| 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. &n | |