are preserved and protected.
Open Space Policy 4.4 Incorporate natural drainage systems into developments where appropriate and feasible.
Open Space Policy 4.5 Retain stormwater at or near the site of generation for percolation into the groundwater to conserve it for future uses and to mitigate adjacent flooding.
Open Space Policy 4.6 Use natural approaches to managing streams to the maximum extent possible, where groundwater recharge is likely to occur.
Open Space Policy 4.7 Offer incentives to landowners whose property is prohibited due to its retention as a natural groundwater recharge area. These incentives shall be provided to encourage the preservation of natural water courses without creating undue hardship to the owners of properties, and might include density transfer mechanisms.
Effectiveness of Proposed General Plan Policies While the aforementioned policies reduce or minimize potential impacts implementation of the proposed General Plan may have on groundwater recharge, they do not guarantee that groundwater recharge capacity will be sufficient to maintain the quantity of groundwater reserves. Therefore, the following measures have been identified. Because the proposed mitigation will require groundwater recharge capacity lost as a result of development to be replaced (either through the construction/replacement of recharge facilities or the installation of equipment to facilitate groundwater recharge), adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.17.2.A and the following mitigation measure will reduce potential groundwater recharge impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures
4.17.3A New development that includes more than one acre of impervious surface area (including roofs, parking areas, streets, sidewalk, etc.) shall incorporate features to facilitate the on-site infiltration of precipitation and/or runoff into groundwater basins. Such features shall include such as (but not be limited to): natural drainage systems (where economically feasible), detention basins incorporated into project landscaping; and the installation of porous areas within parking areas. Where natural drainage systems are utilized for groundwater recharge, they shall be managed using natural approaches (as modified to safeguard public health and safety). Groundwater recharge features shall be included on development plans and shall be reviewed by the Riverside County Building and Safety Department and/or Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District prior to the issuance of grading permits.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to Mitigation Measure 4.17.3A clarify under what circumstances on-site groundwater infiltration features are incorporated into new development. Additionally, revisions to the proposed General Plan (as reflected by revisions to the Draft EIR) allow the use of natural on-site drainage features for groundwater recharge. No revisions to the policies that pertain to groundwater recharge have been made. Because the revisions to the Draft EIR do not substantially alter the intent, purpose or effectiveness of the stated mitigation or the level of significance (after mitigation) of potential groundwater recharge impacts, no changes to the analysis and conclusions pertaining to this topic are necessary.
Interruption of Hydrologic Process
Impact 4.17.4 The proposed General Plan has the potential to threaten or damage unique hydrologic characteristics or will change hydrologic baseline conditions over an extensive area or period of time, so that resultant conditions are highly controversial, highly uncertain, or involve unique or unknown risks.
Analysis of Impact As stated in the proposed General Plan, development is defined as the division of land into two or more parcels; the construction, reconstruction, conversion, structural alteration, relocation, or enlargement of any structure that would require a discretionary permit from the County; any mining excavation, landfill or land disturbance, and any use or extension of the use of land that would require a discretionary permit from the County. Development does not include non-motorized trails, agriculture, or other uses for which a discretionary permit is not required.
Increased development resulting from implementation of the proposed General Plan will reduce the distribution and extent of permeable surfaces suitable for recharge, may increase runoff and subsequent flow of water in streams, and increase the amount of non-point source pollutants that enter watercourses and recharge areas. Development activities may result in the alteration or elimination features essential to local or regional hydrologic systems.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan includes the following policies to reduce or minimize the interruption of hydrologic processes. The effectiveness of these policies to reduce potential impacts to the hyrologic process is identified below. Additional mitigation has been identified, the implementation of which will reduce potential impacts to the hydrologic process to a less than significant level.
Open Space Policy 5.1 Substantially alter floodways or implement other channelization only as a "last resort," and limit the alteration to:
• That necessary for the protection of public health and safety only after all other options are exhausted;
• Essential public service projects where no feasible construction method or alternative project location exists; or
• Projects where the primary function is improvement of fish and wildlife habitat.
Open Space Policy 5.2 If substantial modification to a floodway is proposed, design it to reduce adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent feasible, considering the following factors:
• Stream scour;
• Erosion protection and sedimentation;
• Wildlife habitat and linkages;
• Groundwater recharge capability;
• Adjacent property; and
• Design (a natural effect, examples could include soft riparian bottoms and gentle bank slopes, wide and shallow floodways, minimization of visible use of concrete, and landscaping with native plants tot he maximum extent possible).
A site-specific hydrologic study may be required.
Open Space Policy 5.3 Setback all developed uses, except for non-motorized trails and existing agricultural uses, from the floodway boundary a distance equal to 15 percent of the floodway width unless modified by a site-specific study determines that there is a more appropriate setback width due to: Based upon site-specific study, all development shall be set back from the floodway boundary a distance adequate to address the following issues:
• Public safety;
• Erosion;
• Riparian or wetland buffer;
• Wildlife movement or MSHCP corridor or linkage; and/or
• Slopes.
Open Space Policy 5.5 Require new private or public development to preserve and enhance existing native riparian habitat and prevent obstruction of natural watercourses. New development shall preserve and enhance existing native riparian habitat and prevent obstruction of natural watercourses. Incentives shall be utilized to the maximum extent possible.
Land Use Policy 28.1 Require that proposed projects on properties within the Watercourse Overlay be reviewed for compliance with habitat, endangered species, flood control, and applicable Area Plan-specific design standards.
Effectiveness of Proposed General Plan Policies While the aforementioned policies reduce or minimize potential impacts implementation of the proposed General Plan may have on the hydrologic process, they do not provide a mechanism to evaluate how development may alter the hydrologic process. Therefore, the following measures have been identified, the adherence to which will reduce potential impacts to the hydrologic process to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures
4.17.4A Where development may interfere with, disrupt, or otherwise affect surface or subsurface hydrologic baseline conditions (as determined by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Game, and/or the Regional Water Quality Control Board), preparation of a project specific hydrologic study shall be required. The hydrologic study shall include (but shall not be limited to): an inventory of existing surface and subsurface hydrologic conditions existing at the time of the study; an analysis of how the proposed development would affect these hydrologic baseline conditions; and specific measures to limit or eliminate the interference or disruption of the on-site hydrologic process. The hydrologic study shall evaluate the feasibility of incorporating bioengineering measures into any project that may alter the hydrologic process. Where required by the County, the hydrologic study shall include analysis of, at an equal level of detail, potential impacts to tributary or downstream areas. The hydrologic study shall be submitted to the County or responsible entity for review and shall be approved prior to the issuance of any entitlement that would result in the physical modification of the project site.
4.17.4B The project applicant shall submit to the County for review and approval, evidence that the specific measures to limit or eliminate the disruption or interference to the hydrologic process resulting from the entire development process, will be implemented as set forth in the hydrologic study. Such evidence may take the form of (but shall not be limited to): a development agreement; land banking; the provision of adequate funds to guarantee the construction, maintenance or restoration of hydrologic features; or any other mechanism that will achieve said goals. Said evidence shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of any entitlement that would result in the physical modification of the project site.
4.17.4C Where determined feasible by the County or responsible entity, bioengineering measures shall be incorporated into any project that may alter the hydrologic process.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan (as reflected by revisions to the Draft EIR) define "development"; modify floodway setback requirements; and restate that existing riparian habitat must be preserved and enhanced. Additionally, revisions to Mitigation Measure 4.17.4A establish when hydrologic conditions must be assessed and require the evaluation and incorporation (if deemed feasible) of bioengineering measures in any project that may interrupt hydrologic condition.
These revisions allow the identification of floodway setbacks, established on a site-specific study rather than a uniform distance (15% of the floodway width). These revisions will serve to better identify appropriate floodway setback requirements, which will better reduce potential impacts to on-site hydrologic characteristics. The revisions do not substantially alter the intent or applicability of the policies relative to the interruption of the on-site hydrologic characteristics. Revisions to mitigation measures requiring the consideration of bioengineering measures in project design, may actually facilitate the development of land uses that are designed, constructed, and operated to reduce or limit impacts to the on-site hydrologic condition. These revisions do not substantially alter the intent, purpose or effectiveness of the stated mitigation or the level of significance (after mitigation) of potential impacts to hydrologic conditions. No change to the analysis or conclusion related to this issue is required.
Water Quality
Impact 4.17.5 Implementation of the proposed General Plan will result in reliance on a higher percentage of lower quality water sources either from the Colorado River or from marginal groundwater sources, and/or may increase the level of pollutants that occur in local/regional groundwater reserves and/or local/regional surface water. Either of these conditions would result in the deterioration of the quality of the drinking water in Riverside County and would be a significant impact.
Analysis of Impact Water quality problems that have occurred in Riverside County have been related to inadequate subsurface sewage disposal, waste disposal management of the Santa Ana River watershed, agricultural operations (e.g., agricultural runoff), the buildup of sediment resulting from construction-related erosion, and urban stormwater runoff. The RWQCBs provide State-level water quality policy for the County. Additionally, the NPDES permit process mandates the use of BMPs to minimize the adverse effects of pollution and to protect water quality.
The proposed General Plan would accommodate a substantial increase in population. This increase in population would increase the quantity of wastewater generated, decrease the quality of treated wastewater, and increase the need for effluent disposal. The effluent, when discharged into a stream, or other surface water body, has the potential to degrade the quality of the water in the receiving water body. Additionally, stormwater runoff from urban areas contains a variety of organic and inorganic substances that may reduce the quality of groundwater resources when introduced into groundwater aquifers. Non-consumptive beneficial water uses, such as contact and non-contact recreation, warm and cold water habitat, or habitat for sensitive plant/animal species, may be affected by any degradation of water quality resulting from the development envisioned in the proposed General Plan.
Currently, Riverside County relies on imported water and local groundwater for its municipal water supply. Desalted groundwater is also being pursued as a supply option in the western Riverside County. The amount of water required for agricultural uses could be reduced by improving the efficiency of irrigation procedures and/or by implementing various water conservation practices in agricultural operations. If the amount of water required for agricultural uses is reduced, it is anticipated that more Colorado River water will be available for urban use. Colorado River water is generally of lower quality than water supplies from Northern California. During periods when the availability of water supplies have been reduced (e.g., during droughts), an increase in the withdraw of water from wells previously shut down because of contamination may occur. To maintain acceptable water quality, water from these sources must be blended with water from non-contaminated sources. While water supplies resulting from this "blending" process must continue to meet all water quality standards, it will generally be of lower quality than water supplied solely from non-contaminated sources. The increased usage of water from the Colorado River and "blended" water will result in general deterioration of water quality in the County.
Proposed General Plan Policies The proposed General Plan includes the following policies and implementation measures to reduce or minimize water quality impacts. Implementation of the following polices will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. The effectiveness of these policies to reduce potential water quality is identified below. Additional mitigation has been identified, the implementation of which will reduce potential water quality to a less than significant level.
Open Space Policy 3.1 Encourage innovative and creative techniques for wastewater treatment, including the use of local water treatment plants.
Open Space Policy 3.2 Encourage innovative wastewater treatment techniques in rural areas.
Open Space Policy 3.3 Minimize pollutant discharge into storm drainage systems, natural drainage, and aquifers.
Open Space Policy 6.3 Consider wetlands for use a natural water treatment areas that will result in improvement of water quality.
Effectiveness of Proposed General Plan Policies While the aforementioned policies "encourage" the use of innovative and creative techniques and the "consideration" of of wetlands for water treatment to reduce or minimize potential water quality impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed General Plan, they do not provide concrete or specific requirements that will reduce potential water quality impacts to below a level of significance. Therefore, the following measures have been identified, the adherence to which will reduce potential water quality impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures
4.17.5A The development of septic systems shall be in accordance with applicable standards established by Riverside County and other responsible authorities.
4.17.5B Point source pollution reduction programs shall fully adhere to applicable standards required by federal, State, and local agencies. Prior to the approval of individual projects, Riverside County shall verify that the provisions of applicable point source pollution programs have been satisfied.
4.17.5C Where development may contribute to a worsening of local or regional ground or surface water quality (as determined by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and/or RWQCB), a water quality analysis shall be prepared. The water quality analysis shall include (but shall not be limited to): an analysis of existing surface and subsurface water quality; an assessment of how the proposed development would affect such conditions existing water quality; an assessment of how the proposed development would affect beneficial uses of the water; and specific measures to limit or eliminate potential water quality impacts and/or impacts to beneficial uses of ground/surface water. Where determined necessary by the County or other responsible entity, the water quality analysis shall include, at an equal level of detail, potential impacts to tributary or downstream areas. The water quality analysis shall be submitted to the County and the RWCQB or responsible entity for review and shall be approved prior to the issuance of any entitlement that would result in the physical modification of the project site.
4.17.5D The project applicant shall submit to the County and the RWQCB, for review and approval, evidence that the specific measures to limit or eliminate potential water quality impacts resulting from the entire development process, and will be implemented as set forth in the water quality analysis. Said evidence shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of any entitlement that would result in the physical modification of the project site.
4.17.5E For each new development project, the following principles and policies shall be considered and implemented:
(1) Avoid or limit disturbance to natural water bodies and drainage systems (including ephemeral drainage systems) when feasible. Provide adequate buffers of native vegetation along drainage systems to lessen erosion and protect water quality.
(2) Appropriate best management practices (BMPs) must be implemented to lessen impacts to waters of the United States and/or waters of the State of California resulting from development. Drainages should be left in a natural condition or modified in a way that preserves all existing water quality standards where feasible. Any discharges of sediment or other wastes, including wastewater, to waters of the United States or waters of the State must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. All such discharges will require an NPDES permit issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
(3) Small drainages shall be preserved and incorporated into new development, along with adequate buffer zones of native vegetation, to the maximum extent practicable.
(4) Any impacts to waters of the United States require a Section 401 Water Quality Standards Certification from the RWQCB. Impacts to these waters shall be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. Where avoidance is not practicable, impacts to these waters shall be minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Mitigation of unavoidable impacts must, at a minimum, replace the full function and value of the affected water body. Impacts to waters of the United States also require a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers and a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game.
(5) The County shall encourage the use of pervious materials in development to retain absorption and allow more percolation of stormwater into the ground. The use of pervious materials, such as grass, permeable/porous pavement, etc., for runoff channels and parking areas shall also be encouraged. Lining runoff channels with impermeable surfaces, such as concrete or grouted riprap, will be discouraged.
(6) The County shall encourage construction of detention basins or holding ponds and/or constructed wetlands within a project site to capture and treat dry weather urban runoff and the first flush of rainfall runoff. These basins should be designed to detain runoff for a minimum time, such as 24 hours, to allow particles and associated pollutants to settle and to provide for natural treatment.
(7) The County shall encourage development to retain areas of open space as natural or landscaped to aid in the recharge and retention of runoff. Native plant materials shall be used in replanting and hydroseeding operations, where feasible.
(8) The County shall require that environmental documents for proposed projects in areas tributary to Canyon Lake Reservoir, Lake Elsinore, sections of the Santa Ana River, Fulmar Lake, and Mill Creek (as a result of the proposed 2002 303 (d) listing of these water bodies) include discharge prohibitions, revisions to discharge permits, or management plans to address water quality impacts in accordance with the controls that may be applied pursuant to State and Federal regulation. Environmental documents shall acknowledge that additional requirements may be imposed in the future for projects in areas tributary to the water bodies listed above.
(9) The County shall ensure that in new development, post-development stormwater runoff flow rates do not differ from the pre-development storm-water runoff flow rates.
(10) All construction projects should be designed and implemented to protect, and if at all possible, to improve the quality of the underlying groundwater.
(11) The County shall encourage the enhancement of groundwater recharge wherever possible. Measures such as keeping stream/river channels and floodplains in natural conditions or with pervious surfaces, as well as keeping areas of high recharge as open space will be considered.
(12) The County shall prohibit the discharge of waste material resulting from any type of construction into any drainage areas, channels, streambeds, streams, lakes, wetlands, or rivers. Spoil sites shall be prohibited within any streams or areas where spoil material could be washed into a water body.
(13) The County shall require that appropriate BMPs be developed and implemented during construction efforts to control the discharge of pollutants, prevent sewage spills, and to avoid discharge of sediments into the streets, storm-water conveyance channels, or waterways.
Revised General Plan Finding No revisions to the policies pertaining to water quality were made. Revisions to the Mitigation Measures in the Draft EIR expand the analysis required in water quality assessments and require that any such assessment be submitted to the RWQCB prior to development of a project site. Additional revisions to the proposed General Plan (as reflected by revisions to the Draft EIR) require compliance with existing State and/or Federal water quality standards, the limitation of disturbances to natural drainage systems, the incorporation of measures to facilitate groundwater recharge, and the use of measures and practices to control stormwater runoff. The Draft EIR concluded that the implementation of the proposed General Plan policies, and the stated mitigation would reduce water quality impacts to a less than significant level. The revisions add additional requirements that must be complied with, further ensuring the preservation of water quality. The revisions do not alter the intent, purpose or effectiveness of the stated mitigation or the level of significance (after mitigation) of potential impacts to hydrologic conditions; therefore, no change to the analysis or conclusion related to this issue is required.
4.17.4 Water Resources Level of Significance after Mitigation
While adherence to the stated policies in the proposed General Plan and mitigation in the EIR will reduce potential impacts to water supply, in the absence of project-specific water supply data, potential water supply impacts (including groundwater) resulting from implementation of the proposed General Plan must be considered significant and unavoidable.
The following sections address significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided, significant irreversible environmental effects, growth inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts that would result if the proposed General Plan were implemented. In addition, consistency of the proposed General Plan with regional plans is discussed.
SECTION 5.0 - ADDITIONAL TOPICS REQUIRED BY CEQA
5.1 Significant Environmental Effects that Cannot be Avoided
According to Section 15126.2(a)(b) of CEQA Guidelines, an EIR shall identify and focus on the significant environmental effects of the proposed project, including effects that cannot be avoided if the proposed project were implemented.
This section describes significant impacts, including those that can be mitigated but not reduced to a level of insignificance. Where there are impacts that cannot be alleviated without imposing a project alternative, their implications and the reason why the project is being proposed, notwithstanding their effect, is described. With implementation of the proposed General Plan, significant effects to air quality, loss of prime farmland, conversion of open space to urban uses (aesthetic/visual effects), water supply, biological resources, and transportation that cannot be avoided will occur.
5.1.1 Air Quality
Short-term and long-term scenarios have been analyzed with respect to the proposed General Plan build out. In both cases, significant unavoidable impacts would occur.
Short-Term Construction Impacts
Air quality impacts would occur during site preparation, which includes grading activities and equipment exhaust. Implementation of mitigation measures will minimize (but not mitigate to a level of insignificance) air quality impacts during construction activities. Riverside County would require that all applicable regional rules that decrease air quality impacts be followed, which would assist in reducing the short-term air pollutant emissions during construction.
In addition, dust suppression techniques would be implemented to prevent fugitive dust from creating an off-site nuisance during construction activities. Implementation of these dust suppression techniques can reduce the fugitive dust generation by 50 percent or more. Standard dust suppression methods are included in the mitigation measures in Section 4.0. However, construction of the proposed General Plan build out is expected to exceed the established daily emissions thresholds, even after implementation of the proposed General Plan policies and all feasible mitigation measures.
Implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in significant, unavoidable short-term construction air quality impacts during construction of individual development projects pursuant to the proposed General Plan, after implementation of the proposed General Plan policies and all feasible mitigation measures.
Long-Term Operations Impacts
Long-term air emission impacts are those associated with stationary sources and mobile sources related to any change in permanent usage of a project site. Implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in changes in regional vehicular traffic trips and associated vehicle miles traveled (VMTs). Therefore, mobile source emissions from vehicle use associated with build out of the proposed General Plan would be from VMTs at the particular average speed projected for the proposed General Plan.
Build out of the proposed General Plan would result in significant, unavoidable long-term operations air quality impacts after all feasible mitigation measures are implemented.
5.1.2 Prime Farmlands
Currently, The amount of land actively utilized for agricultural production in Riverside County totals 266,926 acres. Of this acreage, 132,183 acres, 42,096 acres, and 37,726 acres are designated as "Prime," "Statewide Important," or "Unique" farmland, respectively. The 212,005 acres designated under these three farmland categories represent 79 percent of the land presently utilized for agricultural production.
At build out, implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in a loss (or the conversion) of 86,748 62,084 acres of agricultural land. Assuming all land designated for agricultural use under the proposed General Plan was actively farmed at the time of build out, the loss or conversion of 86,748 62,084 acres represents a 32 23 percent reduction from the amount of land that is currently farmed. As the total amount of land designated for agricultural uses under the proposed General Plan is less than the amount of agricultural land currently designated as Prime, Unique, and Statewide Important, it is apparent that implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in a significant loss of Prime, Unique, or Statewide Important farmland.
Even with implementation of proposed General Plan policies, the loss of 86,748 62,084 acres of farmland remains a significant, unavoidable land use impact.
5.1.3 Transportation/Circulation
Implementation of the proposed policies and mitigation measures would reduce a majority of the potential impacts on the County's arterial transportation and circulation system to less than significant, with the exception of some arterial locations shown in red on Figures 4.16.10 and 4.16.12. For those arterial locations, the level of service (LOS) threshold of Riverside County of LOS D will not be met, and the impact from implementation of the proposed General Plan is considered significant.
In addition, Circulation Element Policy C 2.5 of the proposed General Plan provides a mechanism for the County to approve projects that do not meet their own LOS standards, based on a determination that the project is a benefit even though the LOS standards are not met. With implementation of the proposed General Plan policies and the mitigation measures identified in this EIR, significant and unavoidable impacts will remain at certain locations shown in Figures 4.16.10 and 4.16.12 and potentially at other locations through implementation of Policy C 2.5.
Implementation of the proposed policies and mitigation measures would reduce a majority of the potential impacts on the freeway system located within Riverside County to less than significant, with the exception of the freeway locations shown in red on Figures 4.16.10 and 4.16.12, where the County's LOS freeway threshold of LOS E will not be met.
In addition, all freeways are under the authority of Caltrans. There is no mechanism for development project proponents to pay fees or make fair share contributions toward improving mainline freeway lanes. If there were such a mechanism, there is no way to ensure that such payments would be directed to a specific freeway improvement project. Consequently, there are no feasible mitigation measures for these impacts, and they will remain significant and unavoidable.
5.1.4 Water Supply
The proposed General Plan increases demand for water services to a degree that exceeds the limits of existing or planned facilities or personnel intended to provide those services and facilities. Water agencies generally operate in a "will serve" capacity and build facilities and hire staff based on demand projections for their service areas. Most of the larger water agencies plan their facilities using a 5-year horizon, usually in the form of a 5-year capital improvements program updated each year. Because of this, any project that uses a planning horizon of more than 5 years is likely to exceed the limits of facilities planned by local water agencies. The combination of increased demand for water accommodated by the growth envisioned by the proposed General Plan, uncertainty and cost of imported water supply, uncertainty of long-term supply scenarios in non-adjudicated basins, exploitation of new groundwater sources, and the continuing pattern of basin overdraft, will significantly decrease groundwater supplies unless mitigation is implemented.
The Water Management Plan(s) prepared by local and regional water agencies do not project demand and supply at build out year (2040); therefore it is not possible to determine whether water agencies will have adequate water supplies to accommodate the increases in population and the amount of commercial and industrial development that will occur upon implementation of the proposed General Plan. While adherence to the stated policies in the proposed General Plan and mitigation in the EIR will reduce potential impacts to water supply, in the absence of definitive water supply data, potential water supply impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed General Plan must be considered significant and unavoidable.
5.1.5 Biological Resources
Implementation of the proposed General Plan policies and mitigation measures will reduce impacts to oak trees (Impact 4.6.6) to below a level of significance, as these measures will provide for sufficient assessment of oak trees and associated natural processes and allow for the incorporation of mitigating measures as needed during future project review.
Implementation of the proposed policies and mitigation measures will reduce other impacts to biological resources (Impacts 4.6.1, 4.6.2, 4.6.3, 4.6.4, 4.6.5, and 4.6.7) however, not to below a level of significance. In the absence of a comprehensive plan that addresses regional conservation issues (such as an approved MSHCP), implementation of the policies and mitigation measures on a project-by-project basis will result in the preservation of fragmented habitat patches and the isolation of associated biological resources. Habitat fragmentation will be most prevalent in upland habitats where areas are already fragmented to some degree and where a project-by-project analysis does not allow for the identification or conservation of regionally important linkages and natural processes. Proposed policies, regulatory requirements, and physical constraints on development will partially offset the fragmentation of riparian habitats. Additionally, the County-approved and adopted Western Riverside County MSHCP will, if certified by USFWS and CDFG, further mitigate fragmentation effects by providing linkages and corridors between habitat cores. However, many species are dependent on riparian and upland habitats and will be lost unless both habitats are conserved together.
Additionally, in the absence of an approved MSHCP for both the Coachella Valley and a take permit issued by the USFWS for western Riverside County, implementation of the proposed General Plan will result in cumulative significant unavoidable adverse effects on biological resources by causing:
• A direct loss of sensitive natural communities, especially coastal sage scrub and meadow and marsh habitats;
• Fragmentation of sensitive habitats, resulting in isolation of habitat patches and creating a "checkerboard" pattern of small habitat patches of limited biological value; and
• The fragmentation of habitat that constricts, inhibits, or eliminates wildlife movement.
5.1.6 Aesthetics/Visual Resources
Build out of the proposed General Plan would result in a substantial increase in urban uses throughout the proposed General Plan area. The development of structures and facilities would occur on vacant properties within unincorporated areas of the County and would be consistent with the policies outlined in the proposed General Plan. The conversion of open space to urban uses would result in a significant unavoidable impact by causing the obstruction of existing open views as well potentially obstructing distant panoramic views from existing development; therefore, implementation of the proposed General Plan will contribute significantly to the loss of visual character of the County. While the proposed General Plan policies and mitigation measures address the aesthetic impact of the new development, no mitigation is available to address the conversion of open space to urban land uses. This impact is significant and unavoidable.
5.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects
The environmental effects of the proposed General Plan are summarized in Section 1.0 (Summary) and are analyzed in detail in Section 4.0 (Impacts and Mitigation Measures) of this Program EIR.
As mandated by CEQA Guidelines, the EIR must address any significant irreversible environmental change that would result from implementation of the proposed Plan. Specifically, per CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.2[c]), such an impact would occur if:
• The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources;
• Irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project; and
• The proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project results in the wasteful use of energy.)
Approval and implementation of actions related to the proposed General Plan would result in an irretrievable commitment of non-renewable resources such as energy supplies and other construction related materials. The energy resource demands would be used for construction, heating and cooling of buildings, transportation of people and goods, heating and refrigeration, lighting, and other associated energy needs.
Environmental changes with implementation of the proposed General Plan would occur as the physical environment is altered through continued commitments of land and construction materials to urban and rural development. There would be an irretrievable commitment of labor, capital, and materials used in construction and a permanent loss of open space. Nonrenewable resources would be committed primarily in the form of fossil fuels and would include fuel, oil, natural gas, and gasoline used by vehicles and equipment associated with implementation of the proposed General Plan.
The consumption of other non-renewable or slowly renewable resources would result from the development of the proposed General Plan. These resources would include, but not be limited to, lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, steel, copper, lead, and water. Because alternative energy sources such as solar, geothermal, or wind energy are not currently in widespread local use, it is unlikely that real savings in nonrenewable energy supplies (e.g., oil and gas) could be realized in the immediate future.
Development within Riverside County as envisioned by the proposed General Plan would result in the construction of structures, facilities, and/or infrastructure on lands that are currently undeveloped. Development of lands would generally result in their future and permanent commitment to urban uses.
5.3 Growth Inducement
CEQA requires a discussion of the ways in which the proposed General Plan could be growth inducing. The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.2(d), identifies a project as growth inducing if it fosters economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. New employees from commercial and industrial development and new population from residential 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. Examples of development that would indirectly facilitate growth include the installation of new roadways or the construction or expansion of water delivery/treatment facilities.
A project could indirectly induce growth by removing barriers to growth, by creating a condition that attracts additional population or new economic activity, or by providing a catalyst for future unrelated growth in the area. While a project may have a potential to induce growth, it does not automatically result in growth. Growth can only happen through capital investment in new economic opportunities by the public or private sectors.
Development pressures are a result of economic investment in a particular locality. These pressures help to structure the local politics of growth and the local jurisdiction's posture on growth management and land use policy. The land use policies established by the County of Riverside will regulate growth in the County.
CEQA does not consider growth inducement to be necessarily detrimental, beneficial, or of significance to the environment. Typically, the growth inducing potential of a project is considered significant if it fosters growth or a concentration of population in excess of what is assumed in pertinent master plans, land use plans, or in projections made by regional planning agencies. Significant growth impacts could also be manifested through the provision of infrastructure or service capacity to accommodate growth beyond the levels currently permitted by local or regional plans and policies. Providing these infrastructure needs (e.g., water, wastewater , roadways) in response to substantial increases in development that would occur through build out of the General Plan, would accommodate, but not induce or cause, the growth projected by the General Plan. In general, growth induced by a project is considered a significant impact if it directly or indirectly affects the ability of agencies to provide needed public services, or if it can be demonstrated that the potential growth significantly affects the environment in some other way.
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for a six-county region (Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial Counties) and is charged by the federal government to research and prepare plans for transportation, growth management, hazardous waste management, and air quality. One of the many responsibilities mandated to SCAG by the state is the development of demographic projections, which are in Section 4.3 Population and Housing and discussed below.
5.3.1 Population, Dwelling Units, and Jobs
Projections were developed during the proposed General Plan process for potential populations, dwelling units, the number of potential workers and jobs for the unincorporated areas of Riverside County. The land use designations identified in the proposed General Plan serve as the basis for these projections. A key assumption of these projections is that they reflect the theoretical total build out of all unincorporated areas. SCAG 2025 projections, as well as a comparison with the proposed General Plan build out projections for 2040, are shown in Table 5.A.
| Table 5.A - Unincorporated Riverside County Projections | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Forecast Category | SCAG (2025)1 | Proposed General Plan Build Out (2040) |
Number Difference | Percentage Difference |
| Population | 1,771,299 |
+785,354 |
||
| Dwelling Units | 591,209 |
+256,737 |
||
| Jobs | 685,375 |
+221% |
||
| 1 SCAG does not project population, housing, or jobs beyond the year 2025 for the County of Riverside. Source: Southern California Association of Governments, May 2001. |
||||
Based on past growth rates in Riverside County, population increases are anticipated to continue to average approximately 3.38 percent annually. Assuming a SCAG projected population of 985,945 persons in 2025, the proposed General Plan build out population of unincorporated Riverside County would be reached in 2040. About 79 69 percent of this population is projected for unincorporated Western Riverside County with the remaining 21 31 percent projected for unincorporated Eastern Riverside County.
Dwelling units at build out for unincorporated Riverside County are projected at 557,849 591,209. Similar to population, about 79 69 percent of these dwelling units are forecast to occur in the unincorporated Western Riverside County with the remaining 21 31 percent in unincorporated Eastern Riverside County. Household projections represent occupied housing units and do not account for vacant units or second homes that are not occupied full time.
As for employment projections, the SCAG projections and the proposed General Plan projections at build out reveal different trends. The employment projection of 750,812 685,375 for unincorporated Riverside County is about 2.5 3.2 times the SCAG projections. Putting aside the difference in timing, this is also a reflection of the policy of SCAG to concentrate employment in existing municipal centers. The proposed General Plan employment projection accounts for about 72 67 percent of total unincorporated Western Riverside County employment at build out with the remaining 28 33 percent in the Eastern Riverside County. This difference occurs because the policies in the proposed General Plan balance the County's jobs-to-housing ratio by providing more jobs. SCAG's projections are based on the County's existing General Plan, which provides for more housing than employment opportunities.
5.3.2 Jobs-to-Housing Ratios
Table 5.B compares proposed General Plan build out for unincorporated areas and SCAG 2025 jobs-to-housing ratios.
| Table 5.B - Jobs-to-Housing Ratios | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Riverside County Proposed General Plan Build Out (2040) |
SCAG (2025) | |||
| Riverside County | 0.65 | |||
| Western Riverside County | 0.76 | |||
| Eastern Riverside County | 0.28 | |||
| SCAG Region (theoretical balance) | — | 1.34 | ||
| Source: SCAG Population and Housing and Employment Projections, May 2001. | ||||
The jobs-to-housing ratio measures the extent to which job opportunities in a given geographic area are sufficient to meet the employment of area residents. This ratio identifies the number of jobs available in a given region compared to the number of housing units in the same region, and determines potential imbalances between housing and employment opportunities. In theory, if households have job opportunities closer to where they live, this can potentially reduce overall commuting. In keeping with the generally higher forecast for the number of jobs in the area discussed previously, the jobs-to-housing ratios are higher for the proposed General Plan build out than for SCAG. The projected unincorporated jobs-to-housing ratio is similar closer to the SCAG regional ratio.
5.3.3 Conclusion
The proposed General Plan would result in growth. Based on the definition of growth inducement, a General Plan is inherently growth inducting. The growth permitted by the proposed General Plan leads to significant unavoidable adverse impacts. The proposed General Plan is a master plan providing the framework by which public officials will be guided on making decisions relative to development within Riverside County. However, it is the implementation of land use policies that will incrementally increase demands for public services, utilities, and infrastructure, and the need for medical, educational, and recreation facilities.
Revised General Plan Finding Revisions to the proposed General Plan since the preparation of the Draft EIR has changed the jobs, housing, and employment forecasts and the predicted jobs-to-housing ratio, but has not substantially altered the meaning and applicability of the discussion above that pertains to growth inducement.
5.4 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, impacts occurring over a period of time. Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR include a discussion of the potential cumulative impacts of a proposed project. Cumulative impacts are defined as two or more individual effects that, when considered together, are considerable or that compound or increase other environmental impacts. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of the development when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable or probable future developments.
As defined in Section 15355, "a cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts. An EIR may determine that a project's contribution to a significant cumulative impact will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable and thus is not significant. A project's contribution is less than cumulatively considerable if the project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure or measures designed to alleviate the cumulative impact."
"The following elements are necessary to an adequate discussion of significant cumulative impacts:
(1) Either:
(A) A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency, or
(B) A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or areawide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. Any such planning document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the lead agency."
Significance of impacts are identified subject to CEQA. Cumulative effects must be evaluated along with the direct effects and indirect effects (those that occur later in time or farther removed in distance) of each alternative. The range of alternatives must consider the no project alternative as a baseline against which to evaluate cumulative effects. In this case, the No Project Alternative is the existing Riverside County General Plan. The range of actions that must be considered for the cumulative effects, includes not only the proposed General Plan but all connected and similar actions that could contribute to cumulative effects. Cumulative effects may arise from single or multiple actions and may result in additive or interactive effects.
The determination of a project's cumulative effects involves the identification of the following:
• Direct and indirect effects of the proposed action; C Which resources, ecosystems, and human communities are affected; and
• Whether these effects are cumulatively important.
In a general sense, all impacts on affected resources are cumulative; however, it is the goal of this analysis to narrow the important issues to those of national, regional, or local significance.
An assessment of the cumulative impacts is done qualitatively since it is difficult to predict timing and density of future projects. Many future projects will be the subject of separate environmental studies.
Section 15065(c) of the CEQA Guidelines state that a mandatory finding of significance is required if the project has possible environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable.
Due to the broad project objectives associated with the implementation of the proposed General Plan, the cumulative analysis presented in this Program EIR does not evaluate the site-specific impacts of individual projects. Project-level analysis will be prepared by implementing agencies on a project-by-project basis. The proposed General Plan addresses cumulative growth anticipated to occur in Riverside County resulting from build out of the proposed General Plan in combination with the implementation of the Western Riverside County MSHCP and CETAP. Growth in neighboring counties and cities would likely cause secondary effects in the County of Riverside, such as increased regional population, traffic, housing, and pollution; therefore, this section will present the anticipated population growth of surrounding counties located within the SCAG planning region.
The cumulative discussion in this EIR analyzes the cumulative effects of the entire RCIP, to include the proposed General Plan, the proposed County-approved Western Riverside County MSHCP and the proposed CETAP. Even though the MSHCP and the CETAP are undergoing separate environmental documentation, they are being considered as foreseeable future projects as a part of the actions of the County. In addition, the cumulative analysis considers the build out of not only the proposed General Plan but the build out of all incorporated cities within the County.
Because of the large size of the project area, the cumulative analysis presented in this section is supported by the SCAG 2001 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR). The RTP is a long-range regional transportation plan that provides a blueprint for future transportation improvements based on specific transportation goals, objectives, policies and strategies. The purpose of the RTP is to meet the needs of the changing socioeconomic, transportation, infrastructure, financial, technological, and environmental conditions of the region. Meeting these needs is accomplished by providing a comprehensive and effective plan for transportation improvements in the region. The PEIR evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with the adoption of the 2001 RTP.
The cumulative impact analysis is based on the anticipated population growth within Riverside County and surrounding SCAG region. Population growth is a major factor contributing to direct impacts on habitat, housing, job markets, transportation, and development. Additionally, these direct impacts can cause secondary impacts to biological resources, air quality, density, and the overall quality of life within Riverside County. For this reason, using populating growth as a measure to determine cumulative impacts is highly applicable when examining a large project area such as a county. It is important to note that to evaluate impacts, future conditions (without the project) are compared to existing conditions to identify cumulative impacts (i.e., impacts that would occur whether or not the project were implemented).
Population, employment, and number of households forecast for the SCAG region are presented in Table 5.C. The SCAG region would grow by 34 percent in 25 years, with similar growth in employment and the number of households. According to SCAG, in 2025 the jobs-to-housing imbalance is anticipated to continue throughout the region. This continued imbalance is likely to further contribute to traffic and air quality impacts.
| Table 5.C - SCAG Regional Growth Projections | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 2025 | Change 2000 to 2025 | ||
| Population | 16.9 | 22.6 | 34% | |
| Employment | 7.3 | 10.0 | 37% | |
| Households | 5.4 | 7.4 | 37% | |
| Source: County-level numbers adopted by SCAG's Community, Economic and Human Development Committee in November 2000. | ||||
Population projections for individual counties within the region are detailed in Table 5.D. Riverside County's population alone is estimated to increase to 2,833,700 by 2025. While SCAG determined that the Counties of Los Angeles and Orange would need to increase densities, and provide in-fill housing on urban land to accommodate projected 2025 populations; the Counties of San Bernardino, Ventura, and Riverside all have developable land to meet 2025 housing needs. With this population growth, cumulative impacts are inevitable. The proposed General Plan identifies the anticipated change in population of unincorporated areas and integrates this factor for future planning.
| Table 5.D - County Population Projections in SCAG Region | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| County1 | SCAG2 2025 Population | Percent of Total | ||
| Imperial | 317,700 | 1.40 | ||
| Los Angeles | 12,338,500 | 54.49 | ||
| Orange | 3,416,000 | 15.09 | ||
| Riverside | 2,833,700 | 12.51 | ||
| San Bernardino | 2,786,900 | 12.31 | ||
| Ventura | 951,100 | 4.20 | ||
| Total | 22,643,900 | 100.00 | ||
| Notes: 1 SCAG = Southern California Association of Governments. 2 Population projections are of entire counties (unincorporated and city). Source: Southern California Association of Governments, County Population Projections with Race/Ethnic Detail. |
||||
Implementation of the proposed General Plan would provide a planning framework to channel and direct future population growth and development. Cumulative impacts relevant to specific issues are summarized as follows:
Land Use/Agricultural Resources
Substantial development within Riverside County would occur with the build out of the proposed General Plan. As the proposed General Plan areas as well as surrounding cities develop, a greater intensification may result in cumulative land use compatibility impacts. Because the proposed General Plan would result in less than significant impacts on existing land use designations and patterns, the proposed General Plan would not result in a cumulative impact to existing land use patterns within the vicinity of the unincorporated Riverside County areas. The proposed General Plan update will result in the conversion of State-designated (Prime, Unique, and Statewide Important) farmland as well as land currently utilized for agricultural productivity Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmlands, or Farmlands of Statewide Importance to a variety of non-agricultural uses. The implementation of proposed General Plan contains policies the implementation of which will reduce or minimize the effects of future development on agricultural resources. and mitigation measures help reduce the impacts resulting from conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses, but the potential loss of Prime, Unique, or Statewide Important agricultural lands Because these policies do not set specific requirements that will limit the conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses, and because no feasible or reasonable mitigation has been identified to reduce these potential impacts to a less than significant level; impacts to existing farmland and State-designated farmland remains a significant and unavoidable impact and will contribute to a cumulative adverse impact.
Housing and Population
Upon build out of the proposed General Plan, the population of unincorporated Riverside County will total approximately 1,671,848 1,771,299 persons residing in approximately 557,849 591,209 residential dwelling units. While future increases in population and housing will occur within unincorporated Riverside County, the rate of growth is consistent with annual SCAG rates of growth. Development on a scale and intensity permitted under the proposed General Plan would result in cumulatively significant population increases within the County and region.
Aesthetics/Visual Resources
Future development within Riverside County and development in surrounding areas would result in the intensification of existing urban uses as well as conversion of open space into urban land uses. The intensification of existing urban uses is expected to result in a less than significant visual impact. The conversion of open space to urban uses would result in a significant unavoidable impact by causing the obstruction of existing open views as well as potentially obstructing distant panoramic views from existing development; therefore, implementation of the proposed General Plan will cumulatively contribute significantly to the loss of visual character of the County.
Air Quality
Any proposed General Plan that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact. The proposed General Plan is not consistent with currently approved regional plans. However, the proposed General Plan will be incorporated into the regional Air Quality Management Plan and State Implementation Plan. Nonetheless, implementation of the proposed General Plan would contribute to the regional air pollutant emissions during construction periods and at project build out. This could potentially delay the attainment date of the county for federal and State ozone and PM10 standards. Therefore, the proposed General Plan will have significant and unavoidable cumulative air quality impacts.
Biological Resources
The project would result in the loss of extensive areas of natural habitats and associated biological resources. Implementation of the proposed policies and mitigation measures will reduce impacts to oak trees (Impact 4.6.6) to below a level of significance, as these measures will provide for sufficient assessment of oak trees and associated natural processes and allow for the incorporation of mitigating measures as needed during future project review. Implementation of the proposed policies and mitigation measures will reduce other impacts to biological resources (direct mortality/loss of habitat of listed, proposed, or candidate species; loss of listed species habitat that compromises recovery potential; direct loss of sensitive communities; fragmentation/isolation of sensitive habitat patches; habitat fragmentation that constricts wildlife movement; and alteration of natural processes that would result in the direct or indirect mortality of listed, proposed, or candidate species or that would result in loss, fragmentation, or isolation of sensitive habitat(s)). Significant impacts will remain after mitigation.
On June 17, 2003, the County of Riverside adopted the Western Riverside County MSHCP and certified the EIR/EIS. At the time the Final EIR was published the USFWS had not issued its "take authorization" permit or finalized the Final EIS for the Western Riverside County MSHCP. This MSHCP (also a component of RCIP), if approved by the USFWS and CDFG, will provide mitigation for development impacts to threatened and endangered species throughout western Riverside County by way of a development fee and property acquisition. Participation in the plan may provide some or all mitigation for many CEQA-significant impacts, including habitat fragmentation and impacts to non-listed species (additional mitigation may be required, as determined on a project-by-project basis).
However, in the absence of an approved MSHCP for both the Coachella Valley and a USFWS- and CDFG-certified MSHCP for western Riverside County, implementation of the proposed General Plan will result in cumulative significant unavoidable adverse effects on biological resources by causing:
A direct loss of sensitive natural communities, especially coastal sage scrub and meadow and marsh habitats;
• Fragmentation of sensitive habitats, resulting in isolation of habitat patches and creating a "checkerboard" pattern of small habitat patches of limited biological value; and
• Fragmentation of habitat that constricts, inhibits, or eliminates wildlife movement.
Cultural Resources
The proposed General Plan's contribution to the growth and urbanization of Riverside County would result in the direct and/or indirect loss of cultural and paleontological resources. This loss would result from urban redevelopment and conversion of culturally and paleontologically sensitive landscapes to urban uses. The proposed General Plan area is comprised of large portions of undeveloped, open land that may contain cultural and paleontological resources. Therefore, implementation of the proposed General Plan will cumulatively contribute significantly to the loss of these sensitive areas and their resources.
Energy
Future growth anticipated with build out of the proposed General Plan would include new development that will increase the demand for natural gas and electricity and substantially contribute to a significant cumulative impact on the availability of both.
Flood and Dam Inundation Hazards
Future growth with the proposed General Plan would include the introduction of new structures and would create increased stormwater runoff, which would increase the risk of flooding. Future growth would result in the development of new arterial and collector streets that will provide improved access within the County, allowing emergency vehicles greater access and a route for residents to avoid flood hazards. Overall, future growth with the proposed General Plan will substantially contribute to a significant cumulative impact on stormwater runoff, which can induce flooding.
Implementation of the proposed General Plan would not increase the risk of dam failure and subsequent inundation hazards. Thus, the proposed General Plan would not contribute to a cumulative impact relating to dam inundation hazards.
Geology and Slope Stability
The implementation of the proposed General Plan will contribute to the urbanization of Riverside County, which will result in the direct and/or indirect increase of seismic, slope, soil instability, or wind hazards. This increase would result from urban development and the conversion of vacant land to urban uses. As Riverside County grows, the opportunity for the hazards to occur grows also. Therefore, implementation of the proposed General Plan will cumulatively contribute significantly to the increase exposure of people and property seismic, slope, soil instability, and wind hazards.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Development in accordance with the proposed General Plan would cumulatively increase the intensity of development in Riverside County. Compliance with federal, State, and local regulations concerning the storage and handling of hazardous materials and/or waste would reduce the potential for significant public health and safety impacts from hazardous materials to occur. Therefore, the impact of the proposed General Plan in addition to future development in surrounding areas is not expected to affect significantly the number of people exposed to public health and safety risks from exposure to hazardous materials.
Mineral Resources
The proposed General Plan's contribution to the growth and urbanization of Riverside County would result in the direct and/or indirect loss of mineral resources. This loss would result from urban development, redevelopment, and possible conversion of mineral resource zones (MRZs) to urban uses. The proposed General Plan area is comprised of large portions of undeveloped, open land containing MRZs and provides policies to protect mineral resources, while at the same time allowing the extraction of mineral resources. Therefore, implementation of the proposed General Plan would not contribute significantly to the cumulative loss of these sensitive areas and their resources.
Noise
The build out of the proposed General Plan would result in potential cumulative noise level increases along major roadways and near industrial/commercial zones. Each of these noise impacts would be dealt with separately when new noise sensitive or noise generating developments are proposed. Implementation of the proposed General Plan would not result in significant cumulative noise impacts that would not be mitigated with the implementation of the proposed General Plan policies and mitigation measures and thus, will not substantially contribute to cumulative noise impacts.
Parks and Recreation
Cumulative parks and recreation impacts would occur through the loss of vacant land as it is converted to urban uses. While the acreage that is converted may be relatively small in any given instance, each parcel converted contributes to an increase in urban development and Riverside County growth. Directly and/or indirectly, this results in an increased cumulative demand on parks and recreational facilities and services. This would be a service and facilities impact upon the County.
Public Services
Cumulative impacts of development with implementation of the proposed General Plan will be continually monitored through the environmental review process of proposed projects, and additional mitigation measures will be included as appropriate as part of the environmental analysis performed for individual projects as development occurs in the County of Riverside. The Public Services section below analyzes fire protection, sheriff protection, solid waste management, wastewater, schools, libraries, and medical facilities.
Fire Protection Future growth anticipated with build out of the proposed General Plan would include the introduction of new structures and the increased risk of fire hazards. Future growth would result in the development of new arterial and collector streets that would provide improved access within Riverside County, allowing fire and emergency vehicles greater access. Overall, future growth with the proposed General Plan will substantially contribute to a significant cumulative impact on fire protection personnel, equipment, and facilities.
Sheriff Protection Future growth anticipated with build out the proposed General Plan within Riverside County would increase population and substantially contribute to a significant cumulative impact on sheriff services.
Solid Waste Management Future growth anticipated with build out the proposed General Plan would include new development that will increase the generation of solid waste and substantially contribute to a significant cumulative impact on existing solid waste facilities.
Wastewater Future growth anticipated with build out the proposed General Plan would include new development that will increase the generation of wastewater and substantially contribute to a significant cumulative impact on existing wastewater facilities.
Schools Future growth anticipated with build out the proposed General Plan within Riverside County will result in an increased student population and substantially contribute to a significant cumulative impact on public school facilities. Cumulative impacts of development with the proposed General Plan will be continually monitored through the environmental review process of proposed projects. Additional mitigation measures will be included as appropriate as part of the environmental analysis performed for individual projects, as development occurs in the County of Riverside in accordance with County Ordinance 575 and California State Law SB50.
Libraries Cumulative impacts would be contingent upon the ability of Riverside County to provide adequate funding and the availability of suitable library sites. Each additional resident may contribute to an increase in the use of library facilities and services. Directly and/or indirectly, this results in an increased cumulative demand on these facilities. This would be a Riverside County service and facilities impact as well as a fiscal impact upon the County and other agency expenditure patterns. Therefore, the increase in future residents resulting from build out of the proposed General Plan would contribute to cumulative impacts.
Medical Facilities Cumulative impacts would be contingent upon the level of demand for medical services and facilities. The level of demand would be determined based on the periodic medical needs assessments. The projected increase in the County's population will occur incrementally over approximately 40 years and will proportionally increase the demand for medical facilities and services. This would be a County service and facilities impact. Therefore, the increase in future residents resulting from the proposed General Plan would contribute to cumulative impacts that would remain significant.
Transportation and Circulation
A cumulative traffic analysis was provided in Section 4.16 of this EIR. The build out of the proposed General Plan will result in reductions in traffic volumes and improved levels of service along SR-91 east of I-15 and along SR-60 east of I-215. Build out of the proposed General Plan will result in only slightly more traffic and marginally lower levels of service along SR-91 west of I-15 and along SR-60 west of I-215 than would occur if no future development ever occurred within unincorporated areas. The net effect of build out of unincorporated areas under the proposed General Plan is to add 7,300 westbound daily trips and 6,900 daily eastbound trips to the SR-91 freeway west of I-15. The County's relative contribution to future traffic increases along the SR-91 freeway is minor. This is due to the improvement of the balance between jobs and housing, which will tend to internalize future traffic increases resulting from unincorporated development within the County.
With build out of the proposed General Plan, most roadways in the cities have higher volume to capacity (v/c) ratios than under cumulative future without project conditions in Coachella Valley. Some roadways in the County also have higher v/c ratios under the proposed General Plan because traffic volumes will increase to a greater extent than the additional capacity provided on the roadway system by the proposed General Plan. However, some roadways in the County have lower v/c ratios under the proposed General Plan because the increase in capacity with the proposed General Plan is greater than the increase in traffic attributable to development in the County. The most noticeable impact is in the area of Desert Resorts Regional Airport, where substantial growth in the unincorporated area is expected.
In general, the percentages of the volume attributable to the proposed General Plan is greatest in the unincorporated areas, as would be expected. It is least within the incorporated cities. On the freeways, the percentage varies, but is generally in the range of 20 percent or less. Growth in the County has little impact on SR-91, SR-60, and I-10. These deficiencies are largely attributable to growth in the cities. There is a moderate effect on I-15 and I-215, generally less than 20 percent.
Growth anticipated through implementation of the proposed General Plan will have a cumulative effect on area roadways; however, the proposed General Plan contains a Circulation Element that provides for infrastructure within the unincorporated areas of the County to be build to accommodate the anticipated growth and increase in traffic. The proposed General Plan also provides for transit uses and concentrated land uses in community centers to facilitate the use of mass transit and decrease the reliance on the automobile. As demonstrated in the traffic analysis in Section 4.16, build out of the incorporated cities will have a significant cumulative effect on area roadways, especially if the County roadways are not improved as planned for in the proposed General Plan. The relative significance of this cumulative effect is shown in Figures 4.16.10 and 4.16.12.
Water Resources
Cumulative impacts would occur through the loss of area available for aquifer recharge, continued gaps between the amount of water available and the amount of water required, and potential deterioration of water quality. The proposed General Plan area is comprised of large portions of undeveloped open land, some of which serves as aquifer recharge areas. As parcels of land are developed and Riverside County grows, this area will not only diminish but the demand for water resources will continue to grow. Implementation of the proposed General Plan will directly and/or indirectly result in both the loss of groundwater recharge areas and increase the cumulative demand on water resources.
5.5 Consistency with Regional Plans
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15125(d), requires that any inconsistencies between a regionally significant project and regional plans be discussed. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) regional plans cover the proposed project area and five other counties in Southern California. SCAG's regional plans that require a consistency discussion are the Regional Comprehensive Plan and the Regional Transportation Plan administered by SCAG. These are discussed below. Consistency with applicable Air Quality Management Plans and Air Quality Attainment Plans, as well as the air quality State Implementation Plan, is discussed in Section 4.5. Consistency with applicable Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Community Conservation Plans is discussed in Sections 4.2 and 4.6. Section 4.2 also contains an analysis of consistency with relevant Airport Land Use Plans and Riverside County LAFCO policies.
5.5.1 Regional Comprehensive Plan
The growth management chapter and the core air quality chapter are addressed with respect to the SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan in the following sections. In each case a policy is listed, and discussion follows the policy.
Growth Management Chapter
3.01 The population, housing, and jobs forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG's Regional Council and that reflect local plans and policies, shall be used by SCAG in all phases of implementation and review.
Discussion: The adopted population, housing, and jobs forecasts have been used to prepare the jobs to housing calculations contained in Section 4.0 of this Program EIR.
3.03 The timing, financing, and location of public facilities, utility systems, and transportation systems shall be used by SCAG to implement the region's growth policies.
Discussion: This policy affects SCAG directly. The policy is not applicable to the proposed General Plan.
3.05 Encourage patterns of urban development and land use, which reduce costs on infrastructure construction and make better use of existing facilities.
Discussion: The policy in effect requests that projects provide for orderly and managed area growth. This is one of the main objectives of the proposed General Plan. The proposed General Plan adds to a balanced growth management concept, because it attempts to offset the current imbalance in the jobs-to-housing ratio in the area. It has been determined that adequate public services and utilities are available to accommodate the proposed General Plan or mitigation measures or in-lieu fees are in place. Proponents of future projects would be required to pay a fair share of additional infrastructure improvements.
3.09 Support local jurisdictions' efforts to minimize the cost of infrastructure and public service delivery, and efforts to seek new sources of funding for development and the provision of services.
Discussion: This policy affects SCAG directly. The policy is not applicable to the proposed General Plan.
3.10 Support local jurisdictions' actions to minimize red tape and expedite the permitting process to maintain economic vitality and competitiveness.
Discussion: This policy affects SCAG directly. The policy is not applicable to the proposed General Plan.
3.12 Encourage existing or proposed local jurisdictions' programs aimed at designing land uses that encourage the use of transit and thus reduce the need for roadway expansion, reduce the number of auto trips and vehicle miles traveled, and create opportunities for residents to walk and bike.
Discussion: Proposed General Plan policies encourage alternative transit uses. In addition, the proposed General Plan attempts to address the jobs-to-housing imbalance in Riverside County, thereby decreasing vehicle miles traveled.
3.13 Encourage local jurisdictions' plans that maximize the use of existing urbanized areas accessible to transit through infill and redevelopment.
Discussion: The proposed General Plan clusters urban centers in distinct areas of unincorporated Riverside County to encourage the development of infill areas and promote redevelopment.
3.16 Encourage development in and around activity centers, transportation corridors, underutilized infrastructure systems, and areas needing recycling and redevelopment.
Discussion: The proposed General Plan contains nodes of concentrated development along transportation corridors and areas needing recycling and redevelopment.
3.18 Encourage planned development in locations least likely to cause environmental impact.
Discussion: The proposed General Plan's environmental impacts related to all resource issues are discussed in Section 4.0.
3.20 Support the protection of vital resources such as wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, woodlands, production lands, and land containing unique and endangered plants and animals.
Discussion: Biological resources have been addressed in this Program EIR and appropriate mitigation will be implemented. Wetland, groundwater recharge areas, and site drainage issues have been or will be addressed by compliance with existing regulations administered by the appropriate regulatory agencies (i.e., CDFG, RWQCB, and Corps).
3.21 Encourage the implementation of measures aimed at the preservation and protection of recorded and unrecorded cultural resources and archaeological sites.
Discussion: This Program EIR provides mitigation measures that ensure that any discovered recorded and unrecorded cultural resources and archaeological sites will be preserved and protected.
3.22 Discourage development, or encourage the use of special design requirements, in areas with steep slopes, high fire, flood, and seismic hazards.
Discussion: Steep slopes, high fire, flood, and seismic hazards have been discussed extensively in Section 4.0. Policies included in the proposed General Plan, as well as Mitigation measures, as appropriate, have been put forth in this Program EIR for all potential environmental hazards.
3.23 Encourage mitigation measures that reduce noise in certain locations, measures aimed at preservation of biological and ecological resources, measures that would reduce exposure to seismic hazards, minimize earthquake damage, and to develop emergency response and recovery plans.
Discussion: In this Program EIR, there are mitigation measures that reduce noise, preserve biological and ecological resources, reduce exposure to seismic hazards, minimize earthquake damage, and develop emergency response and recovery plans.
3.24 Encourage efforts of local jurisdictions in the implementation of programs that increase the supply and quality of housing and provide affordable housing as evaluated in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment.
Discussion: The Housing Element of the proposed General Plan identifies and establishes the County's policies with respect to meeting the needs of existing and future residents in Riverside County. It establishes policies that will guide County decision-making, and it sets forth an action plan to implement housing goals in the next seven years. These commitments are in furtherance of the statewide housing goal of "early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every California family," as well as a reflection of the concerns unique to the County of Riverside.
3.27 Support local jurisdictions and other service providers in their efforts to develop sustainable communities and provide, equally to all members of society, accessible and effective services such as: public education, housing, health care, social services, recreational facilities, law enforcement, and fire protection.
Discussion: In the Public Services section of this Program EIR, fire protection (Section 4.15.1), sheriff protection (Section 4.15.2), schools (Section 4.15.5), and medical facilities (Section 4.15.7) are analyzed. In addition, housing is discussed in Housing and Population (Section 4.3), and recreation is discussed in Parks and Recreation (Section 4.14).
Core Air Quality Chapter
5.07 Determine specific programs and associated actions needed (e.g., indirect source rules, enhanced use of telecommunications, provision of community based shuttle services, provision of demand management based programs, or vehicle-miles-traveled/emission fees) so that options to command and control regulations can be assessed.
Discussion: This policy affects SCAG directly. The policy is not applicable to the proposed project.
5.11 Through the environmental document review process, ensure that plans at all levels of government (regional, air basin, county, subregional, and local) consider air quality, land use, transportation and economic relationships to ensure consistency and minimize conflicts.
Discussion: All proposed future projects that would be developed as a result of implementation of the proposed General Plan would be reviewed with respect to air quality, land use, transportation and economic relationships to ensure consistency and minimize conflicts at all levels of government.
Water Quality Chapter
11.02 Encourage "watershed management" programs and strategies, recognizing the primary role of local governments in such efforts.
Discussion: Four distinct watershed areas exist in Riverside County and are mapped in the proposed General Plan. These large watersheds are further divided into smaller sections by internal surface water drainage areas and groundwater basins. Polices to encourage watershed management program and strategies are contained in the proposed General Plan and analyzed in this Program EIR. These policies encourage watershed management with programs and strategies for water quality, groundwater recharge, floodplain and riparian area management, and wetlands.
11.05 Support regional efforts to identify and cooperatively plan for wetlands to facilitate both sustaining the amount and quality of wetlands in the region and expediting the process for obtaining wetlands permits.
Discussion: Wetlands policies are included in the Multipurpose Open Space Element of the proposed General Plan and analyzed in this Program EIR.
11.07 Encourage water reclamation throughout the region where it is cost-effective, feasible, and appropriate to reduce reliance on imported water and wastewater discharges. Current administrative impediments to increased use of wastewater should be addressed.
Discussion: The proposed General Plan encourages water reclamation throughout the region with mitigation measures that are put forth in Section 4.0.
Open Space Chapter Ancillary Goals
9.01 Provided adequate land resources to meet the outdoor recreation needs of the present and future residents in the region and to promote tourism in the region.
9.02 Increase the accessibility to open space lands for outdoor recreation.
9.03 Promote self-sustaining regional recreation resources and facilities.
Discussion: For the three preceding goals concerning outdoor recreation, the proposed General Plan and this Program EIR discuss the preservation, use, and development of a comprehensive open space system consisting of passive open space areas, and parks and recreation areas that have recreational, ecological, and scenic value.
9.04 Maintain open space for adequate protection of lives and properties against natural and man-made hazards.
9.05 Minimize potential hazardous development in hillsides, canyons, areas susceptible to flooding, earthquakes, wildfire and other known hazards, and areas with limited access for emergency equipment.
9.06 Minimize public expenditure for infrastructure and facilities to support urban type uses in areas where public health and safety could not be guaranteed.
Discussion: Public heath and safety issues with respect to development are discussed in the Safety Element of the proposed General Plan and in this Program EIR.
9.07 Maintain adequate viable resource production lands, particularly lands devoted to commercial agriculture and mining operations.
9.08 Develop well-managed viable ecosystems or known habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species, including wetlands.
Discussion: Resource production and protection, which are called conservation and preservation, are analyzed in the Multipurpose Open Space Element in the proposed General Plan and in this Program EIR. The conservation section includes policies geared toward renewable and non-renewable resources. The preservation section emphasizes Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plans, environmentally sensitive lands, cultural and paleontological resources, open space, parks and recreation, scenic resources, and scenic corridors.
5.5.2 Regional Transportation Plan
4.01 Transportation investments shall be based on SCAG's adopted Regional Performance Indicators:
Mobility - Transportation Systems should meet the public need for improved access, and for safe, comfortable, convenient, faster and economical movements of people and goods.
• Average Work Trip Travel Time in Minutes - 25 minutes (Auto);
• PM Peak Freeway Travel Speed - 45 minutes (Transit);
• PM Peak Non-Freeway Travel Speed;
• Percent of PM Peak Travel in Delay (Freeway); and
• Percent of PM Peak Travel in Delay (Non-Freeway).
Accessibility - Transportation system should ensure the ease with which opportunities are reached. Transportation and land use measures should be employed to ensure minimal time and cost.
• Work Opportunities within 45 minutes door-to-door travel time (Mode Neutral); and
• Average transit access time.
Environment - Transportation system should sustain development and preservation of the existing system and the environment. (All Trips)
• CO, ROC, NOX, PM10, PM2.5 - Meet the applicable SIP Emission Budget and the Transportation Conformity requirements.
Reliability - Transportation system should have reasonable and dependable levels of service by mode. (All Trips)
• Transit - 63%
• Highway - 76%
Safety - Transportation systems should provide minimal accident, death and injury. (All Trips)
• Fatalities Per Million Passenger Miles - 0
• Injury Accidents - 0
Equity/Environmental Justice - The benefits of transportation investments should be equitably distributed among all ethnic, age and income groups. (All trips)
• By Income Groups Share of Net Benefits - Equitable Distribution of Benefits among all Income Quintiles
Cost Effectiveness - Maximize return on transportation investment (All Trips). Air Quality, Mobility, Accessibility, and Safety
• Return on Total Investment - Optimize return on Transportation Investments.
Discussion: Generally, this policy and the associated performance indicators address the investment of public funds on transportation projects. County traffic impacts have been assessed in Section 4.0 of this Program EIR, with mitigation measures proposed to maintain the level of service standard of Riverside County. By maintaining this standard, project incurred traffic congestion and associated delays would be reduced. An air quality impact assessment, including consistency with the regional Air Quality Management Plan, is contained in this Program EIR.
4.02 Transportation investments shall mitigate environmental impacts to an acceptable level.
Discussion: See response above for Policy 4.01.
4.03 Transportation Control Measures shall be a priority.
Discussion: Transportation Control Measures can be found in this Program EIR.
4.16 Maintaining and operating the existing transportation system will be a priority over expanding capacity.
Discussion: See response above for Policy 4.01.
5.5.3 Regional Plan Consistency Conclusions
Regional Comprehensive Plan
The proposed General Plan is consistent with the applicable policies of the Growth Management Chapter, the Core Air Policy Chapter, and the Water Quality Chapter, as well as the Open Space Chapter Ancillary Goals of the Regional Comprehensive Plan.
Regional Transportation Plan
The proposed General Plan is consistent with the applicable policies of the Regional Transportation Plan.
CEQA requires that an EIR include a discussion of reasonable project alternatives that are "capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the proposed project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly" (CEQA Section 15126.6).
The primary goal of the 2002 Riverside County General Plan is to provide residents of the County with a "blueprint" for public and private development. The proposed General Plan will act as the foundation upon which County leaders will make growth and land use-related decisions. The proposed General Plan expresses the community's goals with respect to human-made and natural environments and sets forth the policies and implementation measures to achieve them. The objective of the proposed General Plan is to achieve the Vision Statement of the County residents in conformance with State planning law. The Vision Statement is detailed in Chapter 2 of the proposed General Plan and is provided in Appendix B of the EIR.
The analysis provided in Chapter 4.0 of the EIR determined that loss of prime farmlands, air quality, biological resources, conversion of open space to urban uses resulting in a loss of visual character, transportation, and water supply impacts would remain significant after mitigation. The alternatives analysis discusses how each alternative would avoid, reduce, or exacerbate the environmental effects of the proposed General Plan. It also discusses other, less than significant, impacts.
CEQA also requires that the EIR identify the environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project (CEQA Section 15126.6). If the environmentally superior alternative is determined to be the No Build Alternative, the EIR must also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives, if the analysis indicates that significant impacts can be avoided by one or more alternatives. The More Intense Community Centers Alternative has been determined to be the environmentally superior alternative as evidenced by the analysis provided in Section 6.4 (to follow). Following is a discussion on alternatives to the proposed Riverside County General Plan.
The alternatives included in this section have been selected to represent a range of possible development scenarios. The alternatives have been selected to identify potential impacts that would result from continuation of the policies stated in the current General Plan (No Project Alternative) and from a ban on future development within unincorporated areas of the County (No Build Alternative). "Build" alternatives were identified so that potential impacts resulting from implementation of a General Plan that emphasizes rural residential development (Rural Emphasis Alternative); a more sprawling form of development (Less Intense Community Centers Alternative); and a less sprawling form of development (More Intense Community Centers Alternative). The Density Bonus Alternative was selected to identify potential impacts associated with increasing residential development Community Centers and within the "Community Development" designation without a corresponding increase in commercial and/or industrial development in these areas.
SECTION 6.0 - ALTERNATIVES
6.1 Alternatives Considered But Not Carried Further for Analysis
In determining an appropriate range of alternatives to be evaluated in the EIR, several possible alternatives were initially considered and, for a variety of reasons, some were rejected. Alternatives were rejected because they could not accomplish the basic objectives of the proposed General Plan , would not have resulted in a reduction of potentially significant impacts, or were considered infeasible. The reason for not selecting each of the rejected alternatives is discussed below.
6.1.1 Increase Residential/Decrease Commercial and Industrial Alternative
This alternative of increasing residential and decreasing commercial and industrial development would directly exacerbate the current jobs-housing imbalance within Riverside County. As stated in the Riverside County Housing Element Update, 2001, Riverside County's jobs-to-housing balance was 0.90 jobs per household in 1997. The unincorporated areas of the County show a severe shortage of jobs with only 0.48 jobs per household in the western County and 0.26 jobs per household in the eastern County in 1997. The implementation of this alternative would exacerbate this problem.
The objective of the proposed General Plan is to achieve the Vision Statement. The Vision Statement includes discussion of the inter-relatedness of housing availability and the economic realms of the community, achieving a workable balance in making community decisions, and the provision of gainful employment within a growing and diversified job base. The implementation of this alternative would not accomplish any of these objectives. Because of this and the negative effect on the jobs-to-housing balance this alternative was rejected.
6.1.2 Decrease Residential/Increase Agricultural Alternative
Under this alternative, residential development within the unincorporated Riverside County would be reduced. This reduction in residential development would redistribute land that was intended for residential development, increasing the amount of undeveloped land. It is assumed that portions of land required for residential development would result in the conversion of agricultural land. Therefore, a decrease in residential development would increase the amount of land available for agricultural operations.
In addition to increasing the amount of land available for agricultural uses, the reduction in residential development specified in this alternative would have other implications affecting the County. Aside from the benefits to the agricultural sector such as increasing the amount of available farm land and broadening the distance from residential development alleviating noise, air quality, and odor conflicts, the reduction of residential development under this alternative would reduce the demand and need for additional public services such as schools, fire and police services, water, and energy. Currently, Riverside County is experiencing a shortage of jobs in relation to the amount of available housing. This alterative could potentially improve the jobs-to-housing imbalance. This would be accomplished by decreasing the amount of residential development, as specified under this alternative, but allowing the anticipated level of commercial and industrial/manufacturing development to continue. Restoring the jobs to housing balance translates to a reduction in the amount of outbound commuting traffic, improving air quality and decreasing roadway maintenance.
Although this alternative has many benefits, they do not come without repercussions. A decrease in residential development would result in a housing supply deficit. As population increases within the County, the demand for housing will surpass the available supply, driving up the cost of houses and rent. This could potentially result in a lack of affordable housing. Section 65581 of the Government Code requires cities and counties to identify adequate sites for housing and make adequate provisions for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community. Therefore, this alternative would not meet the requirements of Government Code Section 65581. In addition, the decrease in residential development under this alternative would make it impossible to provide housing for the anticipated population growth within the County. Therefore, this alternative doesn't meet the future housing needs as projected by the Regional Planning Organization (Southern California Association of Governments) Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Nor does this alternative satisfy the Riverside County Housing Element objectives to meet the RHNA and have an available stock of affordable housing for all income groups within the Community. As a result, this alternative was deemed unviable and rejected.
6.1.3 Increase Open Space/Conservation/Habitat Alternative
This alternative would increase the land designated Open Space-Conservation and Open Space-Conservation habitat within the proposed General Plan. It is assumed that the additional land would encompass areas of high biological value (i.e., contiguous to other conserved areas or providing a link between conserved areas). Thus, this alternative would reduce the impacts to biological resources.
However, additional conservation land would come at the expense of other land uses, including agriculture, residential, and community development. A decrease in the amount of land available for agriculture would exacerbate an existing significant unavoidable impact resulting from the loss of farmland. A decrease in residential area would result either in fewer dwelling units, or an increase in higher-density dwelling units. Residential resources provided under the proposed General Plan were developed in close association with housing needs forecasted by SCAG and the RHNA. These forecasts include both the quantity of dwelling units needed and the proportions of different types of housing (i.e., low-cost, high-cost) needed to fulfill the County's obligation to provide its fair share of housing. Finally, a decrease in community development land use would result in fewer jobs, which would not fulfill the proposed General Plan goal of reversing the currently unfavorable jobs-to-housing balance.
As a result, this alternative was rejected as unviable, as it exacerbates an existing impact and does not further the objectives of the proposed General Plan.
6.2 Alternatives Under Consideration
6.2.1 No Build Alternative
With this alternative, the proposed General Plan would not be adopted, and no further building would occur within the unincorporated portions of Riverside County. This prohibition would compel any subsequent development to occur in the incorporated cities of the County, resulting in any incremental growth in population, housing, or employment opportunities to occur in these incorporated cities. The No Build alternative represents a baseline against which the impacts of the proposed General Plan can be measured.
a. Relationship to the Western County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (Western Riverside County MSHCP): No Western Riverside County MSHCP is assumed in this alternative.
b. Relationship to the Coachella Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan:
This plan is not assumed to occur in this alternative.
c. Assumptions Regarding Community Environmental and Transportation Acceptability Program (CETAP) Corridors: No CETAP corridors are assumed in this alternative.
d. Assumed Circulation System: The existing County and Cities General Plan circulation is assumed. However, because no development is assumed in this alternative within unincorporated areas, no future roadway improvements within unincorporated areas are assumed to occur.
e. Development within Cities and their spheres of influence: This alternative assumes that the Cities within Riverside County continue to build out according to their General Plans. Annexations of cities' spheres of influence are not assumed, and no development is assumed to occur within cities' spheres of influence.
The following sections discuss the impacts of the No Build Alternative with respect to each resource area discussed in this Program EIR.
Land Use/Agricultural Resources The No Build Alternative would prohibit any future development within unincorporated areas of the County. By prohibiting development within unincorporated areas of the County, any growth in population, housing or employment opportunities would occur within the jurisdictional boundaries of incorporated cities, subject to each city's General Plan. Table 6.A shows the projected dwelling units, jobs and population of the unincorporated County and incorporated cities under the No Build Alternative.
Under the No Build Alternative there would be no increase in the population in the unincorporated areas of the County, which would be created by new development of structures and facilities anticipated with the proposed General Plan. While increases in population and employment will be restricted within the boundaries of incorporated cities, the existing dwelling units and employment would remain the same as what currently exists in the unincorporated areas of the County.
| Table 6.A - Comparison of Population, Housing, and Employment Projections at Build Out Between the No Build Alternative and Proposed General Plan | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Existing Land Use in Unincorporated County | Build Out of Cities General Plans | No Build Alternative1 | Proposed General Plan | Difference Between No Build and Proposed General Plan2 | |
| Population | 793,941 | 3,316,772 | 4,110,713 | 1,771,299 |
-977,358 |
| Housing | 263,972 | 1,098,404 | 1,362,376 | 591,209 |
-327,237 |
| Jobs | 164,894 | 1,496,897 | 1,661,791 | 685,375 |
-520,481 |
| Jobs-to-Housing Balance | 0.62 | 1.36 | 1.22 | 1.16 |
- |
| 1 The No Build Alternative includes build out of the Cities General Plans within Riverside County plus the existing land uses in the unincorporated areas of Riverside County. 2 Includes a comparison between the No Build Alternative and build out of the proposed General Plan with the addition of the build out of the cities. |
|||||
Agricultural activities would continue as existing in the unincorporated areas of the County. There could possibly the loss of prime, unique and locally important farmlands in the Cities with the implementation of the No Build Alternative.
Housing and Population With the No Build Alternative, development of residential units within unincorporated areas of the County would not be permitted. Population growth within Riverside County would be restricted to that which occurs within incorporated cities, subject to the provisions of each city's General Plan. Because the development of housing, employment opportunities, or a corresponding population increase would not occur, conditions in unincorporated areas of the County would be similar to that which currently exists.
Aesthetics/Visual Resources The No Build Alternative would prohibit any future development within unincorporated areas of Riverside County. By prohibiting development within unincorporated areas of the County, any growth in population, housing, or employment opportunities would occur within the jurisdictional boundaries of incorporated cities, subject to each city's General Plan. Additional light and glare that would be created by more development of structures and facilities would not occur. Light and glare that is created by existing parking lots, landscaped areas, interior building lights, and buildings within the unincorporated County would not change.
With the No Build Alternative, there would be no increase of light and glare impacts, which would be created by new development of structures and facilities. While increases in population and employment would be restricted within the boundaries of incorporated cities, the level of exposure from light and glare within the unincorporated areas would remain the same as currently existing.
Air Quality Short-Term Construction Emissions With the No Build Alternative, no construction emissions would be generated. Consequently, there would be no signifi-cant construction air quality impacts produced with implementation of the No Build Alternative.
Long-Term Regional Emissions With the No Build Alternative, no long-term air emissions from new development in unincorporated Riverside County would be generated. Consequently, there would be no significant long-term regional air quality impacts produced with implementation of the No Build Alternative. Such emissions would remain the same as those currently existing.
Tables 6.B-6.E shows the vehicle miles traveled (VMTs) calculated for the No Build Alternative. Tables 6.B-6.E also shows the estimated quantity in tons/day of the key air pollutants carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic compounds (ROC), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and particulate matter (PM10). The quantity of CO, ROC, NO2, and PM10 emissions for the No Build Alternative exceeds the emissions thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
| Table 6.B - Comparison of the Daily Emissions of the Proposed General Plan No Build Alternative in Western Riverside County |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Build Out Condition | Vehicle Miles Traveled | Western Riverside County Emissions (Tons/Day) |
|||
| CO | ROC | NOX | PM10 | ||
| Cumulative Increase Within Unincorporated Areas Attributable to the Proposed Riverside County General Plan1 | 7,512,358 |
20.49 |
0.40 |
10.21 |
0.17 |
| Exceeds SCAQMD Thresholds? | - | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Build Out of Cities Only2 | 62,016,000 | 186.42 | 5.26 | 71.62 | 1.36 |
| Cumulative Build Out of Cities Plus County3 | 69,528,358 |
206.91 |
5.66 |
81.83 |
1.53 |
| Notes: 1 Includes only unincorporated Western Riverside County without the Cities. 2 Includes both County existing Land Uses and Cities in Western Riverside County based on the Existing Cities General Plans. 3 Includes both County and Cities in Western Riverside County based on the proposed Riverside County and Existing Cities General Plans. Source: Transcore, January 2002 and September 2003. |
|||||
| Table 6.C - Comparison of the Daily Emissions of the Proposed General Plan with the No Build Alternative for the Central Mountains Area | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Build Out Condition | Vehicle Miles Traveled | Central Mountains Area Emissions (Tons/Day) |
|||
| CO | ROC | NOX | PM10 | ||
| Cumulative Increase Within Unincorporated Areas Attributable to the Proposed Riverside County General Plan1 | 845,851 | 0.68 | 0.03 | 0.30 | 0.01 |
| Exceeds SCAQMD Thresholds? | - | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| Existing Land Use2 | 289,675 | 0.16 | 0.01 | 0.07 | 0.28 |
| Projected General Plan Build Out3 | 845,851 | 0.84 | 0.04 | 0.37 | 0.29 |
| Note: 1 Includes unincorporated areas within REMAP. 2 Includes existing land uses, assuming no future development. 3 Includes build out of the proposed General Plan. Source: Transcore, January 2002. |
|||||
| Table 6.D - Comparison of the Daily Emissions of the Proposed General Plan with the No Build Alternative for the Eastern Desert Area | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Build Out Condition | Vehicle Miles Traveled | Eastern Desert Area Emissions (Tons/Day) |
|||
| CO | ROC | NOX | PM10 | ||
| Cumulative Increase Within Unincorporated Areas Attributable to the Proposed Riverside County General Plan1 | 3,964,627 | 18.48 | 0.35 | 4.41 | 0.09 |
| Exceeds SCAQMD Thresholds? | - | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Build Out of Blythe2 | 2,200,436 | 0.04 | 0.19 | 2.54 | 0.05
|
| Cumulative Build Out of Cities Plus County3 | 6,165,063 | 18.52 | 0.54 | 6.95 | 0.14
|
| Note: 1 Includes only unincorporated Eastern Desert areas without the City of Blythe. 2 Includes build out of Blythe with no future development of unincorporated land. 3 Includes County and Blythe based on the proposed County and existing Blythe General Plans. Source: Transcore, January 2002. |
|||||
| Table 6.E - Daily Emissions of the Proposed General Plan for the Coachella Valley Area Compared to Incorporated Cities | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Build Out Condition | Vehicle Miles Traveled | Coachella Valley Emissions (Tons/Day) |
|||
| CO | ROC | NOX | PM10 | ||
| Cumulative Increase Within Unincorporated Areas Attributable to the Proposed Riverside County General Plan1 | 5,522,077 |
7.40 |
0.30 |
4.60 |
0.10 |
| Exceeds SCAQMD Thresholds? | - | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Build Out of Cities Only 2 | 12,811,409 | 34.23 | 0.99 | 14.16 | 0.28
|
| Cumulative Build out of Cities Plus | 18,333,486 |
41.63 |
1.29 |
18.76 |
0.38 |
| Note: 1 Includes only unincorporated Coachella Valley Eastern without the Cities. 2 Includes both County existing Land Uses and Cities in Coachella Valley based on the Existing Cities General Plans. 3 Includes both County and Cities in eastern Riverside County based on the proposed Riverside County and Existing Cities General Plans. Source: Transcore, January 2002 and September 2003. |
|||||
However, the severity of the long-term regional air emissions impact associated with the No Build Alternative would be less than that produced by the proposed General Plan. Table 6.F shows the difference in daily emissions for the No Build Alternative relative to the proposed General Plan. As shown in Table 6.F daily emissions of CO, ROC, NOX, and PM10 would be less than the emissions calculated for the proposed General Plan.
No further commercial or industrial land uses would be built in Riverside County as a result of the No Build Alternative. Although the result is a significant impact related to long-term regional emissions with implementation of the proposed General Plan, imple-
mentation of the No Build Alternative may require that future residents of Riverside County are forced to travel longer distances for employment and commercial services.
| Table 6.F -Difference in Daily Emissions with Proposed General Plan and the No Build Alternative | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Build Out Alternatives | VMT | Difference with Project in Emissions (Tons/Day) | |||
| CO | ROC | NOx | PM10 | ||
| No Build Alternative1 | -5,386,815 |
-47.05 |
-1.08 |
-19.52 -(11.949) | -0.37 |
| Note: 1 Includes County and cities in Riverside County. Source: Transcore, January 2002 and September 2003. | |||||
Biological Resources Because there would be no new development in the unincorporated areas of the County with implementation of the No Build Alternative, no additional impacts would occur with respect to biological resources. There would be no new impacts to existing habitat of candidate, sensitive, or special status species, but there would be no improvement in habitat creation for multiple species. Habitat areas that have been set aside in the past for conservation in Riverside County would continue to function for a limited number of species.
As there would be no additional construction activities in the unincorporated areas of the County with the No Build Alternative, there would be no adverse effects on federally protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. With implementation of the No Build Alternative, there would be no interference with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. The occasional discontinuous native resident migratory wildlife "corridors" that are located within the borders of Riverside County would not be disturbed; however, neither would they be improved.
It should be noted there will continue to be destruction of biologically sensitive habitats in the cities through the implementation of the No Build Alternative. Habitat fragmentation, destruction of wildlife corridors and impacts between the urban/wildlands interface will continue to occur.
Cultural Resources With the implementation of the No Build Alternative, no new Development would occur within unincorporated Riverside County. Therefore, there would be no new disturbance of vacant land or destruction of any cultural resources. Future impacts related to cultural resource would not occur with the No Build Alternative.
Energy The No Build Alternative would prohibit any future development within unincorporated areas of the County. By prohibiting development, any growth in population, housing, or employment opportunities would only occur within the jurisdictional boundaries of incorporated cities. The development of structures and facilities in the unincorporated County would not occur and, thus, there would be no change in the demand for energy.
Flood and Dam Inundation Hazards The No Build Alternative would effectively prohibit any future development within unincorporated areas of Riverside County. By prohibiting development, any growth in population, housing, or employment opportunities would only occur within the jurisdictional boundaries of incorporated cities. With the No Build Alternative all applicable local, State, and federal policies and regulations pertaining to flooding hazards would remain in effect. Within unincorporated areas of the County, the development of structures or facilities that would create impervious surfaces or cause dwelling units to encroach onto flood zones would not occur.
Because with this alternative development would continue within incorporated cities of Riverside County, potential impacts associated with flooding hazards may still occur. The creation of impervious surfaces necessary to accommodate growth within incorporated cities has the potential to effect the volume, velocity, and direction of stormwater runoff and cause flooding in the incorporated cities and unincorporated areas of Riverside County. Even though potential flooding impacts would not be created in the unincorporated County with the No Build Alternative, development to accommodate growth within the incorporated cities could create flooding impacts within the unincorporated area of Riverside County.
Geology and Soils The No Build Alternative would prohibit any future development within unincorporated areas of Riverside County. By prohibiting development within unincorporated areas of the County, any growth in population, housing, or employment opportunities would occur within the jurisdictional boundaries of incorporated cities, subject to each city's General Plan. The development of structures and facilities within areas susceptible to seismic, geologic, or slope hazards would not occur within Riverside County beyond what currently exists. Existing structures and facilities within unincorporated areas of Riverside County would continue to be exposed to seismic, geologic, and/or slope stability hazards at the same level as currently exists, while potential impacts to future development would be reduced (as future development within the unincorporated areas would not occur).
With the No Build Alternative no increase in the number of structures potentially affected by seismic/geologic hazards would occur. While increases in population and employment would be restricted within the boundaries of incorporated cities, additional persons would traverse, utilize, or otherwise be dependent upon structures/facilities (e.g., roadways, bridges, water/power transmission facilities) located within unincorporated Riverside County. Although the level of exposure to physical structures and facilities and the number of persons directly affected would be equal to conditions as they currently exist, the number of persons living or working in incorporated areas that may be indirectly affected may increase beyond levels that currently exist.
Hazardous Materials The No Build Alternative would effectively prohibit any future development within unincorporated areas of Riverside County. By prohibiting development, any growth in population, housing, or employment opportunities would occur only within the jurisdictional boundaries of incorporated cities. Within unincorporated areas of the County the development of structures or facilities that would have the potential to use or generate hazardous waste would not occur.
Because development, with this alternative, would continue within incorporated cities of Riverside County potential impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials may still occur. The movement of hazardous materials throughout Riverside County and between the cities would grow. The rail and highway transportation routes of Riverside County would carry the increased load of hazardous materials, which would result in an increasing potential for hazardous material incidents. The accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment could have serious consequences on the environment, property and human health, depending on the size and location of the release.
Mineral Resources With the No Build Alternative, existing mineral resource extraction operations within unincorporated Riverside County would continue. No new mineral resource extraction permits would be granted or renewed, nor would new mineral extraction sites or operations be authorized. Because no new development would occur within unincorporated areas of the County, no further impacts related to urban encroachment on mineral resources extraction zones or land use compatibility would occur. The No Build Alternative would, however, result in the loss of available known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State. The No Build Alternative would limit the extraction of mineral resources, eliminating the possibility of their future use.
Noise The following discusses short-term construction and long-term vehicular traffic, stationary sources, and railroad noise impacts.
Short-Term Construction Noise Impacts With the No Build Alternative there would be no short-term construction noise impacts, because there would be no additional construction allowed in the unincorporated areas of Riverside County.
Long-term Vehicular Traffic Noise Impacts There would be different VMTs with the No Build Alternative and the proposed General Plan. Although the vehicle travel may not be evenly distributed throughout Riverside County, it is assumed that more VMTs represent more vehicles on the roads. Therefore, the No Build Alternative with fewer VMTs than the proposed General Plan would potentially result in less traffic noise levels along the roads.
Long-term Stationary Sources Noise Impacts The County's noise control ordinance requirements would need to be complied with for all existing industrial and commercial uses in Riverside County as a result of the No Build Alternative. Therefore, implementation of the No Build Alternative would not result in any significant long-term stationary sources noise impacts.
Long-term Railroad Noise Impacts The existing sensitive land uses in close proximity to railroad tracks would continue to be exposed to railroad noise. There is the potential that railroad traffic may increase in the future, which would continue to expose existing sensitive land uses to increases in railroad generated noise. The No Build Alternative would not result in any long-term railroad noise impacts.
Parks and Recreation The No Build Alternative would eliminate all population growth within the unincorporated areas of Riverside County by prohibiting new development. Therefore, there would be no future impacts to existing parks and recreation facilities and/or services, nor would there be future demands for additional facilities and/or services. Populating growth and new development would continue within the cities of Riverside County requiring those cities to provide additional parks and recreational facilities. Future impacts on existing parks and recreation facilities and/or services within unincorporated Riverside County would not occur with the No Build Alternative.
Public Services The public services section of this Program EIR includes fire protection, sheriff protection, solid waste management, wastewater, schools, libraries, and medical facilities. The No Build Alternative would prohibit any future development within unincorporated areas of Riverside County. By prohibiting development, any growth in population, housing, or employment opportunities would only occur within the jurisdictional boundaries of incorporated cities. The development of structures and facilities in the unincorporated County would not occur and, therefore, there would be no change in the demand for Public Services.
Transportation and Circulation According to the Traffic Analysis provided in Appendix B, the No-Build Alternative represents a situation assumed to have no additional development in the unincorporated areas, and no additional roadway building in those areas as well. Under this alternative, the vast majority of roadways show increases in traffic impacts which would be expected with the growth in the incorporated areas between the existing condition and build out. In the proposed General Plan, there are decreases in traffic volumes along SR-60 and SR-91, largely due to the benefits of the CETAP corridors and to the fact that they traverse mainly city areas (Riverside and Moreno Valley).
Roadways such as the Ramona Expressway, SR-74 west of Hemet, and SR-79 show substantial decreases in volume/capacity ratio. In the proposed General Plan, this is partly due to the CETAP corridors and partly due to the fact that arterial roadways in the unincorporated areas are assumed not to be improved in the No-Build Alternative. The freeways are still assumed to be improved, but their improvement may not be feasible without the anticipated growth in the unincorporated areas. If this were to occur, the freeway V/C ratios could be worse for the No-Build Alternative than for the proposed General Plan.
Build out of the proposed General Plan will produce only slightly more traffic and marginally lower levels of service along the SR-91 and SR-60 commute routes than would occur if no future development ever occurred within unincorporated areas. The traffic analysis shows that the net effect of build out of unincorporated areas under the proposed General Plan is to add only approximately 7,200 westbound daily trips and 6,900 daily eastbound trips to the SR-91 freeway. Therefore, the County's relative contribution to future traffic increases along the SR-91 freeway is minor. This is due to the achievement of a balance between jobs and housing, which will tend to internalize future traffic increases resulting from unincorporated development within the County.
In the Coachella Valley virtually all of the roadways show increases. This condition would be expected with the growth in the unincorporated areas between the existing condition and build out. Roadways in the cities tend to increase in their V/C ratios with the proposed General Plan. Certain roadways in the County tend to decrease in their V/C ratios in the proposed General Plan because the increase in capacity with the General Plan is greater than the increase in traffic attributable to development in the County. Some roadways in the County show an increase in V/C ratio compared to the No-Build scenario. This is due to the fact that roadways in the unincorporated areas are assumed not to be improved in the No-Build Alternative, and growth with the proposed General Plan increases to a greater extent than the additional capacity provided on the roadway system.
Water Resources The No Build Alternative would disallow future development within unincorporated areas of Riverside County. By prohibiting development within unincorporated areas of the County, any growth in population, housing, or employment opportunities would occur within the jurisdictional boundaries of incorporated cities, as envisioned by each city's General Plan. With the No Build Alternative, all applicable local, State, and federal policies and regulations pertaining to surface water and groundwater resources would remain in effect. Because no development would occur within unincorporated areas of Riverside County with this alternative, the alteration or hydrologic interruption of surface waters located within unincorporated Riverside County would not occur.
Increases in population and employment opportunities within incorporated areas of Riverside County would increase the demand for water. As surface water and groundwater resources do not respect jurisdictional boundaries, even growth confined to existing city boundaries would have potential impacts to surface water and groundwater resources located within unincorporated areas of Riverside County. Development of structures, facilities, and paved surfaces necessary to accommodate growth within incorporated cities, could effect the volume, velocity, direction, or quality of undisturbed and downstream waterways located in unincorporated areas. Furthermore, the intensified utilization of groundwater and/or increase in wastewater treatment capacity within incorporated areas could affect groundwater basins in unincorporated areas of Riverside County. Although potential impacts to water resources would not occur from development within unincorporated Riverside County, development to accommodate growth within the County's 24 municipalities could affect surface water and groundwater resources in unincorporated Riverside County.
Summary/Conclusion of the No Build Alternative
Because the No Build Alternative would prohibit the construction or expansion of structures and facilities throughout unincorporated areas of the County, alterations to the topography, natural habitats, agricultural lands, or the existing visual characteristic of unincorporated Riverside County would not occur. The extent and distribution of land uses would remain as it currently exists; therefore, potential land use compatibility impacts would be no greater than those which currently exist. This alternative would prevent future development in potential hazard areas (e.g., geologic and flood hazard areas) and would limit the expanded siting of uses utilizing hazardous materials within unincorporated areas of the County. Because no increase in the amount or extent of development would occur, as compared to the Proposed General Plan, the No Build Alternative would reduce impacts related to biological resources, agricultural lands, and the visual character of the County would be reduced. A prohibition on future development would reduce future air pollutant emissions and noise generating sources, reducing impacts associated with these issues from what would occur with implementation of the proposed General Plan.
Because no new mining operations would be permitted, the No Build Alterative would limit the availability of mineral resources that may be recovered at new mining sites. Since development would not be permitted in unincorporated areas of the County, residents and workers may be forced to travel further for employment and commercial service. Improvements in the County's jobs-to-housing balance that would occur with the proposed General Plan would not occur if the No Build Alternative was implemented. Development within cities would have to potential to significantly disrupt the hydrologic processes in unincorporated areas of the County. No improvements to County, public, or private facilities, including roadways, flood control features, public safety and service facilities, or utility systems would be permitted.
Under the No Build Alternative, any future development and accompanying growth would be restricted to incorporated cities. The increased population of these cities will continue to utilize County roadways, withdraw water from the same groundwater basins, and recreate on County lands. Because the construction or expansion of facilities is not allowed, existing facilities may not be sufficiently sized to accommodate increased usage.
While the No Build Alternative would certainly reduce the significant impacts associated with a number of environmental issues, implementation of this alternative would force unincorporated areas of the County to bear, without the possibility of implementing remedies, a number of impacts associated with future growth occurring in incorporated areas.
6.2.2 No Project Alternative
This alternative assumes that the proposed General Plan would not be adopted by Riverside County, and the existing General Plan, Specific Plans, and Community Plans would remain in place.
a. Relationship to the Western Riverside County MSHCP: No Western Riverside County MSHCP is assumed in this alternative.
b. Relationship to the Coachella Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan:
This plan is not assumed to occur in this alternative.
c. Assumptions Regarding CETAP Corridors: No CETAP corridors are assumed in this alternative.
d. Assumed Circulation System: Build out of the existing General Plan circulation map is assumed.
e. Development within Cities and their spheres of influence: This alternative assumes that Cities would build out according to their General Plans. No annexations of Cities' spheres of influence are assumed. As a result, spheres of influence would be built out based on the existing County General Plan.
The following section discuss the impacts of the No Project Alternative with respect to each resource area discussed in this Program EIR.
Land Use/Agricultural Resources Under the No Project Alternative, development would occur throughout unincorporated Riverside County as permitted by the existing General Plan. As shown in Table 6.D under the existing General Plan 640,066 dwelling units would be constructed and 630,228 jobs are projected. Under the No Project Alternative there would be an increase in population of approximately a quarter of a million people, an increase in housing by 82,217 units and a decrease of 120,584 jobs. While it is difficult to anticipate where future population increases and/or development will occur, under this alternative, potential impacts related to development that would affect County residents will be similar to that associated with the proposed General Plan. Implementation of the No Project alternative would be increase dwelling units and population and decrease jobs in comparison with the proposed General Plan. This alternative would continue to exacerbate the jobs to housing imbalance in Riverside County as shown in Table 6.D.
The No Project Alternative would allow the continued agricultural production on 212,000 acres of currently designated agricultural lands in the unincorporated County. The proposed General Plan would reduce the number of acres available for agriculture.
Housing and Population Table 6.G details the population, housing and employment projections that would occur with the existing General Plan and upon build out of proposed General Plan.
| Table 6.G - Comparison of Population, Housing, and Employment Projections at Build Out Between the No Project Alternative and Proposed General Plan | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Existing General Plan | Proposed General Plan | Difference Between Existing and Proposed General Plan | |
| Population | 1,933,086 | 1,771,299 |
-161,787 |
| Housing | 640,066 | 591,209 |
-48,857 |
| Employment | 630,228 | 7 685,375 |
+55,147 |
| Jobs-Housing Balance | 0.98 | 1.16 |
- |
As this alternative would not alter the pattern or intensity of development from that which currently exists, development of housing and/or employment opportunities with this alternative would be identical to that occurring with the existing General Plan. Similarly, the population increase resulting from this level of development would be similar to that which would occur throughout Riverside County with the existing General Plan.
With this alternative, the population and number of residential units within unincorporated portions of Riverside County would be greater than that resulting from build out of the proposed General Plan. The number of jobs would be less than that associated with the proposed General. The reduced number of jobs, combined with a greater population, results in a lower jobs-to-housing balance.
Aesthetics/Visual Resources With the No Project Alternative, development would occur throughout unincorporated Riverside County as permitted by the existing General Plan and subject to applicable design regulations. With this alternative, there would be no increase in light and glare impacts associated with development of structures and facilities beyond what is currently identified in the existing General Plan. While it is difficult to anticipate where future population increases and/or development would occur, with this alternative, potential impacts related to light and glare that would affect County residents would be similar to that associated with the existing General Plan.
Air Quality Short-term Construction Emissions As is the case for the proposed General Plan, there have been no calculations to determine the quantity of short-term construction pollutant emissions for the No Project Alternative that would result from development of properties in unincorporated Western Riverside County in accordance with their current General Plan land use designations. It is not feasible to quantify such pollutant emissions, because detailed construction information is not available as part of this planning process. However, it is likely that development of land with this alternative would generate construction emissions that would exceed the emissions thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). This would result in a significant impact related to short-term construction emissions, which would be the same as identified with implementation of the proposed General Plan. The severity of this impact would be similar to that produced by the proposed General Plan.
Long-term Regional Emissions With the No Project Alternative, long-term air emission impacts would be produced based on increased VMTs associated with development of properties in unincorporated Western Riverside County in accordance with their current General Plan land use designations. Table 6.H shows the VMT calculated for the No Project Alternative. Table 6.H also shows the estimated quantity in tons/day of the key air pollutants CO, ROC, NO2, and PM10. The quantity of CO, ROC, NO2, and PM10 emissions for the No Project Alternative would exceed the emissions thresholds established by the SCAQMD. This would result in a significant impact related to long-term regional emissions, which would be the same as those identified with implementation of the proposed General Plan.
| Table 6.H - Comparison of Daily Emissions of the Proposed General Plan to the Existing General Plan for Western Riverside County | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Build Out Alternatives | VMT | Western Riverside County Emissions (Tons/Day) | |||
| CO | ROC | NOx | PM10 | ||
| Proposed General Plan1 | 94,872,758 |
267.90 |
7.53 |
107.91 |
2.34 |
| No Project Alternative | 78,434,000 | 233.49 | 6.89 | 87.11 | 1.73 |
| Note: 1 Includes County and cities in Riverside County. Source: Transcore, January 2002 and September 2003. | |||||
However, the severity of the long-term regional air emissions impact associated with the No Project Alternative would be greater than that produced by the proposed General Plan. Table 6.I shows the difference in daily emissions for the No Project Alternative (Existing General Plan) relative to the proposed General Plan. As shown in Table 6.F daily emissions of CO, ROC, NOX, and PM10 would be greater than the emissions calculated for the proposed General Plan.
| Table 6.I - Difference in Daily Emissions with Proposed General Plan and the No Project Alternative | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Build Out Alternatives | VMT | Difference with Project in Emissions (Tons/Day) | |||
| CO | ROC | NOx | PM10 | ||
| No Project Alternative | 16,438,758 |
34.41 |
0.64 |
20.80 |
0.61 |
| Notes: 1 Includes County and cities in Riverside County. Source: Transcore, January 2002 and September 2003. |
|||||
Biological Resources It is presumed that all natural habitat within Agriculture, Rural, and Community Development areas within the unincorporated areas of the County and within the cities would be impacted (i.e., removed or degraded to such an extent as to be of no biological value). It is also presumed that all natural vegetation within Open Space areas would be retained. Conservation areas that have been established in numerous areas around the eastern and western county and are managed by a variety of entities for a wide range of conservation purposes will continue to operate in the absence of an approved MSHCP.
Construction of the No Project Alternative land uses will result in loss of or disturbance to natural habitats. Thus, construction of proposed land uses that would result in the loss or disturbance of natural habitats may result in the direct mortality of listed, proposed, or candidate species or may result in the loss of habitat occupied by such species, fragment habitat and wildlife corridors. There would continue to be wildlife/urban interface impacts from domestic animals invading wildlife habitats and killing birds and other small mammals; the destruction of wildlife habitat for fire breaks and fire management zones around residential units; and an increase potential for wildlife and human contact
(i.e. poisonous snakes, mountain lion and coyote kills of domestic animals).
During subsequent project-level environmental analysis and review of individual development projects through implementation of the existing General Plans, compliance with applicable regulations may require coordination with resource agencies (e.g., USFWS, CDFG, or Corps) to determine specific mitigation for impacts to waters of the U.S. (including wetlands), riparian habitats, and state and federally listed species. Resource agency permits for project-level approvals may require mitigation measures in addition to those outlined in existing General Plans.
To determine if the impact is significant, at the level of site-specific projects that are proposed in accordance with the General Plan land uses will require analysis as part of the subsequent evaluation of such projects. The potential for such impacts to be considered significant will depend upon various factors including, but not limited to, the site conditions at the time of project evaluation, the extent of the area potentially affected, and the value of the affected habitat at local and regional scales.
Cultural Resources With the implementation of the No Project Alternative, new development consistent with the existing General Plan would occur within unincorporated areas of Riverside County. This future development would require the disturbance of vacant land potentially containing cultural resources. The future impacts related to cultural resources that would potentially occur with the No Project Alternative would be identical to those associated with the build out of the existing County General Plan.
Energy With the No Project Alternative, development would occur throughout unincorporated Riverside County as permitted by the existing General Plan. Because the amount, extent, and distribution of development permitted with this alternative would be identical to that allowed by the existing General Plan, potential energy service and facility impacts would be equivalent to that which would occur with the existing General Plan. While it is difficult to anticipate where future development would occur, with this alternative, potential impacts to energy services and facilities would be similar to that associated with the existing General Plan.
Flood and Dam Inundation Hazards With the No Project alternative, development would occur throughout unincorporated Riverside County as permitted by the existing General Plan. Because the amount, extent, and distribution of development permitted with this alternative would be identical to that allowed by the existing General Plan, potential impacts associated with flooding hazards would also be identical. Future development within unincorporated Riverside County would accommodate population growth that would occur as a result of build out of the existing General Plan. While it is difficult to anticipate where future population increases and/or development would occur, with this alternative, potential impacts to flooding hazards would be similar to that associated with the existing General Plan.
Geology and Soils With the No Project Alternative, development would occur throughout unincorporated Riverside County as permitted by the existing General Plan. Because the amount, extent, and distribution of development permitted with this alternative would be identical to that allowed by the existing General Plan, potential seismic, geologic, or slope stability impacts would be equivalent to that which would occur with the existing General Plan. Future development within unincorporated Riverside County would accommodate population growth that would occur as a result of build out of the existing General Plan. While it is difficult to anticipate where future population increases and/or development would occur, with this alternative, potential impacts related to the safety of County residents would be similar to that associated with the existing General Plan.
Hazardous Materials With the No Project Alternative, development would occur throughout unincorporated Riverside County as permitted by the existing General Plan. Because the amount, extent, and distribution of development permitted with this alternative would be identical to that allowed by the existing General Plan, potential hazardous material impacts would be equivalent to that occurring with the existing General Plan. Future development within unincorporated Riverside County would accommodate growth that would occur as a result of build out of the existing General Plan. While it is difficult to anticipate where future development would occur, with this alternative, potential impacts to hazardous materials and facilities would be similar to that associated with the existing General Plan.
Mineral Resources With the No Project Alternative, mineral resource extraction operations within unincorporated Riverside County would continue as permitted in the existing General Plan. Mineral resource extraction permits would be granted and/or re-newed. Future mineral extraction sites and operations would be authorized contingent upon land use and zoning specified in the existing Riverside County General Plan. Although precise locations of future mineral extraction sites and operations are undetermined, potential impacts associated with mineral resources and their extraction would be similar to that associated with the existing General Plan.
Noise Short-Term Construction Noise Impacts With the No Project Alternative there would be similar short-term construction noise impacts to the proposed General Plan, because there would be additional construction allowed in the unincorporated areas of Riverside County. The construction contractor for each individual project site would have to comply with the County's noise control ordinance requirements. The No Project Alternative would not result in significant construction noise impacts.
Long-term Vehicular Traffic Noise Impacts There would be different VMTs with the No Project Alternative and the proposed General Plan. Although the VMTs may not be evenly distributed throughout Riverside County, it is assumed that more VMTs represent more vehicles on the roads. Therefore, the No Project Alternative, as it has more VMTs than the proposed General Plan, would potentially result in greater traffic noise levels along the roads.
Long-term Stationary Sources Noise Impacts Riverside County's noise control ordinance requirements would need to be complied with for proposed industrial and commercial uses in the County as a result of the No Project Alternative. Therefore, implementation of the No Project Alternative would not result in any significant long-term stationary sources noise impacts.
Long-term Railroad Noise Impacts Sensitive land uses that are located near railroad tracks with the No Project Alternative (Existing General Plan) would continue to be exposed to railroad noise. There is the potential that railroad traffic may increase in the future, which would continue to expose sensitive land uses to increases in railroad generated noise. Riverside County's noise standards in its existing Noise Element of the General Plan would need to be complied with by all new noise sensitive uses adjacent to railroad tracks. The No Project Alternative would not result in any long-term railroad noise impacts.
Parks and Recreation The No Project Alternative would allow the build out of the existing County General Plan. This Alternative would facilitate new development within the unincorporated areas of Riverside County to accommodate population growth associated with the build out of the existing General Plan. This new development and increased population within Riverside County would continue to put greater demands upon parks, recreational facilities, and availability of future recreational sites. Additional parks and recreational facilities would need to be provided in the future to maintain valuable buffers between built-up urban spaces. Although it is difficult to determine the amount, extent, and distribution of future development with this alternative, impacts to parks and recreation would be identical to that which would occur with the existing General Plan.
Public Services The public services section of this EIR includes fire protection, sheriff protection, solid waste management, wastewater, schools, libraries, and medical facilities. With the No Project alternative, development would occur throughout unincorporated Riverside County as permitted by the existing General Plan. Because the amount, extent, and distribution of development permitted with this alternative would be identical to that allowed by the existing General Plan, potential impacts associated with public services would also be identical. Future development within unincorporated Riverside County would accommodate population growth that would occur as a result of build out of the existing General Plan. While it is difficult to anticipate where future population increases and/or development would occur, with this alternative, potential impacts to public services would be similar to that associated with the existing General Plan.
Transportation and Circulation According to the Traffic Analysis provided in Appendix B, the vast majority of all other roadways indicate less traffic volumes with the proposed General Plan in relation of the No Project Alternative (existing General Plan) (see Table 6.J). The lessened traffic volume is not just attributable to the CETAP corridors, but also to a general reduction in dwelling units from that projected in the proposed General Plan. The comparison shows that there is increased traffic volumes in the Eastvale area (west of I-15 between SR-91 and SR-60). There is also an increase in traffic volumes between the proposed General Plan and existing General Plan for the area generally north of Scott Road, south of SR-74 east of I-215, and west of SR-79.
Overall, the volume/capacity ratios are improved for most facilities with the proposed General Plan. CETAP facilities that represent new alignments show more traffic volume/capacity ratio, because the V/C ratio is now more than zero.
| Table 6.J -Area-Wide Travel Statistics for the Proposed General Plan, No Build, and No Project Alternatives |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VMT | VHT | Average Speed (mph) |
||
| Western Riverside County | ||||
| Proposed General Plan | 67,172,968 |
1,575,701 |
42.6 |
|
| Cumulative Future w/o Project | 59,660,609 |
1,496,113 |
39.9 | |
| Change as a result of Project | 7,512,358 |
79,588 |
+2.7 |
|
| Coachella Valley | ||||
| Proposed General Plan | 19,610,880 |
463,480 |
42.3 |
|
| Cumulative Future w/o Project | 14,088,803 |
346,830 |
40.6 |
|
| Change as a result of Project | 5,522,077 |
116,650 |
-1.7 |
|
| Notes: VMT - Vehicle Miles Traveled VHT - Vehicle Hours Traveled |
||||
In the western portion of the County, the proposed General Plan will produce less traffic and better levels of service on each of the primary out-of-county commute routes (SR-91, SR-60, I-15, I-215, I-10). Improvements in traffic at build out along commute routes leading into San Bernardino County occur largely as the result of the planned development of a new transportation corridor linking the SR-60/I-215 interchange to the I-10 in San Bernardino County. Improvements in traffic at build out along the westerly commute routes (SR-91 and SR-60) are the result a reduction in overall build out intensity in the proposed General Plan as compared to the existing General Plan and the improved jobs-housing balance afforded in the proposed General Plan.
Virtually all the roadways show less traffic volume in Coachella Valley with the proposed General Plan in comparison to the No Project Alternative (existing General Plan). This can be generally attributed to the reduced densities in the proposed General Plan as compared to the existing General Plan, particularly in the areas to the north of I-10. The proposed General Plan reduces future traffic volumes not only on County roadways, but on a number of city roadways as well.
Water Resources With the No Project alternative, development would occur throughout unincorporated Riverside County as permitted by the existing General Plan. Because the amount, extent, and distribution of development permitted with this alternative would be identical to that allowed by the existing General Plan, potential impacts to surface water and groundwater resources, hydrologic features, and water quality would also be identical. Future development within unincorporated Riverside County would accommodate population growth that would occur as a result of build out of the existing General Plan. While it is difficult to anticipate where future population increases and/or development would occur, with this alternative, potential impacts to water resources would be similar to that associated with the existing General Plan.
Summary/Conclusion of the No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative assumes that development would occur as established in the existing General Plan, Specific Plans, and Community Plans. Housing, population, and job increases would occur as planned in the existing General Plan, in proportions which, unlike the proposed General Plan, would have the potential to exacerbate the jobs to housing imbalance in Riverside County. Potential impacts related to light and glare would be similar to those associated with the proposed General Plan.
Air emissions impacts under the No Project Alternative for both short-term construction emissions and long term regional emissions are assumed to be likely to exceed the emissions thresholds established by the Air Quality Management Districts, resulting in significant impacts. The severity of the short-term construction emissions impact is anticipated to be similar to the proposed General Plan; the severity of the long-term regional emissions impact is anticipated to be greater under this alternative than under the proposed General Plan since the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) under the No Project Alternative will be greater than generated by the proposed General Plan.
Since development under the No Project Alternative would continue as outlined in the existing General Plan, impacts to cultural resources, energy, flood hazards, geology and soils, hazardous materials, and mineral resources are anticipated to be similar to those associated with the existing General Plan. Short-term construction noise impacts would be similar under this alternative as under the proposed General Plan. However, as construction contractors for each project would have to comply with the County's noise control ordinance requirements, no significant construction noise impacts would occur. Long-term vehicular traffic noise impacts would be greater under the No Project Alternative than those under the proposed General Plan due to the greater number of VMTs. Long-term stationary sources and long-term railroad noise impacts would not occur under the No Project Alternative, as all new development would be required to comply with existing noise standards.
The No Project Alternative would allow the build out of the existing County General Plan, which includes parks and recreation facilities and increased public services. Impacts to parks and recreation and to public services would be identical to those under the existing General Plan. Impacts to surface water and groundwater resources as well as hydrologic features and water quality under the No Project Alternative would also be identical to those under the existing General Plan.
The No Project Alternative would not result in any appreciable reduction in impacts compared to the proposed General Plan. In addition, it would result in increased impacts relating to the jobs and housing balance, long-term regional air emissions, long-term vehicular noise, and transportation compared to the proposed General Plan.
6.2.3 Rural Emphasis Alternative
This alternative assumes that the County would adopt a General Plan that would, to the extent feasible, eliminate future urban development within unincorporated areas. Except for existing approved Specific Plans, tract maps, and commercial/industrial site plans, unincorporated areas would be planned for and built out with rural residential (1 dwelling unit per 5-20 acres), agriculture, and open space uses.
a. Relationship to the Western Riverside County MSHCP: Adoption of a smaller MSHCP, providing only for the conservation of protected species, is assumed under this alternative. As a consequence, the redistribution of development from conservation areas would change the location of development, but not result in an overall increase in residential build out within western Riverside County.
b. Relationship to the Coachella Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan:
This plan is not assumed to occur in this alternative.
c. Assumptions Regarding CETAP Corridors: No CETAP corridors are assumed in this alternative.
d. Assumed Circulation System: With the exception of roadways that would be inconsistent with the Western Riverside County MSHCP, build out of the existing General Plan circulation map is assumed.
e. Development within Cities and their spheres of influence: Because urban development would be directed toward cities under this alternative, annexation of each city's sphere of influence is assumed. This alternative assumes that Cities would build out according to the existing General Plan of each city.
The following section discuss the impacts of the Rural Emphasis Alternative with respect to each resource area discussed in this Program EIR.
Land Use/Agricultural Resources Except for existing approved Specific Plans, tract maps, and commercial/industrial site plans, unincorporated areas would be planned for and built out with rural residential, agriculture, and open space uses. Under this alternative, the amount, extent, and distribution of development would be reduced from that which would occur from implementation of the proposed General Plan. Buildout of unincorporated County areas with similar uses would generally preclude the development and occupation of sensitive uses in close proximity to uses that produce noise, hazardous material, air quality, odor impacts, or transportation impacts. Implementation of this alternative would reduce potential land-use incompatibility by limiting the siting of incompatible uses adjacent to or near one another. While nuisance impacts associated with rural land uses (e.g., noise, dust, odors) may continue to occur, the homogenous nature of rural uses and their broad dispersal pattern, when compared to the proposed General Plan, combines to reduce the significance of such impacts.
The development that would occur under this alternative would be restricted to land uses permitted under the following land use designations: Agriculture (#0.1 du/acre), Rural Residential (#0.2 du/acre), Rural Mountainous (#0.1 du/acre), Rural Desert (#0.1 du/acre), and Open Space-Rural (#0.05 du/acre). Minimum lot sizes under this alternative would encompass 5 acres for the Rural Residential designation; 10 acres for the Agriculture, Rural Mountainous, and Rural Desert designation; and 20 acres for the Open-Space Rural designation. Under this alternative, population growth would be limited (and substantially reduced from that forecast in the proposed General Plan) to that which would occur with development of rural residential uses. Growth in population, housing, or employment opportunities would occur within the jurisdictional boundaries of incorporated cities, subject to each city's General Plan. The prohibition against higher density residential, commercial and industrial development within unincorporated areas would result in a loss of housing and employment opportunities; diminish the number, location, and variety of retail, entertainment, and public service outlets; and would hinder the logical and cost-effective extension and/or installation of utility infrastructure. The lack of commercial and employment opportunities in close proximity to rural residential uses would necessitate rural County residents to increase the distance and time required for their commutes.
Under this alternative, agricultural uses would continue throughout the County. The conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses would be halted or substantially limited. As compared to the proposed General Plan, the amount of Prime, Unique, or Statewide important farmland within unincorporated areas would exceed that identified in the proposed Plan.
Housing and Population Under the Rural Emphasis Alternative, future urban development would not continue, except for existing approved Specific Plans, tract maps, and commercial/industrial site plans. Unincorporated areas would be built out with rural residential, agricultural, and open space uses. As a consequence, the redistribution of structures would change the location and density of development. This will result in an overall decrease in residential build out within Riverside County. Because urban development would be directed toward cities in this alternative, annexation of each city's sphere of influence would be assumed.
Under the Rural Emphasis Alternative all of the high density housing constructed in the future would have to be located within the cities. All future development within the unincorporated County would be designated as low density (1 unit per 5-20 acres). Because the unincorporated County would only continue to build rural residential housing, the County may not be able to meet and/or maintain State requirements for housing needs such as the following:
"... Local and State governments have a responsibility to use the powers vested in them to facilitate the improvement and development of housing to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community." (Section 65580, State of California Government Code.)
Specifically, with less high density housing there may be insufficient affordable housing within the unincorporated County to meet the housing needs of the very low and low income households. Consequently, the cities may be overburdened with the need to provide low income housing. As a result, the cities may become "Impacted Communities" according to SCAG, meaning that the cities provide more than their "fair share" housing for lower-income households.
In addition, the implementation of the Rural Emphasis Alternative would worsen the jobs-to-housing imbalance in the County. Under this alternative, employment centers in the future would be developed within the cities and not within the unincorporated County. The unincorporated County would have a large number of residential units and limited employment opportunities. A large number of residents that reside in the unincorporated County would travel to the cities daily to work. One of the objectives for the proposed Riverside County General Plan is to provide an improved jobs-to-housing balance. This alternative would conflict with this objective. Overall, potential impacts related to population and housing would be greater under the Rural Emphasis Alternative than those associated with the proposed General Plan.
Aesthetics/Visual Resources The Rural Emphasis Alternative would allow the development of rural residential development and agricultural uses within unincorporated areas of Riverside County. Impacts relating to the conversion of open space to urban land uses would be less under this alternative than under the proposed General Plan. By prohibiting development of commercial, high density and industrial development within the unincorporated areas of the County, those land uses would be forced to develop in the cities. Development within the cities would be subject to each city's General Plan and regulations regarding design. Additional light and glare that would be created by more intense development of structures and facilities within the unincorporated County would not occur. Light and glare that is created by existing parking lots, landscaped areas, interior building lights, recreational facilities, and buildings within the unincorporated County would not change.
With the Rural Emphasis Alternative, there would be an increase of light and glare impacts, which would be created by new development of agricultural and residential structures and facilities. The level of light and glare impacts would be less than that which would be created by land uses built through implementation of the proposed General Plan.
Air Quality Short-term Construction Emissions Because rural and agricultural development is less intense than urban development, the overall amount of construction that would occur under this alternative would be less than under the proposed General Plan.
However, it is likely that development of land with this alternative would generate construction emissions that would exceed the emissions thresholds established by the Air Quality Management Districts. This would result in a significant impact related to short-term construction emissions, which would be the same as identified with implementation of the proposed General Plan. The severity of this impact would be less than that produced by the proposed General Plan.
Long-term Regional Emissions With the Rural Emphasis Alternative, long-term air emission impacts would be produced based on increased VMTs associated with development of properties in unincorporated Riverside County as rural or agricultural areas. Since no regional transportation facilities would be constructed under the Rural Emphasis Alternative, it is assumed that the traffic conditions would be more congested, and that public transit would not be improved. Thus, it is anticipated that, as under the proposed General Plan, the quantity of CO, ROC, NO2, and PM10 emissions for the Rural Emphasis Alternative would exceed the emissions thresholds established by the Air Quality Management District. This would result in a significant impact related to long-term regional emissions, which would be similar to those identified with implementation of the proposed General Plan. However, the severity of the long-term regional air emissions impact associated with the Rural Emphasis Alternative would be less than that produced by the proposed General Plan.
Biological Resources It is presumed that all natural habitat within agriculture and rural residential areas within the unincorporated areas of the County would be impacted (i.e., removed or degraded to such an extent as to be of no biological value). It is also presumed that all natural vegetation within open space areas would be retained. Conservation areas that have been established in numerous areas around the eastern and western county and are managed by a variety of entities for a wide range of conservation purposes will continue to operate in the absence of an approved MSHCP for both Coachella Valley and Western Riverside County.
Construction of the rural residential and agricultural land uses will result in loss of or disturbance to natural habitats. Therefore, construction of proposed land uses that would result in the loss or disturbance of natural habitats may result in the direct mortality of listed, proposed, or candidate species or may result in the loss of habitat occupied by such species, fragment habitat and wildlife corridors. There would continue to be wildlife/urban interface impacts from domestic animals invading wildlife habitats and killing birds and other small mammals; the destruction of wildlife habitat for fire breaks and fire management zones around residential units; and an increased potential for wildlife and human contact (i.e. poisonous snakes, mountain lion and coyote kills of domestic animals).
During subsequent project-level environmental analysis and review of individual development projects, compliance with applicable regulations may require coordination with resource agencies (e.g., USFWS, CDFG, or Corps) to determine specific mitigation for impacts to waters of the U.S. (including wetlands), riparian habitats, and state and federally listed species. Resource agency permits for project-level approvals may require mitigation measures in addition to those outlined in the existing General Plan.
To determine if the impact is significant, at the level of site-specific projects that are proposed in accordance with the General Plan will require analysis as part of the subsequent evaluation of such projects. The potential for such impacts to be considered significant will depend upon various factors including, but not limited to, the site conditions at the time of project evaluation, the extent of the area potentially affected, and the value of the affected habitat at local and regional scales.
Cultural Resources With the implementation of the Rural Emphasis Alternative, new development will occur within unincorporated areas of Riverside County. This future development would require the disturbance of vacant land potentially containing cultural resources. However, the area of physical disturbance of vacant land would be less under this alternative than the proposed General Plan. The future impacts related to cultural resources that would potentially occur with this alternative would be similar to those associated with the build out of the proposed County General Plan.
Energy The unincorporated areas within the County would be planned and built out with rural residential, agriculture and open space uses. Under this alternative, development intensity within the unincorporated areas of the County would be dramatically reduced in comparison to the proposed General Plan. This alternative proposes one residential unit per 5-20 acres. The amount of energy utilized is determined by the intensity, scale and type of development. Therefore, the absence of future commercial, industrial, and manufacturing land uses in addition to the decrease in future development intensity specified in this alternative, would lessen the amount of energy required for build out of unincorporated Riverside County. In turn environmental impacts associated with energy production, construction and/or expansion of facilities/infrastructure would be minimized due to the reduction in future energy demand. Although, the need to expand infrastructure such as power lines and natural gas lines would be reduced, the costs to do so would increase. This can be attributed to fewer and more widely spaced rural residential developments. This is made evident when examining a plausible rural residential development that would require the extension of both electrical and natural gas lines to provide energy to one residential unit. The cost to extend infrastructure is placed on one residential unit and is not distributed amongst others. For this reason, rural residential units may prefer the use of private propane tanks opposed to incurring the cost to extending natural gas lines to their residents. This would result in an increase in the use of propane gas.
Flood and Dam Inundation Hazards Under the Rural Emphasis Alternative, future urban development would not continue within unincorporated areas except for existing approved Specific Plans, tract maps, and commercial/industrial site plans. Unincorporated areas would be planned to be built out with rural residential, agricultural, and open space uses. Under the Rural Emphasis Alternative all applicable local, State, and federal policies and regulations pertaining to flooding hazards would remain in effect. This alternative would reduce the quantity of structures and facilities that would create impervious surfaces. The facilities that would be constructed would be developed at a much lower density than the proposed General Plan. Because the amount of impervious surfaces would be less and they would be spread out over a larger area with areas of natural landscape separating the impervious surfaces, the volume and direction of storm water runoff would be less than the proposed General Plan.
Also, because development under this alternative will be less and more spread out than the proposed General Plan, there is minimal chance that development would encroach onto 100-year flood zones and potentially place housing and structures in areas subject to dam inundation. This risk is minimized because the lower density allows for more flexibility in structure locations. Therefore, under this alternative, potential impacts to flooding hazards would be less than the proposed General Plan.
Geology and Soils Except for existing approved Specific Plans, tract maps, and commercial/industrial site plans, unincorporated areas would be planned for and built out with rural residential, agriculture, and open space uses. Under this alternative, the amount, extent, and distribution of development would be reduced from that resulting from implementation of the proposed General Plan. The construction and occupation of new rural residential uses would continue to expose persons and property within unincorporated areas subject to potential seismic, geologic, or slope stability hazards. The population increases associated with the development of higher density residential, commercial, or industrial uses will not occur under this alternative; therefore, while the potential for geologic, seismic, or slope stability impacts remains similar to that associated with the proposed General Plan, the scale of potential impacts related to the safety of County residents or the security of their property would be reduced from that associated with the proposed General Plan.
Hazardous Materials With the exception of currently approved projects, land use within unincorporated areas of the County would be restricted to rural residential, agricultural, and/or open space uses. Uses that commonly utilize hazardous materials: such as manufacturing, processing, finishing, and assembly plants; repair outlets; and commercial and retail outlets, would not be developed within unincorporated areas. While the storage, use, and transportation of hazardous materials will still occur within unincorporated areas (most notably the application of fertilizers, pesticides and similar substances), prohibitions against the development of commercial, industrial, public facility, or higher residential development would, when compared to the proposed General Plan, effectively reduce the amount of hazardous materials utilized, generated, stored, sold, or disposed of within unincorporated areas. When compared to the proposed General Plan, the reduction in the variety and density of uses permitted under this alternative would correspondingly reduce the potential for hazardous material impacts associated with the storage and use of such materials.
Because this alternative limits development in unincorporated areas to "rural" uses, new industrial and commercial development would be expected to locate within incorporated cities. Because the Rural Emphasis Alternative will increase the amount and extent of rural residential and agricultural uses within unincorporated areas, the use of potentially hazardous substances utilized in agricultural uses may also increase. Local, State, and federal regulations relative to the handling and transport of hazardous materials would remain in effect throughout the County under this alternative. The movement of hazardous materials to existing and new industrial, commercial, and higher-density residential uses would continue on rail and highway transportation routes that traverse unincorporated areas. The potential for the accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment remains similar to that could occur under the proposed General Plan. Consequences to the environment, property and human health, would depend on the size, location, and nature of the release.
Mineral Resources Under the Rural Emphasis Alternative, existing permitted mineral resource extraction operations within unincorporated Riverside County would continue. Under the this alternative, no new or future mineral resource extraction permits would be granted or renewed. This would minimize future environmental impacts associated with mineral extraction operations. Impacts related to future urban encroachment on mineral resources extraction zones and/or associated land use compatibility impacts such as truck traffic, noise, and dust will not occur under this alternative. The Rural Emphasis Alternative would, however, result in the loss of available known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State. California State Department of Mines and Geology establishes mineral resources zones (MRZs) where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood for their presence exists. Extensive deposits of clay, limestone, iron, sand, and aggregates exist within the unincorporated areas of the County and constitute the majority of mineral resources found in the County. Although the MRZ's would not be destroyed, the Rural Emphasis Alternative would restrict the extraction of mineral resources within the unincorporated areas of the County, eliminating the possibility of their future use. This would put increasing pressure on cities within the County to extract mineral resources resulting in the possibility of greater transportation distances and higher prices. Impacts to air quality, noise, and traffic would increase proportionally with greater transportation distances.
Noise Short-Term Construction Noise Impacts With the Rural Emphasis Alternative there would be fewer short-term construction noise impacts to the proposed General Plan, because there would be less construction allowed in the unincorporated areas of Riverside County. The construction contractor for each individual project site would have to comply with the County's noise control ordinance requirements. The Rural Emphasis Alternative would not result in any significant construction noise impacts.
Long-term Vehicular Traffic Noise Impacts There would be different roadway construction with the Rural Emphasis Alternative and the proposed General Plan. Although roadways would be constructed under the Rural Emphasis Alternative, these would be facilities to serve local rural communities, not regional transportation needs. As local roadways are generally not constructed with the same noise-mitigating features that regional transportation facilities require, the Rural Emphasis Alternative, would potentially result in greater traffic noise levels along the roads, in closer proximity to sensitive receptors.
Parks and Recreation The Rural Emphasis Alternative would allow the build-out of the unincorporated areas of the County with rural residential, agriculture and open space uses. Rural residential development would decrease future development density within the unincorporated areas of the County to one residential unit to 5-20 acres. This decrease in future development density would reduce the future demand and amount of acres of parks and recreational facilities required for build out of unincorporated Riverside County. However, under this alternative no regional County parks and/or recreational facilities would be permitted in unincorporated areas of the County with the exception of neighborhood and community parks. Neighborhood and community parks correspond to the County's objective to provide a ratio of 3 acres of neighborhood and community parkland per 1,000 residents. Additional neighborhood and community parks and recreational facilities would be provided concurrently with future rural residential development in order to maintain the parkland to residents ratio. However, due to the absence of any additional parks or recreational facilities out side of what is permitted under the parkland to residents ratio, increasing pressure may continue be put on city parks and recreational facilities. Although it is difficult to determine the amount and extent of future neighborhood/community parks and recreational facilities under this alternative, environmental impacts due to the construction of these parks would be less than those identified in the proposed General Plan.
Public Services The public services section of this EIR includes fire protection, sheriff protection, solid waste management, wastewater, schools, libraries, and medical facilities. Under the Rural Emphasis Alternative, unincorporated areas would be built out with rural residential, agricultural, and open space uses. Under this alternative there would be less development and it would be constructed at a lower density, hence communities would be more spread out. This may create a lower level of services for the residents of the unincorporated County.
In regards to sheriff protection, the decrease in population and development would mean that fewer officers would be required throughout the County because staffing levels are based on population numbers. Also, there would be fewer calls that the department would need to respond to. However, because the development within the unincorporated County would be more spread out, response times to emergency calls may be longer, which could endanger people.
The staffing for fire protection is also based upon population, hence fewer fire fighters would be required compared to the proposed General Plan. However, the threat of wildfires would increase in rural residential areas due to the growth of natural brush. The spread of development will cause response time to increase. Under the Rural Emphasis Alternative there would be greater impacts related to both fire and sheriff protection than under the proposed General Plan.
The Rural Emphasis Alternative may impact solid waste management due to the fact that development would be less and more spread out. Hence, solid waste collection would take more time and collection services may not extend out to all of the rural development. In this case there may be an increased risk that residents living in rural areas may illegally dump or burn their solid waste. However, because there would be less overall development and minimal commercial and industrial uses in the unincorporated County, there would be less solid waste collection and less disposal at landfills. The Rural Emphasis Alternative would create lower impacts on solid waste management than the proposed General Plan.
In respect to wastewater collection and treatment, the low density spread of development throughout the unincorporated County would make the construction of additional sewer pipelines very expensive and possibly unaffordable to both developers and Riverside County. In this case, there would be the proliferation of septic tanks, which are more susceptible to improper maintenance and possible leaking, and would risk soil and ground water pollution. Therefore, the Rural Emphasis Alternative would create greater impacts on wastewater collection and treatment than the proposed General Plan.
The public services provided by schools, libraries, and medical facilities are all based upon population numbers. Under the Rural Emphasis Alternative the number of people and housing units would be much less than the proposed General Plan. The number of needed schools, libraries, and medical facilities would then also be less. Under the Rural Emphasis Alternative these facilities are more spread out throughout the County and many of the schools and medical facilities may be located within the cities. In this case it would be more difficult and time consuming for residents of the County to access and benefit from these facilities. This would create a much lower level of accessibility to these services. Therefore, potential impacts related to schools, libraries, and medical facilities would be greater under the Rural Emphasis Alternative than those associated with the proposed General Plan.
Transportation and Circulation In comparison to the Rural Emphasis Alternative, development of the proposed General Plan would result in higher levels of trip generation and associated traffic volume increases on county roadways. This would occur due to the lower intensity rural land uses promoted by this alternative. However, the proposed General Plan envisions a multi-model Circulation System and CETAP Corridors to accommodate future traffic volumes. With the Rural Emphasis Alternative, the circulation system contained in the existing General Plan would be implemented, but the CETAP corridors would not be constructed. The combined effect of less traffic volumes increases, implementation of the existing General Plan circulation system, and no CETAP corridors would result in traffic impacts from the Rural Emphasis Alternative similar to those from the proposed General Plan.
Water Resources While this alternative would eliminate increases in water demand resulting from the future development of higher density residential, commercial, industrial, or public facility uses; buildout under this alternative would still require water demand for rural residential and agricultural uses. The reduced density and dispersed nature of rural residential and agricultural development would generally hinder the orderly or economical extension, improvement, or installation of water supply and delivery systems. Agricultural operations traditionally require more water per acre than residential, commercial or industrial uses. The land uses envisioned under this alternative would likely rely on local and regional groundwater to meet their respective water demands. Under this alternative, increases in population and employment would be concentrated within cities. As surface water and groundwater resources do not respect jurisdictional boundaries, the increased withdrawal of groundwater from water basins for rural residential and agricultural uses in unincorporated areas would affect the availability of groundwater for urban uses.
Under this alternative, all applicable local, State, and federal policies and regulations pertaining to surface water and groundwater resources would remain in effect. While dramatic increases in the amount of impervious surfaces and the introduction of industrial and commercial contaminants into local hydrological systems would not occur, increases in the extent of agricultural areas could potentially increase the volume of agricultural runoff tainted with the fertilizers, pesticides, or agricultural waste products entering local or regional hydrological systems.
Summary/Conclusion of the Rural Emphasis Alternative
The Rural Emphasis Alternative assumes that no additional development would occur within the County with the exception of rural, open space, and agricultural uses. Housing, population, and job increases would not occur as planned in the proposed General Plan due to the shortage in housing, resulting in the need for incorporated cities to provide more than their "fair share" of jobs and housing for the region. This alternative, unlike the proposed General Plan, would have the potential to exacerbate the jobs to housing imbalance in Riverside County. Potential impacts related to aesthetic/visual resources and light and glare would be less than those associated with the proposed General Plan.
Air emissions impacts under the Rural Emphasis Alternative for both short-term construction emissions and long term regional emissions are assumed to be likely to exceed the emissions thresholds established by Air Quality Management District, resulting in significant impacts. The severity of the short-term construction emissions impact and the long-term regional emissions impact is anticipated to be less than the proposed General Plan.
Development under the Rural Emphasis Alternative would not continue as outlined in the proposed General Plan; however, impacts to cultural resources, energy, flood hazards, geology and soils, and hazardous materials are anticipated to be similar to those associated with the proposed General Plan as lands would be impacted by rural and agricultural development. Impacts to mineral resources would be greater, as no additional mineral extraction would be permitted. Short-term construction noise impacts would be less under this alternative than under the proposed General Plan. However, as construction contractors for each project would have to comply with the County's noise control ordinance requirements, no significant construction noise impacts would occur. Long-term vehicular traffic noise impacts would be less under the Rural Emphasis Alternative than those under the proposed General Plan. Significant long-term stationary sources and long-term railroad noise impacts would not occur under the Rural Emphasis Alternative, as all new development would be required to comply with existing noise standards.
The Rural Emphasis Alternative would not allow the build out of the proposed County General Plan, which includes parks and recreation facilities and increased public services. However, using the land for rural, agricultural, and open space would reduce the demand for parks and recreation facilities and public services and would potentially provide additional areas for recreational use. Impacts to surface water and groundwater resources as well as hydrologic features under the Rural Emphasis Alternative would also be similar to those under the proposed General Plan, as increased development would occur within the cities that would rely on the same water resources as the County. However, impacts to water quality may be greater than those under the proposed General Plan, as pollution from fertilizers and pesticides could increase.
Transportation and circulation impacts associated with this alternative would likely be similar to the proposed General Plan. The existing General Plan circulation system would accommodate future traffic volume increases from implementation of this alternative comparable to the ability of the circulation system in the proposed General Plan to accommodate its estimated traffic volume increases.
Because the population and development levels would decrease under the Rural Emphasis Alternative, it would result in reduction in impacts to aesthetic/visual resources, air quality, energy, and solid waste impacts compared to the proposed General Plan. However, as development and population would be less concentrated, it would result in increased impacts to fire, sheriff, schools, libraries, medical facilities, wastewater, and water resources compared to the proposed General Plan. Increased impacts relating to the jobs and housing balance, and water quality would occur under this alternative as a result of replacing potential high-density housing with potentially ground-waterpolluting agricultural uses.
6.2.4 Less Intense Community Centers Alternative
This alternative assumes that the County would adopt a General Plan that would reduce the scale, intensity, and the number of community centers. Rather than reducing the overall buildout of unincorporated areas, this alternative would represent (as compared to the proposed General Plan) a less concentrated pattern of development intensity. Development intensity within the Western Riverside County MSHCP reserve areas would be distributed evenly throughout western Riverside County. The location of development would be changed, but there would not be an overall increase in residential buildout within Riverside County.
a. Relationship to the Western Riverside County MSHCP: Adoption and implementation of the proposed Western Riverside County MSHCP is assumed under this alternative. Development intensity that is shown on General Plan and Area Plan land use maps within the Western Riverside County MSHCP reserve areas would be distributed evenly throughout western Riverside County. As a consequence, the redistribution of development from conservation areas would change the location of development, but would not result in an overall increase in residential build out within western Riverside County.
b. Relationship to the Coachella Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan:
This plan is not assumed to occur in this alternative.
c. Assumptions Regarding CETAP Corridors: Two north-south and two east-west CETAP corridors are assumed in this alternative.
d. Assumed Circulation System: An enhanced arterial system that would maximize roadway capacity is assumed. Roadways that are inconsistent with implementation of the Western Riverside County MSHCP would not be included in the proposed circulation system.
e. Development within Cities and their spheres of influence: No annexation of cities' spheres of influence is assumed. Under this alternative, cities would build out according to their respective General Plans. Spheres of influence would be built out based on the Less Intense Community centers alternative.
The following section discuss the impacts of the Less Intense Community centers alternative with respect to each resource area discussed in this Program EIR.
Land Use/Agricultural Resources Rather than reducing the overall buildout of unincorporated areas, this alternative would result in a less concentrated pattern of development within the community centers. When compared to the proposed General Plan, implementation of this alternative would more widely distribute population and development throughout unincorporated areas of the County. To accommodate the reduced density of community centers, the level of development of other uses in unincorporated areas of the County would be correspondingly increased. Increasing development in-tensities in these areas may result in the development that is incompatible with planned or exiting uses. The proposed General Plan includes policies to reduce or minimize potential land use compatibility impacts. These policies will remain in effect under this alternative. With adherence to the policies included in the proposed General Plan, land use compatibility impacts resulting from implementation of this alternative would not exceed that which occur under the proposed General Plan.
Under this alternative, the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses would continue. As envisioned by the proposed General Plan, the Agriculture land use designation is not permitted within community centers; therefore, less intense development of these areas would not increase the amount of agricultural land within unincorporated Riverside County. The redistribution of development from community centers to other unincorporated areas of the County may result in the further conversion of agricultural lands outside the community centers. As compared to the proposed Plan, the amount of Prime, Unique, or Statewide Important farmland would be reduced.
Housing and Population Under the Less Intense Community Centers Alternative, the community centers would be developed at a lower density and in a less concentrated pattern than the proposed General Plan. The number of housing units and people residing in Riverside County would be the same as under the proposed General Plan. The difference between the Less Intense Community Centers Alternative and the proposed General Plan in respect to housing and population would simply be a redistribution of housing units. The difference would mean fewer housing units at a lower density within the community centers, and the remaining housing units being constructed outside the community centers. Therefore, because the number and demand of housing units is similar to that of the proposed General Plan, potential impacts associated with population and housing would be similar to that occurring with implementation of the proposed General Plan.
Aesthetics/Visual Resources The Less Intense Community Centers Alternative would allow the development of rural residential development in the community development areas, agricultural uses, open space and less dense community centers within unincorporated areas of Riverside County. By reducing the intensity (density) in the community centers, development would occur on a more spread out basis. This would result in less concentrated impacts over a greater area. As a result, significant impacts relating to the conversion of open space to urban land use would be greater under this alternative than with the proposed General Plan. Development within the County would still need to comply with applicable County and area plan design guidelines. Development within the cities would be subject to each city's General Plan and regulations regarding design.
With this alternative, there would be an increase of light and glare impacts, which would be created by new development of commercial, industrial, residential structures and facilities. Additional light and glare that would be created by more intense development of structures and facilities would not occur in the community centers. Light and glare that is created by existing parking lots, landscaped areas, interior building lights, and buildings within the unincorporated County would not change. The level of light and glare impacts would be similar to that created by land uses built through implementation of the proposed General Plan.
Air Quality Short-term Construction Emissions Development is less intense and spread out under this alternative; therefore, the impacts that would occur under this alternative would be less concentrated than under the proposed General Plan. However, it is likely that development of land with this alternative would generate construction emissions that would exceed the emissions thresholds established by the Air Quality Management Districts. This would result in a significant impact related to short-term construction emissions, which would be the same as identified with implementation of the proposed General Plan. The severity of this impact would be the same as that produced by the proposed General Plan.
Long-term Regional Emissions With the Less Intense Community Centers Alternative, long-term air emission impacts would be produced based on increased VMTs associated with development of properties in unincorporated western Riverside County. It is anticipated that under this alternative, regional transportation facilities would be constructed as under the proposed General Plan, though public transit facilities and alternative transportation would be utilized to a lesser degree. The quantity of CO, ROC, NO2, and PM10 emissions for the Less Intense Community Centers Alternative would exceed the emissions thresholds established by the Air Quality Management District. This would result in a significant impact related to long-term regional emissions, which would be similar to or greater than those identified with implementation of the proposed General Plan, through the decreased use of mass transit and the reliance on the automobile. The severity of the long-term regional air emissions impact associated with the Less Intense Community Centers Alternative could be slightly greater than that produced by the proposed General Plan because of the reduced utilization of public transit or alternative transportation.
Biological Resources It is presumed that all natural habitat within agriculture and rural residential areas and the community centers within the unincorporated areas of the County would be impacted (i.e., removed or degraded to such an extent as to be of no biological value). It is also presumed that all natural vegetation within open space areas would be retained. Conservation areas that have been established in numerous areas around the eastern and western County and are managed by a variety of entities for a wide range of conservation purposes will continue to operate in the absence of an approved MSHCP for Coachella Valley. Within western Riverside County, the Western Riverside County MSHCP would be implemented and species and habitat within the reserve areas would be maintained.
Construction of the residential, commercial and industrial land uses will result in loss of or disturbance to natural habitats. Therefore, construction of proposed land uses that would result in the loss or disturbance of natural habitats may result in the direct mortality of listed, proposed, or candidate species or may result in the loss of habitat occupied by such species, fragment habitat and wildlife corridors. There would continue to be wildlife/urban interface impacts from domestic animals invading wildlife habitats and killing birds and other small mammals; the destruction of wildlife habitat for fire breaks and fire management zones around residential units; and an increase potential for wildlife and human contact (i.e. poisonous snakes, mountain lion and coyote kills of domestic animals) in Coachella Valley and eastern County. Within western Riverside County the wildlife/urban impacts would be reduced through the implementation of the Western Riverside County MSHCP.
During subsequent project-level environmental analysis and review of individual development projects within eastern Riverside County and Coachella Valley, compliance with applicable regulations may require coordination with resource agencies (e.g., USFWS, CDFG, or Corps) to determine specific mitigation for impacts to waters of the U.S. (including wetlands), riparian habitats, and State and federally listed species. Resource agency permits for project-level approvals may require mitigation measures in addition to those outlined in the existing General Plan.
Cultural Resources With the implementation of the Less Intense Community Centers Alternative, new development will occur within unincorporated areas of Riverside County. This future development would require the disturbance of vacant land potentially containing cultural resources. However, the area of physical disturbance of vacant land would be the same under this alternative as the proposed General Plan. The future impacts related to cultural resources that would potentially occur with this alternative would be similar to those associated with the build out of the proposed County General Plan.
Energy Under the Less Intense Community centers alternative, the scale, intensity, and numbers of community centers would be decreased resulting in a less concentrated pattern of development. However, this alternative would not reduce the overall build out of the unincorporated areas of the County. Since build out projections would remain constant, the demand for energy and the level of consumption would be similar to that of the proposed general plan. Although the amount of energy required for build out would not change, the cost to provide energy would increase. Due to the broader distribution and less concentrated pattern of development, additional infrastructure, above what would be required in the proposed General Plan, would be needed in to reach and connect new development to existing energy supply facilities.
Flood and Dam Inundation Hazards Under the Less Intense Community Centers Alternative, the scale, and intensity of community centers identified in the proposed General Plan would be reduced. This alternative would represent a less concentrated pattern of development within the community centers as compared to the proposed General Plan. Even though the density of the structures within the community centers would be less there would be the same amount of impervious surfaces as in the proposed General Plan. Also, because the density in the community centers would be lessened, more development would be spread into the remaining areas of the County. This spread of development will not cause structures to encroach into flood areas at any higher risk than the proposed General Plan. Hence, flooding impacts under the Less Intense Community Centers Alternative would be similar to those under the proposed General Plan.
Geology and Soils Rather than reducing the overall build out of unincorporated areas, this alternative would result in a less concentrated pattern of development. When compared to the proposed General Plan, implementation of this alternative would more widely distribute population and development, despite this, persons and property within unincorporated areas of the County would continue to be exposed to potential seismic, geologic, or slope stability hazards. While a more dispersed pattern of development would occur under this alternative, policies included in the Safety Element of the proposed General Plan, as well as the mitigation identified in the Program EIR, would remain in effect. With adherence to the policies included in the Safety Element of the proposed General Plan and measures identified in the Program EIR, potential geologic, seismic, or slope stability impacts remains similar to that associated with the proposed General Plan.
Hazardous Materials While the amount of development occurring under this alternative would not be reduced within unincorporated County areas, the pattern of distribution of this development would differ from that envisioned by the proposed General Plan. The development that would occur under this alternative may introduce structures, facilities, or land uses into the unincorporated areas of Riverside County that may use, store, sell, generate or transport hazardous materials. Compliance with regulations, standards, and guidelines established by the EPA, state, Riverside County, and local agencies relating to the storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials will reduce the potential risk of hazardous materials exposure to a level that is less than significant level; therefore, hazardous material impacts under this alternative would be no more significant than those which would occur under the proposed General Plan.
Mineral Resources The objective to decrease the scale, intensity, and numbers of community centers specified in this alternative would not directly impact mineral resources. However, the less concentrated pattern of development resulting from the alternative objectives may increase the probability of land use conflicts and incompatibility as urban development is encourage to spread out to land that may potentially contain or be adjacent to mineral resources. Under this alternative, all applicable mineral resource extraction and preservation policies within the proposed General Plan would be implemented. Unincorporated Riverside County build out projections anticipated to occur following the implementation of the proposed General Plan would remain unchanged under this alternative; therefore, impacts to mineral resources associated with this alternative would be similar to the proposed General Plan.
Noise Short-Term Construction Noise Impacts With the Less Intense Community Centers Alternative there would be similar short-term construction noise impacts to the proposed General Plan, although the impacts would be slightly less concentrated in community centers. The construction contractor for each individual project site would have to comply with the County's noise control ordinance requirements. The Less Intense Community Centers Alternative would not result in any significant construction noise impacts.
Long-term Vehicular Traffic Noise Impacts There would be similar roadway construction with the Less Intense Community Centers Alternative and the proposed General Plan. However, under the Less Intense Community Centers Alternative, there could be an increase in overall VMTs due to a decreased use of public transit and alternative transportation. This alternative would potentially result in greater traffic noise levels along the roads.
Long-term Stationary Sources Noise Impacts Riverside County's noise control ordinance requirements would need to be complied with for proposed urban, industrial, agricultural, and commercial uses in the County as a result of the Less Intense Community Centers Alternative. Therefore, implementation of the Less Intense Community Centers Alternative would not result in any long-term stationary sources noise impacts.
Long-term Railroad Noise Impacts Sensitive land uses that are located near railroad tracks with the Less Intense Community centers alternative would continue to be ex-posed to railroad noise. There is the potential that railroad traffic may increase in the future, which would continue to expose sensitive land uses to increases in railroad generated noise. Riverside County's noise standards in its Noise Element of the General Plan would need to be complied with by all new noise sensitive uses adjacent to railroad tracks. The Less Intense Community Centers Alternative would not result in any long-term railroad noise impacts.
Parks and Recreation Implementation of the Less Intense Community centers alternative would decrease the scale, intensity, and numbers of community centers resulting in a less concentrated pattern of development. The demand, utilization and locations of park and recreational facilities generally corresponds with residential development. This alternative would not change the overall residential build out within the unincorporated Riverside County it would change the intensity and distribution. Therefore the build out demand and overall park land acreage required to provide three acres of park land per 1,000 residents would not change; however the location and/or distribution of park facilities would. Park and recreational facilities would be spread out over a larger area to remain in proximity to residential development. To account for the less concentrated pattern of development, park and recreational facilities would be smaller but more numerous and distributed in comparison to the proposed General Plan.
Public Services The public services section of this EIR includes fire protection, sheriff protection, solid waste management, wastewater, schools, libraries, and medical facilities. Under the Less Intense Community centers alternative the scale, and intensity of community centers identified in the proposed General Plan would be reduced. As a consequence the location and distribution of development would be changed and may have an impact on the public services residents receive.
Sheriff protection services and staff counts are based upon the population within the County. Under this alternative, the population will remain the same as under the proposed General Plan. Therefore, the number of sheriffs and stations will remain the same. The only difference may be where they are located. Under the Less Intense Community Centers Alternative, there will be fewer sworn officers and sheriff stations located within the community centers and more located outside. This location difference would maintain the service levels and response times by ensuring equal sheriff protection in all developed areas.
Therefore, because the population of the County is similar to that of the proposed General Plan and the development will be simply redistributed, potential impacts associated with sheriff protection would be similar to that occurring with implementation of the proposed General Plan.
The staffing for fire protection is also based upon population. Therefore, the number of staff and fire stations would be similar to what would be required under the proposed General Plan; the difference would be the locations of the stations and staff. Under the Less Intense Community Centers Alternative there would be fewer fire stations located within the community centers and more fire stations located outside. This is due to the fact that there would be more development outside the community centers than under the proposed General Plan. Also, because development would be more spread out under the Less Intense Community Centers Alternative there may be a higher risk of wildfires. To ensure that the County maintains adequate fire protection throughout all developed areas fire protection staff and facilities would be spread among the developed areas. Therefore, because the population of the County under the Less Intense Community Centers Alternative is similar to that of the proposed General Plan and the development will be simply redistributed, potential impacts associated to fire protection would be similar to that occurring with implementation of the proposed General Plan.
Solid waste and wastewater management under the Less Intense Community Centers Alternative would not have substantial differences to impacts of those under the proposed General Plan. The number of housing units, people and employment opportunities would be similar to that of the proposed General Plan. Hence, the amount of solid waste and wastewater generated would also be similar. The only difference would be the location of dwelling units and job opportunities. This location change will induce similar impacts as those created by the proposed General Plan.
The number and location of schools, libraries and medical facilities will be similar under the Less Intense Community Centers Alternative as under the proposed General Plan. This is due to the fact that the population, housing and employment opportunities will remain the same. The general location of the schools, libraries, and medical facilities will remain within the community centers. These facilities are located within the community centers because urban areas are easily accessible to large quantities of County residents. The Less Intense Community Centers Alternative may cause residents living outside the community centers longer travel distances than the proposed General Plan. However, because the population of the County is similar to that of the proposed General Plan and the development will be simply redistributed, potential impacts associated with schools, libraries, and medical facilities would be similar to that occurring with implementation of the proposed General Plan.
Transportation and Circulation Development of the proposed General Plan would result in levels of trip generation similar to the Less Intense Community Centers Alternative. However, this alternative represents a more even distribution of future land uses throughout the unincorporated area. As a result, there would be less potential and demand for implementing alternative transportation in comparison to the proposed General Plan. Additionally, overall vehicle miles traveled would likely increase in comparison to the proposed General Plan, as the opportunity for workers to live in close proximity to employment and shopping centers would be diminished. With the Less Intense Community Centers Alternative, an enhanced circulation system similar to that of the proposed General Plan would be implemented, as well as the CETAP corridors. Due to the lack of development concentrations that would promote transit and the increased vehicle miles traveled, traffic impacts associated with this alternative would be greater than those estimated from the proposed General Plan.
Water Resources Under this alternative, all applicable local, State, and federal policies and regulations pertaining to surface water and groundwater resources would remain in effect. Additionally, the policies pertaining to water resources included in the Multipurpose Open Space Element of the proposed General Plan and the mitigation measures identified in the Program EIR would remain in effect under this alternative. No change in the overall buildout of the proposed General Plan would occur under this alternative. While changes in the distribution or location of land uses would occur, increases in water demand resulting from the development of residential, commercial, industrial, and public facility uses would be similar to that which would occur upon implementation of the proposed General Plan. Potential impacts associated with the quantity and quality of surface water and would be similar to that occurring with implementation of the proposed General Plan.
Because the overall amount of commercial and industrial development occurring within the County will remain the same as the proposed General Plan, the amount and extent of impervious surfaces within unincorporated County area will also be similar. Therefore the potential introduction (via runoff) of industrial, commercial, and agricultural contaminants into local hydrological systems would likely occur at the same rate as would occur under the proposed General Plan. When compared to the proposed General Plan, development occurring outside the community centers under this alternative would be increased. The redistribution of land uses from community centers to other unincorporated areas would not result in impacts associated with the extension, improvement, or installation of water supply and delivery systems beyond that associated with the proposed General Plan.
Summary/Conclusion of the Less Intense Community Centers Alternative
The Less Intense Community Centers Alternative assumes that development would occur largely as established in the proposed General Plan, except for a reduction in the number and intensity of community centers. Housing, population, and job increases would occur as planned in the proposed General Plan. Potential impacts related to aesthetics, light and glare would be similar to those associated with the proposed General Plan, with the exception of increased conversion of open space to urban land use.
Air emissions impacts under the Less Intense Community Centers Alternative for both short-term construction emissions and long term regional emissions are assumed to be likely to exceed the emissions thresholds established by the Air Quality Management District, resulting in significant impacts. The severity of the short-term construction emissions impact is anticipated to be similar to the proposed General Plan; the severity of the long-term regional emissions impact is anticipated to be similar under this alternative to the proposed General Plan.
Since development under the Less Intense Community Centers Alternative would continue primarily as outlined in the proposed General Plan, impacts to cultural resources, energy, flood hazards, geology and soils, hazardous materials, and mineral resources are anticipated to be similar to those associated with the proposed General Plan. Impacts to traffic would be greater under the Less Intense Community Centers Alternative, because development would be less concentrated, resulting in an increased travel distance from residences to jobs and commercial areas.
Short-term construction noise impacts would be similar under this alternative as under the proposed General Plan. However, as construction contractors for each project would have to comply with the County's noise control ordinance requirements, no significant construction noise impacts would occur. Long-term vehicular traffic noise impacts would potentially be greater under the Less Intense Community Centers Alternative to those under the proposed General Plan due to increased traffic. Significant long-term stationary sources and long-term railroad noise impacts would not occur under the Less Intense Community Centers Alternative, as all new development would be required to comply with existing noise standards.
The Less Intense Community Centers Alternative would allow the level of build out of the proposed General Plan, which includes parks and recreation facilities and increased public services. Impacts to parks and recreation and to public services would be similar to those under the proposed General Plan. Impacts to surface water and groundwater resources as well as hydrologic features and water quality under the Less Intense Community Centers Alternative would also be similar to those under the proposed General Plan.
The Less Intense Community Centers Alternative would not result in any appreciable reduction in impacts compared to the proposed General Plan. In addition, because development would be less concentrated (resulting in more VMTs) it would result in increased impacts relating to long-term regional air emissions, long-term vehicular noise, and transportation compared to the proposed General Plan.
6.2.5 More Intense Community Centers Alternative
While the number of community centers would be reduced, under this alternative, the scale and intensity of community centers would be increased. Rather than increasing the overall build out of unincorporated areas, this alternative would represent (as compared to the proposed General Plan) a more concentrated pattern of development intensity however the number of community centers would be reduced. Development intensity within the Western Riverside County MSHCP reserve areas would be redistributed into community centers throughout western Riverside County. While the location of development would be changed, there would not be an overall increase in residential build out within western Riverside County.
a. Relationship to the Western County MSHCP: Adoption and implementation of the proposed Western Riverside County MSHCP is assumed under this alternative.
b. Relationship to the Coachella Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan: This plan is not assumed to occur in this alternative.
c. Assumptions Regarding CETAP Corridors: Two north-south and two east-west CETAP corridors are assumed in this alternative.
d. Assumed Circulation System: An enhanced arterial system that would maximize roadway capacity is assumed. Roadways that are inconsistent with implementation of the Western Riverside County MSHCP would not be included in the proposed circulation system.
e. Development within Cities and their spheres of influence: No annexation of cities' spheres of influence is assumed. Under this alternative, cities would build out according to their respective General Plans. Spheres of influence would be built out based on the More Intense Community Centers Alternative.
The following section discuss the impacts of the More Intense Community centers alternative with respect to each resource area discussed in this Program EIR.
Land Use/Agricultural Resources While the overall amount of development would not be reduced within unincorporated County areas, under this alternative the pattern of distribution of this development would differ from that envisioned by the proposed General Plan. Under this alternative, development intensities within community centers would be increased, while the density of development in unincorporated areas outside community centers would be proportionally reduced. While potential land use compatibility impacts would also be proportionally reduced, they would not be eliminated. The proposed General Plan includes policies to reduce or minimize potential land use compatibility impacts. These policies will remain in effect under this alternative. With adherence to the policies included in the proposed General Plan, land use compatibility impacts resulting from implementation of this alternative would not exceed that which occur under the proposed General Plan.
Because the overall build out of unincorporated areas will be unchanged, the redistribution of development from unincorporated areas of the County to the community centers may increase the amount of agricultural land outside the community centers. The intensification of residential, commercial, industrial, and public facility uses in community centers will proportionally reduce development pressure on agricultural lands located outside of community centers. While the conversion of agricultural land would continue under this alternative, because less development would occur outside of community centers, the amount or extent of such conversion would be reduced from that occurring under the proposed Plan. Therefore, under this alternative, the amount or extent of Prime, Unique, or Statewide important farmland within unincorporated areas would exceed that occurring under implementation of the proposed Plan.
Housing and Population Under the More Intense Community Centers Alternative, the community centers would be developed at a higher density and in a higher concentrated pattern than the proposed General Plan. The number of housing units and people residing in Riverside County would be the same as under the proposed General Plan. The difference between the More Intense Community Centers Alternative and the proposed General Plan in respect to housing and population would simply be a redistribution of housing units. The difference would mean more housing units at a higher density within the community centers, and the remaining housing units being constructed outside the community centers. Therefore, because the number and demand of housing units is similar to that of the proposed General Plan, potential impacts associated with population and housing would be similar to that occurring with implementation of the proposed General Plan.
Aesthetics/Visual Resources The More Intense Community Centers Alternative would allow the development of rural residential development in the community development areas, agricultural uses, open space and more dense community centers within unincorporated areas of Riverside County. By increasing the intensity (density) in the community centers, there would be the potential for an increase in aesthetic effects without the implementation of design guidelines and measures. However, development in the community centers would still be subject to the guidelines in Appendix J of the proposed General Plan. Development within the cities would be subject to each city's General Plan and regulations regarding design. Furthermore, by concentrating development, this alternative would result in less open space to urban land use conversion, which would reduce this visual resources impact.
With this alternative, there would be an increase of light and glare impacts, which would be created by new development of commercial, industrial, residential structures and facilities. Additional light and glare that would be created by more intense development of structures and facilities would not occur in the community centers. Light and glare that is created by existing parking lots, landscaped areas, interior building lights, and buildings within the unincorporated County would not change. The level of light and glare impacts would be similar to that created by land uses built through implementation of the proposed General Plan.
Air Quality Short-term Construction Emissions As is the case for the proposed General Plan, short-term construction pollutant emissions for the More Intense Community Centers Alternative would result from development of properties in unincorporated Riverside County. Because development is more intense and concentrated under this alternative, the impacts that would occur under this alternative would be more concentrated and localized than under the proposed General Plan. It is likely that development of land with this alternative would generate construction emissions that would exceed the emissions thresholds established by the Air Quality Management Districts. This would result in a significant impact related to short-term construction emissions, which would be the same as identified with implementation of the proposed General Plan. The severity of this impact would be the same as that produced by the proposed General Plan.
Long-term Regional Emissions With the More Intense Community Centers Alternative, long-term air emission impacts would be produced based on increased VMTs associated with development of properties in unincorporated Riverside County. It is anticipated that under this alternative, regional transportation facilities would be constructed as under the proposed General Plan, and public transit facilities and alternative transportation would be utilized to a greater degree. The quantity of CO, ROC, NO2, and PM10 emissions for the More Intense Community Centers Alternative would exceed the emissions thresholds established by the Air Quality Management Districts. The result is a significant impact related to long-term regional emissions, which would be similar to those identified with implementation of the proposed General Plan. The severity of the long-term regional air emissions impact associated with the More Intense Community Centers Alternative could be slightly less than that produced by the proposed General Plan because of the increased utilization of public transit or alternative transportation.
Biological Resources It is presumed that all natural habitat within Community Development areas and agricultural areas within the unincorporated areas of the County would be impacted (i.e., removed or degraded to such an extent as to be of no biological value). It is also presumed that all natural vegetation within open space areas would be retained. Conservation areas that have been established in numerous areas around the eastern and western county and are managed by a variety of entities for a wide range of conservation purposes will continue to operate in the absence of an approved MSHCP for Coachella Valley. Within western Riverside County, the Western Riverside County MSHCP would be implemented and species and habitat within the reserve areas would be maintained.
Construction of the residential, commercial and industrial and agricultural land uses will result in loss of or disturbance to natural habitats. Therefore, construction of proposed land uses that would result in the loss or disturbance of natural habitats may result in the direct mortality of listed, proposed, or candidate species or may result in the loss of habitat occupied by such species, fragment habitat and wildlife corridors. There would continue to be wildlife/urban interface impacts from domestic animals invading wildlife habitats and killing birds and other small mammals; the destruction of wildlife habitat for fire breaks and fire management zones around residential units; and an increase potential for wildlife and human contact (i.e. poisonous snakes, mountain lion and coyote kills of domestic animals) in Coachella Valley and eastern County. Within western Riverside County the wildlife/urban impacts would be reduced through the implementation of the Western Riverside County MSHCP.
During subsequent project-level environmental analysis and review of individual development projects within eastern Riverside County and Coachella Valley, compliance with applicable regulations may require coordination with resource agencies (e.g., USFWS, CDFG, or Corps) to determine specific mitigation for impacts to waters of the
U.S. (including wetlands), riparian habitats, and state and federally listed species. Resource agency permits for project-level approvals may require mitigation measures in addition to those outlined in the proposed General Plan.
Cultural Resources With the implementation of the More Intense Community Centers Alternative, new development will occur within unincorporated areas of Riverside County. This future development would require the disturbance of vacant land potentially containing cultural resources. However, the area of physical disturbance of vacant land would be the same under this alternative as the proposed General Plan. The future impacts related to cultural resources that would potentially occur with this alternative would be similar to those associated with the build out of the proposed County General Plan.
Energy Under the More Intense Community Centers Alternative, the scale and intensity of community centers would increase resulting in a more concentrated pattern of development. However, the numbers of community centers would decrease in order to maintain the same level of overall build out of unincorporated areas. Since the build out projection would remain constant with the proposed General Plan, the demand for energy and the level of consumption would be similar to that of the proposed General Plan as well. Although the amount of energy required for build out would not change, the means of providing energy would become more efficient. By reducing the amount of community centers but increasing the scale and intensity of those remaining, the amount of energy transmission infrastructure needed in to reach and connect new development to existing energy supply facilities would be reduced in comparison to the proposed General Plan. This would in addition translate to fewer environmental impacts associated with the extension and installation of future energy transmission infrastructure.
Flood and Dam Inundation Hazards Under the More Intense Community Centers Alternative the scale and intensity of community centers would be increased, while the number of community centers would be reduced. This alternative would represent a more concentrated pattern of development intensity as compared to the proposed General Plan. Under this alternative the size of the community centers would be larger and the density of the structures within the community centers would be greater. This alternative is simply redistributing the development. There would be the same amount of impervious surfaces as in the proposed General Plan. Hence, all flooding impacts related to impervious surfaces would be similar to those under the proposed General Plan. In addition, this redistribution of development will not cause structures to encroach into flood areas. Under the More Intense Community Centers Alternative all applicable local, State, and federal policies and regulations pertaining to flooding hazards would remain in effect. Therefore, flooding impacts under the More Intense Community Centers Alternative would be similar to those under the proposed General Plan.
Geology and Soils This alternative would result in a more concentrated pattern of development within community centers. While the location of development would be changed, there would not be an overall increase in residential build out within western Riverside County. Under this alternative, persons and property within unincorporated areas of the County would continue to be exposed to potential seismic, geologic, or slope stability hazards. While a more concentrated pattern of development would occur under this alternative, policies included in the Safety Element of the proposed General Plan, as well as the mitigation identified in the Program EIR, would remain in effect. With adherence to the policies included in the Safety Element of the proposed General Plan and measures identified in the Program EIR, potential geologic, seismic, or slope stability impacts remains similar to that associated with the proposed General Plan.
Hazardous Materials While the overall amount of development would not be reduced within unincorporated County areas, under this alternative the pattern of distribution of this development would differ from that envisioned by the proposed General Plan. Under this alternative, development intensities within community centers would be increased, while the density of development in unincorporated areas outside community centers would be proportionally reduced. Implementation of this alternative, may introduce structures, facilities, or land uses into the unincorporated areas of Riverside County that may use, store, sell, generate or transport hazardous materials. Compliance with regulations, standards, and guidelines established by the EPA, state, Riverside County, and local agencies relating to the storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials will reduce the potential risk of hazardous materials exposure to a level that is less than significant level; therefore, hazardous material impacts under this alternative would be no more significant than those which would occur under the proposed General Plan.
Mineral Resources The objective to increase the scale and intensity, but reduce the number of, community centers specified in this alternative would not directly impact mineral resources. However, the more concentrated pattern of development resulting from the alternative objectives would reduce the probability of land use conflicts and incompatibility as urban development is encouraged to be concentrated. This would decrease the possibility that development would be placed on land that could potentially contain or be adjacent to mineral resources. Under this alternative, all applicable mineral resource extraction and preservation policies within the proposed General Plan would be implemented. Unincorporated Riverside County build out projections anticipated to occur following the implementation of the proposed General Plan would remain unchanged under this alternative; therefore, impacts to mineral resources associated with this alternative would be similar to the proposed General Plan.
Noise Short-Term Construction Noise Impacts With the More Intense Community Centers Alternative there would be similar short-term construction noise impacts to the proposed General Plan, although the impacts would be more concentrated in community centers. The construction contractor for each individual project site would have to comply with the County's noise control ordinance requirements. The More Intense Community Centers Alternative would not result in any construction noise impacts.
Long-term Vehicular Traffic Noise Impacts There would be similar roadway construction with the More Intense Community Centers Alternative and the proposed General Plan. However, under the More Intense Community Centers Alternative, there could be an decrease in overall VMTs due to an increased use of public transit and alternative transportation. This alternative would potentially result in relatively lower traffic noise levels along the roads than under the proposed General Plan.
Long-term Stationary Sources Noise Impacts Riverside County's noise control ordinance requirements would need to be complied with for proposed urban, industrial, agricultural, and commercial uses in the County as a result of the More Intense Community Centers Alternative. Therefore, implementation of the More Intense Community Centers Alternative would not result in any long-term stationary sources noise impacts.
Long-term Railroad Noise Impacts Sensitive land uses that are located near railroad tracks with this alternative would continue to be exposed to railroad noise. There is the potential that railroad traffic may increase in the future, which would continue to expose sensitive land uses to increases in railroad generated noise. Riverside County's noise standards in its Noise Element of the General Plan would need to be complied with by all new noise sensitive uses adjacent to railroad tracks. The More Intense Community Centers Alternative would not result in any long-term railroad noise impacts.
Parks and Recreation Implementation of the More Intense Community Centers Alternative would increase the scale, intensity, but decrease the number of community centers resulting in a more concentrated pattern of development. The demand, utilization and locations of park and recreational facilities generally corresponds with residential development. The overall residential build out within the unincorporated Riverside County under this Alternative would remain consistent with the proposed General Plan, but would change the intensity and distribution. Therefore the build out demand and overall park land acreage required to provide three acres of park land per 1,000 residents would not change; however the location and/or distribution of park facilities would. Park and recreational facilities would be concentrated to remain in proximity to residential development. To account for the more concentrated pattern of development, park and recreational facilities would be larger but less numerous and not as widely distributed in comparison to the proposed General Plan.
Public Services The public services section of this EIR includes fire protection, sheriff protection, solid waste management, wastewater, schools, libraries, and medical facilities. Under the More Intense Community Centers Alternative the scale and intensity of community centers identified in the proposed General Plan would be increased. However, there would be fewer community centers built within unincorporated Riverside County. As a consequence the location and distribution of development would be changed and may have an impact on the public services residents receive.
Sheriff protection services and staff counts are based upon the population within the County. Under this alternative, the population will remain the same as under the proposed General Plan. Therefore, the number of sheriffs and stations will remain the same. The only difference may be where they are located. Under the More Intense Community Centers Alternative, there will be more sworn officers and sheriff stations located within the community centers and less located outside. This location difference would maintain the service levels and response times by ensuring equal sheriff protection in all developed areas. Therefore, because the population of the County is similar to that of the proposed General Plan and the development will be simply redistributed, potential impacts associated with sheriff protection would be similar to that occurring with implementation of the proposed General Plan.
The staffing for fire protection is also based upon population. Therefore, the number of staff and fire stations would be similar to what would be required under the proposed General Plan, the difference would be the locations of the stations and staff. Under the More Intense Community Centers Alternative there would be more fire stations located within the community centers and less fire stations located outside. This is due to the fact that there would be more development within the community centers than under the proposed General Plan. Hence, to ensure that the County maintain adequate fire protection throughout all developed areas fire protection staff and facilities would be stationed where needed within developed areas. Therefore, because the population of the County under the More Intense Community Centers Alternative would be similar to that of the proposed General Plan and the development will be simply redistributed, potential impacts associated to fire protection would be similar to that occurring with implementation of the proposed General Plan.
The impacts to solid waste and wastewater management under the More Intense Community Centers Alternative would not be substantially different than those under the proposed General Plan. The number of housing units, people and employment opportunities would be similar to that of the proposed General Plan. Hence, the amount of solid waste and wastewater generated would also be similar. The only difference would be the location of dwelling units and job opportunities. This location change will induce similar impacts as those created by the proposed General Plan.
The number and location of schools, libraries and medical facilities will remain the same under the More Intense Community Centers Alternative as under the proposed General Plan. This is due to the fact that the population, housing and employment opportunities will remain the same. The location of the schools, libraries, and medical facilities will remain the same, which is in the community centers. These facilities are located within the community centers because urban areas are easily accessible to large quantities of County residents. The population of the County under the More Intense Community Centers Alternative is similar to that of the proposed General Plan and the development will be simply redistributed, potential impacts associated with schools, libraries, and medical facilities would be similar to that occurring with implementation of the proposed General Plan.
Transportation and Circulation Development of the proposed General Plan would result in similar levels of trip generation to the More Intense Community Centers Alternative. However, this alternative represents a more concentrated distribution of future land uses within a reduced number of community centers throughout the unincorpo-rated area. In comparison to the proposed General Plan, there would be a greater potential and demand for implementing alternative transportation. Additionally, overall vehicle miles traveled would likely be reduced in comparison to the proposed General Plan, as the opportunity for workers to live in close proximity to employment and shopping centers would be increased. With the More Intense Community Centers Alternative, an enhanced circulation system similar to that of the proposed General Plan would be implemented, as well as the CETAP corridors. Due to the increased concentration of development promoting transit usage and reduced overall vehicle miles traveled, traffic impacts associated with this alternative would be less than those estimated from the proposed General Plan.
Water Resources Under this alternative, all applicable local, State, and federal policies and regulations pertaining to surface water and groundwater resources, including the policies included in the Multipurpose Open Space Element of the proposed General Plan and the mitigation measures identified in the Program EIR, would remain in effect. While changes in the distribution or location of land uses would occur, no change in the overall amount build out of the proposed General Plan would occur under this alternative; therefore, increases in water demand resulting from the development of residential, commercial, industrial, and public facility uses would be similar to that which would occur upon implementation of the proposed General Plan. Potential impacts associated with the quantity and quality of surface water and would be similar to those occurring with implementation of the proposed General Plan.
Since the amount of development in unincorporated areas outside community centers will be reduced, potential impacts related to the disturbance of hydrologic features would also be reduced. Furthermore, reduction in development outside of community centers would result in a reduction in impervious surface area in these areas; thereby increasing the amount of land available for groundwater recharge. Reductions in the amount and extent of impervious surfaces would likely reduce the amount of industrial and commercial contaminants that typically enter surface and groundwater via runoff from paved surfaces. While intensification of community centers would generally facilitate the expansion, extension or installation of water supply/delivery features in these areas; however, when compared to the proposed General Plan, the provision of water supply infrastructure to less densely developed areas of the county may be more problematic or costly (or both).
Summary/Conclusion of the More Intense Community Centers Alternative
The More Intense Community Centers Alternative assumes that development would occur as largely as established in the proposed General Plan, except for a reduction in the number and an increase in the intensity of community centers. Housing, population, and job increases would occur as planned in the proposed General Plan. Potential impacts related to aesthetics, light and glare would be similar to those associated with the proposed General Plan, although significant impacts resulting from open space to urban land use conversion would be reduced under this alternative.
Air emissions impacts under the More Intense Community Centers Alternative for both short-term construction emissions and long term regional emissions are assumed to be likely to exceed the emissions thresholds established by Air Quality Management Districts resulting in significant impacts. The severity of the short-term construction emissions impact is anticipated to be similar to the proposed General Plan; the severity of the long-term regional emissions impact is anticipated to be similar under this alternative to the proposed General Plan.
Since development under the More Intense Community Centers Alternative would continue primarily as outlined in the proposed General Plan, impacts to cultural resources, energy, biology, flood hazards, geology and soils, hazardous materials, and mineral resources are anticipated to be similar to those associated with the proposed General Plan. Short-term construction noise impacts would be similar under this alternative as under the proposed General Plan. However, as construction contractors for each project would have to comply with the County's noise control ordinance requirements, no significant construction noise impacts would occur. Long-term vehicular traffic noise impacts would be similar under the More Intense Community Centers Alternative to those under the proposed General Plan. Significant long-term stationary sources and long-term railroad noise impacts would not occur under the More Intense Community Centers Alternative, as all new development would be required to comply with existing noise standards.
The More Intense Community Centers Alternative would allow the level of build out of the proposed General Plan, which includes parks and recreation facilities and increased public services. Impacts to parks and recreation and to public services would be similar to those under the proposed General Plan. Impacts to surface water and groundwater resources as well as hydrologic features and water quality under the More Intense Community Centers Alternative would also be similar to those under the proposed General Plan.
The More Intense Community Centers Alternative would reduce energy, long-term vehicular noise, and transportation/circulation impacts compared to the proposed General Plan. Because this alternative would result in an increased decreased level of conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses, it would result in increased decreased impacts relating to land use and agriculture compared to the proposed General Plan.
6.2.6 Density Bonus Alternative
Under this alternative, an incentive system would provide density bonuses to proposed residential development meeting specified criteria. A 100 percent density bonus for residential development would be allowed in the community centers and up to 50 percent density bonus allowed in the community development areas. Therefore, this alternative would contain a net increase in residential development within unincorporated areas.
This alternative assumes that the County would adopt a General Plan that would increase the intensity of community centers without increasing commercial and industrial development. Rather than increasing the overall build out of unincorporated areas, this alternative would represent (as compared to the proposed General Plan) a more concentrated pattern of development intensity while allowing for an increase in open space. Development intensity within the Western Riverside County MSHCP reserve areas would be distributed evenly throughout western Riverside County. The location of development would be changed with an overall increase in residential build out within Riverside County.
a. Relationship to the Western Riverside County MSHCP: Adoption and implementation of the proposed Western Riverside County MSHCP is assumed under this alternative.
b. Relationship to the Coachella Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan:
This plan is not assumed to occur in this alternative.
c. Assumptions Regarding CETAP Corridors: Two north-south and two east-west CETAP corridors are assumed in this alternative.
d. Assumed Circulation System: An enhanced arterial system that would maximize roadway capacity is assumed. Roadways that are inconsistent with implementation of the Western Riverside County MSHCP would not be included in the proposed circulation system.
e. Development within Cities and their spheres of influence: No annexation of cities' spheres of influence is assumed. Under this alternative, cities would build out according to their respective General Plans.
The following section discuss the impacts of the Density Bonus Alternative with respect to each resource area discussed in this Program EIR.
Land Use/Agricultural Resources Under this alternative projects, an incentive system would provide density bonuses to development meeting specified criteria. The provision of density bonuses to development within unincorporated areas would result in the net increase in the amount of residential development built in these areas, and therefore, would increase the population of the unincorporated Riverside County. Because the pattern of development under this alternative would remain unchanged, potential land use incompatibility issues would be similar to that occurring under the proposed General Plan. While the pattern or development would remain unchanged, increases in the number of residential units (and the corresponding population increase) may result in more people residing in closer proximity to commercial, industrial, or public facility uses that generate or contribute to significant environmental or nuisance impacts. Because the number of persons exposed to such impacts may exceed that resulting from the proposed General Plan, under this alternative, potential impacts associated with this issue would also exceed that resulting from implementation of the proposed General Plan.
As the pattern of development occurring under this alternative would not change from the proposed General Plan, the extent and/or amount of agricultural land under within unincorporated areas would not change. While the conversion of agricultural land would continue under this alternative, the amount or extent of such conversion would be similar to that occurring under the proposed General Plan.
Housing and Population While the overall pattern of development within unincorporated areas of the County would not be altered; the density of residential uses may differ from that envisioned by the proposed General Plan. Increases in density brought about from implementation of this alternative, would increase the population and housing estimates beyond that identified in the proposed General Plan. However, the implementation of the Density Bonus Alternative, in addition to adherence to federal, State, and local policies will reduce impacts associated to housing and population to a level similar to that resulting from the proposed General Plan.
Aesthetics/Visual Resources The Density Bonus Alternative would allow the development of rural residential development in the community development areas, agricultural uses, open space and more dense community centers within unincorporated areas of Riverside County. By increasing the intensity (density) allowed in the community centers and community development areas, there would be the potential for an increase in aesthetic effects without the implementation of design guidelines and measures. However, community centers would still be subject to the guidelines in Appendix J of the proposed General Plan. Development within the cities would be subject to each city's General Plan and regulations regarding design. Impacts resulting from the conversion of open space to urban land use would be similar under this alternative to those under the proposed General Plan.
With this alternative, there would be an increase of light and glare impacts over those identified in the proposed General Plan, which would be created by new development of residential structures and facilities. Additional light and glare that would be created by more intense development of structures and facilities would still occur in the community centers. Light and glare that is created by existing parking lots, landscaped areas, interior building lights, and buildings within the unincorporated County would not notably change. The level of light and glare impacts would be greater than that which would be created by land uses built through implementation of the proposed General Plan due to the net increase in the amount of residential development allowed.
Air Quality Short-term Construction Emissions Development could be more intense and concentrated under this alternative, the impacts that would occur under this alternative would be more concentrated and localized than under the proposed General Plan. It is likely that development of land with this alternative would generate construction emissions that would exceed the emissions thresholds established by the Air Quality Management Districts. This would result in a significant impact related to short-term construction emissions, which would be the same as identified with implementation of the proposed General Plan. The severity of this impact would be the same as that produced by the proposed General Plan.
Long-term Regional Emissions With the Density Bonus Alternative, long-term air emission impacts would be produced based on increased VMTs associated with development of properties in unincorporated Riverside County. It is anticipated that under this alternative, regional transportation facilities would be constructed as under the proposed General Plan, and public transit facilities and alternative transportation would be utilized to a similar degree. The quantity of CO, ROC, NO2, and PM10 emissions for the Density Bonus Alternative would exceed the emissions thresholds established by the Air Quality Management Districts. This would result in a significant impact related to long-term regional emissions, which would be similar to those identified with implementation of the proposed General Plan. The severity of the long-term regional air emissions impact associated with the Density Bonus Alternative would be similar to that produced by the proposed General Plan.
Biological Resources It is presumed that all natural habitat within agriculture, community development and the community centers within the unincorporated areas of the County would be impacted (i.e., removed or degraded to such an extent as to be of no biological value). It is also presumed that all natural vegetation within open space areas would be retained. Conservation areas that have been established in numerous areas around the eastern and western county and are managed by a variety of entities for a wide range of conservation purposes will continue to operate in the absence of an approved MSHCP for Coachella Valley. Within western Riverside County, the Western Riverside County MSHCP would be implemented and species and habitat within the reserve areas would be maintained.
Construction of the residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural land uses will result in loss of or disturbance to natural habitats. Therefore, construction of proposed land uses that would result in the loss or disturbance of natural habitats may result in the direct mortality of listed, proposed, or candidate species or may result in the loss of habitat occupied by such species, fragment habitat and wildlife corridors. There would continue to be wildlife/urban interface impacts from domestic animals invading wildlife habitats and killing birds and other small mammals; the destruction of wildlife habitat for fire breaks and fire management zones around residential units; and an increase potential for wildlife and human contact (i.e. poisonous snakes, mountain lion and coyote kills of domestic animals) in Coachella Valley and eastern County. Within western Riverside County the wildlife/urban impacts would be reduced through the implementation of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. By increasing the density in community development areas there would be a greater opportunity to increase the amount of natural open space over that with the proposed General Plan.
During subsequent project-level environmental analysis and review of individual development projects within eastern Riverside County and Coachella Valley, compliance with applicable regulations may require coordination with resource agencies (e.g., USFWS, CDFG, or Corps) to determine specific mitigation for impacts to waters of the
U.S. (including wetlands), riparian habitats, and State and federally listed species. Resource agency permits for project-level approvals may require mitigation measures in addition to those outlined in the proposed General Plan.
Cultural Resources With the implementation of the Density Bonus Alternative, new development will occur within unincorporated areas of Riverside County. This future development would require the disturbance of vacant land potentially containing cultural resources. The Density Bonus Alternative would allow a greater density of development to occur on the same amount of acreage as the proposed General Plan. Because the density of development is higher does not mean the area to developed would increase; the area of physical disturbance of vacant land would be same under this alternative as the proposed General Plan. The future impacts related to cultural resources that would potentially occur with this alternative would be similar to those associated with the build out of the proposed County General Plan.
Energy Under the Density Bonus Alternative, the pattern of development would remain consistent with the proposed General Plan. However, density bonuses could potentially be awarded to selected residential development within unincorporated areas, resulting in a net increase in the amount of residential units built in these areas; therefore, increasing the population of the unincorporated Riverside County. Since the residential build out projection would increase in comparison to the proposed General Plan, the demand for energy and the level of consumption would be greater than that of the proposed General Plan as well. Corresponding to the increase in the build out of residential development, the amount of energy transmission infrastructure needed to reach and connect new residential development to existing energy supply facilities would be increased in comparison to the proposed General Plan. In addition, energy facilities would need to be constructed and/or expanded to accommodate this increased future energy demand. This translates to greater environmental impacts associated with the construction and/or expansion of energy production facilities and extension/installation of future energy transmission infrastructure.
Flood and Dam Inundation Hazards Under this alternative, an incentive system would provide density bonuses to developments meeting specified criteria. The provision of density bonuses to development within unincorporated areas would result in the net increase in the amount of residential development built in these areas, and therefore, would increase the amount of impervious surfaces within unincorporated Riverside County. While the pattern of development would remain unchanged, the density of development would be altered from that identified in the proposed General Plan. Under this alternative, persons and property would continue to be exposed to flooding hazards. The increased residential densities that may occur under this alternative would increase the number of persons and amount of property exposed to these hazards. Potential increases in the population of unincorporated County areas that may result from implementation of this alternative would increase potential impacts related to this issue beyond that identified by the proposed General Plan. The policies included in the Safety Element of the proposed General Plan would remain in effect under this alternative. Adherence to these policies and measures would reduce impacts associated with flooding hazards to a level similar to that resulting from implementation of the proposed General Plan.
Geology and Soils Under this alternative, an incentive system would provide density bonuses to development meeting specified criteria. The provision of density bonuses to development within unincorporated areas would result in the net increase in the amount of residential development built in these areas, and therefore, would increase the population of the unincorporated Riverside County. While the pattern of development would remain unchanged, the density of development would be altered from that identified in the proposed General Plan. Under this alternative, persons and property would continue to be exposed to potential seismic, geologic, or slope stability hazards. The increased residential densities that may occur under this alternative would increase the number of persons and amount of property exposed to these hazards. Potential increases in the population of unincorporated County areas that may result from implementation of this alternative would increase potential impacts related to this issue beyond that identified by the proposed General Plan. The policies included in the Safety Element of the proposed General Plan, as well as the mitigation identified in the Program EIR would remain in effect under this alternative. Adherence to these policies and measures would reduce impacts associated with potential geologic, seismic, or slope stability hazards to a level similar to that resulting from implementation of the proposed General Plan.
Hazardous Materials While the overall pattern of development within unincorporated areas of the County would not be altered; the density of residential uses may differ from that envisioned by the proposed General Plan. Increases in density brought about from implementation of this alternative, would increase the population estimates beyond that identified in the proposed General Plan. Implementation of this alternative, may introduce structures, facilities, or land uses into the unincorporated areas of Riverside County that may use, store, sell, generate or transport hazardous materials. The regulations, standards, and guidelines established by the EPA, state, Riverside County, and local agencies relating to the storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials will remain in effect under this alternative. While the density increases permitted under this alternative would increase the number of persons that may potentially exposed to hazardous materials impact, adherence to existing policies, standards, and regulations, will reduce potential impacts related to hazardous materials to a less than significant level. Hazardous material impacts under this alternative would be no more significant than those which would occur under the proposed General Plan.
Mineral Resources The objective to potentially award a density bonus to selected residential development within unincorporated areas increasing the amount of residential units built in these areas would not directly impact mineral resources. However, the increase in population of the unincorporated Riverside County resulting from the density bonus may increase the probability of land use conflicts and incompatibility. In the event that land use conflicts and incompatibility occurs, impacts would only increase incrementally in comparison to the proposed General Plan since the pattern of development under this alternative would remain consistent with the proposed General Plan. The increase in future residential development may boost the demand for mineral resources needed for construction of the additional residential units. This boost in demand may affect future price and mineral extraction intensities. Under this alternative, all applicable mineral resource extraction and preservation policies within the proposed General Plan would be implemented.
Noise Short-Term Construction Noise Impacts With the Density Bonus Alternative there would be similar short-term construction noise impacts to the proposed General Plan, although the impacts would be more concentrated in community centers. The construction contractor for each individual project site would have to comply with the County's noise control ordinance requirements. The Density Bonus Alternative would not result in any significant construction noise impacts.
Long-term Vehicular Traffic Noise Impacts There would be similar roadway construction with the Density Bonus Alternative and the proposed General Plan. However, under the Density Bonus Alternative, there could be a decrease in overall VMTs due to increased development concentration, resulting in a decreased need to travel and increased opportunity to use public transit. This alternative would potentially result in relatively lower traffic noise levels along the roads than under the proposed General Plan.
Long-term Stationary Sources Noise Impacts Riverside County's noise control ordinance requirements would need to be complied with for proposed urban, industrial, agricultural, and commercial uses in the County as a result of the Density Bonus Alternative. Therefore, implementation of the Density Bonus Alternative would not result in any significant long-term stationary source noise impacts.
Long-term Railroad Noise Impacts Sensitive land uses that are located near railroad tracks with this would continue to be exposed to railroad noise. There is the potential that railroad traffic may increase in the future, which would continue to expose sensitive land uses to increases in railroad generated noise. Riverside County's noise standards in its Noise Element of the General Plan would need to be complied with by all new noise sensitive uses adjacent to railroad tracks. The Density Bonus Alternative would not result in any long-term railroad noise impacts.
Parks and Recreation Under the Density Bonus Alternative, the pattern of development would remain consistent with the proposed General Plan. However, density bonuses could potentially be awarded to selected residential development within unincorporated areas, resulting in a net increase in the amount of residential units built in these areas and thereby increasing the population of the unincorporated Riverside County. The demand, utilization and locations of park and recreational facilities generally corresponds with residential development. The overall residential build out within the unincorporated Riverside County under this alternative would increase in comparison to the proposed General Plan. Therefore the build out demand and overall park land acreage required to provide three acres of park land per 1,000 residents would be greater than the proposed General Plan. The construction and/or expansion of existing park and recreational facilities would need to occur concurrently with future residential development to avoid rapid deterioration of existing parks and recreational facilities. The costs of maintaining existing parks and number of park employees may increase due to the overall population increase and associated park use increase. Under this alternative, all applicable park and recreational facilities policies and development fees within the proposed General Plan would be implemented. Park and recreational facilities would be distributed in way to remain in close proximity to the higher density residential development areas. To account for the increased residential development, additional park and recreational facilities would be needed in comparison to the proposed General Plan. This translates to greater environmental impacts associated with the future construction and/or expansion of park and recreational facilities.
Public Services Under this alternative, an incentive system would provide density bonuses to developments meeting specified criteria. The provision of density bonuses to developments within unincorporated areas would result in the net increase in the amount of residential development built in these areas, and therefore, would increase the population of the unincorporated Riverside County. While the pattern of development would remain unchanged, the density of development would be altered from that identified in the proposed General Plan. This change in density may have impacts to the provision of public services such as: fire protection, sheriff protection, solid waste management, wastewater, schools, libraries, and medical facilities.
In regards to sheriff protection, the increase in population and residential development would mean that more officers would be required throughout the County because staffing levels are based on population counts. Also, there would be incrementally more calls that the department would need to respond to. However, because the development is built at a higher density response times to emergency calls may be shorter.
The staffing for fire protection is also based upon population, hence more fire fighters would be required compared to the proposed General Plan. Additionally, the threat of wildfires may increase as housing encroaches into areas of natural brush growth. The higher density of development may shorten response times. Under the Density Bonus Alternative there would be similar impacts related to both fire and sheriff protection as under the proposed General Plan.
The impacts to solid waste and wastewater management under the Density Bonus Alternative may be substantially different than those under the proposed General Plan. The number of housing units, people and employment opportunities would be higher than that of the proposed General Plan. Hence, the amount of solid waste and wastewater generated would also be higher. With the increase of solid waste and waste water, the facilities that dispose of these materials must also be increased. The increase in landfill capacity or the creation of a new landfill to dispose of solid waste will cause greater impacts than those created by the proposed General Plan. Likewise, the expansion of wastewater treatment facilities or the construction of new facilities will have a greater impacts than those created by the proposed General Plan.
The number and locations of schools, libraries and medical facilities will be greater under the Density Bonus Alternative than under the proposed General Plan. This is due to the fact that population and housing will increase, therefore the need for schools, libraries, and medical facilities will increase incrementally. The location of the schools, libraries, and medical facilities will remain the same, which is mostly in the community centers. These facilities are generally located within the community centers because urban areas are easily accessible to large numbers of County residents. Potential impacts associated with schools, libraries, and medical facilities will be similar to that occurring with implementation of the proposed General Plan because the need for these services are based upon population. Under the proposed General Plan school services will have unavoidable significant impacts, which would be the case under the Density Bonus Alternative.
Transportation and Circulation Compared to the Density Bonus Alternative, the proposed General Plan would result in similar levels of trip generation. However, this alternative represents a more concentrated distribution of future residential land uses within the community centers and community development areas throughout the unincorporated area. As a result, there would be a greater potential and demand for implementing alternative transportation in comparison to the proposed General Plan. Additionally, overall vehicle miles traveled would likely be reduced in comparison to the proposed General Plan, as the opportunity for workers to live in close proximity to employment and shopping centers would be increased. With the Density Bonus Alternative, an enhanced circulation system similar to that of the proposed General Plan would be implemented, as well as the CETAP corridors. Due to the increased concentration of development promoting transit usage and reduced overall vehicle miles traveled, traffic impacts associated with this alternative would be less than those estimated from the proposed General Plan.
Water Resources Because the pattern of development throughout unincorporated areas of the County would remain unchanged, potential impacts associated with the expansion, extension, or installation of water supply infrastructure or alterations to hydrologic features would be similar to that resulting from the proposed General Plan. Because the pattern of development would similar to that identified in the proposed General Plan, no change in the amount of impervious surfaces or groundwater recharge areas would occur.
Changes in residential densities brought about through implementation of this alternative may increase population estimates for the County beyond those identified in the proposed General Plan. Any increase in the number of residential units or population would increase the demand for water beyond that identified in the proposed General Plan. Potential impacts to surface and groundwater supplies resulting from implementation of this alternative may, therefore, be more significant than impacts identified with the proposed General Plan.
Summary/Conclusion of the Density Bonus Alternative
The Density Bonus Alternative assumes that development would occur as largely as established in the proposed General Plan, except for an allowed density bonus which would increase the intensity of community centers. Housing and population increases would occur at a higher rate than under the proposed General Plan, and job increases would occur at the same level as under the proposed General Plan. Potential impacts related to aesthetics, light and glare would be greater to those associated with the proposed General Plan.
Air emissions impacts under the Density Bonus Alternative for both short-term construction emissions and long term regional emissions are assumed to be likely to exceed the emissions thresholds established by the Air Quality Management Districts, resulting in significant impacts. The severity of the short-term construction emissions and long-term regional emissions impacts are anticipated to be similar to the proposed General Plan.
Since development under the Density Bonus Alternative would continue primarily as outlined in the proposed General Plan (though with greater density in community centers), impacts to cultural resources, energy, flood hazards, geology and soils, hazardous materials, and mineral resources are anticipated to be similar to those associated with the proposed General Plan. Short-term construction noise impacts would be similar under this alternative as under the proposed General Plan. However, as construction contractors for each project would have to comply with the County's noise control ordinance requirements, no significant construction noise impacts would occur. Because this alternative would increase the concentration of development, transportation/circulation impacts would be decreased. Thus, long-term vehicular traffic noise impacts would be less under the Density Bonus Alternative compared to those under the proposed General Plan. Significant long-term stationary sources and long-term railroad noise impacts would not occur under the Density Bonus Alternative, as all new development would be required to comply with existing noise standards.
The Density Bonus Alternative would allow the level of build out of the proposed General Plan, which includes parks and recreation facilities and increased public services. Impacts to parks and recreation and to public services would be greater than those under the proposed General Plan because of the increase in population. Impacts to surface water and groundwater resources as well as hydrologic features and water quality under the Density Bonus Alternative would be similar to those under the proposed General Plan. Impacts to water resources would increase, as increased population would result in a greater demand for water.
The Density Bonus Alternative would reduce impacts to biological resources because it would allow the conservation of open space by concentrating development, and would also reduce long-term traffic and vehicular noise impacts compared to the proposed General Plan. Because the density allowed in housing areas would increase, the alternative would result in increased impacts relating to land use, aesthetics and visual resources, energy, parks and recreation, solid waste, wastewater, and water resources compared to the proposed General Plan.
6.3 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Table 6.K (Comparison of Impacts by Alternative) compares the potential impacts of the proposed General Plan with each of the alternatives evaluated in Section 6.1 of this EIR. The proposed General Plan had significant unavoidable adverse impacts on prime farmland, biological resources, air quality, visual resources, water supply, and transportation. A side-by-side comparison of the issues as evaluated in the EIR is provided in Table 6.K for each of the following General Plan alternatives. For example, for the No Build Alternative, the impacts of land use and agricultural are less than the impacts of the proposed General Plan on land use and agriculture.
1. No Build
2. No Project (Existing General Plan)
3. Rural Emphasis
4. Less Intense Community Centers
5. More Intense Community Centers
6. Density Bonus
| Table 6.K Comparison of Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed General Plan | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Environmental Issue | No Build Alternative | No Project Alternative | Rural Emphasis Alternative | Less Intense Community Centers Alternative | More Intense Community Centers Alternative1 | Density Bonus Alternative |
| Land Use/Agriculture | Less | Same | Greater | Greater | Greater (Land Use) Less (Agriculture) |
Greater |
| Housing/Population | Less | Greater | Greater | Same | Same | Same |
| Aesthetics | Less | Same | Less | Same | Same | Greater |
| Light and Glare | Less | Same | Less | Same | Same | Greater |
| Open Space Conversion | Less | Same | Less | Greater | Less | Greater |
| Air Quality | ||||||
| Construction | Less | Same | Less | Same | Same | Same |
| Long Term | Less | Greater | Less | Greater | Less | Less |
| Biological Resources | Less | Greater | Same | Same | Less | Less |
| Cultural Resources | Less | Same | Same | Same | Same | Same |
| Energy | Less | Greater | Less | Same | Less | Greater |
| Flood and Dam Inundation Hazards | Less | Same | Same | Same | Same | Same |
| Geology/Soils | Less | Same | Same | Same | Same | Same |
| Hazardous Materials | Less | Same | Same | Same | Same | Same |
| Mineral Resources | Greater2 | Same | Greater | Same | Same | Same |
| Noise | ||||||
| Construction | Less | Same | Less | Same | Same | Same |
| Long-term Vehicular | Less | Greater | Less | Greater | Less | Less |
| Stationary Sources | Less | Same | Same | Same | Same | Same |
| Parks & Recreation | Less | Same | Same | Same | Same | Greater |
| Public Services | ||||||
| Fire | Less | Same | Greater | Same | Same | Same |
| Sheriff | Less | Same | Greater | Same | Same | Same |
| Schools | Less | Same | Greater | Same | Same | Same |
| Libraries | Less | Same | Greater | Same | Same | Same |
| Medical | Less | Same | Greater | Same | Same | Same |
| Facilities | Less | Same | Greater | Same | Same | Same |
| Solid Waste | Less | Same | Greater | Same | Same | Same |
| Wastewater | Less | Same | Less | Same | Same | Greater |
| Less | Same | Greater | Greater | Same | Greater | |
| Transportation/Circulation | Greater | Greater | Same | Greater | Less | Less |
| Water Resources | Less | Same | Greater | Same | Same | Greater |
| Notes: 1 Environmentally Superior Alternative 2 The No Build Alternative would not allow the extraction of mineral resources. With this alternative there would not be any improvements to County roadways which would continue to experience increase use because build-out of the Cities within the County would occur. |
||||||
Of the six project alternatives evaluated, one would result in no physical changes to the environment on the project site (No Build Alternative); one would allow the development according to the density established in existing plans (No Project Alternative); and four would alter the density patterns throughout the unincorporated County (Rural Emphasis Alternative, Less Intense Community Centers Alternative, More Intense Community Centers Alternative, and Density Bonus Alternative). Relocating the proposed project to an alternative site is not feasible, as the proposed General Plan covers the entire Riverside County. Therefore, no alternative site was considered. As shown in Table 6.K, each of the six alternatives would result in a combination of similar, avoided or decreased, and increased environmental impacts as compared to the proposed General Plan.
The No Build Alternative would result in greater impacts to mineral resources and transportation and circulation. Impacts under all other categories would be reduced, when compared to the existing General Plan. However, this alternative is not feasible, as it fails to accommodate current and projected growth within the County.
The No Project Alternative would result in similar or greater impacts to the proposed General Plan. Impacts to transportation and circulation, long-term regional air quality emissions, and long-term vehicular noise would be greater under this alternative.
Impacts under the remaining four alternatives would be similar to the proposed General Plan for cultural resources, geology and soils, flood and dam inundation hazards, and hazardous materials.
The Rural Emphasis Alternative and Less Intense Community Centers Alternative would both result in less concentrated development throughout the County. Thus, under each of these alternatives, impacts to land use and agriculture, long-term vehicular noise, and long-term regional air quality emissions would be greater than under the proposed General Plan. Transportation/circulation impacts associated with the Rural Emphasis Alternative would be similar to those anticipated for the proposed General Plan. The Rural Emphasis Alternative would reduce the population increase that could be accommodated within the County. Thus, impacts to aesthetics, light and glare, air quality, construction and long-term vehicular noise, and solid waste would be reduced, with the exception of greater aesthetic impact relating to the conversion of open space to urban land use. However, impacts to housing and population, mineral resources, water resources, and public services (except solid waste) would be greater under this alternative.
Transportation and Circulation impacts associated with the Less Intense Community Centers Alternative would be greater than those anticipated for the proposed General Plan. The Less Intense Community Centers Alternative would accommodate the same level of population increase as the proposed General Plan. Thus, impacts to housing and population, aesthetics, light and glare, construction noise, construction air quality, energy, and public services (except wastewater) would be similar to those under the proposed General Plan. Impacts to wastewater would be greater under the Less Intense Community Centers Alternative, as more infrastructure would be required to service less concentrated areas.
The More Intense Community Centers and Density Bonus Alternatives would both result in increased concentration of development. Thus, under each of these alternatives, impacts to traffic and circulation, long-term regional air quality emissions, long-term vehicular noise, and biological resources would be reduced. Aesthetic impacts relating to the conversion of open space to urban land uses would also be reduced. Impacts relating to housing and population, mineral resources, construction and stationary noise, aesthetics, light and glare, and public services (except solid waste and wastewater) would be similar to those under the proposed General Plan. Impacts relating to land use would increase, as more people would be concentrated in areas exposed to noise and other hazards. Impacts relating to conversion of agricultural lands to nonagricultural uses would decrease.
The More Intense Community Centers Alternative allows the same level of development as the proposed General Plan. Thus, impacts to parks and recreation, solid waste, wastewater, and water resources would be similar. The Density Bonus Alternative would allow an overall increase in population in unincorporated Riverside County that could be accommodated. Thus, impacts to parks and recreation, solid waste, wastewater, and water resources would be greater than under the Density Bonus Alternative than the proposed General Plan.
Overall, the More Intense Community Centers Alternative would result in similar or reduced impacts when compared with the proposed General Plan (with the exception of land use impacts). All other feasible alternatives would result in greater impacts than the proposed General Plan. Thus, the More Intense Community Centers Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative. The More Intense Community Centers Alternative would also meet the objectives of the proposed General Plan, which are to preserve crucial open space, provide a range of community design options in response to varied lifestyle choices, focus on high quality growth by using land resources efficiently, retain economically valuable agricultural lands, provide a comprehensive transportation system, provide public access to recreation opportunities, and expand local employment opportunities and broaden choices of transportation systems.
SECTION 7.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED
The following organizations and persons were consulted in preparation of this EIR:
7.1 School Districts
Elena Medina, LAFCO
Alice Murphy, Facilities Planning Department, Alvord School District
Sandi Falls, Banning Unified School District
Robert T. Guillen, Deputy Superintendent, Beaumont Unified School District
Dale Lavelle, Corona-Norco Unified School District
Lynda Jankel, Corona-Norco Unified School District
Dr. Norman Guith, Desert Center Unified School District
Dr. Doris L. Wilson, Desert Sands Unified School District
Dr. Stephan C. Teele, Hemet Unified School District
Dr. Sharron Lindsay, Lake Elsinore Unified School District
Dr. Gary Cringan, Menifee Union Elementary School District
Dr. Anita L. Suazo, Moreno Valley Unified School District
Willie Williams, Director Facilities, Moreno Valley Unified School District
Chuck DePreker, Assistant Superintendent, Facilities, Murrieta Valley Unified School District
Dr. Chet Francisco, Murrieta Valley Unified School District
Dr. Jay Hoffman, Nuview Union School District
Dr. William E. Diedrich, Palm Springs Unified School District
Dr. F. Jock Fischer, Palo Verde Unified School District
Antonio Arredondo, Jr., Perris Elementary School District
Robert Crank, Assistant Superintendent, Business Services, Perris Union High School District
Dr. Susan Rainey, Riverside Unified School District
Benjamin E. Dolinka, Vice President, Daid Taussig & Associates, Inc.
Peter Demyan, San Jacinto Unified School District
Janet Dickson, Facilities Coordinator, Temecula Valley Unified School District
Gene Irestone, Val Verde Unified School District
Barbara Oberg, Mt. San Jacinto Community College
Jim Parsons, Director, Marketing, Riverside Community College District
Dr. Donald Averill, Palo Verde Community College
7.2 Special Districts
Barbara George, District Secretary, Wildomar Cemetery District
Murrieta Valley Cemetery District
Gordon C. Willison, District Superintendent, Perris Valley Cemetery District
Bret Kestell, Coachella Valley Public Cemetery District
Palm Springs Cemetery District
Elsinore Valley Cemetery District
Sam I. Gershon, Vice President, Albert A. Webb Associates, for Edgemont Community
Services District
David D. Lopez, General Manager, Rubidoux Community Services District
Idyllwild Fire Protection District
Jim Passey, Valley Health Systems - Health Care District
Sue Ballard, San Gorgonio Memorial Health Care District
Barbara Taylor, R.N. Interim Administrator, Hemet Valley Health Systems-Health Care District
Palo Verde Health Care District
Michael Remington, Imperial Irrigation District
Palo Verde Irrigation District
Rosita Smith, Palo Verde Valley District Library
Beaumont Library District
Banning Unified School District Library District
Donald E. Gomsi, Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control District
Northwest Mosquito & Vector Control District
Riverside-Corona Resource Conservation District
Clyde Christensen, San Jacinto Basin Resource Conservation District
Vi Slade, East Valley Resource Conservation District
Nikki Grieci, Inland Empire West Resource Conservation District
Don Ackley, Coachella Valley Resource Conservation District
Nancy Owen Preece, Executive Director, Beaumont-Cherry Valley Recreation & Park District
Samuel W. Goepp, General Manager, Valley-Wide Recreation and Park District
Robert Nelson, Riverside County Waste Management Department
Keith Seymar, Home Gardens Sanitary District
Rancho California Water District
Pine Cove Water District
Toby Roy, Beaumont-Cherry Valley Water District
Peggy Martin, Elsinore Municipal Water District
Coachella Valley Water District
Jeffrey D. Sims, P.E., Western Municipal Water District
Jan Jaroncyk, Lee Lake Water District
John Morgan, General Manager, Mission Springs Water District
Tom Huss, General Manager, Pinyon Pines Water District
Steve Erlere, General Manager, Fern Valley Water District
Paul McAndrews, General Manager, High Valley Water District
Jerry Holldberb, General Manaer, Pine Cove Water District
Joe Lewis, Eastern Municipal Water District
Suellen Bidwell, Office Manager, Fern Valley Water District
Lesley Linkins, Principal Planner, Riverside County Waste Management Department
SECTION 8.0 - REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL
8.1 Preparers
LSA Associates, Inc.
Lloyd Zola, Principal in Charge
Lynn Calvert-Hayes, AICP, Principal/Project Manager
Adrianne Boyd, Environmental Planner, Aesthetics, Alternatives, Air Quality and Noise
Felicia Bradfield, Senior Environmental Planner, Technical Editing/CEQA Compliance
Tony Chung, Principal, Air Quality and Noise
Jack Easton, Principal, Biological Resources
Kevin Fincher, Principal, Traffic
Lance Gannon, Environmental Analyst, Mineral Resources, Parks and Recreation
Steven Greene, Senior Transportation Planner, Traffic
Karen Jordan, GIS Specialist, Land Use/Agricultural Resources, Visual Resources
Keith Lay, Senior Air Quality/Noise Specialist
Robert Reynolds, Senior Cultural Resource Manager, Paleontology and Cultural Resources
Renee Sendecki, Planner, Public Services, Energy, Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Carl Winter, Senior Environmental Planner, Methodology, Geology, Seismicity, Hydrology, Water Resources
Steve Walker, Senior Planner, Public Services
Jennifer Schuk, Associate, Graphics Technician
David Cisneros, Graphics Technician
Steve Dong, Editor
Nancy Hasegawa, Word Processor
Jennifer Potter, Word Processor
Sheryl Schumacher, Production
Transcore, Inc.
Steve Smith, Traffic Modeling
David Miller, Traffic Modeling
Sajjaad Rasheed, Traffic Modeling
County of Riverside
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning, Riverside County Transportation Commission
Mike Harrod, Senior Planner
Jerry Jolliffe, Administrative Manager, Planning
Lesley Likins, Principal Planner, Waste Management District
Katherine Lind, County Counsel
Ed Studor, Administrative Manager, Transportation
Zully Smith, Senior Civil Engineer, Flood Control and Water Conservation District
SECTION 9.0 - REFERENCES
9.1 General References
Buildout Projections County of Riverside General Plan RCIP, The Planning Center, September 17, 2001.
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, 2002. California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics.
California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook (Construction Activity),
March 1993. Stormwater Quality Task Force.
Caltrans Guidelines for Official Designation of Scenic Highways, 1995.
Draft County of Riverside General Plan Air Quality Element, January 2002. The Planning Center.
Draft County of Riverside General Plan Circulation Element, August 2001. The Planning Center.
Draft County of Riverside General Plan Housing Element, June 2001. The Planning Center.
Draft County of Riverside General Plan Land Use Element, May 2000. The Planning Center.
Draft County of Riverside General Plan Multipurpose Open Space Element, May 2001. The Planning Center.
Draft County of Riverside General Plan Noise Element, January 2002. The Planning Center.
Draft County of Riverside General Plan Safety Element, April 30, 2001. The Planning Center.
Fiscal Analysis Riverside County General Plan Update, October 2001. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates.
Groundwater Management Districts or Agencies in California - Water Facts Number 4, State of California Department of Water Resources, January 1996.
Natural Hazard Mapping, Analysis, and Mitigation: a Technical Background Report in Support of the Safety Element of the New Riverside County 2000 General Plan, Earth Consultants International, August 2000.
Probabilities of Large Earthquakes Occurring in California on the San Andreas Fault:
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 88-398, Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP), 1988, 62 pp.
Riverside County Fire Department, downloaded on April 16, 2002, http://www.rvcfire.org/home/Functions.htm.
Riverside County Population and Employment Forecasts, Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, January 2000.
South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Handbook, April 1993. South Coast Air Quality Management District.
The Role of Water Transfers in Meeting California's Water Needs, California Legislative Analyst's Office, September 8, 1999.
SECTION 10.0 - GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS
10.1 Glossary
Acre Foot. An acre foot is a unit of measure and represents a volume of water that would cover an acre to a depth of one foot (43,560 cubic feet of water or approximately 326,000 gallons). Enough water is contained in an acre foot to supply the water needs of two families for one year.
Acres, Gross. The entire acreage of a site. Gross acreage is calculated to the centerline of proposed bounding streets and to the edge of the right-of-way of existing or dedicated streets.
Acres, Net. The portion of a site that can actually be built upon. The following are not included in the net acreage of a site: public or private road rights-of-way, public open-space, and flood ways.
Affordable Housing. Housing capable of being purchased or rented by a household with very low, low, or moderate income, based on a household's ability to make monthly payments necessary to obtain housing. "Affordable to low-and moderate-income households" means that at least 20 percent of the units in a development will be sold or rented to lower income households, and the remaining units to either lower or moderate income households. Housing units for lower income households must sell or rent for a monthly cost not greater than 30 percent of 60 percent of area median income. Housing units for moderate income must sell or rent for a monthly cost not greater than 30 percent of area median income.
Ambient. Surrounding on all sides; used to describe measurements of existing conditions with respect to traffic, noise, air and other environments.
Ambient Noise. The composite of noise from all sources near and far. In this context, the ambient noise level constitutes the normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location.
Aquifer. An underground, water-bearing layer of earth, porous rock, sand, or gravel, through which water can seep or be held in natural storage. Aquifers generally hold sufficient water to be used as a water supply.
Arterial Highway. Medium to higher speeds (30-55 mph), medium to higher capacity (10,000-50,000 average daily trips) roadway that provides intra- and inter-community travel and access to the regional highway and freeway system. Access to community arterials should be provided at collector roads and local streets, discouraging direct access from parcels to existing arterials.
Attainment. Compliance with State and Federal ambient air quality standards within an air basin. (See "Non-attainment")
Base Flood. In any given year, a 100-year flood that has a 1 percent likelihood of occurring, and is recognized as a standard for acceptable risk.
Bicycle Lane (Class II facility). A corridor expressly reserved for bicycles, existing on a street or roadway in addition to any lanes for use by motorized vehicles.
Bicycle Path (Class I facility). A paved route not on a street or roadway and expressly reserved for bicycles traversing an otherwise unpaved area. Bicycle paths may parallel roads but typically are separated from them by landscaping.
Bicycle Route (Class III facility). A facility shared with motorists and identified only by signs, a bicycle route has no pavement markings or lane stripes.
Bikeways. A term that encompasses bicycle lanes, bicycle paths, and bicycle routes.
Biotic Community. A group of living organisms characterized by a distinctive combination of both animal and plant species in a particular habitat.
Blueline Stream. A watercourse shown as a blue line on a U.S. Geological Service topographic quadrangle map.
Brownfield. An area with abandoned, idle, or under-used industrial and commercial facilities where expansion, redevelopment, or reuse is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination.
Buffer Zone. An area of land separating two distinct land uses that acts to soften or mitigate the effects of one land use on the other.
Buildout; Build out. Development of land to its full potential or theoretical capacity as permitted under current or proposed planning or zoning designations. (See "Carrying Capacity (3)")
California Air Resources Board. The State of California Agency responsible for air pollution control.
California Clean Air Act. Legislation enacted in 1988 and amended in 1992 and 1996, mandating a planning process to attain state ambient air quality standards.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). California legislation that establishes environmental policy for the State of California. Established in 1970, it provides an interdisciplinary framework for state agencies to prevent environmental damage and contains "action-forcing" procedures to ensure that state agency decision-makers take environmental factors into account.
Carbon Monoxide. A colorless, odorless, toxic gas produced through the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels.
Carrying Capacity. Used in determining the potential of an area to absorb development:
(1) The level of land use, human activity, or development for a specific area that can be accommodated permanently without an irreversible change in the quality of air, water, land, or plant and animal habitats. (2) The upper limits of development beyond which the quality of human life, health, welfare, safety, or community character within an area will be impaired. (3) The maximum level of development allowable under current zoning.
Channelization. (1) The straightening and/or deepening of a watercourse for purposes of storm-runoff control or ease of navigation. Channelization often includes lining of stream banks with a retaining material such as concrete. (2) At the intersection of roadways, the directional separation of traffic lanes through the use of curbs or raised islands that limit the paths that vehicles may take through the intersection.
Clustered Development. Development in which a number of dwelling units are placed in closer proximity than usual, or are attached, with the purpose of retaining an open-space area.
Collector. Relatively-low-speed (25-30 mph), relatively-low-volume (5,000-20,000 average daily trips) street that provides circulation within and between neighborhoods. Collectors usually serve short trips and are intended for collecting trips from local streets and distributing them to the arterial network.
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). A 24-hour energy equivalent level derived from a variety of single-noise events, with weighting factors of 5 and 10 dBA applied to the evening (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) and nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) periods, respectively, to allow for the greater sensitivity to noise during these hours.
Community Park. Land with full public access intended to provide recreation opportunities beyond those supplied by neighborhood parks. Community parks are larger in scale than neighborhood parks but smaller than regional parks.
Concurrency. Installation and operation of facilities and services needed to meet the demands of new development simultaneous with the development.
Congestion Management Plan (CMP). A mechanism employing growth management techniques, including traffic level of service requirements, standards for public transit, trip reduction programs involving transportation systems management and jobs/ housing balance strategies, and capital improvement programming, for the purpose of controlling and/or reducing the cumulative regional traffic impacts of development.
Consistency; Consistent With. Free from significant variation or contradiction. The various diagrams, text, goals, policies, and programs in the general plan must be consistent with each other, not contradictory or preferential. The term "consistent with" is used interchangeably with "conformity with." The courts have held that the phrase "consistent with" means "agreement with; harmonious with." Webster defines "conformity with" as meaning harmony, agreement when used with "with." The term "conformity" means in harmony therewith or agreeable to (Sec 58 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 21, 25 [1975]). California State law also requires that a general plan be internally consistent and also requires consistency between a general plan and implementation measures such as the zoning ordinance. As a general rule, an action program or project is consistent with the general plan if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment.
Critical Facility. Facilities housing or serving many people, that are necessary in the event of an earthquake or flood, such as hospitals, fire, police, and emergency service facilities, utility "lifeline" facilities, such as water, electricity, and gas supply, sewage disposal, and communications and transportation facilities.
Cul-de-sac. A short street or alley with only a single means of ingress and egress at one end and with a large turnaround at its other end.
Cumulative Impacts. Two or more environmental effects that, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.
dB. Decibel; a unit used to express the relative intensity of a sound as it is heard by the human ear.
dBA. The "A-weighted" scale for measuring sound in decibels; weighs or reduces the effects of low and high frequencies in order to simulate human hearing. Every increase of 10 dBA doubles the perceived loudness though the noise is actually ten times more intense.
Density, Residential. The number of permanent residential dwelling units per gross acre of land. Densities specified in the General Plan may be expressed in units per gross acre or per net developable acre. (See "Acres, Gross," and "Developable Acres, Net")
Density Bonus. The allocation of development rights that allows a parcel to accommodate additional square footage or additional residential units beyond the maximum for which the parcel is zoned. Under Government Code Section 65915, a housing development that provides 20 percent of its units for lower income households, or ten percent of its units for very low-income households, or 50 percent of its units for seniors, is entitled to a density bonus and other concessions.
Density Transfer. A way of retaining open space by concentrating densities usually in compact areas adjacent to existing urbanization and utilities while leaving unchanged historic, sensitive, or hazardous areas. In some jurisdictions, for example, developers can buy development rights of properties targeted for public open space and transfer the additional density to the base number of units permitted in the zone in which they propose to develop.
Detention Dam/Basin/Pond. Dams may be classified according to the broad function they serve, such as storage, diversion, or detention. Detention dams are constructed to retard flood runoff and minimize the effect of sudden floods. Detention dams fall into two main types. In one type, the water is temporarily stored, and released through an outlet structure at a rate that will not exceed the carrying capacity of the channel downstream. Often, the basins are planted with grass and used for open-space or recreation in periods of dry weather. The other type, most often called a Retention Pond, allows for water to be held as long as possible and may or may not allow for the controlled release of water. In some cases, the water is allowed to seep into the permeable banks or gravel strata in the foundation. This latter type is sometimes called a Water-Spreading Dam or Dike because its main purpose is to recharge the underground water supply. Detention dams are also constructed to trap sediment. These are often called Debris Dams.
Developable Acres, Net. The portion of a site that can be used for density calculations. Public or private road rights-of-way and flood control channels are not included in the net developable acreage of a site.
Developable Land. Land that is suitable as a location for structures and that can be developed free of hazards to, and without disruption of, or significant impact on, natural resource areas.
Development Agreement. A legislatively approved contract between a jurisdiction and a person having legal or equitable interest in real property within the jurisdiction (California Government Code §65865 et. seq.) that "freezes" certain rules, regulations, and policies applicable to development of a property for a specified period of time, usually in exchange for certain concessions by the owner.
Development Fee. See "Impact Fee"
Dwelling Unit. A room or group of rooms (including sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation facilities, but not more than one kitchen), that constitutes an independent housekeeping unit, occupied or intended for occupancy by one household on a long-term basis.
Easement. Usually the right to use property owned by another for specific purposes or to gain access to another property. For example, utility companies often have easements on the private property of individuals to be able to install and maintain utility facilities.
Easement, Conservation. A tool for acquiring open-space with less than full-fee purchase, whereby a public agency buys only certain specific rights from the land owner. These may be positive rights (providing the public with the opportunity to hunt, fish, hike, or ride over the land) or they may be restrictive rights (limiting the uses to which the land owner may devote the land in the future.)
Elderly. Persons age 62 and older. (See "Seniors")
Emission Standard. The maximum amount of pollutant legally permitted to be discharged from a single source, either mobile or stationary.
Endangered Species. A species of animal or plant is considered to be endangered when its prospects for survival and reproduction are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes.
Environment. The physical conditions that exist within an area that will be affected by a proposed project, which in this case is the implementation of the 2000 Riverside County General Plan. The conditions include land, air ,water, minerals, flora, fauna, noise, and objects of historical or aesthetic significance.
Environmental Impact Report (EIR). A detailed statement describing and analyzing the significant environmental effects of a proposed project, and discussing ways to mitigate or avoid those effects.
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Under the National Environmental Policy Act, a statement on the effect of development proposals and other major actions that significantly affect the environment.
Erosion. (1) The loosening and transportation of rock and soil debris by wind, rain, or running water. (2) The gradual wearing away of the upper layers of earth.
Family. (1) Two or more persons related by birth, marriage, or adoption [U.S. Bureau of the Census]. (2) An individual or a group of persons living together who constitute a bona fide single-family housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit, not including a fraternity, sorority, club, or other group of persons occupying a hotel, lodging house or institution of any kind [California].
Farmland. Refers to eight classifications of land mapped by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. The five agricultural classifications defined below- except Grazing Land- do not include publicly owned lands for which there is an adopted policy preventing agricultural use.
Fault. A fracture in the earth's crust forming a boundary between rock masses that have shifted.
Feasible. Capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable time taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.
Field Act. Legislation, passed after a 1933 Long Beach earthquake that collapsed a school, which established more stringent structural requirements and standards for construction of schools than for other buildings.
Fiscal Impact Analysis. A projection of the direct public costs and revenues resulting from population or employment change to the local jurisdiction(s) in which the change is taking place. Enables local governments to evaluate relative fiscal merits of general plans, specific plans, or projects.
Flood, 100-Year. The magnitude of a flood expected to occur on the average every 100 years, based on historical data. The 100-year flood has a 1/100, or one percent, chance of occurring in any given year.
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) publishes maps, called Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). The purpose of a FIRM is to show the areas in a community that have a 1 percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. FIRMs are the result of engineering studies that are performed by engineering companies, other federal agencies, or the community and are reviewed and approved by FEMA.
Floodplain. The relatively level land area on either side of the banks of a stream regularly subject to flooding. That part of the floodplain subject to a one percent chance of flooding in any given year is designated as an "area of special flood hazard" by the Federal Insurance Administration.
Floodplain Fringe. All land between the floodway and the upper elevation of the 100year flood.
Floodway. The channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the "base flood" without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one foot. No development is allowed in floodways.
Floor Area, Gross. The sum of the horizontal areas of the several floors of a building measured from the exterior face of exterior walls, or from the centerline of a wall separating two buildings, but not including any space where the floor-to-ceiling height is less than six feet. Some cities exclude specific kinds of space (e.g., elevator shafts, parking decks) from the calculation of gross floor area. The gross floor area of a single-story building consists of its square footage as measured from the interior face of external walls, but not including any space where the floor-to-ceiling height is less than six feet and not including courtyard spaces without ceilings that are open and unobstructed to the sky. The gross floor area of a multi-story building consists of the sum of the horizontal areas of the several floors of a building measured from the interior face of exterior walls, but not including any space where the floor-to-ceiling height is less than six feet, and not including any stairwells, shafts, or courtyard spaces. The floor area of a building, or portion thereof, not provided with surrounding exterior walls shall be the usable area under the horizontal projection of the roof or floor above. For the purposes of floor area calculation, a shaft is defined as "an interior space, enclosed by walls or construction, extending through one or more stories or basements that connects openings in successive floors, or floors and roof, to accommodate elevators, dumbwaiters, mechanical equipment, or similar devices, or to transmit light or ventilation air." (California Building Code)
Floor Area Ratio (FAR). The gross floor area permitted on a site divided by the total net area of the site, expressed in decimals to one or two places. For example, on a site with 10,000 net sq. ft. of land area, a Floor Area Ratio of 1.0 will allow a maximum of 10,000 gross sq. ft. of building floor area to be built. On the same site, an FAR of 1.5 would allow15,000 sq. ft. of floor area; an FAR of 2.0 would allow 20,000 sq. ft.; and an FAR of 0.5 would allow only 5,000 sq. ft. Also commonly used in zoning, FARs typically are applied on a parcel-by-parcel basis as opposed to an average FAR for an entire land use or zoning district. A term utilized to measure the allowable building intensity of nonresidential structures on a site, calculated by dividing the gross floor area by the total net acres of the site. For example, on a site with 40,000 square feet of net land area, a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.0 will allow a maximum of 40,000 square feet of gross floor area to be built, whereas a FAR of 1.5 would allow 60,000 square feet of gross floor area, and a FAR of 0.5 would allow 20,000 square feet of gross floor area. Compliance of nonresidential projects covering multiple parcels with FAR building intensity restrictions may be calculated on an overall project basis rather than on individual parcels within the project; in such situations, the County of Riverside may require reciprocal use agreements, parcel mergers, or specification of property owner rights and responsibilities through Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions or other recorded documents.
Fossil Fuel. Coal, oil and natural gas; so called because they are the remains of ancient plant and animal life.
Freeway. A high-speed, high-capacity, limited-access road serving regional and county-wide travel. Such roads are free of tolls, as contrasted with "turnpikes" or other "toll roads" now being introduced into Southern California. Freeways generally are used for long trips between major land use generators. At Level of Service "E," they carry ap-proximately 1,875 vehicles per lane per hour, in both directions. Major streets cross at a different grade level.
Fugitive Dust. Dust particles which are introduced into the air through certain activities such as soil cultivation, off-road vehicles, or any vehicles operating on open fields or dirt roadways.
Ground Failure. Ground movement or rupture caused by strong shaking during an earthquake. Includes landslide, lateral spreading, liquefaction, and subsidence.
Ground Shaking. Ground movement resulting from the transmission of seismic waves during an earthquake.
Groundwater. Water under the earth's surface, often confined to aquifers capable of supplying wells and springs.
Groundwater Recharge. The natural process of infiltration and percolation of rainwater from land areas or streams through permeable soils into water-holding rocks that provide underground storage ("aquifers").
Growth Management. The use by a community of a wide range of techniques in combination to determine the amount, type, and rate of development desired by the community and to channel that growth into designated areas. Growth management policies can be implemented through growth rates, zoning, capital improvement programs, public facilities ordinances, urban limit lines, standards for levels of service, and other programs. (See "Congestion Management Plan")
Habitat. The physical location or type of environment in which an organism or biological population lives or occurs.
Hazardous Material. Any substance that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. The term includes, but is not limited to, hazardous substances and hazardous wastes.
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV). Any vehicle other than a driver-only automobile (e.g., a vanpool, a bus, or two or more persons to a car).
Historic Preservation. The preservation of historically significant structures and neighborhoods until such time as, and in order to facilitate, restoration and rehabilitation of the building(s) to a former condition.
Household. All those persons (related or unrelated), who occupy a single housing unit. (See "Family")
Householder. The head of a household.
Households, Number of. The count of all year-round housing units occupied by one or more persons. The concept of household is important because the formation of new households generates the demand for housing. Each new household formed creates the need for one additional housing unit or requires that one existing housing unit be shared by two households. Thus, household formation can continue to take place even without an increase in population, thereby increasing the demand for housing.
Housing Unit. The place of permanent or customary abode of a person or family. A housing unit may be a single-family dwelling, a multi-family dwelling, a condominium, a modular home, a mobile home, a cooperative, or any other residential unit considered real property under State law. A housing unit has, at least, cooking facilities, a bathroom, and a place to sleep. It also is a dwelling that cannot be moved without substantial damage or unreasonable cost. (See "Dwelling Unit" "Family" and "Household")
Impact Fee. A fee, also called a development fee, levied on the developer of a project by a city, county, or other public agency as compensation for otherwise-unmitigated impacts the project will produce. Section 66000, et seq., specifies that development fees shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged. To lawfully impose a development fee, the public agency must verify its method of calculation and document proper restrictions on use of the fund.
Impervious Surface. Surface through which water cannot penetrate, such as roof, road, sidewalk, and paved parking lot. The amount of impervious surface increases with development and establishes the need for drainage facilities to carry the increased runoff.
Industrial. The manufacture, production, and processing of consumer goods. Industrial is often divided into "heavy industrial" uses, such as construction yards, quarrying, and factories; and "light industrial" uses, such as research and development and less intensive warehousing and manufacturing.
Infill Development. Development of vacant land (usually individual lots or leftover properties) within areas that are already largely developed.
Infrastructure. Public services and facilities, such as sewage-disposal systems, water-supply systems, other utility systems, and roads.
Initial Study. A preliminary analysis prepared by a Lead Agency (Riverside County) determining whether an Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration must be prepared, and identifying the significant environmental effects to be analyzed in an Environmental Impact Report.
Institutional Uses. (1) Publicly or privately owned and operated activities such as hospitals, convalescent hospitals, intermediate care facilities, nursing homes, museums, and schools and colleges; (2) churches and other religious organizations; and (3) other nonprofit activities of a welfare, educational, or philanthropic nature that cannot be considered residential, commercial, or industrial. (See "Public and Quasi-public Facilities")
Intensity, Building. For residential uses, the actual number or the allowable range of dwelling units per net or gross acre (per gross acre, as used in this General Plan). For non-residential uses, the actual or the maximum permitted floor area ratios (FARs).
Inter-agency. Indicates cooperation between or among two or more discrete agencies in regard to a specific program.
Intrusive Noise. That noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence, and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing noise level.
Inversion Layer. A layer of warm air that traps the cooler air and any pollutants it carries, below.
Issues. Important unsettled community matters or problems that are identified in a community's general plan and dealt with by the plan's objectives, policies, plan proposals, and implementation programs.
Jobs/Housing Balance; Jobs/Housing Ratio. The availability of affordable housing for employees. The jobs/housing ratio divides the number of jobs in an area by the number of employed residents. A ratio of 1.0 indicates a balance. A ratio greater than 1.0 indicates a net in-commute; less than 1.0 indicates a net out-commute.
Joint Powers Authority (JPA). A legal arrangement that enables two or more units of government to share authority in order to plan and carry out a specific program or set of programs that serves both units.
L10. The A-weighted sound level exceeded ten percent of the sample time. Similarly, L50, L90 etc.
Land Banking. The purchase of land by a local government for use or resale at a later date. "Banked lands" have been used for development of low- and moderate-income housing, expansion of parks, and development of industrial and commercial centers. Federal rail-banking law allows railroads to bank unused rail corridors for future rail use while allowing interim use as trails.
Land Use Classification. A system for classifying and designating the appropriate use of properties.
Landfill, Class I. Class I landfills are qualified to accept and manage hazardous waste. The primary objective at a Class I landfill is the protection of surface and subsurface water quality. A Class I landfill is required to be located where natural geographic features provide optimum conditions for the isolation of wastes from surface and subsurface waters.
Landfill, Class II. Waste facilities under the Class II designation are required to be located where site characteristics and containment structures isolate waste from surface and subsurface waters. Select types of hazardous materials may be deposited at Class II facilities, provided a special variance from standard hazardous waste management procedures is granted.
Landfill, Class III. Class III landfills are required to be located where adequate separation can be provided between nonhazardous solid waste and surface and subsurface waters. Class III landfills are not permitted to accept hazardous waste.
Landmark. (1) A building, site, object, structure, or significant tree, having historical, architectural, social, or cultural significance and marked for preservation by the local, state, or federal government. (2) A visually prominent or outstanding structure or natural feature that functions as a point of orientation or identification.
Lateral Spreading. Lateral movement of soil, often as a result of liquefaction during an earthquake.
Ldn. Day-Night Average Sound Level. The A-weighted average sound level for a given area (measured in decibels)during a 24-hour period with a 10 dB weighting applied to night-time sound levels. The Ldn is approximately numerically equal to the CNEL for most environmental settings.
Lead. A gray-white metal that is soft, malleable, and resistant to corrosion. Sources of lead resulting in concentrations in the air include industrial sources and weathering of soils followed by fugitive dust emissions.
Lead Agency. The public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. Riverside County is the Lead Agency for the 2000 Riverside County General Plan.
Leq. The energy equivalent level, defined as the average sound level on the basis of sound energy (or sound pressure squared). The Leq is a "dosage" type measure and is the basis for the descriptors used in current standards, such as the 24-hour CNEL used by the State of California.
Level of Service (LOS) Standard. A standard used by government agencies to measure the quality or effectiveness of a municipal service, such as police, fire, or library, or the performance of a facility, such as a street or highway.
Level of Service (Traffic). A scale that measures the amount of traffic that a roadway or intersection can accommodate, based on such factors as maneuverability, driver dissatisfaction, and delay.
Level of Service A. Indicates a relatively free flow of traffic, with little or no limitation on vehicle movement or speed.
Level of Service B. Describes a steady flow of traffic, with only slight delays in vehicle movement and speed. All queues clear in a single signal cycle.
Level of Service C. Denotes a reasonably steady, high-volume flow of traffic, with some limitations on movement and speed, and occasional backups on critical approaches.
Level of Service D. Designates the level where traffic nears an unstable flow. Intersections still function, but short queues develop and cars may have to wait through one cycle during short peaks.
Level of Service E. Represents traffic characterized by slow movement and frequent (although momentary) stoppages. This type of congestion is considered severe, but is not uncommon at peak traffic hours, with frequent stopping, long-standing queues, and blocked intersections.
Level of Service F. Describes unsatisfactory stop-and-go traffic characterized by "traffic jams" and stoppages of long duration. Vehicles at signalized intersections usually have to wait through one or more signal changes, and "upstream"intersections may be blocked by the long queues.
Linkage. With respect to jobs/housing balance, a program designed to offset the impact of employment on housing need within a community, whereby project approval is conditioned on the provision of housing units or the payment of an equivalent in-lieu fee. The linkage program must establish the cause-and-effect relationship between a new commercial or industrial development and the increased demand for housing.
Liquefaction. The transformation of loose, wet soil from a solid to a liquid state, often as a result of ground shaking during an earthquake.
Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). A five- or seven-member commission within each county that reviews and evaluates all proposals for formation of special districts, incorporation of cities, annexation to special districts or cities, consolidation of districts, and merger of districts with cities. Each county's LAFCO is empowered to approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve such proposals. The LAFCO members generally include two county supervisors, two city council members, and one member representing the general public. Some LAFCOs include two representatives of special districts.
Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. The relevant portion of a local government general plan or coastal element that details type, location, and intensity of land use, applicable resource protection and development policies, and, where necessary, implementation actions.
Low-income Household. A household with an annual income usually no greater than 80 percent of the area median family income adjusted by household size, as determined by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence of such a survey, based on the latest available eligibility limits established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 housing program.
Low-income Housing Tax Credits. Tax reductions provided by the federal and State governments for investors in housing for low-income households.
Mean Sea Level. The average altitude of the sea surface for all tidal stages.
Median Strip. The dividing area, either paved or landscaped, between opposing lanes of traffic on a roadway.
Mercalli Intensity Scale. A subjective measure of the observed effects (human reactions, structural damage, geologic effects) of an earthquake. Expressed in Roman numerals from I to XII.
Microclimate. The climate of a small, distinct area, such as a city street or a building's courtyard; can be favorably altered through functional landscaping, architecture, or other design features.
Minipark. Small neighborhood park of approximately one acre or less.
Mitigation Measure. A change in a project designed to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate for a significant environmental impact.
Multiplier Effect. The recirculation of money through the economy multiplies its impact on jobs and income. For example, money paid as salaries to industrial and office workers is spent on housing, food, clothes and other locally-available goods and services. This spending creates jobs in housing construction, retail stores (e.g., grocery and drug stores) and professional offices. The wage paid to workers in those industries is again re-spent, creating still more jobs. Overall, one job in basic industry is estimated to create approximately one more job in non-basic industry.
Municipal Services. Services traditionally provided by local government, including water and sewer, roads, parks, schools, and police and fire protection.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The prescribed level of pollutants in the outside air that cannot be exceeded legally during a specified time in a specified geographical area.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). An act passed in 1974 establishing federal legislation for national environmental policy, a council on environmental quality, and the requirements for environmental impact statements. National Flood Insurance Program. A federal program that authorizes the sale of federally subsidized flood insurance in communities where such flood insurance is not available privately.
National Historic Preservation Act. A 1966 Federal law that established a National Register of Historic Places and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and that authorized grants-in-aid for preserving historic properties.
National Register of Historic Places. The official list, established by the National Historic Preservation Act, of sites, districts, buildings, structures, and objects significant in the nation's history or whose artistic or architectural value is unique.
Natural State. The condition existing prior to development.
Negative Declaration. A written statement prepared by a Lead Agency that briefly describes the reason why a proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, does not require an Environmental Impact Report.
Neighborhood. A planning area commonly identified as such in a community's planning documents, and by the individuals residing and working within the neighborhood. Doc-umentation may include a map prepared for planning purposes, on which the names and boundaries of the neighborhood are shown.
Neighborhood Park. City- or county-owned land intended to serve the recreation needs of people living or working within one-half mile radius of the park.
Neighborhood Unit. According to one widely-accepted concept of planning, the neighborhood unit should be the basic building block of the city. It is based on the elementary school, with other community facilities located at its center and arterial streets at its perimeter. The distance from the school to the perimeter should be a comfortable walking distance for a school-age child; there would be no through traffic uses. Limited industrial or commercial would occur on the perimeter where arterials intersect. This was a model for American suburban development after World War II.
Nitrogen Oxide. Primarily consists of nitric oxides (colorless, odorless gas formed from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when petroleum combustion takes place under high temperatures and/or pressure) and nitrogen dioxide (a reddish-brown irritating gas formed by the combination of nitric oxide with oxygen).
Noise. Any sound that is undesirable because it interferes with speech and hearing, or is intense enough to damage hearing, or is otherwise annoying. Noise, simply, is "unwanted sound."
Noise Attenuation. Reduction of the level of a noise source using a substance, material, or surface, such as earth berm sand/or solid concrete walls.
Noise Contour. A line connecting points of equal noise level as measured on the same scale. Noise levels greater than the 60 Ldn contour (measured in dBA) require noise attenuation in residential development.
Non-attainment. The condition of not achieving a desired or required level of performance. Frequently used in reference to air quality. (See "Attainment")
Notice of Completion. A brief notice filed with the Office of Planning and Research by the Lead Agency, as soon as it has completed a draft Environmental Impact Report.
Notice of Determination. A brief notice filed by a public agency after it approves or determines to carry out a project.
Notice of Hearing. A legal document announcing the opportunity for the public to present their views to an official representative or board of a public agency concerning an official action pending before the agency.
Notice of Preparation. A brief notice sent by a Lead Agency notifying Responsible, Trustee, and involved Federal agencies that it plans to prepare an Environmental Impact Report for a project.
Open-Space Land. Any parcel or area of land or water that is essentially unimproved and devoted to an open-space use for the purposes of (1) the preservation of natural resources, (2) the managed production of resources, (3) outdoor recreation, or (4) public health and safety.
Ordinance. A law or regulation set forth and adopted by a governmental authority, usually a city or county.
Outdoor Advertising Structure. Any device used or intended to direct attention to a business, profession, commodity, service, or entertainment conducted, sold, or offered elsewhere than upon the lot where such device is located.
Outdoor Recreation Use. A privately or publicly owned or operated use providing facilities for outdoor recreation activities.
Overlay. A land use designation on the General Plan Land Use Map, or a zoning designation on a zoning map, that modifies the basic underlying designation in some specific manner.
Ozone. A pungent, colorless, toxic gas. Close to the earth's surface, it is produced photochemically from hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen and sunlight and is a major component of smog. At very high altitudes it protects the earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation.
Parcel. A lot in single ownership or under single control, usually considered a unit for purposes of development. Park Land; Parkland: Land that is publicly owned or controlled for the purpose of providing parks, recreation, or open-space for public use.
Parking Area, Public. An open area, excluding a street or other public way, used for the parking of automobiles and available to the public, whether for free or for compensation.
Parking Management. An evolving TDM technique designed to obtain maximum utilization from a limited number of parking spaces. Can involve pricing and preferential treatment for HOVs, non-peak period users, and short-term users. (See "High Occupancy Vehicle" and "Transportation Demand Management")
Parking Ratio. The number of parking spaces provided per 1,000 square of floor area (e.g., 2:1 or "two per thousand.")
Parking, Shared. A public or private parking area used jointly by two or more uses.
Parking Space, Compact. A parking space (usually 7.5 feet wide by 16 feet long when perpendicular to a driveway or aisle) permitted in some localities on the assumption that many modern cars are significantly smaller, and require less room, than a standard automobile. A standard parking space, when perpendicular to a driveway or aisle, is usually 8.5feet wide by 18 feet long.
Parks. Open-space lands whose primary purpose is recreation. (See "Open-Space Land," "Community Park," and "Neighborhood Park.")
Parkway. An expressway or freeway designed for non-commercial traffic only; usually located within a strip of landscaped park or natural vegetation.
Parkway Strip. A piece of land located between the rear of a curb and the front of a sidewalk, usually used for planting low ground cover and/or street trees, also known as "planter strip."
Particulate Matter (PM). Atmospheric paniculate made up of finely divided solids or liquids such as soot, dust, aerosols, fumes and mists. Commonly classified into two categories, PM10 (particles between 2.5 and 10 micrometers in length) and PM2.5 (particles less than 2.5 micrometers in length).
Performance Standards. Zoning regulations that permit uses based on a particular set of standards of operation rather than on particular type of use. Performance standards provide specific criteria limiting noise, air pollution, emissions, odors, vibration, dust, dirt, glare, heat, fire hazards, wastes, traffic impacts, and visual impact of a use.
Plan Line. A precise line that establishes future rights-of-way along any portion of an existing or proposed street or highway and which is depicted on a map showing the streets and lot line or lines and the proposed right-of-way lines, and the distance thereof from the established centerline of the street or highway, or from existing or established property lines.
Planning Area. The area directly addressed by the general plan. A city's planning area typically encompasses the city limits and potentially annexable land within its sphere of influence.
Planning Commission. A body, usually having five or seven members, created by a city or county in compliance with California law (§65100) which requires the assignment of the planning functions of the city or county to a planning department, planning commission, hearing officers, and/or the legislative body itself, as deemed appropriate by the legislative body. The Riverside County Planning Commission, a five-member body appointed by the Board of Supervisors to perform various development review and planning functions and make recommendations to the Board, in accordance with Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 and California Government Code Section 65100.
Pollution, Non-Point. Sources for pollution that are less definable and usually cover broad areas of land, such as agricultural land with fertilizers that are carried from the land by runoff, or automobiles.
Pollution, Point. In reference to water quality, a discrete source from which pollution is generated before it enters receiving waters, such as a sewer outfall, a smokestack, or an industrial waste pipe.
Poverty Level. As used by the U.S. Census, families and unrelated individuals are classified as being above or below the poverty level based on a poverty index that provides a range of income cutoffs or "poverty thresholds" varying by size of family, number of children, and age of householder. The income cutoffs are updated each year to reflect the change in the Consumer Price Index.
Pro Rata. Refers to the proportionate distribution of something to something else or to some group, such as the cost of infrastructure improvements associated with new development apportioned to the users of the infrastructure on the basis of projected use.
Private Road/Private Street. Privately owned (and usually privately maintained) motor vehicle access that is not dedicated as a public street. Typically the owner posts a sign indicating that the street is private property and limits traffic in some fashion. For density calculation purposes, some jurisdictions exclude private roads when establishing the total acreage of the site; however, aisles within and driveways serving private parking lots are not considered private roads.
Program EIR. An Environmental Impact Report that may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either geographically; as logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions; in connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program; or as individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects that can be mitigated in similar ways. This EIR is a Program EIR.
Public and Quasi-public Facilities. Institutional, academic, governmental and community service uses, either owned publicly or operated by non-profit organizations, including private hospitals and cemeteries.
Public Services. See "Municipal Services"
Reclamation. The reuse of resources, usually those present in solid wastes or sewage.
Reconstruction. As used in historic preservation, the process of reproducing by new construction the exact form and detail of a vanished structure, or part thereof, as it appeared during a specific period of time. Reconstruction is often undertaken when the property to be reconstructed is essential for understanding and interpreting the value of an historic district and sufficient documentation exists to insure an exact reproduction of the original.
Recreation, Active. A type of recreation or activity that requires the use of organized play areas including, but not limited to, softball, baseball, football and soccer fields, tennis and basketball courts and various forms of children's play equipment.
Recreation, Passive. Type of recreation or activity that does not require the use of organized play areas.
Redevelop. To demolish existing buildings; or to increase the overall floor area existing on a property; or both; irrespective of whether a change occurs in land use.
Regional. Pertaining to activities or economies at a scale greater than that of a single jurisdiction, and affecting a broad geographic area.
Regional Park. A park typically 150-500 acres in size focusing on activities and natural features not included in most other types of parks and often based on a specific scenic or recreational opportunity.
Residential, Multiple Family. Usually three or more dwelling units on a single site, which may be in the same or separate buildings.
Residential, Single-family. A single dwelling unit on a building site.
Responsible Agency. A public agency that proposes to carry out or approve a project for which a Lead Agency is preparing or has prepared an Environmental Impact Report.
Retrofit. To add materials and/or devices to an existing building or system to improve its operation, safety, or efficiency. Buildings have been retrofitted to use solar energy and to strengthen their ability to withstand earthquakes, for example.
Rezoning. An amendment to the map and/or text of a zoning ordinance to effect a change in the nature, density, or intensity of uses allowed in a zoning district and/or on a designated parcel or land area.
Richter Scale. A measure of the size or energy release of an earthquake at its source. The scale is logarithmic; the wave amplitude of each number on the scale is 10 times greater than that of the previous whole number.
Right-of-way. A strip of land occupied or intended to be occupied by certain transportation and public use facilities, such as roads, railroads, and utility lines.
Sanitary Landfill. The controlled placement of refuse within a limited area, followed by compaction and covering with a suitable thickness of earth and other containment material.
Sanitary Sewer. A system of subterranean conduits that carries refuse liquids or waste matter to a plant where the sewage is treated, as contrasted with storm drainage systems (that carry surface water) and septic tanks or leech fields (that hold refuse liquids and waste matter on-site). (See "Septic System")
Santa Ana Winds. Warm, dry winds that blow from the east or northeast (offshore) occurring predominantly between the months of December and February. The winds develop when a region of high pressure builds over the Great Basin (the high plateau east of the Sierra Mountains and west of the Rocky Mountains including most of Nevada and Utah) and move locally across the Mojave Desert and then over and through passes in the San Gabriel, San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains.
Seismic. Caused by or subject to earthquakes or earth vibrations.
Septic System. A sewage-treatment system that includes a settling tank through which liquid sewage flows and in which solid sewage settles and is decomposed by bacteria in the absence of oxygen. Septic systems are often used for individual-home waste disposal where an urban sewer system is not available. (See "Sanitary Sewer")
Settlement. (1) The drop in elevation of a ground surface caused by settling or compacting. (2) The gradual downward movement of an engineered structure due to compaction. Differential settlement is uneven settlement, where one part of a structure settles more or at a different rate than another part.
Siltation. (1) The accumulating deposition of eroded material. (2) The gradual filling in of streams and other bodies of water with sand, silt, and clay.
Single-family Dwelling, Attached. A dwelling unit occupied or intended for occupancy by only one household that is structurally connected with at least one other such dwelling unit.
Single-family Dwelling, Detached. A dwelling unit occupied or intended for occupancy by only one household that is structurally independent from any other such dwelling unit or structure intended for residential or other use. (See "Family.")
Site. A parcel of land used or intended for one use or a group of uses and having frontage on a public or an approved private street. A lot.
Smog. A combination of smoke, ozone, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and other chemically reactive compounds which, under certain conditions of weather and sunlight, may result in a murky brown haze that causes adverse health effects. The primary source of smog in California is motor vehicles.
Solid Waste. Any unwanted or discarded material that is not a liquid or gas. Includes organic wastes, paper products, metals, glass, plastics, cloth, brick, rock, soil, leather, rubber, yard wastes, and wood, but does not include sewage and hazardous materials. Organic wastes and paper products comprise about 75 percent of typical urban solid waste.
Sphere of Influence. The probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency, as determined by the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County.
Splay. Spread wide and outward. A hazardous area along a fault.
Standards. (1) A rule or measure establishing a level of quality or quantity that must be complied with or satisfied. Government Code 65302 requires that general plans spell out the objectives, principles, "standards," and proposals of the general plan. Examples of standards might include the number of acres of park land per 1,000 population that the community will attempt to acquire and improve, or the "traffic Level of Service" (LOS) that the plan hopes to attain. (2)Requirements in a zoning ordinance that govern building and development as distinguished from use restrictions - for example, site-design regulations such as lot area, height limit, frontage, landscaping, and floor area ratio.
Statement of Overriding Consideration. A written explanation prepared by a public agency that explains why it approved a project, despite the presence of significant, unavoidable environmental impacts.
Streets, Local. See "Streets, Minor" Streets, Major. The transportation network that includes a hierarchy of freeways, arterials, and collectors to service through traffic.
Streets, Minor. Local streets not shown on the Circulation Plan, Map, or Diagram, whose primary intended purpose is to provide access to fronting properties.
Streets, Through. Streets that extend continuously between other major streets in the community.
Structure. Anything constructed or erected that requires location on the ground (excluding swimming pools, fences, and walls used as fences).
Subregional. Pertaining to a portion of a region.
Subsidence. The sudden sinking or gradual downward settling and compaction of soil and other surface material with little or no horizontal motion. Subsidence may be caused by a variety of human and natural activity, including earthquakes. (See "Settlement")
Substandard Housing. Residential dwellings that, because of their physical condition, do not provide safe and sanitary housing.
Sulfur Dioxide. A colorless, odorless, pungent, irritating gas formed primarily by the combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels.
Sustainability. Community use of natural resources in a way that does not jeopardize the ability of future generations to live and prosper.
Sustainable Development. Development that maintains or enhances economic opportunity and community well-being while protecting and restoring the natural environment upon which people and economies depend. Sustainable development meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. (Source. Minnesota State Legislature)
Tax Increment. Additional tax revenues that result from increases in property values within a redevelopment area. State law permits the tax increment to be earmarked for redevelopment purposes but requires at least 20 percent to be used to increase and improve the community's supply of very low- and low-income housing.
Telecommuting. An arrangement in which a worker is at home or in a location other than the primary place of work, and communicates with the workplace and conducts work via wireless or telephone lines, using modems, fax machines, or other electronic devices in conjunction with computers.
Tiering. Refers to the concept of multi-tiered approach to preparing Environmental Impact Reports. The first-tier Environmental Impact Report covers general issues in a broader program-oriented analysis. Subsequent tiers incorporate by reference the general discussion from the broader Environmental Impact Report, while primarily concentrating on the issues specific to the action being evaluated.
Traffic Model. A mathematical representation of traffic movement within an area or region based on observed relationships between the kind and intensity of development in specific areas. Many traffic models operate on the theory that trips are produced by persons living in residential areas and are attracted by various non-residential land uses. (See "Trip")
Transfer of Development Rights. Also known as "Transfer of Development Credits," a program that can relocate potential development from areas where proposed land use or environmental impacts are considered undesirable (the"donor"site) to another ("receiver") site chosen on the basis of its ability to accommodate additional units of development beyond that for which it was zoned, with minimal environmental, social, and aesthetic impacts.
Transit. The conveyance of persons or goods from one place to another by means of a local, public transportation system.
Transit, Public. A system of regularly-scheduled buses and/or trains available to the public on a fee-per-ride basis. Also called "Mass Transit"
Transit-dependent. Refers to persons unable to operate automobiles or other motorized vehicles, or those who do not own motorized vehicles. Transit-dependent citizens must rely on transit, para-transit, or owners of private vehicles for transportation. Transit-dependent citizens include the young, the handicapped, the elderly, the poor, and those with prior violations in motor vehicle laws.
Transit-oriented Development (TOD). A mixed-use community within an average 2,000foot walking distance of a transit stop and core commercial area. TODs mix residential, retail, office, and public uses in a walkable environment ,making it convenient for residents and employees to travel by transit, bicycle, foot, or car.
Transitional Housing. Shelter provided to the homeless for an extended period, often as long as 18 months, and generally integrated with other social services and counseling programs to assist in the transition to self-sufficiency through the acquisition of a stable income and permanent housing.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM). A strategy for reducing demand on the road system by reducing the number of vehicles using the roadways and/or increasing the number of persons per vehicle. TDM attempts to reduce the number of persons who drive alone on the roadway during the commute period and to increase the number in carpools, vanpools, buses and trains, walking, and biking. TDM can be an element of TSM (see below).
Transportation Systems Management (TSM). A comprehensive strategy developed to address the problems caused by additional development, increasing trips, and a shortfall in transportation capacity. Transportation Systems Management focuses on more efficiently utilizing existing highway and transit systems rather than expanding them. TSM measures are characterized by their low cost and quick implementation time frame, such as computerized traffic signals, metered freeway ramps, and one-way streets.
Trip. A one-way journey that proceeds from an origin to a destination via a single mode of transportation; the smallest unit of movement considered in transportation studies. Each trip has one "production end" (or origin - often from home, but not always), and one "attraction end" (destination). (See "Traffic Model")
Trip Generation. The dynamics that account for people making trips in automobiles or by means of public transportation. Trip generation is the basis for estimating the level of use for a transportation system and the impact of additional development or transportation facilities on an existing, local transportation system. Trip generations of households are correlated with destinations that attract household members for specific purposes.
Truck Route. A path of circulation required for all vehicles exceeding set weight or axle limits, a truck route follows major arterials through commercial or industrial areas and avoids sensitive areas.
Trustee Agency. A state agency with legal jurisdiction over natural resources held in trust for the people of the state, and which are affected by a project.
Uniform Building Code (UBC). A national, standard building code that sets forth minimum standards for construction.
Urban. Of, relating to, characteristic of, or constituting a city. Urban areas are generally characterized by moderate and higher density residential development (i.e., three or more dwelling units per acre), commercial development, and industrial development, and the availability of public services required for that development, specifically central water and sewer, an extensive road network, public transit, and other such services (e.g., safety and emergency response). Development not providing such services may be "non-urban" or "rural" (See "Urban Land Use") CEQA defines"urbanized area" as an area that has a population density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile - (Public Resources Code 21080.14(b)).
Urban Design. The attempt to give form, in terms of both beauty and function, to selected urban areas or to whole cities. Urban design is concerned with the location, mass, and design of various urban components and combines elements of urban planning, architecture, and landscape architecture.
Urban Land Use. Residential, commercial, or industrial land use in areas where urban services are available.
Urban Services. Utilities (such as water, gas, electricity, and sewer) and public services (such as police, fire, schools, parks, and recreation) provided to an urbanized or urbanizing area.
Utility Corridors. Rights-of-way or easements for utility lines on either publicly or privately owned property. (See "Right-of-way" or "Easement")
Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT). A key measure of overall street and highway use. Reducing VMT is often a major objective in efforts to reduce vehicular congestion and achieve regional air quality goals.
View Corridor. The line of sight 1) identified as to height, width, and distance 2) of an observer looking toward an object of significance to the community (e.g., ridgeline, river, historic building, etc.); the route that directs the viewers attention.
Viewshed. The area within view from a defined observation point.
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio. A measure of the operating capacity of a roadway or intersection, in terms of the number of vehicles passing through, divided by the number of vehicles that theoretically could pass through when the roadway or intersection is operating at its designed capacity. Abbreviated as "V/C". At a V/C ratio of 1.0, the roadway or intersection is operating at capacity. If the ratio is less than 1.0, the traffic facility has additional capacity. Although ratios slightly greater than 1.0 are possible, it is more likely that the peak hour will elongate into a "peak period." (See "Level of Service")
Water-efficient Landscaping. Landscaping designed to minimize water use and maximize energy efficiency.
Watercourse. Natural or once natural flowing (perennially or intermittently) water including rivers, streams, and creeks. Includes natural waterways that have been channelized, but does not include manmade channels, ditches, and underground drainage and sewage systems.
Watershed. The total area above a given point on a watercourse that contributes water to its flow; the entire region drained by a waterway or watercourse that drains into a lake, or reservoir.
Waterway. See "Watercourse"
Williamson Act. Known formally as the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, it was designed as an incentive to retain prime agricultural land and open space in agricultural use, thereby slowing its conversion to urban and suburban development. The program entails a 10-year contract between the City or County and an owner of land whereby the land is taxed on the basis of its agricultural use rather than the market value. The land becomes subject to certain enforceable restrictions, and certain conditions need to be met prior to approval of an agreement.
Zoning. The division of a city or county by legislative regulations into areas, or zones, that specify allowable uses for real property and size restrictions for buildings within these areas; a program that implements policies of the General Plan.
Zoning District. A designated section of a city or county for which prescribed land use requirements and building and development standards are uniform.
10.2 Acronyms
| AAQS | Ambient Air Quality Standards |
| ABOP | Antifreeze, Batteries, Oil, Latex Paint |
| ADT | average daily traffic |
| af | acre-feet |
| AM | morning peak hour |
| A-P | Act Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (formerly Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act) |
| A-P | Zones Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones |
| AQAP | Air Quality Attainment Plan |
| AQMP | Air Quality Management Plan |
| BMP | Best Management Practices |
| BNSF | Burlington Northern Santa Fe (railroad) |
| Bwh | dry-hot desert climate |
| Bwhh | dry-very hot desert |
| CAA | Clean Air Act |
| CAAQS | California Ambient Air Quality Standards |
| Caltrans | California Department of Transportation |
| CARB | California Air Resources Board |
| CCAA | California Clean Air Act |
| CCR | California Code of Regulations |
| CDMG | California Division of Mines and Geology |
| CEQA | California Environmental Quality Act |
| CERCLA | Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act |
| CETAP | Community Environmental and Transportation Acceptability Program |
| cf | cubic feet |
| CFR | Code of Federal Regulations |
| CGS | California Geological Survey |
| CIWMB | California Integrated Waste Management Board |
| CIWMP | Riverside Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan |
| CNEL | Community noise equivalent level |
| CO | carbon monoxide |
| CPHI | California Points of Historic Interest |
| CRHL | California Registered Historic Landmarks |
| CSD | Community Service District |
| CVC | California Vehicle Code |
| CVWD | Coachella Valley Water District |
| dB | decibels |
| dBA | A-weighted decibels |
| DEHS | Department of Environmental Health Services |
| DHS | California Department of Health Services |
| DOF | Department of Finance |
| DTSC | Department of Toxic Substances Control |
| du/ac | dwelling unit per acre |
| DWR | California Department of Water Resources |
| ECC | Emergency Command Center |
| EIR | Environmental Impact Report |
| EIS | Environmental Impact Statement |
| EMWD | Eastern Municipal Water District |
| EPA | Environmental Protection Agency |
| FAR | floor-to-area ratio |
| FEMA | Federal Emergency Management Agency |
| FHWA | Federal Highway Administration |
| FIS | Flood Insurance Study |
| g | force of gravity |
| GIS | Geographic Information System |
| HHW | Household Hazardous Waste |
| HHWE | Household Hazardous Waste Element |
| HRS | Hazard Ranking System |
| HSC | Health and Safety Code |
| HUD | U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development |
| HWCL | Hazardous Waste Control Law |
| Hz | Hertz |
| I- | Interstate |
| IID | Imperial Irrigation District |
| IS | Initial Study |
| IS/NOP | Initial Study/Notice of Preparation |
| ISO | Insurance Service Office |
| kg | kilogram |
| ksf | thousand square feet |
| kV | kilovolt |
| L10 | noise level exceeded 10 percent of the time during a stated period |
| L50 | median noise level during a stated period |
| L90 | noise level exceeded 90 percent of the time; the lowest noise level experienced during a monitoring period |
| LAX | Los Angeles International Airport |
| Ldn | Day-Night Average Equivalent Level |
| Leq | Equivalent-Continuous Sound Level |
| Lmax | maximum A-weighted sound level |
| Lmin | minimum A-weighted sound level |
| LN | percentile exceedance noise levels |
| MD | midday |
| MCE | maximum credible earthquake |
| MDAB | Mojave Desert Air Basin |
| MDAQMD | Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District |
| mg/L | milligrams per liter |
| µg/m3 | micrograms per cubic meter |
| mg/m3 | milligrams per cubic meter |
| MLD | most likely descendent |
| MPE | maximum probable event |
| mph | miles per hour |
| MPO | Metropolitan Planning Organization |
| MRZ | Mineral Resources Zone |
| MSHCP | Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan |
| MSW | Municipal Solid Waste |
| Mw | Maximum Magnitude |
| MWD | Metropolitan Water District |
| NAAQS | National Ambient Air Quality Standards |
| NAHC | Native American Heritage Commission |
| NDFE | Nondisposal Facility Element |
| NEPA | National Environmental Policy Act |
| NFIP | National Flood Insurance Program |
| NHPA | National Historic Preservation Act |
| NO | nitric oxide |
| NO2 | nitrogen dioxide |
| NOP | Notice of Preparation |
| NOX | nitrogen oxides |
| NPDES | National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System |
| NPL | National Priorities List |
| NT | nighttime |
| O3 | ozone |
| OHWM | ordinary high water mark |
| Pb | lead |
| PM | afternoon peak hour |
| PM2.5 | particulate matter, fine particles (less than 2.5 micrometers) |
| PM10 | particulate matter, coarse particles (larger than 2.5 micrometers but smaller than 10 micrometers) |
| ppm | parts per million |
| RCHL | Riverside County Historical Landmarks |
| RCIP | Riverside County Integrated Plan |
| RCRA | Resource Conservation and Recovery Act |
| RCWMD | Riverside County Waste Management Department |
| REMAP | Riverside Extended Mountain Area Plan |
| ROC | Reactive Organic Compounds |
| ROG | Reactive Organic Gases |
| RWQCB | Regional Water Quality Control Board |
| SCAB | South Coast Air Basin |
| SCAG | Southern California Association of Governments |
| SCAQMD | South Coast Air Quality Management District |
| SCE | Southern California Edison |
| SCHWMA | Southern California Hazardous Waste Management Authority |
| SEDAB | Southeast Desert Air Basin |
| sf | square feet |
| SHMA | Seismic Hazards Mapping Act |
| SIP | State Implementation Plan |
| SMARA | State Mining and Reclamation Act |
| SMGB | State Mining and Geology Board |
| SO2 | sulfur dioxide |
| SOX | sulfur oxides |
| SR- | State Route |
| SRRE | Source Reduction and Recycling Element |
| SSAB | Salton Sea Air Basin |
| SWPPP | Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan |
| TDS | total dissolved solids |
| TL | transmission loss |
| TRI | Toxics Release Inventory |
| UP | Union Pacific (railroad) |
| USACE | U.S. Army Corps of Engineers |
| VMT | vehicle miles traveled |
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Initial Study, Notice of Preparation, Comment Letters, Mailing List, Public Scoping Meeting Transcripts, and Public Notices
Appendix A is under separate cover as an Appendices to the Draft EIR and is not included in the Final EIR since it has not changed since publication the Draft EIR.
Appendix B - Riverside County General Plan Vision Statement
Chapter 2: A Vision for Riverside County
Overview
If you are reading this vision statement it is because you have some interest in what is happening in Riverside County. You may be concerned about your current or future quality of life, how your property will be impacted by change, whether to locate your business here, or, as a government official, what a decision should be regarding a particular issue. This vision will tell you in broad terms what values prevail here and how future community-building decisions will be affected by those values.
A vision is a positive mental image of the future that is expressed as if it had already been achieved. It is used, not only to shape plans, but also to motivate long term commitment to those plans and their implementation. It is a tool for inspiring achievement and unifying energies toward a future that is considerably more desirable than it would be without such thoughtful preparation.
Our vision for Riverside County is designed to:
1. Build on lasting values;
2. Appeal to the best in people;
3. Have universal appeal, despite unavoidable differences in priority;
4. Communicate in terms people can easily understand;
5. Represent common ground as the basis for resolving inevitable differences;
6. Be both visionary and practical; and
7. Be rich with opportunities for personal interpretation within the framework of the common ground.
The process for developing this vision involved:
1. Listening to the people of Riverside County through outreach meetings and public opinion polling;
2. Consolidating information from workshops involving the Board of Supervisors, Riverside County Transportation Commission, County Planning Commission, cities, tribal governments, appointed advisory committees, and special interest groups;
3. Augmenting that input with technical and planning knowledge from the staff and consultants;
4. Discussions among participants in the planning process of important issues that must be addressed in the vision; and
5. Preparing and refining the draft vision based on these discussions.
This Vision is made up of four parts. The first is a summary version that captures the essence of the Vision, but does not contain the depth of content generated by the outreach process. It is designed to be published separately as an easy to read, stand-alone document. The second part is this overview, which sets the stage for the substance of the Vision. The third part is a statement of fundamental values that provide the foundation for the Vision. The importance of these values cannot be overstated. They are the rationale for everything that appears on the Vision statement. The fourth is the Vision Statement itself. This part describes what Riverside County is like after 20 years of collaboration, based on the common ground established through the process of preparing the Riverside County Integrated Plan.
The essence of the Vision Statement is a description of conditions related to twelve major topics arising from the public outreach process. Each topic contains a number of issues that had to be addressed if the stated values were to truly influence the future. The translation of these issues into a description of results after 20 years of implementation provides the substance of the Vision for Riverside County.
How is this Vision used? Here are some ways:
1. Each General Plan Element contains a description of how it implements the Vision.
2. Each Area Plan contains a description of how the Vision applies uniquely to that area and how it is implemented.
3. The land use and supporting transportation and open space systems respond directly to the Vision through the General Plan Elements and Area Plans.
4. Communities in unincorporated areas are shaped by the content of the Vision.
5. The General Plan Implementation Program is reviewed annually as part of the County budget process and achievements toward the Vision are documented. County resources are focused on supporting the Vision.
6. Achievement of the Vision is being tracked by indicators that are either measurable or at least clearly defined based on a shared definition of success.
7. Staff reports on public improvement projects and private development projects specify how they serve to implement the Vision.
8. Public interest groups regularly observe the implementation process to both celebrate achievements and raise concerns when they are warranted.
9. The Riverside County Vision is frequently the subject of news media stories that call attention to aspects of its status.
10. Educational programs throughout the County contain segments on current issues and how their resolution reinforces the direction stated by the Vision.
11. The entire General Plan is reviewed and refined periodically in response to changing conditions and the degree to which the Vision is being achieved.
In short, the Riverside County Vision is at the heart of a great many public deliberations and has the continual attention of the public. It is a central part of the decision-making systems that shape what happens, where it happens, and how it happens.
FUNDAMENTAL VALUES
The physical character of our communities cannot be divorced from the values they respect. Sooner or later, these values manifest themselves in how our development decisions are made and how those decisions shape our communities. Where our values and results are synchronized, our communities prosper; where they are in conflict, so are the communities.
The simplest way to summarize our vision for Riverside County is to say that:
Riverside County is a family of special communities in a remarkable environmental setting.
Our vision is based on values that provide the foundation for common ground that, in turn, underpin the General Plan's goals, policies, and actions. The people of Riverside County declare that they join together in holding the following values and seeking a community future based on them. It can be argued that our values are optimistic and very ambitious: that they require our best instincts to prevail. Of course-why would we seek less in shaping our communities?
So, with that theme in mind, let us express the values that have motivated our community building and that will continue to do so in the future.
Community
We are, in fact, a community within which a family of local communities exists. "Family" means that we treat each other with the compassion and respect that one rightfully expects of family members. The richness of our natural setting is a shared resource of inestimable value. Despite differences in priorities and approaches, we are engaged in community building for ourselves and our heirs based on the common ground we have forged.
Inter-relatedness
We acknowledge the inter-relatedness of the economic, environmental, cultural, and institutional realms of our community life as we continue to plan and build our communities in a manner that enables us to achieve mutually beneficial results.
Rights
We respect the rights of others in the often complex process of developing our communities: property rights, including those associated with Indian lands; the right to dissent; and freedom from infringement on constitutional rights as citizens and as fellow humans seeking their rightful place in society.
Responsibilities
We affirm that, concurrent with rights, lie significant individual responsibilities to our communities and to each other in pursuing our personal priorities along with others engaged in community building.
Risks
We readily acknowledge that there is a certain degree of risk and uncertainty regarding future expectations, especially as they relate to land resources and how we manage them. At the same time, through the unique planning opportunities present here, we seek to make the risks known and avoid arbitrary and capricious decision making that aggravates the normal risks in human affairs.
Diversity
We respect the diversity of our peoples, with their fundamental and common beliefs and convictions. Accordingly, we cherish their rights to live their lives without unnecessary governmental regulation. At the same time, we acknowledge that the diversity we value so much requires leadership and tradeoffs in balancing the interests involved in a community development decision.
Valued Contributions
We value the contributions to our communities on the part of many sectors of our population whose age, youth, disability, health, or other characteristics may limit their contributions and satisfaction as community members unless they have equal access and are assured opportunities to be full members of our communities.
Varied Communities
We value the contribution to our overall quality of life by the richly varied municipalities, Indian nations, unincorporated communities, and rural communities in Riverside County.
Balance
We acknowledge that balancing a variety of important considerations in making community decisions is a constant challenge. We have faith that the foundation provided through our participation in shaping this vision and its implementing mechanisms will achieve a workable balance of mutual benefit.
Participation
We seek and take seriously the public's involvement in shaping our communities and participation in determining how they evolve over time. We affirm that the people of Riverside County who require a part in whatever forums and opportunities for public dialogue take place include residents, workers, students, business owners and operators, and property owners.
Volunteerism
We value the voluntary effort invested by our citizens in community building and place great worth in the voluntary expression of good will, compassion, understanding, and democratic ideals displayed by those who freely give of their valuable time and resources. We seek to sustain the recognition and continued involvement of the volunteer and not-for-profit sector as they contribute so much to our community life.
Decision Making
We expect decision-making to be informed by the best available information and seek a quality of decision making that is democratic, timely and equitable.
Creativity and Innovation
We seek bold and creative planning approaches and initiatives to implement our communal future based on these shared values and aspirations. We value such innovation because, sometimes, thinking "outside the box" is necessary to achieve the benefits people in our County seek in selecting their preferred life style, community characteristics, and housing types.
Distinctiveness
We are proud of the distinctive identities that our communities now possess and cherish the sense of place that results from them. We want this sense of place and distinctiveness maintained and enhanced in our planning and development activities.
Housing
We acknowledge shelter as one of the most basic community needs and value the willingness of our communities and their leaders to accept housing for our growing population in our communities, particularly with respect to the ongoing shortage of affordable housing and its negative impacts on our communities.
Natural Environment
We value the unusually rich and diverse natural environment with which we are blessed and are committed to maintaining sufficient areas of natural open space to afford the human experience of natural environments as well as sustaining the permanent viability of the unique landforms and ecosystems that define this environment.
Man-made Environment
We acknowledge and respect the long heritage of economic endeavors that have shaped portions of our environment through mining, agriculture, and similar enterprises and continue to take their value into consideration in shaping our environmental management.
Employment
We acknowledge gainful employment as one of the most basic individual needs and value a growing and diversified job base within which our residents may find a wide range of income opportunities in the agricultural, commercial, industrial, office, tourism, and institutional sectors of our economy.
Safety
We acknowledge security of person and property as one of the most basic community needs and commit to designing our communities so that vulnerability to natural and man made hazards, as well as criminal activities, is anticipated and kept to a minimum.
Planning Integration
We are proud of the multi-faceted approach taken in Riverside County to planning on Countywide and community scales and we dedicate ourselves to its continued support for the coherent and comprehensive implementation of this approach. At the same time, we seek an implementation approach that simplifies and focuses on essentials, without being unnecessarily complex.
Communication and Information
We expect the fullest possible communication between our community leaders and the people and believe in the value of information sharing as broadly as possible as the basis for effective communication and problem solving.
Quality Management
We seek and reward quality management of the institutions, organizations, and resources that belong to us. This includes the expectation that accountability and measures of achievement will be a prominent part of public management systems.
Sustainability
We are beneficiaries of the past and we value that. We seek the same for our heirs. We declare that they should have an expectation that they will inherit communities and a natural environment that offer them a reasonable range of choices.
Costs
We know that community-building involves significant costs. We seek sharing of benefits and costs in a proportional manner: the community should fund community-wide benefits and development related benefits should be funded by the development, all as part of an equitable overall financing strategy. We seek shared funding methods through partnerships that improve overall cost-effectiveness.
Governmental Cooperation
We expect the considerable number of governmental entities that guide and influence the quality of our communities to avoid parochial thinking and make their decisions and conduct their activities with the general community welfare and benefit in mind. This includes pursuing joint priorities where that approach offers community advantages that exceed independent action.
Youth in the Community
We affirm that the future of our community lies with our children and that their education and support are essential to community well being. We dedicate ourselves to building and sustaining a network of support for the youth in our community.
VISION AS A GUIDE FOR THE RCIP
Our values drive our vision. What we, the people of Riverside County want for our future, our communities, and ourselves will shape the Riverside County Integrated Plan. Implementing the plan will unify our resources to achieve our common purpose. What we choose to do or not to do will, in turn, validate or refine our vision so that it is not only imaginative in seeking a better future, but practical in creating expectations that are real. In short, this will lead to a comprehensive plan that says what it means and means what it says.
Why is this so important? It is because the only way for our vision to be translated into reality is to work at it and persist. In other words, completing the RCIP is not the end of the process; it is the beginning. That is when the hard-but truly rewarding-work begins.
Integration: The Hallmark of the Riverside County Plan
The key to the entire RCIP lies in the word "integration." There are a number of movements throughout the nation that seek to improve quality of life. They all include useful ideas, usually organized around a major theme or emphasis. Examples include Healthy Cities, Sustainable Development, Livable Cities, Safe Communities, Smart Growth, Clean Cities and a number of others. The RCIP is not beholden solely to any one of these ways of defining "quality of life." Rather, it seeks to integrate combinations of the best ideas from these programs and locally initiated concepts. That will allow us and our leaders to tailor the most applicable ideas to Riverside County's needs and potentials. If any single quality is evident regarding Riverside County, it is diversity. So, the vision for its future must respect the fact that "one size does not fit all." The foundation for this approach is integration of a host of ideas rich in potential, based not on a single theme, but on what makes the most sense for Riverside County.
It is essential to appreciate the fact that this vision for Riverside County allows for varied interpretations, depending on one's priorities. This cannot and should not be avoided. Yet, it should become clear, as implementation of the vision occurs, if some aspect of the vision is completely ignored. That is not acceptable and will require serious attention. So this vision should be thought of as a consolidation of many legitimate agendas within which balanced response is expected. That this balance will vary at different times and in different locales does not diminish the value of the vision. After all, the vision is intended to motivate excellence, not impose a singular straightjacket on the future. Rather, it reflects the heritage of diversity that has always enriched the character of this place.
This thought leads to one final idea reflected in our community vision statement. We constantly refer to the term "quality of life" in describing what we seek in our living environment. We all agree that this is a desirable purpose, yet we may define quality to mean widely differing things. For purposes of this vision statement, quality of life is defined to include all of the ingredients contained in
our vision. It is not exactly the same thing in every portion of the County. It is a balancing of competing priorities that do not enjoy universal support throughout the County. Yet the vision statement includes an essential common ground that must be found to some degree in any quality of life definition used here.
With this in mind, the RCIP...
1. Adapts the best part of many themes to the needs of Riverside County.
2. Derives its power from the values that are held by the people here.
3. Balances stability in the landscape with the dynamism and flexibility to adapt to changing future circumstances.
4. Uses the best available data and analysis to guide decision making without constraining the overall vision.
5. Is flexible so that it can be adjusted to accommodate future circumstances, yet provides a solid foundation of stability so that basic ingredients in the plan are not sacrificed.
6. Protects high-value environmental resources and private property rights - and develops the complex tools needed to do so.
7. Integrates and works closely with cities and their planning efforts.
8. Provides a long-term means for economic stability to be achieved through investment by a variety of interests: residential, agricultural, property owner, environmental, institutional, business community, labor, and others.
9. Seeks a balanced transportation system where people do not need to be totally dependent on the single-occupant vehicle.
10. Stimulates an unprecedented level of intergovernmental cooperation and collaboration.
The RCIP will...
1. Provide on-going monitoring, measurement, and status on progress toward achieving the vision.
2. Preserve crucial open space and transportation corridors, resulting in more compact and efficient development than would otherwise happen.
3. Provide a range of community design options to respond to varied lifestyle choices.
4. Put a focus on high quality, efficient growth that uses land resources efficiently.
5. Provide a process for adjustment through General Plan reviews, in accordance with state law, at regular intervals or when triggered by key events.
Draft Vision Concepts
The most powerful way to state our vision is to place ourselves in the future and see what we have achieved; what our communities are like; what the quality of life means at that point in time. So, if you will "fast forward" to about the year 2020 and look around, you will see our vision.
Because the Riverside County Integrated Plan was adopted and implementation has been underway for almost 20 years...
1. Corridors and areas are preserved for distinctive purposes: multi-purpose open space, including wildlife; economic development, including agriculture; residences; public facilities; and transportation systems.
2. Growth involving new development or expansion of existing development is consistently accompanied by the public improvements required to serve it.
3. The rich diversity of the County's environmental resources—even those modified by human activities—is preserved and enhanced for the enjoyment of present and future generations.
4. There is an adequate supply and quality of critical water resources essential to support development, agriculture, wildlife, and open space.
5. Multipurpose regional open space and community/neighborhood public spaces are permanent elements of the Riverside County landscape.
6. Public facilities such as schools, law enforcement related facilities, libraries, fire stations, community centers and other facilities essential to providing community services are in place.
7. Public access to recreation opportunities is part of the overall open space system, with multi-purpose parks, play fields, and community facilities at varied sizes in accessible locations.
8. Our communities maintain their individual distinctive qualities and character, surrounded in most cases (except in the Coachella Valley, where cities physically merge into a continuous development pattern) by open space or non-intensive uses to contribute to their sense of unique identity Community centers, gathering places, and special focal points unique to each community also aid this identity.
9. A full range of housing has been achieved and an ongoing program is in operation to continually meet this need.
10. Development standards are consistently high, offset in cost by the absence of unpredictable time delays and conflict in the development review process This is possible because the places where development should occur are clearly defined and the standards for development in cities and the County highly consistent.
11. Infill and redevelopment that enhance and revitalizes communities are contributing to the accommodation of growth.
12. Our communities—both improvements to existing ones and newly emerging ones—are models for new ways to provide and manage infrastructure, deliver education, access jobs, apply new technology, and achieve greater efficiency in the use of land, structures, and public improvements.
13. A comprehensive transportation system operates at regional, countywide, community and neighborhood scales. As part of that system, transportation corridors serve as unifying connectors between communities, provide high capacity linkages between jobs, residences and recreational opportunities, and offer multiple modes of travel.
14. Expanded local employment opportunities and broadening of choices provided by the transportation system and technological advances in communications systems have resulted in reduced vehicle miles and vehicle hours traveled (compared to what would otherwise have occurred), contributing to an improved quality of life generally and improved air quality specifically.
15. Clusters of similar businesses and industries are created within areas designated for job generating uses and our expanded educational institutions provide preparation and training for the new jobs created in these clusters.
16. Though overall acreage in agricultural production has diminished, proactive measures have retained economically viable agricultural lands, which are well protected as valuable economic resources and, in some areas, have expanded.
17. Many dimensions of the Riverside County Vision are being achieved through expanded levels of intergovernmental cooperation and partnerships that represent commitments to common ground not achievable in the past.
18. Because of the achievements in an improved quality of life, more people are involved in assisting the planning and implementation process than has historically been the case.
TRANSLATING ISSUES INTO VISION
A number of issues were raised by the people of Riverside County during the outreach process aimed at finding out their opinions and concerns about the future. The people had much to say. The issues they talked about and the ideas they had for improvement fell into twelve subject areas. Those subject headings follow, with vision statements applicable to each one. Each topic begins with a brief narrative summary, followed by a number of specific items that make up the vision for that topic.
Population Growth
There is no question that the process of accommodating almost a doubling of population in the last 20 years has been challenging. Yet, the emerging pattern of growth is now much clearer that it was during earlier growth periods. Perhaps more importantly, because of this clarity, there is now a much stronger focus on the quality of growth and development, rather than a fear of being overwhelmed by the numbers. Population growth has been accompanied by an even greater expansion of jobs.
Riverside County and its cities are so well coordinated in their growth forecasting activities that regional forecast revisions accept locally generated forecasts as a matter of course. This has many benefits for the people of Riverside County, such as unquestioned qualifications for receiving funding under various state and federal programs and stronger competition for available discretionary funding programs to supplement local resources.
1. New growth patterns no longer reflect a pattern of random sprawl. Rather, they follow a framework or transportation and open space corridors, with concentrations of development that fit into that framework. In other words, important open space and transportation corridors define growth areas.
2. Growth focus in this County is on quality, not on frustrating efforts to halt growth.
3. Population growth continues and is focused where it can best be accommodated.
4. Growth is well coordinated between cities and the County and they jointly influence periodic state and regional growth forecasts affecting Riverside County and its cities.
Our Communities and Their Neighborhoods
Each community in the County is identified uniquely as a special place. This includes incorporated cities, unincorporated communities, new communities, and tribal holdings. The combination of multipurpose open space systems, transportation networks, and land suitable for development distinguishes those areas that logically fit into future expansion of cities, creation of new communities, and preservation of rural enclaves.
Cooperative policies and programs are now in place that closely coordinate cities, the County of Riverside, and the Local Agency Formation Commission in concentrating development where it is most appropriate and still allowing considerable choice in location for individual property owners, developers and future residents. This collaboration is widely respected as a means of assuring the integrity of communities within the County, whether they are incorporated, unincorporated, or tribal in status.
Earlier problems clearly associated with leapfrog development (development that "skips over" developable land and establishes inefficient development patterns) have virtually disappeared. Areas slated for development are clearly
identified and mapped. Areas not acceptable for development, based on cause, within the time frame of the General Plan are also clearly identified and mapped. Development proposed at some distance from existing communities occurs because of a conscious commitment to a new community there, and it must demonstrate its self-sufficiency in terms of public facilities and services. This may eventually facilitate infill development where that is clearly consistent with planning policy and mapped designations. New communities are demonstrating methods for achieving efficient development and building a sense of community from the very beginning.
The pattern of development is now leading toward more efficient use of land resources and the incentives for intensification of development are working very effectively. As a result, the initial components of a transit system are in place, and the capability for expansion is preserved through rights-of-ways that can be brought on line as service needs dictate and financial resources permit.
Not only are multipurpose open space areas permanently protected, but also numerous rural areas are likewise assured a continuation of that lifestyle. Limitations on the erosion of this lifestyle are well respected because of the clarity and strength of commitment by the County and other agencies, and because extensive opportunities for more urban and suburban development exist which are not vulnerable to successful legal challenge regarding their appropriateness.
1. A high degree of consistency now exists between County and city land use and transportation planning within city spheres of influence, resulting in a reduction in development policy conflicts and confusion. In some cases this has been driven by city initiatives, in others by County policy direction, and in still others through a negotiated blend of city/county preferences.
2. Innovative designs allow for increased density in key locations, such as near transit stations, with associated benefits. In these and other neighborhoods, walking, bicycling, and transit systems are attractive alternatives to driving for many residents.
3. Incentives and the competitive need to "raise the bar" in creating communities of excellence commonly stimulate the development community to exceed the norms of development standards.
4. The regulatory system consistently rewards implementation of concepts that contribute to achievement of the Riverside County vision.
5. All communities in the County have complied with legal requirements for universal access to public buildings, sidewalks, and public spaces. Many have established an incentive system to expand similar access in buildings and spaces not covered by legal requirements.
6. Incentives to achieve development efficiency often results in reduced fee costs.
7. The financial implications of implementing the RCIP are well documented and understood.
8. The planning process continues to refine acceptable densities as a means of accommodating additional growth so that the extensive permanent open space that now exists can be sustained.
9. The extensive heritage of rural living continues to be accommodated in areas committed to that lifestyle and its sustainability is reinforced by the strong open space and urban development commitments provide for elsewhere in the RCIP.
10. Each of our rural areas and communities has a special character that distinguishes them from urban areas and from each other. They benefit from some conveniences such as small-scale local commercial services and all-weather access roads, yet maintain an unhurried, uncrowded life style. Rural residents accept the fact that they must travel some distance for more complete services and facilities.
11. Some rural residential development and support uses are accommodated in open space preserves where the type of development and sensitivity of the natural resource are mutually compatible.
12. Considerable protection from natural hazards such as earthquakes, fire, flooding, slope failure, and other hazardous conditions is now built into the pattern of development authorized by the General Plan.
13. Major backbone infrastructure systems are funded in a number of locations by grants, ongoing funding programs and supplemental mechanisms supported by the public.
14. Local infrastructure systems to improve levels of service and the quality of life in existing communities and to support new growth are being installed and expanded, with costs paid by those who benefit directly from these improvements. Cooperative and equitable arrangements to accomplish this continue to be crafted to respond to specific local situations.
15. Development occurs only where appropriate and where adequate public facilities and services are available or are provided for at the time of development in accordance with adopted level-of-service standards.
Housing
Our housing choices range from rural retreat to suburban neighborhood, from exclusive custom estate to modest but sound starter housing for young families. Our housing choices also cover the complete spectrum of housing costs and include rental as well as for sale units. People are now seeking housing here, not because it costs less than more developed counties, but because the quality housing choices are attractive as a place to live. Housing here is thriving, not only because it offers an excellent value, but because the communities and neighborhoods are well planned and offer ample opportunities for families to move up or down the cost range as their needs dictate.
1. The people of Riverside County represent a richly varied range of income categories. Housing is available in every increment of this range, from highly affordable to exclusive executive housing and from rental to various forms of ownership housing. This is being satisfied through a combination of new housing, rehabilitated housing, group housing, resale, mixed-use development, and various housing assistance programs where they are needed.
2. Regional forecasts of housing needs are well coordinated within Riverside county and are accepted by regional and state agencies.
3. Census data is well-integrated into housing needs forecasts.
4. There is now a balance between the residential development capacities of the County and city general plans within the County and regional housing needs.
5. Mixed-use development occurs at numerous urban concentrations in city spheres and unincorporated communities, many of which include residential uses.
6. All housing projects required by law to provide access to people with disabilities now do so.
7. Universal access guidelines are adopted and a system of incentives is in place to include them as a key feature of residential development projects.
8. Because of the clarity of direction now provided by the General Plan and the cooperative arrangements with most of the cities, constraints on providing affordable housing attributable to excessive local regulations have been eliminated.
9. Adequate housing for farm laborers is now provided.
10. Housing plans are well-integrated throughout the County at four levels:
a. Subregionally at the Area Plan level;
b. Within cities and unincorporated communities;
c. Within large-scale development projects; and
d. At the project site planning level where housing is involved.
Transportation
Our transportation system has more than kept pace with the growth in population, employment and tourism and their demands for mobility. New and expanded transportation corridors connect growth centers at key locations throughout the County. Several corridors have built-in transit service and all have expansion capability to accommodate various forms of transit. Some are now providing express bus service to Metrolink stations. These same corridors are designed with a high regard for the environment, including provision of critical wildlife corridor crossings so that our open spaces can sustain their habitat value. Air travel access by our residents and businesses is convenient and is an integral part of the Southern California air transportation network with worldwide connections.
1. Major new and expanded transportation corridors accommodating automobiles and other transit modes are now partially developed, with design and funding for additional segments underway. The existing components of the system now work together with each other to afford optimum mobility for the people being served.
2. Strategies of local job creation, coupled with improvements to the transportation system, allow County residents to have access to a wide range of job opportunities within reasonable commute times.
3. Riverside County and its communities are preeminent in their commitment to providing public transportation facilities and services to all people who need them. Where shortfalls remain, strategies are in place to expand universal access services as funding can be established.
4. Airports serving the County are tied into the regional air transportation system and operate as an efficient and convenient transportation mode to accommodate the traveling needs of the people and move selected goods quickly in the highly competitive international marketplace.
5. New fuels technologies are in place at key locations making a diversity of choices available according to the needs of users, particularly among the business fleet users.
6. Toll-way options are being explored as a means of achieving improved capacity in critical corridors.
7. Investment in, and expansion of, the existing freeway and arterial street networks continue to be a critical part of our comprehensive transportation system development.
8. Strategically planned truck routes (including exclusive truck lanes) provide for the movement of goods as a critical component of our transportation system.
9. The new California high-speed rail system now serves Riverside County directly, providing a strategic advantage for the County's business community.
10. Promotion of efficient intermodal freight facilities in the Inland Empire has achieved a shift of a portion of the goods previously moved by trucks onto the rail freight system.
11. The land use/transportation connection is a key part of the development process and has served to reduce the number of vehicle trips compared to earlier patterns of development.
12. Direct and immediate access to multi-purpose open space areas is provided in most areas of the County.
13. The transportation system now has sufficient financial supported to ensure that what is built can be adequately maintained.
14. Ample use is made of advanced transportation technology to ensure that the physical infrastructure is used to its maximum potential. This includes methods of achieving optimum efficiency of transit operations to provide increased frequency and reliability of transit delivery systems.
15. Reliable, real-time information is readily available to travelers for all major transit system routes, including fares, schedules, and current level of service on major roadways in the region to assist travelers in making choices regarding routes and mode of travel.
Conservation and Open Space Resource System
The County's conservation and open space resources are preserved and managed to a degree not thought possible 20 years ago. The multi-purpose open space system provides for multi-species habitat preservation rather than a piecemeal approach to single species. This enables the natural diversity of plants and animals to sustain themselves because of the critical relationships between them. Extensive land areas set-aside for this purpose and they are linked by corridors of various designs to allow movement between habitat areas. In addition, the public's access to the open space system is significantly expanded for recreation purposes, enabling a variety of active and passive recreation pursuits. Trails provide a means of recreation in themselves, as well as access for less intensive recreation. Creative and effective means of acquiring open space have enabled establishment of this system so that private property rights are respected and acquisition costs are feasible. This system also provides an effective approach that has eliminated conflict over development activities because of the demonstrated commitment to permanently preserving critical open space resources.
1. Conserved multi-purpose open space is viewed as a critical part of the County's system of public facilities and services required to improve the existing quality of life and accommodate new development.
2. The open space system and the methods for its acquisition, maintenance, and operation are calibrated to its many functions: visual relief, natural resource protection, habitat preservation, passive and active recreation, protection from natural hazards, and various combinations of these purposes. This is what is meant by a multi-purpose open space system.
3. A major thrust of the multipurpose open space system is the preservation of components of the ecosystem and landscape that embody the historic character and habitat of the County, even though some areas have been impacted by man-made changes.
4. Native habitat for plants and animals endemic to this area that make up such important parts of our natural heritage now have interconnected spaces in a number of locations that allow these natural communities to prosper and be sustained.
5. An incentive-based market system for habitat protection is in operation that includes options to use transfers of development rights (TDRs), conservation credits, and management programs to achieve equitable sharing of costs and benefits.
6. The cost to the public of maintaining open space and critical habitat areas continues to be supported because of the habitat value, recreational contributions and economic benefits the areas provide.
7. Lands identified for habitat preservation are based on the best available scientific information regarding species and habitat requirements and that information is updated as better methods emerge.
8. Programs educating students about the rich natural environment are available and offered to local schools.
9. Strategies and incentives for voluntary conservation on private land are an integral part of the County's policy/regulatory system and are referred to nationwide as model approaches.
10. Where natural streams and watercourses are located within designated multipurpose open space systems, they have been preserved as natural living systems. Where they pass through areas that are developed or designated for development (including agriculture), to the extent allowed by existing conditions, their continuity is maintained and protected as environmental corridors linking open space areas. Their viability is enhanced in numerous cases by being included in publicly maintained open spaces rather than in narrow concrete channels.
11. Important watershed resources to support downstream habitat are being maintained. This includes watershed functions such as peak flows, water quality, recharge, and sediment transport, which are necessary for sustaining downstream resources.
12. The Salton Sea, as a result of sustained efforts to return it to a viable condition, is now a thriving water, recreation, and environment resource.
Air Quality
Air quality attainment goals established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District have been more than met despite the substantial growth in the region in the last 20 years. Most of this is a result of significantly improved engine technology and the replacement of more polluting vehicles. However, local initiatives that expanded transit options, concentrated development more efficiently, and increased local employment opportunities have also contributed to air quality improvement.
1. Air quality is viewed as such an important factor in quality of life that its measurements are used as a major factor in evaluating the Plan's performance.
2. Riverside County is an active participant in programs to base air quality improvement techniques on "best available science" methods.
3. Implementing strategies have been accomplished to transition public and private fleets from petroleum-based fuels to alternative fuels and Riverside County is known as a center for applied new technology.
4. The County actively participates with other regional jurisdictions in implementing strategies to reduce air pollution spillover into Riverside County from adjacent counties as well as limiting pollutants generated within the County. This participation has led to measures that contributed to exceeding attainment goals established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
5. Land use strategies being implemented in the County reflect an improved balance of jobs and housing, resulting in significant reduction in the average commute times and related motor vehicle pollutants.
Jobs and the Economy
Job growth in Riverside County has exceeded the remarkable population growth experienced during the last 20 years. This is a consequence of the natural pattern of jobs following labor force and the extensive efforts by local governments, the business community and educational institutions to stimulate and reinforce new economic activity. The effort has been aided by the fact that Riverside County offers an outstanding variety of living environments and housing choices and now enjoys a reputation as a highly desirable place for business relocation. The expansion of educational opportunities and complementary programs between education, industry, and the work force has played a significant part in this economic vitality.
1. Implementation of the RCIP provides a clear picture of the fiscal implications of land use policies and documents the financial, as well as physical and social viability of communities in the County.
2. Jobs/housing balance is significantly improved overall, as well as within subregions of the County.
3. Voluntary tax sharing arrangements continue to be available to cities and the County to reduce the negative impacts of large scale projects that would otherwise generate tax revenue problems for adjacent jurisdictions.
4. Economic development coalitions at several levels are active partners in implementing the County Plan through their involvement in stimulating new business development. This has resulted in new and expanded clusters of business activities, aided in part through cooperation with university and college research and development programs.
5. Jobs training programs to put people into new industry clusters are operational throughout the county and serve as an attraction to firms seeking a capable and stable labor force.
6. School programs are coordinated with economic clusters in terms of curriculum emphasis and cooperative internship and training arrangements with businesses.
7. Emerging and expanding employment sectors, such as the hospitality industry and high-tech industries, are receiving renewed emphasis in job training and investment focus.
Agricultural Lands
Agriculture remains a strong component of the County's economy. Even though some agricultural land has been urbanized, there has also been expansion in other locations. The place of agriculture in the community remains strong and conflicts between agricultural operations and nearby development are rare. The Riverside County agricultural industry is a strong competitor in the global agricultural market.
1. Riverside County continues to be one of the major agricultural forces among California counties and competes successfully in the global agricultural economy.
2. Many agricultural properties remain as economically productive businesses, whereas others are phasing into development through a carefully managed transition program designed to stage the transition from farming to clearly designated urban and suburban uses.
3. Productive agricultural lands are broadly understood to be a valuable economic resource and have expanded in some areas. In selected areas they also serve as a valuable buffer between suburban and open space uses. Where agricultural lands are slated for transition to other forms of development, they are still valued for their contribution to the County's economy and continue in productive operation.
4. Financial incentives, such as transfer of development rights, development easements, and other mechanisms are available for voluntary use to preserve the economic value of agricultural lands. Availability of these tools acknowledges the potential development value of these properties and enables property owners to capture some of that value without giving up agricultural production if they so desire.
5. Agricultural operations of varying sizes and types are accommodated under the Plan in response to prevailing market opportunities. In some cases this has resulted in expanding the lands devoted to agriculture.
6. Where agricultural activities with significant environmental impacts such as dairies, egg production, and animal husbandry are accommodated, they are accompanied by special provisions for mitigating impacts on adjacent development to facilitate their continued operation.
7. Agricultural land that remains economically viable, either as a permanent or temporary economic resource, is well protected by policies, ordinances, and design regulations applicable to new development that may be planned nearby.
8. More efficient use of developable land is facilitating the continued use of agricultural lands and the acquisition of open space.
9. Agricultural lands remain as a valuable form of development. Although they are not publicly owned open space, through voluntary agreements, many of them have become part of the County's multi-purpose open space system for their visual value and as buffers to other forms of development.
Educational Facilities
The educational system in Riverside County is highly respected as a valued positive force in the County's communities and economic environment. From pre-school through advanced degrees, the educational infrastructure has expanded remarkably in synch with the County's growth. A particularly effective aspect of education's role in the community is the array of partnership programs with the business community and local governments, dealing with job training, environmental resource management, recreation, and a host of other initiatives. Basic educational programs have moved the County's student population near the top ranks in the State as revealed by academic testing.
1. The priority need for quality educational facilities and programs in the County (in order to educate our youth, serve the ongoing educational needs of our existing communities and attract additional industry, business, and quality development) is satisfied through universally established partnerships between school districts and local governments. This is reflected in cooperative planning for school facilities and access to them.
2. A considerable contribution to the educational excellence within Riverside County has been made by expanded and new facilities at the community college and university levels.
3. There are now numerous examples of arrangements for joint use and financing of school facilities, as well as cooperative community based programs made possible by reduced costs of facilities.
4. Several industrial/office park sectors of the County include community college branch facilities in which job training and employee professional development programs are conducted under a business/college partnership arrangement.
5. The special housing needs of educators and students are recognized through innovative partnerships between developers, communities, and educational institutions to provide a range of residential choices for this segment of the population.
6. Effective and widespread initiatives to bolster resources and focus energies on basic education for our student population have resulted in the County's academic performance making a remarkable surge toward the top of county rankings in the State.
Plan Integration
The major thrusts of the County's planning program have resulted in a high degree of program component integration. New transportation corridors (and expansion of older ones) are designed to either avoid environmentally sensitive areas or, if necessary, to pass through them in a very sensitive way. The multipurpose open space system not only provides a remarkable habitat and recreation resource, but it also provides a framework that distinguishes our family of communities. These components are both integrated into the General Plan through the system of Area Plans covering all but the most remote desert areas of the County. As a consequence, our communities and their development areas are well served by transportation networks and our priceless environmental resources are permanently preserved for future generations.
1. A key opportunity for plan integration is exemplified by the existence of critical corridors linking our communities - all of which are part of the service systems that enable our communities to prosper. This includes open space corridors for vistas and recreation, habitat corridors for wildlife and plants, transportation corridors for mobility, riding and hiking trails for recreational travel, and bikeways as an alternate mode of travel as well as recreation pursuit. In essence, this is resulting in a planned, interdependent network of systems to serve our communities.
2. Many of the corridors are recognized, not only as community links or buffers, but also as unifying elements that reinforce community identity.
3. The need for safe and efficient access to jobs, housing, commerce, and public services for residents of all ages, income groups, and physical abilities is reflected in the comprehensive transportation network serving the County.
4. Flexible planning tools such as mixed use zoning, incentives for creative use of land, overlay zoning, and multiple, flexible use of open space are in common use as our communities mature and new communities take shape.
Financial Realities
Few of the aspirations reflected in the current state of community development, transportation support, and multi-purpose open space preservation could have come about without an aggressive and creative financing strategy. The financing of improvements and programs has benefitted from the unique breadth and integration of the County's planning program. We are very competitive for grant funding. The burden for costs to achieve what we have today has fallen on those who benefit to a degree not achieved in many locales.
1. A wide variety of public and private funding arrangements are in operation, including creative use of state and federal grant and loan funds to confront the continuing financial reality of not having enough money to do everything that is desired.
2. The County has a reputation for being unusually creative in gaining leverage out of limited funds by using them as seed money to attract larger investments in community facilities and programs, to obtain public and private grants, and stimulate investment participation by the private sector.
3. Along with its emphasis on achieving community desires, the County remains highly respected for its sensitivity to private property rights.
4. Because of its fiscal achievements, Riverside County and its cities are exceptionally effective at forestalling unfunded mandates from state and federal levels.
Intergovernmental Cooperation
The integration of planning and importance of the transportation corridors, multi-purpose open space system, and development commitments have had an impact on governmental decision making at many levels. Numerous examples now exist of intergovernmental arrangements to facilitate continued implementation of the policy direction established almost 20 years ago. The result of this is not only improved governmental effectiveness, but also less conflict over policy issues, increased competitiveness for grant funding, and establishment of a strong tradition of intergovernmental cooperation.
1. Recognition that many aspects of the vision are boundary-less is exemplified by the extensive array of intergovernmental arrangements involving the County, cities, special districts, Indian tribes, and unincorporated communities.
2. A coordinated and streamlined permitting process is now in operation that is feasible because areas clearly slated for development are identified and appropriate open space areas are acquired or protected.
3. Because of additional regional County facilities and cooperative agreements with some cities and other institutions, public hearings on certain issues and projects are now held locally so as to be more convenient to those most impacted by the decisions.
4. New school sites are used as a focal point of neighborhoods as a result of collaboration between local governments.
5. Intergovernmental partnerships have eliminated the once common contentiousness surrounding annexations, incorporations, and preservation of unincorporated community integrity.
6. Several inter-county and intra-county compacts now exist regarding cooperative programs for open space management, transportation corridor planning and implementation, air quality and water quality improvements, water resource management, and other critical topics of mutual concern.
7. The tradition of intergovernmental cooperation is well established and office seekers habitually include this topic in their campaigns city and County decision-makers and other opinion leaders actively support intergovernmental initiatives.
8. A Countywide information and education program is in place to sustain an understanding of the unique planning program that has emerged from the RCIP. This program includes a section in school curricula, a summary brochure that is updated from time to time, an orientation program for newly elected officials, a strong internet presence, and an ongoing speakers bureau to reinforce this strong tradition.
Appendix C - Summary of the Transportation Analysis for the Circulation Element of the Proposed Riverside County General Plan
Appendix C is under separate cover as an Appendices to the Draft EIR and is not included in the Final EIR since it has not changed since publication the Draft EIR.