5.0 About This Section

The following subsections of this chapter address significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided, significant irreversible environmental effects, effects on humans, growth-inducing impacts and cumulative impacts that would result if the proposed project, General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 960, were implemented as part of build out of the Riverside County General Plan over time. In Section 5.6 the consistency of the General Plan, as it would be updated pursuant to GPA No. 960, is compared with various regional plans.

Different parts of GPA No. 960 affect various areas across and throughout Riverside County and some, such as the new greenhouse gas policies proposed for the General Plan Air Quality Element, span the entire county. As such, the scope of Section 5.0 generally encompasses all of unincorporated Riverside County. As would be expected, Sections 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 discuss the specific effects of the proposed changes included in GPA No. 960 in terms of unavoidable significant effects (Section 5.1), significant irreversible changes (Section 5.2), substantial human effects (Section 5.3) and growth-inducing effects (Section 5.4). For Section 5.5 (Cumulative Impacts) and Section 5.6 (Regional Consistency), however, the scope of analysis is broadened to address full build out of the Riverside County General Plan in its entirety. For example, this means that the effects of build out of the updated General Plan, reflecting the changes that would occur to the document if GPA No. 960 is approved, are compared to the effects projected for various other build out scenarios (existing General Plan without the project, cumulative projects, etc.). This distinction is necessary because the widespread nature of the various components of GPA No. 960 makes appropriate an examination of the end point at which all of these components would be realized.

It should also be noted that, with respect to CEQA, pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081, where a significant impact has been identified in the EIR, the County of Riverside shall not approve or carry out the project unless the County of Riverside makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant effect:

1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.

2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency.

3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly-trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-1

In addition, pursuant to CEQA (PRC Section 21081.5), these findings must be based on substantial evidence in the record. The two tables below summarize all of the significant effects associated with GPA No. 960. Table 5.0-A (Unavoidable Significant Environmental Effects) outlines the effects found to be “significant” with respect to the criteria of CEQA, PRC Section 21083(b) and also significant effects found to be “unavoidable” per CCR Section 15126(b). These findings are discussed in full in Sections 5.1, 5.3 and 5.5. In addition, see the associated parts of Section 4.0 for the environmental bases and analyses performed for the various impacts listed. Table 5.0- B (Summary of Significant Irreversible Changes and Growth-Inducing Effects) outlines the significant irreversible changes and growth-inducing effects associated with GPA No. 960. These findings are discussed in Sections 5.2 and 5.4.

Table 5.0-A: Unavoidable Significant Environmental Effects

Effects

term -

Impact Impact Title / Description Degrade Environment Environment Curtail Short Human Effects Cumulative 4.3 – Population and Housing 4.3.A Induce direct or indirect population growth. • 4.4 – Aesthetic and Visual Resources 4.4.A Adversely affect scenic vistas. • 4.4.B Adversely affect scenic resources within State Scenic Highways. • 4.4.D Cause adverse light and glare effects. • 4.5 – Agricultural and Forestry Resources 4.5.A Cause the conversion of designated Farmlands. • • 4.5.B Encroach on or conflict with existing agricultural uses. • • 4.6 – Air Quality 4.6.A Conflict with air quality plans. • 4.6.B (1) Cause significant construction (short-term) air emissions. • • • 4.6.B (2) Cause significant operational (long-term) air emissions. • • • 4.6.C Cause cumulatively significant project air quality impacts. • • • 4.6.D Expose sensitive receptors to air pollutants. • • • 4.9 – Cultural and Paleontological Resources 4.9.B Cause the destruction of known archeological resources. • 4.9.C Cause the destruction of unique paleontological resources or sites. • 4.10 – Energy Resources 4.10.A Increase demand for electricity. • 4.10.B Increase demand for natural gas. • 4.12 – Geology and Soils 4.12.B Expose people or structures to strong seismic groundshaking. • • 4.12.D Expose people or structures to landslides. • • 4.13 – Hazardous Materials and Safety 4.13.H Expose people or structures to wildland fires. • • 4.15 – Noise 4.15.A Generate noise or cause noise exposure in excess of standards. • • • • 4.15.C Cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. • • • • 4.15.D Cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels • • •

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-2 Public Review Draft . March 2014

Effects

term -

Impact Impact Title / Description Degrade Environment Environment Curtail Short Human Effects Cumulative 4.16 – Parks and Recreation 4.16.A Adversely affect existing recreational resources. • 4.17 – Public Facilities 4.17.A Cause adverse environmental effects due to the need for fire protection services. • 4.17.B Cause adverse environmental effects due to the need for law enforcement services. • 4.17.C (1) Adversely affect or exceed the permitted capacity of a landfill. • 4.17.D Cause adverse environmental effects due to the need for schools. • 4.17.E Cause adverse environmental effects due to the need for library services. • 4.17.F Cause adverse environmental effects due to the need for medical facilities. • 4.18 – Transportation and Traffic 4.18.A Conflict with circulation system effectiveness regulations for any transportation. • • • • 4.18.B Conflict with congestion management program, including LOS standards. • 4.19 – Water Resources 4.19.A Result in insufficient water supply. • • • • 4.19.B Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or substantially interfere with groundwater recharge. • • • • 4.19.H Substantially alter existing drainage patterns resulting in substantial erosion or siltation. • Cause runoff exceeding stormwater drainage system capacities or cause substantial water 4.19.I pollution. • Cause significant adverse effects due to the need for new or expanded stormwater drainage 4.19.J facilities. • 5.4 – Significant Irreversible Changes3 5.2.B Result in the unjustified commitment of irretrievable resources. • 5.2.C Result in primary or secondary impacts that generally commit future generations to similar uses. • 5.4 – Significant Growth-Inducing Effects3 5.4.A Foster direct or indirect economic growth. • 5.4.B Foster direct or indirect population growth. • 5.4.C Result in construction of additional housing. • 5.4.D Remove obstacles to population growth. • Facilitate other activities leading to significant environmental effects; e.g., encroach into isolated 5.4.E or remote areas. • 5.4.F Result in population increase that may strain community services or facilities. • Footnotes: 1. A “significant effect on the environment” pursuant to CEQA (PRC section 21083(b)) would do any of the following: Substantially degrade the quality of the environment. (See discussion in Section 5.1.) Substantially curtail the range of environment. (See discussion in Section 5.1.) Achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. (See Section 5.1.) Cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. (See discussion in Section 5.3.) Cause effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. (See discussion in Section 5.5.) 2. “Unavoidable” defined per CCR Section 15126(b) as significant “environmental effects which cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented.” (See discussion in Section 5.1.) 3. Discussed in the section indicated, rather than in Section 5.5 (Cumulative Impacts). Source: Riverside County Planning Dept., Results of analyses in Sections 4.2 - 4.19 and 5.1 - 5.5 of this EIR, 2012.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-3

Table 5.0-B: Summary of Significant Irreversible Changes and Growth-Inducing Effects

Inducing - rowth Irreversible G

Section - Effect Category / Type of Significant Impact 5.2 – Significant Irreversible Changes 5.2.A Result in a large commitment of non-renewable resources that make later removal or non-use unlikely. •3 5.2.B Result in the unjustified commitment of irretrievable resources. 5.2.C Result in primary or secondary impacts that generally commit future generations to similar uses. • 5.2.D Result in an environmental accident that could cause irreversible damage. 5.4 – Significant Growth Inducing Effects 5.4.A Foster direct or indirect economic growth. • 5.4.B Foster direct or indirect population growth. • 5.4.C Result in construction of additional housing. • 5.4.D Remove obstacles to population growth. • 5.4.E Facilitate other activities leading to significant environmental effects; e.g., encroach into isolated or remote areas. • • 5.4.F Result in population increase that may strain community services or facilities. Footnotes: 1. Significant “irreversible environmental changes should the project be implemented” (CCR Section 15126.2(c)), as discussed in Section 5.2. 2. Growth-inducing impacts of the project (pursuant to CCR Section 15126.2(d)), as discussed in Section 5.4. 3. Significance finding based on cumulative conditions only. See indicated section for discussion. Source: Riverside County Planning Dept., Results of analyses in Sections 4.2 - 4.19 and 5.1 - 5.5 of this EIR, 2012.

5.1 Significant Environmental Effects That Cannot Be Avoided

A. Introduction

State CEQA Guidelines, CCR Section 15126.2(b), specifies that an EIR must “describe any significant impacts, including those which can be mitigated but not reduced to a level of insignificance.” It further directs that, “where there are impacts that cannot be alleviated without imposing an alternative design, their implications and the reasons why the project is being proposed, notwithstanding their effect, should be described.” Accordingly, this section describes the significant, unavoidable impacts associated with the proposed project, GPA No. 960, in particular, those arising from future development approvals or other actions accommodated by the project pursuant to build out of the updated Riverside County General Plan.

A “significant effect on the environment” is defined under CEQA (PRC Section 21068) to mean a “substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment.” Further, CEQA Section 21083 states that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if one or more of the following conditions exist:

 The proposed project has the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, curtail the range of the environment or to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals.

 The possible effects of the project are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. (“Cumulatively considerable” means the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-4 Public Review Draft . March 2014

connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects.) (See Section 5.5.)

 The environmental effects of the project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. (See Section 5.3.)

As shown in Table 5.0-A, the analysis in this EIR has determined that future development within Riverside County accommodated by GPA No. 960 has the potential to result in significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided or reduced to less than significant levels through mitigation. The table summarizes the types of significant impact, as well as unavoidable impacts associated with the project. The reasons for these significant impact findings are presented below or elsewhere in Section 5 .0, as indicated. See also the corresponding parts of Section 4.0 of the EIR for additional details. As indicated in the table, there would also be several significant human effects and cumulative impacts. Note, details on these (cumulative impacts, in particular) are provided in subsequent Sections 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5, respectively.

B. Significantly Affected Resources

The following environmental resources and impacts would be significantly and unavoidably affected by the proposed project, either directly, indirectly or cumulatively, as indicated.

1. Population and Housing

Analysis indicates that the land use and policy changes proposed by GPA No. 960 would result in cumulatively significant impacts to the environment as a result of incremental increases in population growth caused both directly and indirectly. Due to the inherently growth-inducing and growth-accommodating nature of a General Plan, there is no feasible mitigation to fully reduce this cumulative impact to below the level of significance. Thus, even though project effects would be individually limited, GPA No. 960’s incremental contribution to cumulative housing and population impacts may be significant and unavoidable. See Section 5.5.C.2 for full analysis and details.

2. Aesthetic and Visual Resources

Analysis indicates that the land use and policy changes proposed by GPA No. 960 would result in cumulatively significant impacts to the environment as a result of incremental adverse effects to scenic vistas; scenic resources within State Scenic Highways; and, due to light and glare. Due to the widespread effect of incremental growth accommodated by a General Plan, there is no feasible mitigation to fully reduce this cumulative impact to below the level of significance. Thus, even though project effects may be individually limited, GPA No. 960’s incremental contribution to these cumulative aesthetic and scenic impacts would be significant and unavoidable. See Section 5.5.C.3 for full analysis and details.

3. Agricultural Resources

Cause Direct or Indirect Conversion of Designated Farmlands: The specific land use and policy changes proposed by GPA No. 960 would adversely affect (i.e., result in the conversion of) only minimal amounts of State-designated Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance and Farmland of Local Importance (“Farmlands”) to a variety of non-agricultural uses. Due to the very small areas involved, these impacts would be less than significant. Indirectly, however, the growth accommodated and facilitated by the project would result in

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-5

additional development and infrastructure demand that would further conversion of designated Farmlands to urban uses and result in other changes in the existing environment leading to additional Farmland conversion. This indirect impact would be significant and an unavoidable consequence of General Plan build out. It would also be cumulatively significant (see Section 5.5.C.4 for discussion). Section 4.5 (Agricultural and Forestry Resources) addresses this resource and includes a variety of existing County ordinances and General Plan policies that would mitigate some of these project effects.

Compliance with these regulations and General Plan policies would help reduce this indirect impact. However, consistent with the findings made previously for the General Plan in EIR No. 441, there is no feasible CEQA- specific mitigation that would fully reduce this impact to less than significant levels. This is because growth within Riverside County (occurring as the natural consequence of human population growth) requires the use of land, including designated Farmlands in some areas, to support future development. Where such Farmlands occur amidst or adjacent to urbanizing areas, the natural extension of development is inevitable and, in fact, desirable (as opposed to leapfrog or fragmentary development further away which would lead to urban sprawl). Where encroachment causes open agricultural lands, such as fallow fields, pastures or rangelands, for example, to become urbanized or otherwise limited, significant curtailment of the natural environment would result. For these reasons, this indirect impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

Agricultural resources would be subject to significant and unavoidable conversions of designated farmlands to non-agricultural uses. This impact cannot be avoided or reduced to less-than-significant due to the sprawling and wide-spread nature of existing agricultural uses and the myriad of growth pressures fueling growth and ongoing development. As a result, this impact would lead to the curtailment of the range of available designated farmlands within Riverside County. Also, as discussed in Section 5.5.C.4, many of these effects would be individually limited by cumulatively considerable on a countywide basis. Thus, in total, because of the need to designate appropriate areas of growth within the General Plan, even on various Farmlands, GPA No. 960 is proposed despite this significant, unavoidable impact.

Encroach on or Conflict with Existing Agricultural Uses: Future development accommodated by GPA No. 960 has the potential to result in conflicts with existing zoning, agricultural uses and lands subject to a Williamson Act contract or within a Riverside County Agricultural Preserve. It may also result in the introduction of new urban uses near or adjacent to agriculturally zoned property. Urban encroachment into areas in agricultural production, particularly if within 300 feet, increases the likelihood of conflicts between these two fundamental types of uses. When residential and other urban-density land uses encroach into areas in agricultural production, traditional agricultural nuisances become much more problematic to the arriving residents. 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, change in property tax structure and personal injury liability resulting from trespassing on farms.

Because this impact represents the consequence of urbanization, it would be significant and unavoidable. As outlined in Section 5.5, it would also be cumulatively significant where small, individual future changes would be individually limited, but cumulatively considerable on a countywide basis. Section 4.5 addresses this resource and includes a variety of Riverside County ordinances and existing and proposed General Plan policies that would help lessen or reduce this project effect. However, consistent with the findings made previously for the General Plan in EIR No. 441, there is no feasible CEQA-specific mitigation that would reduce this impact to less than significant levels. This is because growth within Riverside County (occurring as the natural consequence of human population growth) requires the use of land, including designated Farmlands in some areas, to support

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-6 Public Review Draft . March 2014

future development. Where such Farmlands occur amidst or adjacent to such urbanizing areas, the natural extension of development is inevitable and, in fact, desirable (as opposed to leapfrog or fragmentary development further away which would lead to urban sprawl). Although buffers are effective, they cannot prevent or guarantee the complete avoidance of these conflicts. Thus, for these reasons, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

For all of these reasons, existing agricultural activities would be subject to significant and unavoidable conflicts resulting from the encroachment of urban uses into rural and agricultural areas as Riverside County continues to grow over the next 50 years. This impact also cannot be avoided or reduced to less-than-significant because of the finite land supply, the sprawling and wide-spread nature of existing agricultural uses and myriad growth pressures fueling growth and ongoing development. As a result, this impact would lead to the potential degradation of the quality of the environment within Riverside County. Also, as discussed in Section 5.5.C.4, many of these effects would also be individually limited but cumulatively considerable on a countywide basis.

4. Air Quality

Air pollutant emissions are generally associated with two types of activities: construction and operation. Because of their limited spans, construction impacts are considered a “short-term” effect. Operational emissions are considered “long-term,” since they would occur for the duration of a development or land use’s lifespan (often 30 years or more). As part of this EIR’s analysis, both short-term and long-term air quality emissions were examined with respect to GPA No. 960. In both cases, it was found that significant unavoidable impacts would occur as a result of the cumulative effects of various air quality emissions. In some cases, a future project could itself exceed applicable AQMD emission standards for construction or operation. Even in cases where emissions could be individually reduced to acceptable levels, the cumulative effect of multiple activities (construction and operation) occurring simultaneously would result in cumulatively significant emissions at the countywide or regional level. The specific types and their unique effects and mitigation needs are described below. Cumulative impacts, including those associated with air quality, are discussed in detail in Section 5.5.C.5.

Because air quality impacts result from the general growth pressures driving development within Riverside County, they are generally considered unavoidable; as long as people seek to live and work in Riverside County, these impacts will persist. It is possible that continued technological advancements, such as electric vehicles, solar power and alternative energy, will reduce air quality emissions in the future. However, the use of such technology will likely occur incrementally over many decades and will require drastic price reductions before full market penetration can be achieved throughout Riverside County. This means that for all intents and purposes, the air quality impacts described below must be considered unavoidable for the time being.

Conflict with Air Quality Plans: Analysis indicates that the land use and policy changes proposed by GPA No. 960 would result in incremental changes due to growth that causes cumulatively significant impacts due to conflicts with air quality plans. Due to the wide-spread effect of incremental growth accommodated by a General Plan, there is no feasible mitigation to fully reduce this cumulative impact to below the level of significance. Thus, even though project effects may be individually limited, GPA No. 960’s incremental contribution to these cumulative air quality impacts would be significant and unavoidable. See Section 5.5.C.5 for full analysis and details.

Cause Significant Construction (Short-Term) Air Emissions: As explained in Section 4.6 (Air Quality), future development accommodated by GPA No. 960 would necessitate construction activities that could cause temporary (short-term), generally localized increases in the emission of air pollutants. In some cases, individual project construction emissions could exceed established regulatory standards. The construction emissions generated are quantified based on the amount of daily disturbance (e.g., acres graded per day, structures painted

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-7

per day, etc.). Accordingly, significant air quality emissions associated with an individual project or site can be avoided by limiting the amount of construction activities occurring on a single day.

However, since build out of Riverside County pursuant to the General Plan and GPA No. 960 would be implemented through many (hundreds or even thousands) of individual projects occurring throughout Riverside County over next roughly 50 years, the total (cumulative) level of daily disturbance for GPA No. 960 cannot be quantified in aggregate. The amount of construction activities necessary to exceed a daily standard is known, however. And, since the County of Riverside cannot control the number of construction activities collectively occurring on any given day, cumulatively considerable emissions could result from the compliant emissions of many individual sites occurring on a single day. See Section 5.5.C.5 for full analysis and details.

As outlined in Section 4.6, the County General Plan and this EIR incorporate a variety of regulatory actions and mitigation measures that would avoid, reduce or minimize individual project emissions; however, there is no mitigation feasible for further reducing the cumulative impact at the county level. The cumulative effect of air pollutants associated with construction activities within Riverside County would result in significant and unavoidable impacts that collectively degrade the quality of the environment.

Cause Significant Operational (Long-Term) Air Emissions: Operational long-term air emissions are associated with both mobile sources (i.e., vehicle), stationary sources (i.e., boilers, heaters, stoves and ovens, fireplaces and other fixed-source emitters) and also area sources (i.e., gasoline-powered landscape equipment, such as mowers and leaf-blowers, paints and other household chemicals, etc.) located on or associated with developed land uses. As explained in Section 4.6, future development would also result in operational air quality emissions from combustion-powered equipment associated with these new uses. In some cases, these emissions may be significant – exceeding the daily emissions limits established by the overseeing regulatory agency (e.g., the SCAQMD).

In many of these cases, air quality emissions associated with an individual project or site can be avoided, reduce or minimized through regulatory compliance and mitigation measures. However, on a cumulative basis, the individual emissions would still be cumulatively considerable. (See Section 5.5.) This is particularly true of the increased emissions expected to arise from additional vehicle trips within Riverside County.

The Riverside County General Plan and this EIR incorporate a variety of regulatory actions and mitigation measures that would avoid, reduce or minimize operational emissions. However, there is no mitigation feasible for further reducing the cumulative impact at the county level. Thus, the cumulative effect of air pollutants associated with operational emissions within Riverside County would result in significant and unavoidable impacts that collectively degrade the quality of the environment. For these reasons, development accommodated by the project would result in significant, unavoidable long-term operations air quality impacts, even after all feasible mitigation measures are implemented. Even with the implementation of regulations, ordinances and existing and proposed General Plan policies, in addition to new mitigation measures, cumulative criteria pollutant emissions would not be reduced below regulatory thresholds. Thus, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable with respect to violations of air quality standards for operational activities. Further, this significant impact would result in direct and/or cumulative degradation of the quality of the environment (specifically, air), as a result of this project.

Cause Cumulatively Significant Project Air Quality Impacts: Future development accommodated by GPA No. 960 would also result in the emission of criteria pollutants for which Riverside County is in non-attainment during both its construction and operation (as discussed above). Since the exact location, timing and duration of future development projects cannot be ascertained at this time, cumulatively considerable increases to criteria pollutant levels (resulting from multiple projects engaging in construction and/or operational emissions at the

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-8 Public Review Draft . March 2014

same time) cannot be quantified. Even with compliance with existing regulations and policies and the implementation of existing and new mitigation measures, as outlined in Section 4.6 for Impact 4.6.C, future development accommodated by the project would result in significant cumulative impacts that degrade the quality of the air in Riverside County. Since these impacts arise from the cumulative effects of many sites developing over time, which is driven by growth pressures in the county, they are also considered unavoidable.

Expose Sensitive Receptors to Air Pollutants: Sensitive receptors are those areas where sensitive populations (which include children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the chronically ill, especially those with cardio-respiratory diseases) may be present for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to pollutants emitted in the area. Future development accommodated by GPA No. 960 would expose sensitive receptors to pollutant emissions due to construction (where such construction is adjacent to a sensitive receptor) and operational activities (particularly where increases in emissions, such as from motor vehicles, would increase emissions near existing uses).

The degree of impact would depend on the type of operation, distance from sensitive receptors and the level of activity at each site. The exact location, timing and level of future development activities arising from GPA No. 960 is unforeseeable, however, so specific impacts to sensitive receptors cannot be quantified. Further, though individual projects may successfully mitigate significant effects, on a cumulative basis, a collection of several such projects could nevertheless exceed limits on exposure to sensitive receptors, resulting in effects to humans (see Section 5.3) and degradation of the environment. Thus, even after complying with regulations, existing policies and mitigation measures, as well as specific new mitigation measures, cumulatively these impacts cannot be guaranteed to be reduced to below applicable agency thresholds. In addition, although mitigation is available and is incorporated into both the General Plan and this EIR, full mitigation is infeasible because it would require prohibiting many types of development, including most types of infill, for example. For these reasons this impact would be significant and unavoidable. Thus, GPA No. 960 is proposed despite its significant, unavoidable effects on air quality because the project is necessary to ensure future growth in Riverside County occurs in a coordinated and appropriate manner to accommodate Riverside County’s population and work force.

5. Cultural and Paleontological Resources

Analysis indicates that the land use and policy changes proposed by GPA No. 960 would result in cumulatively significant impacts to the environment as a result of incremental adverse effects due to the destruction of both known archeological resources and unique paleontological resources and sites. Due to the wide-spread effect of incremental growth accommodated by a General Plan, there is no feasible mitigation to fully reduce this cumulative impact to below the level of significance. Thus, even though project effects may be individually limited, GPA No. 960’s incremental contribution to these cumulative cultural and paleontological impacts would be significant and unavoidable. See Section 5.5.C.8 for full analysis and details.

6. Energy Resources

Implementation of the General Plan as amended pursuant to the proposed project, GPA No. 960, would result in cumulatively significant impacts to the environment as a result of incremental increases in the demand for both electricity and natural gas. Due to the wide-spread effect of incremental growth accommodated by a General Plan, there is no feasible mitigation to fully reduce this cumulative impact to below the level of significance. Thus, even though project effects may be individually limited, GPA No. 960’s incremental contribution to these cumulative energy impacts would be significant and unavoidable. See Section 5.5.C.9 for full analysis and details.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-9

7. Geology and Soils

Analysis indicates that the land use and policy changes proposed by GPA No. 960 would result in cumulatively significant impacts to the environment as a result of incremental exposure of people and structures to A) strong seismic groundshaking; and, B) landslides. Due to the wide-spread effect of incremental growth accommodated by a General Plan, there is no feasible mitigation to fully reduce this cumulative impact to below the level of significance. Thus, even though project effects may be individually limited, GPA No. 960’s incremental contribution to these cumulative geological impacts would be significant and unavoidable. See Section 5.5.C.11 for full analysis and details. These impacts are also addressed because of their potential to result in significant and unavoidable effects to humans. See Section 5.3 (Substantial Human Effects) for more details.

8. Hazardous Materials and Safety

Implementation of the General Plan as amended pursuant to the proposed project, GPA No. 960, would result in cumulatively significant impacts to the environment as a result of incremental exposure of people and structures to increased risks of wildland fires because of the additional development, particularly large-lot open space-rural residential (OS-RUR) in high- and very high-fire hazard severity zones, that would be accommodated by this project. Due to the wide-spread effect of incremental growth accommodated by a General Plan, there is no feasible mitigation to fully reduce this cumulative impact to below the level of significance. Thus, even though project effects may be individually limited, GPA No. 960’s incremental contribution to this cumulative safety hazard would be significant and unavoidable. See Section 5.5.C.12 for full analysis and details. This impact is also addressed due to its potential to result in significant and unavoidable effects to humans. See Section 5.3 for more details.

9. Noise

As explained in Section 4.15 (Noise), noise increases are generally associated with two types of activities: construction and operation. Because of their limited spans, construction impacts are considered a “short-term” effect. Operational noise increases are considered long-term, since they would occur for the duration of a development or land use’s lifespan (e.g., 30-plus years). As part of this EIR’s analysis, both short-term and long- term potential for noise increases were examined with respect to GPA No. 960. In both cases, it was found that significant unavoidable impacts would occur as a result of the cumulative effects of various noise level increases and, in particular, that these cumulative totals would result in noise levels exceeding standards. This would both degrade the environment (making it unpleasantly noisy, for example) and/or curtail the range of the environment (by making an area too noisy for wildlife use, as another example.) The specific types and their unique effects and mitigation needs are described below. Cumulative impacts, including those associated with noise, are discussed further in Section 5.5.C.14.

Because noise impacts result from the general growth pressures driving development within Riverside County, they are generally considered unavoidable; as long as people seek to live and work in Riverside County, these impacts will persist. It is for this reason that GPA No. 960 is proposed despite this significant, unavoidable impact. In some parts of Riverside County, noise levels already exceed established standards. In some locations, significant effects would persist, even without the additional development expected as Riverside County builds out according to the updated General Plan. Further, this also means that in some areas, even small, individually limited noise increases would contribute to incrementally considerable noise levels. This is particularly true of the ambient noise levels increases associated with increasing vehicular traffic on county roads. Overall, this means that for all intents and purposes, the noise impacts described below are unavoidable. Noise level increases, both

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-10 Public Review Draft . March 2014

temporary and permanent, would also contribute to the cumulatively significant noise impacts (see Section 5.5.C.14).

Generate Noise or Cause Noise Exposure in Excess of Standards: Future development accommodated by GPA No. 960 would incrementally increase rural, suburban and urban uses in localized areas throughout unincorporated Riverside County. In some locations, this means the introduction of new noise-sensitive land uses into areas of existing excess noise or areas in which county growth would result in or eventually lead to excess noise levels. In addition, future development accommodated by GPA No. 960 would contribute incrementally to increased traffic volumes on county roads, resulting in noise increases affecting sensitive land uses along existing and future roads. As a result, new development, particularly residential uses along and adjacent to major transit corridors, could be exposed to noise levels that exceed Riverside County’s noise standards. Existing sensitive uses would also be subject to these higher noise levels. In some locations, noise increases associated with roadways or new development would serve to curtail the potential habitat functions and values of adjacent open space or other vacant lands. Where noise generators would expose existing receptors (residences and other sensitive uses) to excessive noise, impacts would be significant and unavoidable, as mitigation of these incremental and wide-spread noise impacts is infeasible. Thus, this impact would result in both the degradation of the environment and significant human effects (see Section 5.3).

In most cases, new development can be designed to include the necessary setbacks, construction materials, sound walls, berms or other features necessary to ensure internal and external noise levels meet applicable standards (see measures outlined in Section 4.15.6). Where full mitigation may not be possible, however, is for noise exposure to existing uses, particularly to excessive roadway noise. Roadway noise is pervasive and increases incrementally as a result of build out of many small (and large) contributing developments throughout the county. As a result, numerous existing homes and other sensitive receptors could potentially be subjected to significant noise levels as a result of future development accommodated by the project. In some cases, mitigation of the excessive sound impacts on existing uses would be infeasible due to the sheer number of sites affected (e.g., hundreds or even thousands of homes) or the cost for retrofitting them individually for appropriate sound attenuation. In other cases, it simply may not be feasible to retrofit or redesign an existing receptor to provide greater noise attenuation and it is not always feasible to construct barriers between existing development and roadways.

In addition, the increases would be occurring on an incremental basis as a result of numerous individually insignificant, but cumulatively substantial, traffic level increases due to future projects. And, lastly, in many cases, even if adequate sound reductions are achievable for the near-term (e.g., existing conditions and the next 5-10 years), continued growth within Riverside County as it builds out over the next 50 years could eventually result in substantial ambient noise level increases later despite current measures. It is for this reason that GPA No. 960 is proposed despite this significant, unavoidable impact. While mitigation is available for protecting new noise- sensitive land uses from potentially significant noise impacts, the same is not true for existing uses. Thus, this impact overall is a significant and unavoidable effect associated with the build out of Riverside County pursuant to the changes proposed by GPA No. 960.

Cause a Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels: Future development associated with implementation of GPA No. 960 would contribute to an increase in traffic, resulting in a corresponding increase in traffic noise. As Riverside County builds out, traffic volumes would increase, triggering a corresponding incremental increase in vehicular noise. Vehicles are the single largest source of noise generation throughout Riverside County. In some areas, this would cause ambient noise to increase from acceptable to unacceptable levels (exceed 65 dBA, for example). Where existing ambient noise levels already exceed acceptable thresholds, the additional incremental traffic-related increase could result in greater noise impacts, including more people being annoyed or disturbed. Also, because of the exponential nature of sound levels, the louder the ambient noise level, the less increase in sound necessary to trigger a significant impact. Also, as per above, noise increases

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-11

associated with roadways or new development would serve to curtail the potential habitat functions and values of adjacent open space or other vacant lands.

For new development, full mitigation would typically be feasible using standard project design or measures required as conditions of approval (for example, setbacks, sound walls, berms, etc.). For existing noise-sensitive land uses, however, due to the widespread and pervasive nature of the noise impacts, it is generally not be feasible to mitigate the impact fully for all affected receptors. Thus, this impact would be significant and unavoidable, even with the implementation of all feasible mitigation. It would result in both the degradation of the environment and significant human effects (see Section 5.3). Nevertheless, because permanent ambient noise levels would increase as a result of county growth, with or without the project, GPA No. 960 is proposed despite this significant, unavoidable impact.

Cause a Substantial Temporary or Periodic Increase in Ambient Noise Levels: Future development accommodated by GPA No. 960 would necessitate construction activities which could temporarily exceed applicable Riverside County standards at nearby noise-sensitive receptors. In many cases, the peak sound levels would be extremely brief and overall ambient noise levels would remain within acceptable limits. On occasion, however, construction requirements and/or the proximity of the sensitive land use (e.g., within 150 feet or less) would make significant noise impacts unavoidable, even though temporary. These temporary impacts would degrade the environment and also cause temporary human impacts (see Section 5.3). Because of the close distances involved for such significant impacts, mitigation of sound levels to less than significant are technologically impossible. Thus, in such cases, no project-specific mitigation is feasible. Future development accommodated by GPA No. 960 may result in significant short-term temporary noise impacts that would be significant and unavoidable. Notwithstanding this significant impact, growth within Riverside County is necessary to accommodate the expected population increase that will occur over the next 50 years plus. It is for this reason that GPA No. 960 is proposed despite this significant, unavoidable impact.

10. Parks and Recreation

Implementation of the General Plan as amended pursuant to the proposed project, GPA No. 960, would result in cumulatively significant impacts to the environment as a result of incremental adverse effects to existing recreational resources, including parks, trails and other facilities. Due to the wide-spread effect of incremental growth accommodated by a General Plan, there is no feasible mitigation to fully reduce this cumulative impact to below the level of significance. Thus, even though project effects may be individually limited, GPA No. 960’s incremental contribution to this cumulative recreation impact would be significant and unavoidable. See Section 5.5.C.15 for full analysis and details.

11. Public Facilities and Services

Analysis indicates that the land use and policy changes proposed by GPA No. 960 would result in cumulatively significant impacts to the environment as a result of incremental adverse effects to public facilities and services, including: fire protection, law enforcement, landfill capacity, schools, library services and, medical facilities and services. Due to the widespread effect of incremental growth accommodated by a General Plan, there is no feasible mitigation to fully reduce this cumulative impact to below the level of significance. Thus, even though project effects may be individually limited, GPA No. 960’s incremental contribution to these cumulative public facility and service impacts would be significant and unavoidable. See Section 5.5.C.16 for full analysis and details.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-12 Public Review Draft . March 2014

12. Transportation and Circulation

Implementation of the existing and proposed General Plan policies and mitigation measures would reduce many of the potential traffic impacts on Riverside County’s arterial transportation and circulation system resulting from the future development of sites changed under GPA No. 960. However, in some locations, such as certain arterials and other major roads, the cumulative increase in traffic resulting from future development and growth within Riverside County in general would result in significant localized impacts. And, as alternative modes of transportation cannot be assured to reduce these impacts, these traffic increases are also considered unavoidable. See Section 5.5.C.17 for full analysis and details on cumulative impacts.

In addition, all state freeways are under the authority of Caltrans. Thus, where traffic increases would affect freeways, there is no mechanism for development project proponents to pay fees or make fair share contributions toward improving mainline freeway lanes. Also, 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 impacts to freeways; impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Conflict with Circulation System Effectiveness Regulations for Any Form of Transportation: These impacts would facilitate the achievement of short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. The provision of county roads would result in improved traffic flow in some areas, while at the same time contributing to increases in air pollutants, noise and traffic volumes. This impact would also indirectly degrade the environment and curtail the environmental functions and values of open lands through the introduction of roads into previously undeveloped or remote areas. This would lead to increased noise, air pollution, human disturbance and other related environmental effects. Altogether, this impact is significant and unavoidable.

13. Water Resources

Future development accommodated by GPA No. 960 would result in additional residences, businesses, landscaping, roadways and other uses within unincorporated Riverside County. A number of factors associated with water supplies make the resource of critical importance and a potentially limiting factor to growth throughout Southern California. These include: uncertainty associated with existing imported water supplies, seasonal variations in imported water availability (including the potential for greater variations as a result of global climate change or prolonged droughts), infrastructure needs (or lack thereof), groundwater basin water availability, recharge and potential overdraft issues, as well as lack of groundwater management plans for some basins and competing demands for finite supplies. Together, these issues make for a high level of uncertainty, particularly for projections of water availability beyond the 20-year planning horizons utilized by water agencies’ urban water management plans.

Accordingly, several significant impacts to water resources will result from implementation of the General Plan pursuant to the changes proposed by GPA No. 960. In addition to the other issues discussed below, analysis indicates that the land use and policy changes proposed by GPA No. 960 would result in cumulatively significant impacts to the environment as a result of incremental adverse effects resulting in insufficient water supply; substantial depletion of groundwater supplies or substantial interference with groundwater recharge; substantial alteration of existing drainage patterns resulting in substantial erosion and/or siltation; runoff exceeding stormwater drainage system capacities or causing substantial water pollution; and, adverse effects due to the need for new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities. Due to the wide-spread effect of incremental growth accommodated by the General Plan, there is no feasible mitigation to fully reduce this cumulative impact to below the level of significance. Thus, even though project effects may be individually limited, GPA No. 960’s incremental

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-13

contribution to these cumulative water resource impacts would be significant and unavoidable. See Section 5.5.C.18 for full analysis and details.

Result in Insufficient Water Supply: Future development accommodated by the land use and policy changes proposed by GPA No. 960 has the potential to result in demand for water supplies where such are insufficient or unavailable to serve the new development from existing entitlements and resources. This would necessitate the provision of new or expanded entitlements in order to adequately serve the new development. It could also mean that development is proposed in locations where water supply adequacy cannot be ascertained. Due to the unavailability of potable water in some areas, as well as the uncertainty of supply adequacy in light of future growth, environmental and regulatory constraints, adequate water supplies for all forecast future development cannot be assured. As a result, within certain areas of Riverside County where sufficient water supply is not available or cannot be assured into the future, impacts to water supply would be significant and unavoidable. Insufficient water supplies would also result in degradation of the environment (for example, if more water needed for wildlife use was diverted for drinking water supplies), curtailment of the environment (e.g., less water in natural systems needed for wildlife and riparian uses), as well as achievement of short-term environmental goals at the expense of long-term ones (for example, providing sufficient high-quality drinking water at the expense of the biota).

As described in Section 4.19.4, some water districts that would be affected by future development accommodated by GPA No. 960 have forecast future water demands in excess of the supply available. Where demand for water exceeds supply, a significant impact would occur. In some remote locations (particularly in the far eastern desert, beyond the Coachella Valley and the region south of the San Jacinto Mountains between Anza and Coachella Valley), lack of groundwater and/or lack of delivery infrastructure also are limiting factors. For all of these reasons, the impact of water supply insufficiency is deemed significant and unavoidable at this time.

Options available to address potential projected 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. However, the urban water management plans of the water districts only project water supply and demand out 25 years (to 2035 currently). Thus, any assumptions of future water supplies beyond 2035 are speculative. The General Plan and GPA No. 960 include policies (discussed in Sections 4.19.5.D and E) that establish and reiterate appropriate water management strategies at the county level, including conservation, collection of information, decreasing demand, outreach and education programs, assurances of adequate groundwater recharge areas and water supply monitoring.

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. It is possible that these measures would, in the future, be sufficient to avoid significant water supply effects. However, 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. Notwithstanding this significant impact, most of the urban areas of Riverside County are served by urban water purveyors with urban water management plans indicating that they have sufficient water supplies to meet their projected water demands for the next 25 years. This near-future certainty is sufficient to accommodate development in the near-term. As time passes, water projections will become more accurate and State of California water plans more robust, providing additional certainty over time. It is for these reasons that GPA No. 960 is proposed despite this significant, unavoidable impact.

Substantially Deplete Groundwater Supplies or Cause Overdraft: Future development accommodated by the land use and policy changes proposed by GPA No. 960 would increase Riverside County’s population, triggering an increased reliance on groundwater sources. This is particularly likely in areas of Riverside County

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-14 Public Review Draft . March 2014

without municipal water service or other access to imported water supplies, where new development would rely solely on groundwater for supply. Increased and new uses may also conflict with a groundwater management plan or monitoring program, or lead to groundwater extraction that either individually or cumulatively exceeds the safe yields of groundwater basins and/or causes a net deficit in the aquifer volume or reduction in the local groundwater table level. In addition, future development accommodated by the project could also occur in vacant areas currently used for or contributing to groundwater recharge. Development of such areas would reduce the area available for aquifer recharge and could substantially interfere with the process of groundwater recharge. Any such condition could be potentially significant and would result in significant degradation of the environment (e.g., where increased reliance on groundwater would mean an increased reliance on water of lower quality) and/or result in significant curtailment of the environment (e.g., where draw down on a groundwater basin could lessen the amount of water available for riparian systems and other biota relying on groundwater). Lastly, this could also result in that achievement of short-term environmental goals to the detriment of long-term ones. This could occur where the use of groundwater solves a short-term environmental problem of insufficient water supply, but causes a long-term problem due to overdraft of the basin, reducing available supplies for both human users and that biota relying on the basin. A number of regulatory policies and programs address groundwater. However, where groundwater recharge is insufficient, such increased demand on aquifers would result in significant and unavoidable impacts.

The combination of increased demand for water associated with the growth envisioned by the project, 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, would all result in or contribute incrementally to substantially decreasing groundwater supplies. In addition, an assessment of future water supply adequacy beyond the Year 2035 (including groundwater) is speculative. And, since at present roughly one-third of Riverside County’s water demands are met by groundwater, this uncertainty means that significant impacts associated with project build out over the next 50-plus years cannot be ruled out.

While the regulations, ordinances, General Plan policies and existing mitigation measures from EIR No. 441 outlined in Section 4.19 would reduce or minimize potential impacts to groundwater usage and its recharge associated with future development accommodated by GPA No. 960, they do not address specific groundwater basin usage or site-specific groundwater recharge impacts that would result indirectly from implementation of the proposed project. In addition, agency data demonstrating future groundwater supply and demand only forecast to 2035, thus making supply assumptions for this project uncertain at best. Thus, even with the above measures, impacts to groundwater and groundwater recharge would remain significant and unavoidable.

Notwithstanding this significant impact, most of the urban areas of Riverside County are served by urban water purveyors with urban water management plans that address both imported and groundwater sources. Further, most of these plans indicate that the districts have sufficient water supplies to meet their projected water demands for the next 25 years, even allowing for appropriate groundwater management measures to prevent overdraft. This near-future certainty is sufficient to accommodate future development in the near-term. As time passes, groundwater basin conditions will become better studies and better managed and groundwater yield and recharge projections will become more accurate, providing additional certainty over time. It is for these reasons that GPA No. 960 is proposed despite this significant, unavoidable impact.

C. Other CEQA Impacts

In addition to the significant resource-based environmental impacts discussed above, the project would also have significant, unavoidable impacts resulting from various growth-inducing, cumulative and other effects, as follows.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-15

1. Significant Growth Inducement Effects

Based on analysis presented in Section 5.4, it was determined that a number of the proposed changes associated with GPA No. 960 would limit or impede growth (for example, by placing further restrictions on floodplains or wildfire hazard areas) or would induce insignificant amounts of growth (less than 0.1% of the overall growth by Area Plan, for example). An example would be the provision of small, scattered incidental rural-commercial retail uses in under-served regions that is expected to result from the proposed incidental rural-commercial policy proposal. However, for land use, three specific overlay plans for future development proposed under GPA No. 960 would have the potential to induce significant growth within Riverside County. The three project components that would foster economic, population and housing growth within a portion of Riverside County are the proposed Meadowbrook Rural Village Land Use Overlay, the Good Hope Rural Village Land Use Overlay and the Northeast Business Park Overlay. The significant levels of growth associated with these three land use plans would result in the unavoidable growth impacts. These impacts are unavoidable because the population to be accommodated in these new areas would be creating similar impacts elsewhere if not at these new locations. Further, the accommodation of additional development in these locations could also offset the demand for development at more distant locales in which development impacts would be even greater.

As detailed in Section 5.2, and Table 5.2-A (Open Space Areas Proposed for Future Developed Uses) in particular, “Criteria 4” land use designation (LUD) changes (from Open Space-conservation and conservation habitat uses to developable uses) would also result in significant growth-inducing impacts. These redesignations of previously undevelopable lands are growth-inducing because they would introduce development into isolated or remote areas. However, this impact is unavoidable because without these designation changes, private lands would be incorrectly designated as conservation lands and deprived of their usability as private land.

In addition, proposed changes to the countywide circulation network could also induce significant growth due to the essential nature of roads in providing access to remote or isolated regions, and in removing impediments to growth by establishing an essential public facility. Again, these impacts are unavoidable due to the need for access to private lands that would trigger some of the most remote roads. The need for improved traffic circulation, reduced traffic levels and improved emergency vehicle access also make these network improvements unavoidable despite their significant growth-inducing effects.

These finding of significant growth-inducing effects associated with GPA No. 960 are not unexpected given the programmatic nature of the project, its countywide scope and the nearly 50-year build out period involved. The nature and purpose of the General Plan is inherently growth inducing, in that is represents a plan for ensuring the orderly development of land within unincorporated Riverside County over time. As such, the myriad policies, plans, procedures and standards outlined throughout the Riverside County General Plan, as updated pursuant to GPA No. 960, as well as this EIR and also the existing EIR No. 441, certified for the 2003 RCIP General Plan, collectively serve to mitigate and reduce, where possible, the severity of the environmental effects associated with growth and build out of Riverside County. With continued diligence in implementing the General Plan, long- term growth within the County of Riverside can continue while environmental effects are kept to the minimum feasible and the unique biological and other important natural resources of Riverside County are protected for the health and enjoyment of existing residents and visitors, as well as for future generations to come. Thus, for these reasons, GPA No. 960 is proposed despite these significant, unavoidable growth-inducing impacts.

2. Significant Effects on Humans

As outlined in Section 5.3, a number of environmental effects associated with the project, GPA No. 960, have the potential to result in “environmental effects which [would] cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-16 Public Review Draft . March 2014

either directly or indirectly.” (State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Item XVIII.c.) The specifics for each of these impacts are outlined in their respective portions of Section 4.0, as well as in Section 5.3. In a few cases, the project would have substantial direct adverse effects on humans. These unavoidable direct effects include the following:

 Exposure of sensitive receptors (e.g., various populations of people with sensitive respiratory systems) to cumulatively significant levels of air pollutants. See Impact 4.6.D in Section 4.6.6, as well as Section 5.3.

 Exposure of people to noise levels in excess of standards. See Impact 4.15.A in Section 4.15.6, as well as Section 5.3. This cumulatively substantial and unavoidable noise impact would affect people where such noise exposure is above the acceptable noise levels established in various County of Riverside and State of California noise standards.

Most of the substantial adverse human impacts would occur indirectly as a result of various cumulative or growth- associated effects. They are unavoidable because they would occur as a result of many individually insignificant, but cumulatively considerable, impacts. These include the following:

 Safety risks to humans due to their potential exposure to strong seismic groundshaking (Impact 4.12.B) would result from growth within Riverside County. This indirect impact is an unavoidable risk associated with much of Southern California due to proximity to the San Andreas Fault and other major faults capable of producing strong groundshaking. See Section 4.12 (Geology and Soils) for full details.

 Safety risks to humans would result from their potential exposure to landslide hazards due to seismic activity or other non-engineering based geological failures. See Impact 4.12.D (Section 4.12.6). This indirect impact is an unavoidable cumulative effect of growth resulting in development in areas with landslide hazards that cannot be remedied by engineering methods.

 Safety risks to humans due to their potential exposure to wildfires would result from county growth (development) in areas with high wildfire hazard potential, particularly in rural areas and adjacent to natural areas. See Impact 4.13.H outlined in Section 4.13 (Hazardous Materials and Safety). This indirect impact is an unavoidable cumulative effect of growth leading to an increased number of people in areas of wildfire hazard and increased potential for human-caused wildfires due to increased human encroachment into wildlands.

 Adverse effects on humans through a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. See Impact 4.15.C (in Section 4.15.6). This cumulatively substantial and unavoidable permanent noise increase would affect people where such long-term exposure is above the acceptable noise levels established in various County of Riverside and State of California noise standards.

 Adverse effects on humans through the temporary exposure to substantial construction-related ambient noise levels. See Impact 4.15.D (in Section 4.15.6). This cumulatively substantial and unavoidable temporary noise increase would affect people where such exposure is above the acceptable noise levels established in various County of Riverside and State of California noise standards. Due to the temporary (i.e., short-term) nature of the impact, however, the effect on humans would be self-limiting.

These substantial human effects are considered unavoidable for the reasons listed under their respective impact discussions, as cited above.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-17

3. Significant Cumulative Impacts

A number of impacts have been found to be cumulatively significant, even when individually limited. These cumulatively significant impacts are summarized in Table 5.5-A and described in detail through the subsections of Section 5.5.C. These cumulative impacts are considered unavoidable because they would result as a consequence of long-term growth within Riverside County and occur in incrementally insignificant but cumulatively substantial stages.

D. Unavoidable Significant Effects Conclusions

For the reasons outlined above and throughout the various parts of Sections 4.0 and 5.0, the future development accommodated by GPA No. 960 pursuant to the updated Riverside County General Plan would be associated with a number of significant, unavoidable impacts. These can be summarized as follows:

A number of unavoidable significant impacts associated with GPA No. 960 would have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, including: encroachment into or conflict with areas with existing agricultural uses, short-term construction and long-term operational air quality emissions, as well as cumulatively significant project air quality impacts, excessive noise levels and both temporary and permanent increases in ambient noise levels, and provision of roads in conflict with circulation performance standards.

These unavoidable significant impacts would have the potential to curtail the range of the environment: indirect conversion (loss) of designated Farmlands to non-agricultural uses, insufficient water supplies (to assure long- term water availability) and the depletion of groundwater supplies (and resultant overdraft conditions) due to increased use of groundwater in the future.

These unavoidable significant impacts would facilitate the achievement of short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals: provision of county roads, leading to improved traffic flow in some areas while contributing to increases in air pollutants, noise and traffic congestion; actions to obtain additional imported water supplies to meet increasing demands would contribute to potential long-term environmental effects to the natural watersheds normally using the water; similarly, using groundwater to meet local water supply needs could also lead to overdraft of basins without sufficient recharge. And, lastly, growth induced by the project would achieve short-term goals, particularly economic ones, while resulting in adverse effects on the natural environment.

These unavoidable significant impacts would be cumulatively considerable, even though individually limited in most cases: inducement of population growth, adverse effects to scenic vistas, adverse light and glare effects, conversion of designated farmlands to non-agricultural uses, encroachment of new development into areas with existing agricultural uses, short-term and long-term air quality emissions, cumulative project air quality impacts, exposure of sensitive receptors to air pollutants, exposure of people or structures to strong seismic groundshaking, landslides and wildland fires, excessive noise levels, permanent or temporary increases in ambient noise levels, conflicts with circulation system performance and congestion management programs, insufficient water supplies, depletion of groundwater supplies or overdraft, effects to existing recreational resources and permitted landfill capacity, and impacts due to the need for additional stormwater drainage facilities. A number of growth-inducement effects would also be cumulatively significant, even if individually minor. These include: direct and indirect economic growth, population growth and the construction of additional housing.

Lastly, these significant impacts would have the potential to cause unavoidable substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly: exposure of sensitive receptors to air pollutants, including both short-

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-18 Public Review Draft . March 2014

term (construction) and long-term (operational) air emissions, as well as exposure to noise levels in excess of standards, including from both temporary and permanent increases in ambient noise levels. Substantial adverse human impacts would also occur indirectly as a result of safety risks due to potential exposure to strong seismic groundshaking, landslide hazards and wildfires.

Because GPA No. 960 seeks to update the existing Riverside County General Plan, it is unavoidably associated with impacts that would have a significant effect on the environment, as outlined above. Further, due to the nature of the General Plan as a tool for directing appropriate growth within Riverside County over time, these significant impacts are unavoidable. As detailed throughout this EIR, and particularly in Section 4.0, the General Plan seeks to ensure future development anticipated in Riverside County is planned for and accommodated in a manner that minimizes adverse environmental effects to natural resources and human beings within Riverside County and maximizes the conservation and protection of important resources, while at the same time providing the flexibility and organization needed to continue to grow as a county. It is for this over-arching reason, addition to those outlined herein, that GPA No. 960 is being proposed despite these significant and unavoidable effects.

5.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes

A. Introduction

CEQA (PRC) Sections 21100(b)(2) and 21100.1(a) require that EIRs prepared for the adoption of a plan, policy or ordinance of a public agency include discussion of significant irreversible environmental changes resulting from project implementation. The State CEQA Guidelines, CCR Section 15126.2(c), describes “significant irreversible environmental changes” that would be caused by a project as the following:

Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of a project may be irreversible, since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or non-use thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.

With the above in mind, the various proposed components of the project, GPA No. 960, were evaluated for their potential to cause or result in significant irreversible environmental changes. It should be noted that unlike standard significance findings for impacts that cannot be reduced through mitigation, a significant irreversible change may occur when an action commits “future generations to similar uses,” irrespective of any mitigation applied to the specific action. Thus, the following question was analyzed to determine if significant irreversible environmental changes would be associated with the project: Would the project components do any of the following?

1. Result in a large commitment of non-renewable resources that make later removal or non-use unlikely.

2. Result in the commitment (or consumption) of “irretrievable” (i.e., non-renewable) resources beyond what is justified.

3. Result in primary or secondary impacts that generally commit future generations to similar uses.

4. Result in an environmental accident that could cause irreversible damage.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-19

B. Analysis of Project Components

The various project components of GPA No. 960 were analyzed to assess the likelihood of their exceeding one of the above criteria. The results are grouped by criteria and discussed below. For further details on the specifics proposed for these components, see Section 3.0 (Project Description).

1. Result in a Large Commitment of Non-Renewable Resources

This effect represents a significant irreversible environmental change when it involves the large commitment of resources in a manner that makes their later removal or non-use unlikely. This includes, in particular, the use of non-renewable resources during either construction or operational phases of development.

A non-renewable resource is one that comes from the earth and cannot be readily replenished within the human timescale. This includes mineral resources, particularly aggregate and metal ores, and fossil energy resources, such as oil, coal and natural gas. Aggregate minerals, including rock, sand and gravel, are used extensively in the construction of structures, roads and other infrastructure (particularly canals and other drainage facilities). Related mineral resources are also used to manufacture cement, drywall and other essential building materials. Metal ores are necessary to produce the myriad metals needed for modern life: iron is necessary to make steel, used in everything from penny nails to I-beams to literally the kitchen sink; copper is used extensively for wiring in homes and businesses, as well as in electrical generators, and copper piping is often used for plumbing; aluminum is also used extensively in building construction, as well as for food packaging, in sodas and canned foods; precious metals, such as platinum, gold and silver, are used both for industrial uses, particularly in high- tech devices (cell phones, computers, etc.), as well as for jewelry and artistic works, as are precious stones (industrial-grade diamonds and garnets used for cutting, grinding and polishing, and gem-quality stones used for adornment). “Technology metals,” such as cobalt, europium, cadmium, yttrium, gallium, indium, niobium, scandium, erbium, lanthanum and neodymium, plus lithium, are used in the mass-production of miniaturized electronics (including anything with a computer chip), weapons systems and batteries. As an example, every Prius hybrid car carries with it about 10 pounds of lanthanum, as a “nickel-metal hydride,” in its batteries. And, of course, uranium is mined and purified for use as nuclear fuel in reactors. Because of their association with energy production, fossil fuels are discussed under the subsequent subsection, below, rather than here, where the emphasis is on ore-based mineral resources.

As outlined in Section 4.14 (Mineral Resources), the State of California uses large, multi-county “Production- Consumption Regions” as their boundaries for study areas for assessing aggregate production capacities and their associated market areas. As part of the classification process, the State of California has calculated both the fifty- year aggregate demand forecast and the amount of aggregate resources available for the given area. Three State Production-Consumption Regions include parts of Riverside County. This is important, as the mining of aggregate resources located too close to urban or environmentally sensitive areas is often infeasible due to land use conflicts. Yet when located too far away, the cost of transportation (fuel) makes a mineral resource economically non-viable (and indirectly increases production and consumer prices as well). However, as outlined in Section 4.14, analysis indicates that even with the future development outlined under the project, the availability of aggregate resources in Riverside County would still be assured. Sufficient aggregate resources exist or are potentially developable for future use as needed to meet the next 50 years of demand for the region’s growth.

As discussed more fully under item 3, below, the project does not include any actual development proposals. It would, however, potentially enable future development in a variety of areas – increasing development potential in some areas, decreasing the potential in others. Among the project items with a land use component, no refineries, large-scale manufactories or large-scale infrastructure development (i.e., hydroelectric dams, nuclear reactors,

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-20 Public Review Draft . March 2014

wastewater treatment facilities, canals, interstate freeways, etc.) or other massive structures (skyscrapers, penitentiaries, etc.) are proposed or planned which would necessitate the commitment of large amounts of aggregates, including rock, sand, gravel, cement and other minerals to accommodate the project. Road-building, which utilizes large amounts of aggregates, will occur throughout Riverside County as per the countywide circulation network proposed for the updated General Plan. These roads, however, would be constructed incrementally in segments over the next 50 years. Accordingly, demands for aggregate resources would remain relatively consistent over this period, with demand increasing roughly according to county growth rates. As such, demand for aggregate materials would be relatively constant, fluctuating mainly with growth rates and well within the forecast horizons of supply availability for the Riverside County’s Production-Consumption Regions. See Section 4.14 for more details on mineral resources.

Similarly, in relation to ores and metals, no foreseeable mining uses, large-scale manufactories, foundries, smelters, high-tech device plants or energy-generation uses, which include wind farms, non-photovoltaic solar farms and other energy plant facilities that would require large amounts of various metals, particularly copper, for use in the motors that ultimately generate the electricity, are proposed or planned which would necessitate the commitment of large amounts of ore or metals in their construction or operation.

In total, none of the items proposed as part of GPA No. 960 would necessitate a large commitment of non- renewable resources in a manner that makes their later removal or non-use unlikely. The project would not result in a significant irreversible change in the environment due to the use of non-renewable resources.

2. Result in the Unjustified Consumption of Non-Renewable Resources

As outlined in Section 4.10 (Energy Resources), energy resources can most broadly be defined as the force that enables work to be done. Most commonly, this force is generated from either electricity (electrons) flowing through a circuit or motor, or from the combustion (burning) of a fuel in an engine. The types of fuel used to run an engine or motor include both renewable and non-renewable sources. For full details on this issue, see Section 4.10. For the purposes of the discussion here, however, non-renewable fuels may be simply defined as those coming from the earth that cannot be replenished on a human timescale. Thus, petroleum (oil), coal, natural gas and the associated materials and byproducts of the pumping and refining of these fuels, collectively “fossil fuels,” represent the most common and widely-used non-renewable energy sources.

As mentioned above, a project may be deemed to have significant irreversible changes if it would necessitate the unjustified (i.e., wasteful) consumption of non-renewable resources, in this case, fossil fuels. Future development accommodated by the project would require the consumption of fossil fuels (oil and other petroleum products) to run equipment, such as bulldozers, backhoes, scrapers and other construction equipment, as well as to run manufacturing and other industrial machinery. Oil and other petroleum products would also be used to run motor vehicles for commuters, personal trips, shipping and transit, aircraft and ship-borne traffic, as well as other types of vehicles (recreational vehicles, forklifts, etc.). Vehicular use represents the largest source of fossil fuel use within Riverside County. Fossil fuels, particularly coal and natural gas, are also used to generate steam to run steam-turbines in the production of electricity by utility providers. Lastly, natural gas, as well as less commonly fuel oil, propane or kerosene, are used to heat and/or cool homes and other dwellings, run boilers and various other industrial and commercial equipment.

Analysis of these energy uses was conducted as outlined in Section 4.10. The results indicate that the project would not result in an excessive (significant) consumption of non-renewable resources. The uses proposed to be accommodated by GPA No. 960 are those necessary to accommodate the continued future growth of Riverside County in an orderly, reasonable manner. As such, none of these uses would be considered “unjustified.” Additionally, a variety of policies and plans included in the project would ensure that energy resources (renewable

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-21

and non-renewable) are used in an efficient and judicious manner. Riverside County’s proposed Climate Action Plan, in particular, includes numerous measures to reduce fossil fuel combustion (as a way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions) and improve energy efficiency. See Section 4.7 (Greenhouse Gases) for more details.

In total, the analysis in this EIR indicates that GPA No. 960 would not result in the unjustified consumption of non-renewable resources and would not cause a significant irreversible environmental change as a result.

3. Commit Future Generations to Similar Uses

Another irreversible change is one that commits future generations to similar uses. For the purposes of this EIR, such an environmental change is defined as one resulting in a transformation of the fundamental character of a site such that it would no longer be suitable for certain uses. The most archetypical example of such a change would be the conversion of vacant open space with natural vegetation to an urban or suburban use – such as a tract of homes or a strip of commercial stores, for example. In such cases, the resulting environmental changes would be very difficult to reverse; the cost of reversal combined with the investments already in place make the likelihood of a significant change in use highly unlikely. This type of change can occur through two mechanisms: direct changes, such as development of vacant land, particularly open space; and, secondary changes, such as introduction of roads or other infrastructure that makes a previously undeveloped area more likely to develop.

GPA No. 960 does not propose or include any actual development as part of the project. It does, however, propose changes at the General Plan level that could result in future development of lands, as well as infrastructure, particularly roads and trails. This is most evident in the project components related to land use. In many cases, the project merely proposes to change the land use potential of a site (i.e., through land use designation change) or area (due to a new or revised policy area, overlay or other policy) in a manner that may increase or lessen future development potential on a site either already developed or already proposed for development under the existing General Plan. In these instances, the proposed changes would not cause new impacts due to the commitment of future generations to similar uses. Likewise, the various informational item changes proposed in the Safety Element and Multipurpose Open Space Element also would not affect future commitments. Because they disturb such small areas and are typically easily reversible, the new trail alignments proposed in GPA No. 960 also would not be considered a source of significant irreversible change.

Where the proposed updated countywide circulation network plan proposes new roadways alignments in areas previously without roads, however, these could have a potentially significant irreversible effect. Although new roads in and of themselves can have relatively small impact footprints, the growth-inducing effects that often accompany new roads create a whole suite of attendant growth-inducing effects that can collectively result in significant irreversible impacts to previously pristine, vacant open space lands.

Of the land uses proposed (mapped) in the General Plan Land Use Element, a number of parcels are proposed for land use designation (LUD) changes as part of GPA No. 960. In the “real world,” the exact timing and location of individual future projects developed pursuant to the updated General Plan are not foreseeable because of the numerous economic, demographic and other factors that influence such decisions. However, for the purposes of this analysis it was assumed that all of the LUD changes proposed in GPA No. 960, as well as all other project land use changes with known spatial components would occur incrementally over the next 50 years. Such an assumption enables theoretical predictions to be made about potential future commitments of resources needed to serve the proposed levels of development.

Future development within Riverside County resulting from the proposed spatial changes included in GPA No. 960 would result in the construction of structures, facilities and infrastructure on lands that are currently undeveloped. Development of lands would generally result in their future and permanent commitment to built

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-22 Public Review Draft . March 2014

uses. Environmental changes associated with future development would occur as the physical environment is altered. Changes to the physical environmental would occur through the 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. Specifically, the project components that are considered to have the potential for committing future generations to similar uses are those that affect lands that would be undeveloped, but for the proposed change, and also lands subject to new roadways. In some cases, the project proposed to change LUDs from those with little to no development potential (i.e., OS-C, OS-CH or OS-W) to a developed use (most often rural residential). These are shown in Table 5.2-A (Open Space Areas Proposed for Future Developed Uses), below.

As indicated by the table, a total of approximately 2,784 acres would be committed to significant irreversible environmental changes due to the future development potential on these sites resulting from GPA No. 960. This includes areas denoted by C2-3b, C2-6 and C2-7, totaling roughly 232 acres where the sites are surrounded on all sides by lands designated OS-CH, have native vegetation and no access roads on, abutting or in the vicinity of the parcels. Nine proposed changes (C2-1b, C2-4, C2-5, C2-8B, C2-13b, C2-17b, C2-20, C2-21, C2-22a and C2-23b) totaling just under 2,300 acres would affect lands surrounded by OS-CH areas on at least two sides, with little to no access (sporadic dirt roads, at most), intact or mostly intact native vegetation and only sparse rural and/or agricultural development in the vicinity. And in two areas, denoted by C2-15 and C2-23b, a total of roughly 254 acres are located in areas of generally undeveloped open space in which future development would represent an extension of rural or suburban land uses in the region onto undeveloped lands. Further, this impact would be unavoidable as it results from build out of the General Plan, which would accommodate Riverside County’s growth with or without GPA No. 960.

Table 5.2-A: Open Space Areas Proposed for Future Developed Uses Existing General Plan LUD (acres) Proposed per GPA No. 960 GRAND TOTALS (acres) PROJECT Open Space COMPONENT OS-W OS-C OS-CH TOTAL Proposed LUDs (acres) Affected Conserved Anza Valley Policy 74.81 1,196.75 10,736.02* 12,007.58 OS-RUR 0.20 0.20 12,007.38 Area C2-1b ------434.43 434.43 OS-RUR 434.16 434.16 0.27 C2-2 ------3.80 3.80 MDR 3.63 3.63 0.17 C2-3b ------35.70 35.70 OS-RUR 35.70 35.70 0 C2-4 ------40.52 40.52 OS-RUR 40.52 40.52 0 C2-5 ------39.19 39.19 OS-RUR 39.19 39.19 0 C2-6 ------4.72 4.72 OS-RUR 4.72 4.72 0 C2-7b ------191.26 191.26 OS-RUR 191.26 191.26 0 C2-8b ------71.27 71.27 RR 71.27 71.27 0 C2-9 ------40.35 40.35 RM, RR 9.33, 31.02 40.35 0 C2-10 ------52.66 52.66 RM, RR 22.76, 29.90 52.66 0 C2-11 ------82.76 82.76 RM 82.76 82.76 0 C2-12 17.07 --- 108.28* 125.35 RM, RR 46.23, 61.78 108.01 17.34 OS-RUR, C2-13b ------544.64 544.64 529.64, 2.00 531.64 13.00 RR C2-14 ------40.79 40.79 RM 40.07 40.07 0.72 C2-15 ------99.28 99.28 OS-RUR, EDR 15.06, 84.22 99.28 0 C2-17b ------855.04 855.04 OS-RUR 755.01 755.01 100.03 C2-20 ------5.51 5.51 RR 5.51 5.51 0 C2-21 ------147.38 147.38 OS-RUR 138.71 138.71 8.68 EDR, MDR, 6.44, 0.66, C2-22a ------160.72 160.72 160.72 0 RM, RR 133.48, 20.15 C2-23b ------154.63 154.63 OS-RUR 154.63 154.63 0 C2-24 ------151.69 151.69 RR 151.69 151.69 0 C4-1a --- 3.47 --- 3.47 MDR 3.47 3.47 0

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-23

Existing General Plan LUD (acres) Proposed per GPA No. 960 GRAND TOTALS (acres) PROJECT Open Space COMPONENT OS-W OS-C OS-CH TOTAL Proposed LUDs (acres) Affected Conserved C4-2 --- 4.53 --- 4.53 VLDR-RC 4.53 4.53 0 C4-3 --- 19.64 --- 19.64 RR 19.64 19.64 0 C6-1 134.97 --- 264.00* 398.97 PF 264.00 264.00 134.97 C6-2 ------7.73 7.73 PF 7.73 7.73 0 C6-3 ------0.06 0.06 --- 0 0 0.06 C6-4 --- 61.03 --- 61.03 --- 0 0 61.03 C6-8 ------61.89 61.89 PF 61.89 61.89 0 C8-10 0.87 ------0.87 LI 0.87 0.87 0 Fish Farms 267.34 ------267.34 AG 267.30 267.30 0.04 Lakeland Village --- 230.47 --- 230.47 CR, MDR 0.84, 21.58 22.42 208.05 Meadowbrook ------2.26 2.26 MDR 2.26 2.26 0 San Jac. AG/DEV 66.04 2.11 259.79 327.93 --- 0 0 327.93 GRAND TOTAL 561.10 1,518.21 15,625.64 17,704.96 VARIOUS 3,795.81 3,795.81 12,879.66 * Denotes existing LUD proposed for change under GPA No. 960, as indicated, if more than one existing OS LUD. Source: Riverside County Planning Dept., Analysis of Project Data, 2011.

The future development potentially allowed on these sites as a result of the LUD changes proposed under GPA No. 960 would lead either to irreversible change in the middle of vacant, undeveloped land with intact native vegetation and other natural resources, and possibly require further disturbances to provide access, water, sewer collection and other infrastructure, or would represent the extension of an existing general pattern of land use (typically rural or agricultural) into natural open space located on the border between developing areas and natural open space. Once developed, the loss of open space is generally irreversible. The natural biota in a given locale is the result of millennia of evolution. Thus, the ability of humans to fully restore the functions and values of biota and habitat lost to development is limited. Accordingly, to ensure the “worst case” is considered, areas with urban, suburban or rural development potential are considered to be subject to permanent, irreversible effects on the natural communities, plants, wildlife and their patterns of existence in these areas. Because of restoration difficulties, future development of these areas would represent significant irreversible changes in the environment and commit future generations to perpetuating the developed uses that would result.

4. Potential for Accidental Irreversible Damage

Another source of significant irreversible change is from accidents causing irreparable environmental damage. Such accidents could occur through a variety of human activities, including: spill or release of a hazardous material or radioactive substance to land, air or water; accidental fires in wildlands due to human carelessness or inattention, or fires resulting from mechanical or industrial failures (pipe ruptures, airplane or vehicle crashes, etc.); flooding or dam inundation due to failure of a man-made structure for channeling or retaining water (dams, canals, etc.); or, landslides or mudslides resulting from failure of an engineered slope or soil, or improper hydrological improvements (drainage). While there are many other types of accidents possible, those listed above represent the key sources for irreversible damage that can be associated with the types of future development (i.e., human alterations of the natural environment) to be accommodated by GPA No. 960.

As noted above, the project does not include any actual development proposals. It would, however, alter future development in a variety of areas – increasing development potential in some areas, decreasing the potential in others. As such, it does not include any new proposals for specific uses in which hazardous materials or radioactive substances would be used, generated, stored, processed or shipped. In addition, no new or revised landfill or waste disposal sites are proposed as part of GPA No. 960. Some areas may ultimately be developed as a commercial, industrial or public facility in which hazardous materials are used at some time in the future. However, such locations and uses are not unforeseeable at this time and it is presumed that such risks would also

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-24 Public Review Draft . March 2014

be mitigated by compliance with standard regulatory requirements for the use of hazardous materials. Likewise, for the types of residential, commercial and industrial development that would be accommodated by GPA No. 960, it is assumed that all new uses of hazardous materials would occur pursuant to applicable laws and regulations. That is, commercial or industrial use involving hazardous materials would obtain and comply with a valid materials license specifying the requisite safety measures for the use, handling, storage, transportation and disposal of these materials. See Section 4.13 for more details.

Similarly, while the project would facilitate the extension of development into previously undeveloped areas (as discussed above), these areas are not considered to be of significant increased risk of damage due to wildfire potential. Where new development approval is sought within areas of High Fire Hazard, the various fire fuel modification zone and/or setback requirements would apply. As outlined in Section 4.13, such measures would be sufficient to minimize wildfire threats. Likewise, all new commercial, industrial and public facilities would also be subject to applicable approvals, regulatory compliance and other policies and programs aimed at ensuring the safety of hazardous materials, dangerous substances, electrical equipment and the like are installed and used safely. A variety of fire standards for construction, pursuant to the California Building Code, also would apply to future development.

No new dams or reservoirs are proposed as part of the project. Further, it is assumed that any proposed in the future would be subject to all applicable grading, construction and geotechnical design standards and regulations adopted for the purpose of ensuring such facilities are safely constructed, operated and maintained. This includes strict prohibitions and regulations regarding 100-year floodplains that would also further protect future development from potential flooding risks. See Section 4.11 (Flood and Dam Inundation Hazards) for details.

Lastly, with no specific development proposals included in GPA No. 960, the locations and specifics of future slopes, cut and fill excavation, and other soils engineering activities, as well as future drainage plans and hydrology changes, cannot be foreseen at this time. It is assumed, however, that all future development, including excavation, compaction, grading, construction of structures, roads, drainage facilities, slopes, landfills, pads, foundations, piers and numerous other activities, would all be subject to the extensive local, state and federal regulations, building codes and geotechnical standards enacted to ensure that such uses do not result in a geotechnical, soil or slope hazard. See Section 4.12 for additional information.

In total, for all of the above reasons, the changes associated with GPA No. 960 would not result in a significant risk for an accident or upset that would cause irreversible environmental damage.

C. Conclusion on Irreversible Changes

In total, the analyses presented in this EIR indicate that none of the items proposed as part of GPA No. 960 would necessitate a large commitment of non-renewable resources in a manner that makes their later removal or non-use unlikely. The analysis also found that future development accommodated by GPA No. 960 would not be expected to result in the unjustified consumption of non-renewable resources. And, in addition, the changes associated with GPA No. 960 would not result in a significant risk for an accident or upset that would cause irreversible environmental damage. This includes accidents associated with a variety of human activities, including: spill or release of a hazardous material or radioactive substance to land, air or water; accidental fires in wildlands due to human carelessness or inattention, or fires resulting from mechanical or industrial failures (pipe ruptures, airplane or vehicle crashes, etc.); flooding or dam inundation due to failure of a man-made structure to properly channel or retain water; or, landslides or mudslides resulting from failure of an engineered slope or soil, or improper hydrological improvements (drainage).

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-25

The future development potentially accommodated in some locations as a result of the LUD changes proposed under GPA No. 960 would, however, lead to irreversible changes in the middle of vacant, undeveloped land with intact native vegetation and other natural resources, due to development and possibly the need to provide access, water, sewer collection and other infrastructure. In other areas, it would result in the extension of an existing development pattern (most typically rural or agricultural) into open lands lying on the border between developing areas and native open space. Because of the difficulty in restoring previously untouched areas to fully functional natural resource values, including biological, hydrological, geological, in addition to edge effects, the future development of these areas would represent significant irreversible changes in the environment and likely commit future generations to perpetuating the resultant developed uses. Introduction of roads into previously inaccessible areas would have a similar effect. Although roads in and of themselves can have relatively small impact footprints, in some cases the growth-inducing effects that accompany such roads (due to opening access to new areas) create a whole suite of attendant effects that can collectively result in significant irreversible impacts to previously untouched, vacant open space lands.

The individual environmental effects of future development in specific locations are addressed and, in many cases mitigated to less than significant levels, in the respective parts of Section 4.0. However, notwithstanding these mitigation measures, the irreversible nature of the effects to natural open space areas would remain significant due to their essentially irreversible nature. This effect is a cumulative outcome would result from the build out of the General Plan, both the existing General Plan and for the updated General Plan, as proposed pursuant to GPA No. 960. As such, the policies and programs outlined in the General Plan itself, as well as the proposed Climate Action Plan, EIR No. 521 and existing EIR No. 441, which was certified for the 2003 adoption of the RCIP General Plan, provide a suite of measures that mitigate the effects of continued county growth. However, no other specific mitigation measures are feasible with regard to this effect. As such, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

5.3 Significant Effects on Humans

As mentioned in Section 5.1, a number of environmental effects associated with the project, GPA No. 960, have the potential to result in “environmental effects which [would] cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.” (State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, XVIII.c.)

The project would have a wide range of effects on human beings. Of these impacts, a handful would rise to the level of resulting in “substantial adverse” human effects due to their degree of individual effect, their cumulative effect or their unavoidability. The majority of these human impacts arise indirectly from cumulatively substantial effects. Two would occur as a direct result of the project, as summarized below. These substantial human effects are considered unavoidable for the reasons listed under their respective impact discussions, as cited below. For further details on a given impact, see the respective environmental impact and section listed.

A. Air Quality

As described under Impacts 4.6.B(1), 4.6.B(2), 4.6.C and 4.6.D in Section 4.6, future development accommodated by GPA No. 960 would expose sensitive receptors (i.e., people with sensitive respiratory tracts) to pollutant emissions, including from potentially significant short-term (construction) and/or long-term (operational) activities, depending on the location. The degree of impact would depend on the type of operation, distance from sensitive receptors and the level of activity at each site. If a human was located within close enough proximity to a source of pollutants exceeding regulatory standards, for example from a construction site or an industrial operation, such an exposure could result in a significant impact to the human. In addition, as the exact location,

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-26 Public Review Draft . March 2014

timing and level of future development activities arising from GPA No. 960 is unforeseeable, specific impacts to sensitive receptors cannot be quantified. As a result, this EIR cannot guarantee (even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures) that pollutant levels would be able to be reduced to below applicable agency thresholds. Thus, per Impact 4.6.D, impacts associated with exposure of sensitive receptors to air pollutants would be significant and unavoidable.

Sensitive populations include children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the chronically ill, especially those with cardiorespiratory diseases. In terms of land use, sensitive receptors are areas where sensitive populations may be for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutants present. As mentioned in Section 4.6.4, localized significance thresholds (LSTs) have been developed by the SCAQMD to determine maximum allowable concentrations of criteria air pollutants during construction and operation of a project. Data in Section 4.6 indicate that it is possible to adequately mitigate or avoid certain construction emissions (e.g., CO, NOX, and PM2.5). However, however for PM10 the construction activities would need to be a minimum of 50 meters from the nearest sensitive receptor in order to be less than significant. For future development sites where this distance cannot be achieved, a significant impact would result.

In addition to criteria pollutants, localized emissions of toxic air contaminants (TAC) are also of concern with respect to sensitive receptors. Sources of TACs include diesel particulate matter from railroads, emissions from the combustion of airplane fuel, benzene emissions in close proximity to gasoline dispensing stations, dry cleaners and film processing services that use perchloroethylene, auto body shops due to various solvents, furniture manufacturers and repair facilities that use methylene chloride and print shops that use various solvents. However, the primary source of TACs within the County of Riverside is from diesel-fueled trucks and other vehicles using the freeways and major roadways throughout Riverside County. Guidance from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) calls for buffer zones to insulate sensitive receptors from TAC sources. This is feasible and effective mitigation where land use patterns allow. However, where such distances are not achievable, residual impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Because of increased densities proposed for various land uses in Riverside County and the desire for proximity of residential land uses to both transit and commercial centers, it can be assumed that both construction and operation of commercial and industrial sources could be developed relatively close to sensitive receptors, such as residences or schools. For these reasons, the effects of project emissions on sensitive receptors (i.e., certain populations of humans) throughout Riverside County would be significant and unavoidable.

B. Geology and Soils

Like all of Southern California, Riverside County has experienced and will continue to face groundshaking resulting from activity on local and regional faults. As outlined in Impact 4.12.B (Section 4.12.6), future development consistent with GPA No. 960 would result in the potential for adverse effects to humans, including injury or death, resulting from this groundshaking hazard. As outlined in Section 5.5, this impact would be individually insignificant due to regulations prohibiting construction on faults, as well as requiring setbacks and various structural engineering measures. Thus, the risk is largely mitigated for new development by required structural engineering standards that would apply to new development. However, the growth-inducing effects of GPA No. 960 would also mean that more people would be introduced into Riverside County, thus increasing the number of people subject to risks from structures that may not meet the most-current seismic standards. Accordingly, a major earthquake along one of the major faults in Southern California could have the potential to substantially affect humans through injury or even death.

For similar reasons, the project could also result in a substantial adverse effect to people as a result of landslides. As outlined for Impact 4.12.D (in Section 4.12.6), landslides and rockfall can occur throughout Riverside County as a result of seismic activity and other natural processes, as well as resulting from human activity. Future

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-27

development within Riverside County accommodated by GPA No. 960 would increase the potential for structures and facilities in areas susceptible to landslides or rockfall. Compliance with existing laws and General Plan policies would reduce potential landslide and rockfall impacts for new development to less than significant levels. However, on a cumulative basis, growth would also result in an increase in the number of people living, working and visiting within Riverside County. Where these people would be exposed to unmitigated landslide risks (such as non-conforming structures, structures located in areas of known [mapped] rockfall hazards and people recreating in natural areas prone to rockfall, for example), potentially substantial effects to humans, including injury or death, could occur.

C. Fire Hazards

As outlined for Impact 4.13.H (in Section 4.13.6), areas of high fire hazard exist within unincorporated portions of Riverside County, including rural, mountainous terrain, as well as areas adjacent to, or covered by, natural grasslands or brush. GPA No. 960 would accommodate future development in previously undeveloped areas, including some with high or very-high fire hazards. This would increase both the number of people and amount of property potentially exposed to fire hazards. Additionally, there is the potential for an increase in the occurrence of fires, particularly in urban-wildland interface areas, due to increasing human encroachment. Compliance with existing regulations and General Plan policies would be sufficient to ensure that this impact is less than significant for new development resulting from the project. However, as with the other safety hazards, growth occurring in Riverside County over time would expose humans to indirect fire hazards. In particular, wildfire risks to humans could occur where county growth introduces more people to areas with high wildfire hazard potential, particularly in rural areas and adjacent to natural areas, and in existing structures that may not conform to current fire codes. This indirect impact is an unavoidable cumulative effect of growth leading to an increased number of people in areas of wildfire hazard and increased potential for human-caused wildfires due to increased human encroachment into wildlands.

D. Noise

As outlined under Impact 4.15.A (in Section 4.15.6), future development accommodated by GPA No. 960 would incrementally increase rural, suburban and urban uses in localized areas throughout unincorporated Riverside County. In some locations, this would result in the introduction of new noise-sensitive land uses into areas of existing excess noise or areas in which county growth would eventually lead to excess noise levels. In addition, future development accommodated by GPA No. 960 would contribute incrementally to increased traffic volumes on county roads, resulting in noise increases affecting sensitive land uses along existing and future roads. As a result, new development, particularly residential uses along and adjacent to major transit corridors, could be exposed to noise levels that exceed Riverside County’s noise standards. Existing sensitive uses (and the humans occupying them) would also be subject to these higher noise levels. Compliance with existing noise standards, regulatory programs, General Plan policies and existing mitigation measures from EIR No. 441 would reduce the effects of noise on new development to less than significant levels. However, where noise generators would expose existing receptors (residences and other sensitive uses) to excessive noise, impacts on humans would be significant and unavoidable, as mitigation of these incremental and wide-spread noise impacts is infeasible. Thus, in some locations, noise generated as a result of the project (either directly or cumulatively) would result in a substantial adverse effect on humans.

As noted above, the source of these substantial noise effects on humans would be either construction or traffic activities. Operational activities, in particular motor vehicle operations, would result in substantial permanent ambient noise level increases in specific areas. Construction activities would result in substantial temporary ambient noise level increases. These two impacts are delineated under Impacts 4.15.C and 4.15.D, respectively.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-28 Public Review Draft . March 2014

The excessive permanent noise levels would adversely affect people where such long-term exposure is above the acceptable noise levels established in various County of Riverside and State of California noise standards. The cumulatively substantial and unavoidable temporary noise increases would also affect people where such exposure is above the acceptable noise levels established in various County of Riverside and State of California noise standards. Due to the temporary (i.e., short-term) nature of the impact, the effect on humans would be self- limiting. Nevertheless, however, human effects could be substantial over the short term.

E. Circulation and Traffic

As outlined under Impact 4.18.A (in Section 4.18), future development accommodated by GPA No. 960 would incrementally increase rural, suburban and urban uses in localized areas throughout unincorporated Riverside County. This new development would result in an increase in traffic levels both on existing and newly constructed county roads. In general, new roads and existing road improvements associated with new development are required to provide appropriate pedestrian and bicycle access routes. These routes vary in their level of development depending on the nature of the project triggering their implementation. The General Plan Circulation Element outlines the standards for a variety of pedestrian, equestrian and bicycle lanes. In some cases, new facilities would be introduced in locations isolated from other existing pedestrian/bicycle routes. In other cases, existing routes may be available, but insufficient, intermittent or substandard. When this occurs, the potential exists for safety impacts to humans to result. As outlined in Section 4.18, however, compliance with existing trail standards, General Plan policies and existing mitigation measures from EIR No. 441 would ensure the effects of new development on non-vehicular transportation, and hence humans the using these facilities, would be less than significant.

Section 5.4 Growth Inducement

Pursuant to Section 151 26.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines, this EIR includes a discussion of “the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.” Also according to this same regulation, growth-inducing projects include those that would “remove obstacles to population growth.” It also notes that, “increases in population may tax [i.e., strain] existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects.” And, lastly, it states that, “the characteristics of some projects...may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental or of little significance to the environment.”

Accordingly, an analysis was performed to determine if any of the components of the proposed project, GPA No. 960, could foster, either directly or indirectly, economic growth, population growth or the construction of additional housing. Direct growth inducement includes actions that would lead to an increase in the number of homes, jobs, people or economic transactions. Among other things, direct growth inducement may occur through direct development, including encroachment onto isolated or remote lands, diminishment of open space or leapfrog development. Indirect growth inducement can occur through a precedent-setting action or when an impediment to growth is removed. Most commonly, indirect growth is associated with the provision or extension of essential public services. A classic example is the development potential that arises when infrastructure, in particular roadways and potable water services, are extended into new areas. A precedent-setting policy change that removes an obstacle to growth, for example the establishment of a land use overlay that accommodates a set of alternate, more urban land use designations, would also be an example of indirect growth inducement. Lastly,

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-29

economic expansion can itself be an indirect source of growth inducement by drawing to an area people wishing to take advantage of the additional jobs or housing that result.

A. Growth Assessment Factors

As part of this EIR, the proposed components of GPA No. 960 were assessed for their growth-inducement potential. From the above CEQA information, the following questions were developed. Would the components of the project do any of the following:

1. Foster direct or indirect economic growth.

2. Foster direct or indirect population growth.

3. Result in construction of additional housing.

4. Remove obstacles to population growth.

5. Encourage or facilitate other activities leading to significant environmental effects, including encroachment into isolated or remote areas.

6. Result in population increases that may strain community services or facilities.

These issues can be generally evaluated qualitatively for many of the project’s components. For those items with spatial components, however, a further set of specific demographic standards were developed to enable assessment of the relative potential for significant growth inducement for each. A project component would be considered growth inducing if it would do any of the following:

Standard for Fostering Additional Housing: For the purposes of this analysis, a project component was defined as “fostering additional housing” if it would lead to an increased number of dwelling units at build out. As per the procedures and factors in Appendix E-1 of the General Plan, for each area of residential land use designated under GPA No. 960, the theoretical number of dwelling units expected to be accommodated by the site at build out was calculated. The total expected was then compared to the overall total expected within the Area Plan in which the proposal was located. A project component was deemed “significantly” growth-inducing if it would increase the expected number of dwelling units present by more than the annual growth rate projected for Riverside County by the Riverside County Center for Demographic Research (RCCDR); that is greater than 3% of the Area Plan’s total. Development potential resulting in one-tenth of a percent (0.1%) or less were deemed negligible. And, values between 0.1% and 3.0% were deemed growth-inducing, but not significant.

Standard for Fostering Economic Growth: For the purposes of this analysis, this was defined as increasing the square footage or acreage of land uses most closely associated with economic transactions. Specifically, this meant commercial and industrial uses (CR, CT, CO, BP, LI and HI) which would generate sales taxes, business taxes, and other such economic factors. Similarly, agriculture and mining uses are also included in this definition, particularly as they are associated with additional production and/or processing. Thus, a project component was deemed “significantly” growth-inducing if it would increase the amount of commercial, industrial or agricultural uses (within the respective Area Plan) by 3% or more at General Plan build out with the project component, as compared to build out without the component. Development potential resulting in 0.1% or less were deemed negligible, and values between 0.1 and 3.0% were deemed growth-inducing, but not significant.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-30 Public Review Draft . March 2014

Standard for Fostering Population Growth: From a demographic stand point, population growth occurs when the number of people born in or moving to an area exceeds the number of people dying in or moving out of an area. Examined at the programmatic General Plan level, however, population growth is assessed relative to two land use-related factors. First, and most simply, the greater the number of homes in an area, the more people that can be expected to live there. The process by which houses are directly correlated to population is outlined in the methods and factors of Appendix E-1 of the General Plan. And, in the practical sense, this metric is captured by the “fostering additional housing” factor outlined above. Secondly, on a programmatic basis the Riverside County General Plan can only address population growth in terms of attracting people to Riverside County. In addition to offering a low cost of living, e.g., through affordable housing, jobs are a key factor in attracting people to an area. Thus, employment-generating land uses (specifically, CR, CT, CO, BP, LI or HI land use designations) were used as a third metric for assessing growth inducement. The amount of employment-related building square footage planned for an area can be used to directly approximate the number of jobs available, as per the methods and factors outlined in Appendix E-1 of the General Plan. Thus, a project component was deemed “significantly” growth-inducing if it would increase jobs within an Area Plan by 3% or more at General Plan build out with the project component, as compared to build out without the component. Changes resulting in an increase in jobs of 0.1% or less were deemed negligible, and increases of 0.1% to 3.0% were deemed growth-inducing, but not significant.

Standard for Encroaching into Isolated or Remote Areas: CEQA mentions this factor as growth inducing when it necessitates a “major extension of infrastructure” into an area. Thus, for the purposes of this analysis, a project component was defined as growth-inducing via encroachment if it would: result in development (residential, commercial, industrial or public facilities) of vacant, generally undisturbed (i.e., not previously developed) land; be located in an area with limited or no vehicular access (i.e., either no roads or only dirt roads on, through or abutting the site); and, occur in an area not served by an existing water agency and without known groundwater availability (i.e., an underlying groundwater basin). If all of these factors were present, without any mitigating factors, the project component was be deemed “significantly” growth inducing. Aerial photos and GIS data (water district boundaries, groundwater basins, etc.) were used in assessing the criteria.

Standards for Removing Obstacles to Population Growth, including Precedent Setting Actions: This category of growth inducement includes several items. First, it addresses policy changes that would result in the removal of an impediment to growth; that is, changes that would accommodate growth where previous regulatory conditions or limitations prevented or hindered it. An example of this would be the changing of a land use designation from Open Space-Conservation, which severely restricts development, to Medium Density Residential, which allows 3-5 homes per acre. A second example would be actions that establish or result in the provision of an essential public service; e.g., expanding water or sewer service (or district) into an area without it. In some cases, the proposal of new roads in Riverside County’s circulation network can also fall into this category. Lastly, actions which would serve to “encourage or facilitate other activities” causing or resulting in significant environmental effects would themselves be deemed growth inducing. An example of this might be construction of a casino in a remote area, which though mitigated for its own effects, could lead to new surrounding development that results in environmental impacts of their own. The significance of these factors as growth-inducing was determined by the degree to which the altered factor was serving to prevent, limit or impede potential development or utilization of an area. See analysis that follows.

Strain Community Services or Facilities: Lastly, an action or activity that results in the use of existing services or facilities to the point that new ones are necessary may be deemed growth inducing. Similarly, an action or activity triggering the need for new services or facilities in an area previously without such would also be found growth inducing. In this case, the impact refers to the effects of such usage on the human beings using them, rather than directly on the physical environment. (The directly-related environmental effects are addressed separately in the respective sections of the EIR. See Section 4.0, in particular Section 4.17 (Public Facilities), for

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-31

details.) This effect was generally deemed to be significant if, “but for this action,” new services or facilities would not be needed in the affected area.

B. Factors Mitigating Growth Inducement

The above standards set clear guides for determining when an impact would be significantly growth inducing. However, it must be remembered that frequently more than one factor is at work for a given parcel of land or policy proposal. Sometimes a combination of factors may serve to offset each other. As an example, a proposed new business park may increase the number of jobs in an area, perhaps even significantly (more than 3% for the overall area). But, if the site was previously slated for new homes, by committing the land to future employment uses instead, the additional population of the area would be reduced. As a result, the number of schools and parks needed to serve those residents would also be correspondingly lessened.

Since GPA No. 960 proposes a wide variety of land use, environmental and policy changes, in order to assess any one project component, it is necessary to examine the component’s effect on the larger area. Specifically, this was done by examining the effect of the component on projected build out of the associated Area Plan. Thus, a proposed change that increased the number of jobs on a site by several hundreds or thousands might only represent only an overall increase of 0.5% in employment within the Area Plan. As such, in the programmatic con- text of the updated General Plan resulting from GPA No. 960, the change would not be considered significantly growth inducing.

In the final analysis, although specific quantitative factors may be associated with a given project component and may, in fact, even be growth-inducing individually, the ultimate determination of whether or not a change would be significantly growth-inducing must also include the various qualitative and regional factors at work. This is particularly true for the proposed changes involving policies that are not land use-related. Accordingly, in the analyses below, an effort was made to present both the quantitative and qualitative factors that were considered in determining the ultimate level of significance for each of the proposed components of GPA No. 960.

C. Analysis of Project Components

Each of the following project components below was analyzed according to the above criteria. The factors considered in making the significance determinations for each of the project components are also addressed. For further details on the specifics proposed for these components, see Section 3.0.

1. Incidental Rural Commercial Policies

This proposal would enable the approval of small-scale commercial uses within the Rural and Rural Community Foundation Components, uses previously not allowed under these Foundations. Thus, this proposal removes an impediment to growth within the Rural and Rural Community Foundations. This proposal would serve to increase the amount of (retail) economic activity within rural areas, as well as provide a corresponding increase in jobs to staff the new uses. However, this increase was deemed less than significant at the countywide level because of the specific conditions included in the proposal to ensure the uses are developed appropriately (including strict limits on location and size of retail development). In addition, the driving factor behind the introduction of these incidental rural uses would be existing demand in under-served areas, nearly the opposite of growth inducement. For all of these reasons, this proposed project component was found to be growth-inducing, but not a significant source of growth within Riverside County.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-32 Public Review Draft . March 2014

2. Sphere of Influence Policy

This proposal is generally growth inducing because it removes an impediment to growth by permitting the General Plan to be amended on a quarterly basis, rather than limiting it to the eight-year cycle established pursuant to the Certainty System in the General Plan’s Administration Element, for specific types of infrastructure development. This change provides flexibility needed to allow the County of Riverside and affected cities to coordinate development and infrastructure within their spheres of influence. However, because the policy only applies to areas within city spheres of influence and under closely delineated circumstances related to infrastructure needs, this policy proposal was found to be growth-inducing, but not a significant source of growth within Riverside County.

3. Airport Land Use Compatibility

This project component includes revisions to reflect updated Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans (ALUCPs) within or affecting portions of unincorporated Riverside County. In particular, this includes specific changes to General Plan land use designations (LUDs) for areas surrounding the Riverside Municipal, Flabob and Blythe Airports to ensure consistency with the respective ALUCPs. (See Section 4.13 for further details on these three airport areas.) The general text and map changes made to reflect the ALUCPs were deemed to be generally not growth-inducing. The changes merely reflect existing safety and other airport-related conditions on and around the airports. Further, due to issues beyond the scope of this EIR, even with the changes proposed by GPA No. 960, the General Plan would still have land use consistency issues within the Airport Influence Areas for the Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport (formerly the Desert Resorts Regional Airport), French Valley Airport and Bermuda Dunes Airport. Within these areas, significant impediments to development remain which serve to hinder growth inducement. For the three airports with specific LUD changes, they were analyzed and deemed to have the following growth-inducing effects, as follows.

Blythe Airport: GPA No. 960 includes LUD changes within the vicinity of this airport to further ensure the safety of the area’s residents and visitors. In the most general sense, revising land uses to be consistent with the airport’s ALUCP serves to remove an impediment to development. Quantitative evaluation of the proposed LUD changes indicate that the result would yield the potential for an additional 130 or so dwelling units through an offsetting of more widespread low- and medium-density housing near the airport with medium-high and rural densities of housing located farther from the airport, as well as a loss of roughly 130 acres of potential Business Park development. Overall, however, this increase in dwelling units represents only a very small proportion (1.4%) of the total units planned for the Palo Verde Valley Area Plan in which the Blythe Airport and its unincorporated surroundings are located. The expected population would increase by a similar small amount. As a result, though associated with a slight increase in growth, this project component was found not to be significantly growth inducing.

Flabob Airport: Similarly, GPA No. 960 includes LUD changes within the vicinity of this airport to further ensure the safety of the area’s residents and visitors. In the most general sense, revising land uses to be consistent with the airport’s ALUCP serves to remove an impediment to development. Quantitative evaluation of the proposed LUD changes indicate that overall the number of dwelling units allowed in the region would be greatly reduced (by nearly 900 units). The amount of retail floor space would also be slightly decreased, though the number of jobs would be slightly increased. Overall, however, this slight increase would not significantly affect the Jurupa Area Plan in which the Flabob Airport and its surroundings are located. As a result, this project component was found to have only negligible, insignificant effects on growth.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-33

Riverside Municipal Airport: Lastly, GPA No. 960 also includes LUD changes within the vicinity of this airport. The proposed revisions would remove an impediment to development. Quantitative evaluation of the proposed LUD changes indicate that the overall result would be a decrease in the number of dwelling units allowed in the region. Retail uses and the number of jobs expected in the area would be virtually unchanged. Overall, the changes would not induce growth within the region and this project component was found to have only negligible, insignificant effects on growth.

4. Day Care Facilities

The minor text, policy and procedure changes reflected by this project component would improve the coordination and execution of day care facility planning and review. These changes only clarify existing policies and apply to a specific type of use that occurs only on very small, widely scattered locations across Riverside County. As such, they were found not to have any effect on growth or growth inducement within Riverside County.

5. Open-Space Land Use Designations

This proposal would allow processing of lands into the Open Space Foundation as an entitlement/policy amendment, thus facilitating the preservation of open space dedicated for conservation. It removes an impediment to open space conservation, rather than growth. Thus, this item would not induce growth.

6. Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range

This item proposes changes to address land use compatibility, noise and safety issues for the portion of the Navy’s Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range located within unincorporated Riverside County. As a result, it actually limits development and growth potential. As such, this item would not induce growth.

7. Rural Village Overlays and Study Areas

In the existing General Plan, several rural areas were earmarked for potential urbanization over time via individual “Rural Village” overlays. Or, where the need and location for such urbanization had yet to be determined, Rural Village Study Areas (RVSAs) were created. As part of GPA No. 960, both countywide and area-specific Rural Village policies and plans were evaluated to determine if they remain appropriate as locations for future intensification and whether they provided the necessary implementation guidance. The proposed General Plan policy changes that would apply to all of Riverside County’s Rural Village Overlays and Study Areas (i.e., proposed Policies LU 34.1-34.6) clarify and refine the existing policies. As such, they would not induce significant growth themselves. In addition to general policy revisions, changes were also proposed for specific Rural Villages, as follows:

Chiriaco Summit: The proposed changes to the existing Chiriaco Summit Rural Village Overlay (RVO) merely clarify existing text and update a map. They do not add or reduce any growth impediments, nor make any changes that would increase the growth potential of the area. For these reasons, it was determined that this project component would not affect or induce growth within Riverside County.

El Cariso Village: As described in Section 3.0, it was determined that a Rural Village Overlay would not be appropriate for El Cariso Village. Thus, GPA No. 960 includes the elimination of the Rural Village Study Area covering the area. As a result, the area would not be subject to potential future development intensification

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-34 Public Review Draft . March 2014

(growth). Rather, the area would merely develop according to the existing General Plan LUDs already established. Hence, it was determined that this project component would control (limit), rather than induce, growth in this region.

Meadowbrook: As part of the General Plan update process, it was determined that this community was suitable for future intensification as it is surrounded by incorporated cities and has the infrastructure capacity to accommodate additional growth. Thus, under GPA No. 960 the existing Rural Village Study Area would be replaced with a full Land Use Overlay (RVLOU) covering roughly 626 acres. Within this overlay, the General Plan would provide policies and mapping accommodating development of alternate, more intense land uses through entitlement. Because the new RVLUO would provide an alternative land use development scenario for this area, it serves to remove a regulatory impediment to growth. Further, the higher intensity uses allowed by the Overlay would foster both economic and population growth in the area, a roughly 9% increase in the Elsinore Area Plan’s population and housing, as well as 14% increase in employment and revenue-generating uses (i.e., commercial, industrial, etc.). Given the proposed size of the Rural Village Overlay, this project component would result in significant growth inducement within the Elsinore Area Plan.

Good Hope: The existing Good Hope Rural Village Study Area is located along State Highway 74 and encompasses a variety of existing commercial and light industrial uses. Review also determined that additional urbanization would be appropriate for this community, given the surrounding growth occurring. Thus, GPA No. 960 proposes to create the Good Hope Rural Village Land Use Overlay on a total of 217 acres to provide an alternative land use development scenario for this area. The Overlay would allow higher intensity uses than those of the underlying LUDs, thereby removing an impediment to future growth in the area. Within the Mead Area Plan in which it is located, the Good Hope RVO would result in an increase of roughly 3% more homes and people, and 4% more jobs and economic opportunities. This change is a small, but significant, source of growth inducement for the region.

Aguanga: As part of the General Plan update effort, the existing Aguanga Rural Village Overlay Study Area was reviewed, and it was determined that due to limited access and infrastructure capacity, intensification of the area via Rural Village Overlay was inappropriate at this time. Thus, GPA No. 960 proposes to eliminate this Study Area, allowing it to instead continue to grow according to the underlying LUDs depicted in the General Plan. The removal of this RVSA serves to reduce the future development potential of the area. It would limit, rather than induce, growth in this region.

Anza Valley: Similarly, after review of the existing 1,300-acre Anza Rural Village Overlay, it was determined that a formalized Rural Village Land Use Overlay was not appropriate for this region at this time. Thus, GPA No. 960 proposes to eliminate the existing Rural Village Overlay, allowing the community to instead continue growing according to the underlying LUDs depicted in the General Plan. In addition, a larger area (approximately 71,000 acres) along State Highway 341 was placed within a Policy Area associated with the Anza Valley Municipal Advisory Committee’s (MAC) “Goals and Vision” statement. These two steps would limit the area’s growth potential, deemed appropriate due to the limited infrastructure capacity, particularly its lack of assured water supplies, and would also ensure coordination of any future development that does occur. For these reasons, this project component would not induce significant growth in the area.

Sky Valley: After review, it was determined that no change was necessary for this Rural Village. Thus, although originally scheduled for updating, GPA No. 960 does not include any changes to the Sky Valley Rural Village Overlay and would not induce growth in this area.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-35

8. Lake Elsinore Environs Policy Area (Lakeland Village)

The 234-acre existing Lake Elsinore Environs Policy Area was reviewed and revised to establish updated land use intensities to reflect revised flood mapping for the Lakeland Village community surrounding Lake Elsinore. Before revision, many properties in the village had “split” LUDs (i.e., two on one parcel or block of land) due to the 100-year flood hazard zone. As part of GPA No. 960, these parcels’ LUDs were revised to reflect the changes made to the 100-year flood zone surrounding Lake Elsinore by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The proposed changes to roughly 300 acres in and around the Policy Area would remove impediments to development through changes to commercial- retail, residential and open space designations, and, in particular, the removal of split designations (two LUDs on a single parcel). The LUD changes would only slightly increase the number of homes and residents expected in the area. It would also slightly decrease the number of jobs and square footage of economic uses associated with the area. Thus, although this component would result in the removal of a development impediment within the community, the overall potential for it to induce growth would be negligible and insignificant.

9. Northeast Business Park Overlay

The proposed roughly 260-acre Northeast Business Park Overlay would provide an alternative land use scenario for this area, allowing the predominantly agricultural dairy (AG) existing uses to develop as a future business park (BP) if or when urbanization pressure makes such development appropriate. Because this project component would allow an urbanized use (BP) to develop where not previously planned, this item is growth inducing. It would foster direct economic growth in the region. Relative to the Lakeview/Nuevo Area Plan in which it is located, this project component would result in increases of roughly 26% and 16%, respectively, in jobs and commercial/industrial square footage. As a result, this project component would result in significant growth inducement for the region.

10. San Jacinto Agriculture/Potential Development Special Study Area

As part of the General Plan update, it was determined that the nearly 7,700-acre San Jacinto Agriculture/Potential Development Special Study Area was not ripe for development intensification. Accordingly, GPA No. 960 proposes to eliminate the Study Area and let the region remain agricultural (AG). The historically agricultural region would not be subject to a potentially growth-inducing overlay. As such, the project component would serve to limit, rather than induce, potential future growth in the region.

11. Conservation Land Mapping Changes

As part of GPA No. 960, nearly 15,000 acres previously acquired for permanent conservation as habitat under the Western Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (WRC-MSHCP) would be designated as Open Space-Conservation Habitat (OS-CH). As a result, future growth potential on these lands would be severely restricted. Thus, this project component would reduce, rather than induce, growth potential within Riverside County.

12. Categorical County-Initiated LUD Changes

As outlined in Section 3.0, GPA No. 960 includes a variety of proposed parcel-specific LUD changes. These changes were grouped according to eight basic criteria. The potential for growth inducement for each of these eight categories are discussed individually, below.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-36 Public Review Draft . March 2014

Criteria 1 - Technical Mapping Errors, Including Rural-Mountainous Designations: This category addresses parcels that were erroneously designated as Rural Mountainous (RM), even though they do not meet the steep slope requirements. It also includes mechanical mapping errors. It proposes to affect roughly 80 acres of Riverside County. The reassignment of LUDs from Rural-Mountainous (RM), which limits development due to steep slopes, to other, less restrictive LUDs would technically serve to induce growth. However, analysis of the parcels involved indicates the resultant increase in development potential resulting from the proposed changes would be small. Thus, these changes would not result in significant inducement of growth. It would encroach only minimally into isolated or remote areas.

Criteria 2 - Open Space-Conservation Habitat Designation Changes: This category corrects the LUDs for privately owned lands erroneously designated as “Open Space - Conservation Habitat,” (OS-CH), which is normally used to designate publicly held conservation lands. It affects a total of approximately 3,260 acres of Riverside County. See the summary presented in Table 5.2-A for the land use changes, locations and acreages associated with these changes. As with the first category, the reassignment of LUDs from OS-CH, which allows virtually no development to protect biological values, to other, less restrictive LUDs would serve to induce growth. However, analysis of the parcels involved indicates that the resultant increase in development potential resulting from the changes would be small on an incremental parcel basis. Correspondingly, these individual parcel changes alone would not result in significant growth inducement.

However, some of the parcels at issue are located on vacant lands within intact natural habitat and with no existing or planned infrastructure availability nearby, particularly roads, electricity and water supplies. As such, the increased development potentials proposed for these parcels represent a substantial encroachment into isolated or remote lands, because they would necessitate the concomitant extension of roads, utilities and other infrastructure improvements into these open space areas as well. Specifically, sites C2-3b, C2-6 and C2-7b (roughly 232 acres total) are located on undisturbed parcels of native vegetation and surrounded by OS-CH lands on all four sides. Sites C2-1b, C2-4, C2-5, C2-8b, C2-13b, C2-17b, C2-20, C2-21, C2-22a and C2-23b are located on vacant, vegetated lands totaling 2,180 acres and have lands designated OS-CH bordering at least two sides. Lastly, sites C2-15 and C2-23 totaling 254 acres would also extend development into vacant lands. These sites are all located in the far eastern desert region of Riverside County, outside of any existing Area Plan. Statistically, when evaluated against the total area, these small growth-inducing changes would be less than significant relative to overall growth of the far eastern desert region. However, because they would permit development of nearly 3,800 acres of vacant natural lands (predominantly desert scrub habitat) located near, adjacent to, or in some cases even in the middle of, lands designated OS-CH being maintained for their natural conservation functions and values, the extension of roads, utilities or homes into these areas would represent significant growth-inducing effects, as well as significant irreversible changes to the natural environment.

Criteria 3 - Public Facilities Designation Changes: This category corrects the LUDs for privately owned lands erroneously designated as “Public Facilities” (PF), which normally designates lands slated for public benefit uses. It affects a total of roughly 190 acres of Riverside County. In most of the cases, the proposed new LUDs would have virtually no effect (adding only a handful of homes, for example). Two sites have growth-inducing changes that would lead to upwards of 50 homes and nearly 300 homes. Another site would accommodate up to 20 acres of Light Industrial development. For these three locations, however, analysis of the parcels involved relative to their regional surroundings and, in particular, their Area Plans indicate that their resultant development potential increases would be small. Further, none of these parcels represent significant encroachments into remote or isolated areas. As a result, these changes would not result in significant growth inducement. Thus, the changes proposed under Criteria 3 were collectively found to not be significantly growth inducing within Riverside County.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-37

Criteria 4 - Open Space-Conservation Designation Changes: This category addresses lands that were originally designated as “Open Space-Conservation” (OS-C), but have been determined to be unsuitable for such due to existing development, location or other constraints. This category affects a total of 28 acres of Riverside County. In most of the cases, the proposed new LUDs would have virtually no effect (adding less than a dozen homes, for example). For this reason, the changes proposed under Criteria 4 would not result in significant inducement of growth.

Criteria 5 - Open Space-Recreation Designation Changes: This category addresses a single 38-acre area inappropriately designated as “Open Space-Recreation” (OS-R). It would be designated as Medium-Density Residential (MDR) under GPA No. 960. This change would be inherently growth-inducing, as it would accommodate roughly 75 to 190 dwelling units on the site. Its location, however, on the eastern side of the Coachella Valley, is on lands clearly urbanizing to similar uses. When compared to the overall development expected within the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan in which it is located, the growth inducement is found not to be significant.

Criteria 6 - Appropriate Designation for Public Use Lands: Under this category, roughly 800 acres of public lands erroneously designated for private development uses, instead of Public Facilities (PF), would be corrected. These changes include, in particular, PF designations applied to lands buffering landfills, Riverside County facilities (e.g., the Hub Jail), reservoirs (e.g., Lake Skinner), canals and major roads. Item C6-4, in particular, alters LUDs to accommodate the revised 100-year floodplain resulting from changes made to the Prado Basin and its dams. As such, the Criteria 6 changes generally denote new limits on development, rather than new growth potential. For this reason, the changes proposed under Criteria 6 would not result in significant inducement of growth.

Criteria 7 - Designations Appropriate for Existing Lot Sizes: This category proposed LUD changes to roughly 11 acres to accommodate estate-density residential uses in an area surrounded by similar existing development. As such, it represents an orderly extension of existing development. And, though technically an inducement of growth, compared to the existing AG designation, it would only increase the number of homes in the Southwest Area Plan by roughly five units. As such, this minute change does not represent a source of significant growth inducement in the area.

Criteria 8 - Other Land Use Changes: This category addresses various LUD changes identified over time that do not fit into any of the other categories above. Four areas would be moved from residential to commercial or industrial uses and three would be changed in the reverse. In total, 250,000 square feet of additional commercial and industrial uses would be added. Likewise, three areas would be re-assigned to residential LUDs with lower densities (totaling 710 acres with 340 potential dwelling units – a decrease of over 750 units) and five areas would go to LUDs of increased residential densities (a total of 1,105 acres accommodating an additional 162 dwelling units). The LUD changes increasing housing development potential or business use intensities would inherently increase growth potential. However, analysis of the overall effect of the changes proposed under Criteria 8 with respect to the affected Area Plans in which they are located, found that these changes would not be significantly growth inducing. Three of the proposed changes would have the potential to induce growth, but not at significant levels (0.2% to roughly 2%).

13. Fish Farms

This project component represents roughly 860 acres where the existing LUD would be changed to agriculture (AG) to reflect existing or planned aquaculture (fish farming) and related activities. Though agricultural uses would foster economic growth and jobs, the low levels of development associated with such activities would severely limit their growth potential. Further, some of the acreage to be shifted to AG was previously designated

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-38 Public Review Draft . March 2014

for residential uses. As such, the change would represent the loss of additional future housing development. Lastly, however, the proposed changes were evaluated at the regional level against the build out potential for the Eastern Coachella Valley Area Plan in which they are located. It was found that the proposed changes would affect less than 1% of the area and have only a small effect on the area’s growth. For these reasons, these proposed project components were not found to be significantly growth inducing.

14. General Plan Circulation Network Changes

As part of the overall General Plan update process, the County Transportation Department examined the existing Countywide Planned Circulation System to determine if regional and local transportation systems would be able to accommodate the traffic demands of the planned future intensities resulting upon General Plan build out, as well as those associated with GPA No. 960. As a result, GPA No. 960 includes a number of updates to proposed roadway alignments and intersection locations, as well as functional classifications (widths, number of lanes, level of service targets, etc.), where needed throughout unincorporated Riverside County.

Because of the essential nature of vehicular access to and across sites, the introduction of new roadways is quintessentially growth inducing. By facilitating access, new roads foster economic and population growth, open up areas for construction of additional housing, particularly in isolated or remote regions, and remove an impediment to growth by establishing an essential public facility. Often individual private development projects propose roads specifically to serve the proposed land uses. However, in the case of GPA No. 960, a number of roadway changes are being proposed of varying types and for locations across Riverside County. As such, they represent the further extension of roadways necessary to the serve the growing county and are considered collectively growth producing. Thus, because of the extent and essential nature of the proposed revisions to the Riverside County Circulation Network, these GPA No. 960 changes would be considered to be significantly growth inducing.

15. Traffic Level of Service (LOS) Standard Changes

As shown in Table 4.18-B in Section 4.18 (Transportation and Circulation), the County Transportation Department proposes adjustments to the volume capacities for certain types of roadways, mainly arterial and larger. The proposed level of service (LOS) changes do not in any way alter the amount of traffic generated that would be carried by affected roadways, as traffic is primarily a function of population (travelers) and geography (that is, the destinations or “trip ends” determined by the locations of various land uses). However, the changed standards mean that in some cases roadway improvements (i.e., expanding the capacity of existing roadways and/or adding new roadways or capacity) would not be triggered until higher traffic volumes are reached. The exception is “Mountain Arterial,” which would have a lowered LOS and thus trigger improvements sooner than present standards). While future projects would still be required to pay into the TUMF program for mitigating regional traffic impacts, the requirement for project-specific roadway improvements would be somewhat eased. This change (that is, delaying the triggering of roadway, signal and related infrastructure improvements) could ultimately have the effect of the removal of a barrier to growth by decreasing the time and expense of transportation-related improvements associated with implementing a proposed project. As a benefit, by removing this obstacle to growth, this change could result in the indirect fostering of economic growth, population growth and indirectly in the construction of additional housing. In terms of environmental impacts, however, this component of the project would be significantly growth inducing.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-39

16. Non-Motorized Transportation Plan Changes

Within the Circulation Element, GPA No. 960 also includes updates to both the alignments proposed for the Riverside County Non-Motorized Transportation Plan, as mapped in Figure C-7 of the General Plan (as well as detailed in the individual Area Plans), and to the standards for trail alignments, types, usage and functional classifications, and related implementation policies. However, because trails generally serve to provide either pedestrian connectivity and/or recreational opportunities, they are not inherently growth inducing. Rather, they most often tend to be developed in response to an area’s growth, rather than a driver of such growth. For these reasons, the proposed changes to the Riverside County Non-Motorized Transportation Plan and other trails- related policies would not result in significant inducement of growth.

17. Multipurpose Open Space Element Changes

The Multipurpose Open Space Element was examined to ensure that countywide policies addressing natural resources (their regulation, use and conservation) remain appropriate and adequate for current conditions and the planned future of Riverside County. Thus, GPA No. 960 includes a variety of new and revised policies to strengthen resource protection, energy conservation and infrastructure coordination. A variety of resource maps were also updated addressing the distribution of known resources to better coordinate their conservation and protection, where appropriate. Review of the specific policies and map revisions proposed found none of them met any of the qualitative or quantitative criteria for growth inducement outlined earlier in this section. Thus, the changes proposed to this Element under GPA No. 960 would not result in any significant inducement of growth within Riverside County.

18. Safety Element Changes

Similarly, the General Plan’s Safety Element was also examined to ensure that countywide policies addressing safety hazards, risks and preparedness remain appropriate and adequate for current conditions and the planned future of Riverside County. Thus, GPA No. 960 proposes several new and revised policies to reduce hazards and improve safety, such as for updated geological, seismic and fire-hazard planning. The accompanying maps were similarly updated to reflect current information. In all, a number of safety maps were updated addressing various safety hazards and zones to better coordinate the protection of people and property within Riverside County. These items address safety hazards and protection, and establish limits on growth (due to the mapped hazards) to ensure public safety. Review of the specific policies and map revisions proposed found that none met any of the qualitative or quantitative criteria for growth inducement outlined earlier in this section. Thus, the changes proposed to this Element under GPA No. 960 would not result in any significant inducement of growth within Riverside County.

19. Air Quality Element Changes

The Air Quality Element was also updated under GPA No. 960. Changes proposed address regulatory updates and the provision of new information. In particular, additions are proposed to address recent California laws and policies related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction, including GHG reduction targets based on a countywide carbon inventory, as well as goals and policies were developed to achieve these reduction targets in coordination with the Climate Action Plan (CAP) that has also been developed for Riverside County. The CAP includes a program for enacting Implementation Measures to be used to ensure that future development within unincorporated Riverside County achieves Riverside County’s greenhouse gas reduction goals. These actions ensure the County of Riverside is consistent with the State of California’s overall GHG reduction plans developed

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-40 Public Review Draft . March 2014

to implement AB 32, California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. See Section 4.7 of this EIR for more information.

Because of the need to prevent future GHG emissions, the proposed changes include a number of items directed at reducing emissions (of both GHGs and, incidentally, criteria pollutants) associated with new development. That is, they assume future development will occur and propose ways to mitigate the effects of said new development on air quality and GHGs accordingly. In essence, this means they react to future development proposals rather than inducing or promoting them directly. For this reason, the GPA No. 960 changes proposed for the General Plan’s Air Quality Element would not serve to significantly induce growth. For the same reasons, the proposed Riverside County Climate Action Plan would likewise not induce significant growth within Riverside County.

20. Administration Element Changes

The proposed update to the Administration Element of the General Plan was examined and updates are included in GPA No. 960 where needed to ensure its policies and programs continue to reflect current planning practices and provide a clear and concise set of directions for the implementation of the General Plan. Because of the administrative nature of these proposed changes, they tend to either have no effect on growth. In the case of the proposed change to allow more frequent processing of lands into the OS-C designation where flood control issues arise, the change would impede future growth, rather than foster it. Thus, collectively, none of the changes proposed to this Element under GPA No. 960 would serve to induce significant growth within Riverside County.

21. Updates to General Plan Appendices

Several of the technical appendices to the General Plan were updated, revised or reissued as necessary to ensure that the General Plan continues to reflect current conditions and growth forecasts for Riverside County. These appendices were developed as part of GPA No. 960 to ensure up-to-date data is provided to support the policy and program directives in the General Plan and to update planning, land use, socioeconomic, potential environmental constraints (such as ambient noise or air quality levels) and other projections and analyses. As such, these appendices merely represent informational items used to inform or elaborate upon the rest of the General Plan. Thus, none of the proposed appendix changes would have the potential to induce growth within Riverside County.

D. Conclusions on Growth Inducement

Based on the above analysis, many of the proposed changes associated with GPA No. 960 would either limit or impede growth (for example, by placing further restrictions on floodplains or wildfire hazard areas) or would induce insignificant amounts of growth (less than 0.1% of the overall growth by Area Plan). The provision of small, scattered incidental rural-commercial retail uses in under-served regions that is expected to result from the proposed incidental rural-commercial policy proposal is an example of this kind of limited, insignificant growth. Only several key specific types of future development actions or projects resulting from GPA No. 960 would, in fact, have the potential to induce significant growth within Riverside County.

As analyzed above, these include three proposals that would foster economic, population and housing growth within a portion of Riverside County: the proposed Meadowbrook and Good Hope Rural Village Land Use Overlays, and the proposed Northeast Business Park Overlay. Changes to sites in the Criteria 2 LUD category would also result in significant growth-inducing effects due to their encroachment into remote or isolated areas.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-41

In addition, the proposed changes to the countywide circulation network also have the potential to induce significant growth because of the essential nature of roads in providing access to remote or isolated regions, and in removing impediments to growth by establishing an essential public facility. And, lastly, the proposed circulation LOS changes would be directly and indirectly significantly growth-inducing due to the removal of barriers to growth resulting from decreased the time and expense of transportation-related improvements associated with implementing a proposed project.

This finding of significant growth-inducing effects associated with GPA No. 960 is not unexpected, however, given the programmatic nature of the project, its countywide scope and the nearly 50-year build out period involved. The nature and purpose of a General Plan is inherently growth inducing, in that it represents a plan for ensuring the orderly growth and development of land within unincorporated Riverside County over time. As such, the myriad policies, plans, procedures and standards outlined throughout the Riverside County General Plan, as updated pursuant to GPA No. 960, as well as this EIR and the existing EIR No. 441, certified for the 2003 RCIP General Plan, collectively serve to mitigate and reduce, where possible, the severity of the environmental effects associated with growth and build out of Riverside County. With continued diligence in implementing the General Plan, long-term growth within the County of Riverside can continue while environmental effects are kept to the minimum feasible and the unique biological and other important natural resources of Riverside County are protected for the health and enjoyment of both existing residents and future generations to come.

Section 5.5 Cumulative Impacts

A. Introduction

Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR include a discussion of the potential cumulative impacts of a proposed project. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, impacts occurring over a period of time. Specifically, cumulative impacts are defined as two or more individual effects that, when considered together, are substantial 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 development when added to other closely related past, present and reasonably foreseeable or probable future developments. The State CEQA Guidelines, CCR Section 15130(b)(1), outlines two ways in which analysis of a project’s cumulative impacts may be approached:

The following elements are necessary to an adequate discussion of significant cumulative impacts. Either:

(A) [List Method]: 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) [Regional Growth Projections Method]: A summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional or statewide plan, or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect. Such plans may include: a general plan, regional transportation plan or plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. A summary of projections may also be contained in an adopted or certified prior environmental document for such a plan. Such projections may be supplemented with additional information such as a regional modeling program. Any such planning document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the lead agency.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-42 Public Review Draft . March 2014

Thus, to quantify future development trends for the Riverside County General Plan, current General Plan Amendment (GPA) applications in process with the Riverside County Planning Department were used to represent reasonably foreseeable future projects. In general, GPA cases are often broad enough to capture large planning projects in unincorporated Riverside County, including large specific plans, but narrow enough to allow for cumulative analysis. Also, since all of the GPAs submitted to the County of Riverside must use the same basic land use assumptions (i.e., those of the current General Plan), the GPAs can be quantified and combined in a manner that permits appropriate comparisons. To study the relative cumulative effects of the project, GPA No. 960, in relation to various General Plan build out scenarios, a data set was created of all proposed GPA applications submitted to Riverside County since the issuance of the last collective General Plan in 2003, a total of roughly 140 cases, which are described in more detail below.

The resultant data set was used to assess the reasonably foreseeable future cumulative effects expected to occur within Riverside County as the General Plan guides development over time. These include spatial (land-based) impacts, in which environmental impacts are site-dependent (i.e., based on the resources present at a given location) and socioeconomic effects that arise from demand on resources caused by an increase in population, homes, jobs or other factors. The theoretical (hypothetical) demographic data (jobs, population and housing) used here were derived from the land use capacities indicated by the General Plan land use designations (LUDs) proposed for the various GPAs. Regional data developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), which encompasses Riverside County in addition to five other surrounding counties, as well as the hundreds of cities within these counties, was also used to examine effects outside Riverside County boundaries. This particularly applies to population-driven regional impacts that extend beyond Riverside County, traffic in particular.

B. Cumulative Analysis – Methods and Results

To study the cumulative impacts expected for GPA No. 960, a data set was created of all proposed GPA applications submitted to Riverside County since the issuance of the last collective General Plan (i.e., the RCIP General Plan document, which was adopted by the County Board of Supervisors on October 3, 2003) through the end of 2009. In total, this amounted to 138 GPAs, which are described in more detail below. This total also includes 16 GPAs that were approved in 2009 after the initial baseline was set for this EIR, as they had not been incorporated into the “Existing General Plan” document, which only includes GPAs adopted through the end of 2008. The cases included in this cumulative data set (“CULM” herein) are listed in Table 5.5-A (General Plan Amendments Included in Cumulative Build Out Scenario). See Appendix EIR-10 for additional details on the individual GPA cases that contribute.

The resultant cumulative data set, with GPA No. 960 added, was compared to a base plan consisting of the current (2008) General Plan as well as to the existing conditions within Riverside County. By listing all of the GPAs currently in process as the “probable future projects” for cumulative impact analysis, that is, using the “List Method” mentioned above, the incremental contribution of the proposed project, GPA No. 960, could be examined. In certain cases, in order to quantify and compare cumulative project impacts, the “Regional Growth Projections Method” was used instead, for example, for traffic and circulation impacts.

For the cumulative analysis presented here, it should be noted that this EIR does not evaluate the site-specific impacts of the individual GPAs listed. The 122 GPA applications (i.e., those not yet approved or denied by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors; the other 16 GPAs in the set are already adopted) must each undergo appropriate CEQA analysis and review in their own right, including any and all separate environmental studies deemed necessary on a case-by-case basis.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-43

In addition, it should also be noted that growth in neighboring counties and cities as a result of build out of the overall cumulative scenario would likely cause secondary cumulative impacts in the County of Riverside. This effect is discussed herein to the extent the proposed project, GPA No. 960, contributes to such impacts, but it is not studied in detail due to geographical and technical limitations. This problem arises because each individual city and county makes a separate set of assumptions, growth predictions and build out projections for their own individual general plans. The widely varying methods and time horizons for build out of these jurisdictions lead to highly subjective results that make an appropriate “apples-to-apples” comparison infeasible.

Table 5.5-A: General Plan Amendments Included in Cumulative Build Out Scenario Case & Type Case & Type Case & Type Case & Type Case & Type GPA 621 SP GPA 874 EP GPA 943 F GPA 996 F GPA 1050 EP GPA 686 SP GPA 876* EP GPA 945 F GPA 997 F GPA 1051* AG GPA 692 SP GPA 879 SP GPA 948 F GPA 998 F GPA 1052 F GPA 706 EP GPA 878* EP GPA 949 F GPA 1000 EP GPA 1053* EP GPA 732 EP GPA 881* SP GPA 950 F GPA 1001 F GPA 1055* EP GPA 736 EP GPA 883* EP GPA 951 SP GPA 1005 F GPA 1056* EP GPA 743 SP GPA 888 F GPA 954 F GPA 1006 F GPA 1058 EP GPA 751 EP GPA 896 F GPA 955 F GPA 1007 F GPA 1061* SP GPA 753 EP GPA 900 AG GPA 958 F GPA 1008 F GPA 1063 EP GPA 763 AG GPA 903 F GPA 959 F GPA 1009 SP GPA 1064 EP GPA 774* EP GPA 905* EP GPA 961 AG GPA 1010 F GPA 1065 F GPA 778 EP GPA 907 SP GPA 962 F GPA 1015 F GPA 1066 EP GPA 780 EP GPA 909 F GPA 963 F GPA 1016 F GPA 1067 AG GPA 781 EP GPA 910 SP GPA 964 F GPA 1022 F GPA 1068 SP GPA 783 EP GPA 911 F GPA 965 F GPA 1025 EP GPA 1070 EP GPA 784* AG GPA 914 F GPA 968 F GPA 1028 F GPA 1071 AG GPA 791 EP GPA 915 F GPA 973 F GPA 1030 F GPA 1073* EP GPA 796 EP GPA 916 F GPA 974 F GPA 1032 F GPA 1074 EP GPA 803 EP GPA 917 F GPA 975 F GPA 1033 SP GPA 1076 AG GPA 814 SP GPA 920 F GPA 976 F GPA 1035 F GPA 1078 EP GPA 816 EP GPA 921 F GPA 977 F GPA 1036 F GPA 1079 SP GPA 818 EP GPA 925 F GPA 978 SP GPA 1037 F GPA 1081 EP GPA 826* SP GPA 926 F GPA 980 AG GPA 1038 F GPA 1082 T GPA 835 SP GPA 927 F GPA 983 F GPA 1039 F GPA 1086 EP GPA 841 SP GPA 928 F GPA 985 SP GPA 1042 F GPA 1087 EP GPA 847 T GPA 934 F GPA 988 F GPA 1043 EP GPA 1092 EP GPA 865 AG GPA 935 F GPA 991 F GPA 1047* EP GPA 870 EP GPA 936 F GPA 995 F GPA 1048* EP Footnotes: 1. The Administrative Element of the General Plan establishes the Certainty System with four “amendment categories” as listed in Footnote 2. See pages A-11 through A-13 of the General Plan for specifics on each. GPAs marked with an asterisk (“*”) are those GPAs adopted as of the end of 2009. GPA sub-cases (substantial conformances, etc.) not shown. 2. Key to types of General Plan Amendment (more than one category may apply): T = Technical Amendment F = Foundation Amendment EP = Entitlement/Policy Amendment AG = Agriculture Foundation Amendment 3. “SP” denotes GPAs associated with an existing or proposed Specific Plan. Pursuant to General Plan Policy LU 1.11, Certainty System rules apply slightly differently. SP-related GPAs are typically E/P types, but can also include any of the other three categories. 4. All “type” indicators listed above are descriptive, based on LUD changes appearing in the CULM data set and are listed here only to provide an approximate categorization of the GPA. They do not represent any official opinion, commitment or judgment on the part of the County of Riverside with respect to any individual GPAs or its merits. This list has no bearing on any existing or future processing or review of the individual GPAs. Source: Riverside County Planning Department, data assembled February 2013.

Therefore, rather than use the numerous disparate methods and factors of each jurisdiction, the analysis prepared by the Riverside County Center for Demographic Research (RCCDR), in consultation with the Riverside County Planning Department, applied a single set of uniform assumptions to all of the incorporated cities within Riverside County. The growth assumptions applied to the incorporated cities used regional data from SCAG. As

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-44 Public Review Draft . March 2014

discussed in Section 5.6 (Regional Consistency), SCAG is the regional planning entity responsible for working with the numerous cities, counties and other governmental agencies within Southern California to ensure sound, coordinated growth continues for the region. The end result of this effort was the development of a single, unified cumulative data set that enabled the examination of the project’s incremental contribution to the various overall cumulative environmental impacts associated with growth in Riverside County.

1. Terms and Assumptions

For the cumulative analyses that follow, the following labeling conventions and assumptions apply:

 Existing, i.e., baseline, conditions within Riverside County are those present as of the date of this EIR’s NOP or other date(s) as indicated in the applicable EIR section addressing the resource (i.e., Sections 4.2 through 4.19). These conditions are typically labeled “EXIST.”

 The terms “existing General Plan” or “current General Plan” are used to refer to the current (2008) General Plan. “CURR GP,” “CURR scenario,” etc., refer to the future build out of the current (2008) General Plan.

 The term “updated General Plan” (or “GPU”) is used to refer to the current (2008) General Plan as it would exist updated pursuant to the proposed project, GPA No. 960, if adopted. Also abbreviated “GPU/960” since it encompasses the revisions proposed by the project.

 When the proposed project, GPA No. 960, or “project build out” is mentioned, for the purposes of this section only, it is assumed to referred to the build out of the existing (2008) General Plan as amended pursuant to GPA No. 960. Thus, the labels “GPU,” “GPU/960” or “GPA 960 scenario” refer to the entire General Plan, not merely the individual components of the plan that are proposed for change under GPA No. 960. Again, it should be noted that this distinction applies only in Section 5.5.

 Each of the General Plan scenarios assume full (100%) build out of the land uses mapped, even if such development would be historically or economically unlikely or otherwise constrained from ever actually occurring. This is done to ensure the “worst case” is analyzed and appropriate mitigation identified where needed.

 The environmental analyses that follow include conclusions as to the potential for cumulative impacts for the project, GPA No. 960, and also for the CULM scenario. Although oft-times included in the cumulative effects presented, results for the existing (CURR) General Plan are generally not specifically addressed since they were already covered by EIR No. 441.

 The final “cumulative data set” discussed throughout this section consists of a combination of GPA No. 960 and the future GPAs. That is, it is the existing (2008) General Plan with the changes proposed by GPA No. 960, as well as the 122 individual GPAs included in the “future GPAs,” plus the 16 additional adopted GPAs. It is this overall cumulative General Plan that is referred to as the “cumulative scenario,” “CULM build out,” etc.

 A “build out scenario” denotes the level of development that would exist should all potential development be realized as planned for in the applicable document (General Plan, GPA proposal, policy area, etc.) indicated. The assumptions used in modeling each of the build out scenarios used herein are

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-45

generally as directed in General Plan Appendix E-1, unless noted otherwise. See Section 4.1 for additional details on build out modeling.

The collection of “future GPAs” referenced in this section refer to the 122 property owner-initiated GPA applications submitted through 2009 and in process with the County of Riverside Planning Department. The only GPAs from this timeframe not included in the data set are those that have been denied by the hearing body, formally withdrawn or abandoned by the applicant are the only GPAs omitted. GPAs that were “declined to initiate” during GPIP (General Plan Initiation Process) review were also omitted. Inactive (but not formally abandoned) GPAs were included in the data since they could in theory be reactivated at any time. The “future GPAs” data set includes 63 active property-owner initiated GPAs submitted within the open “window” for requesting General Plan Foundation changes. (This “window” was opened for the first time in January-February of 2008 after a five-year interval pursuant to the General Plan’s Administration Element policies.) Foundation GPA applications denied GPIP “initiation” (i.e., “declined to initiate”) by the Board of Supervisors or withdrawn by the applicant were omitted.

Lastly, it should be noted that, notwithstanding the analysis of this section, all of the proposed GPAs in the CULM data set will still have to be processed as individual cases and are not included in the scope of this proposed project, GPA No. 960. None of the information or discussion in this EIR is specifically intended as CEQA analysis for these individual GPAs, though future analysis may use this EIR for tiering as allowed by CEQA. Each case will still require individual project-specific CEQA analysis and will be considered separately for approval or denial by the appropriate decision-making body. Inclusion on this list does not imply County endorsement in any way.

The CULM data set was created through the collaboration of three Riverside County departments: Planning, Transportation and GIS, as well as the Riverside County Center for Demographic Research (RCCDR). Planning staff collaboratively assembled a database of each of every open GPA application submitted to the County of Riverside. These were sorted to limit the list to applications received through the end of 2009 to correspond to the cut-off point for the EIR. As noted above, this resulted in a total list of 138 GPAs. The 16 GPAs adopted between the date of the “current” (2008) General Plan and the end-of-2009 EIR cut-off point were also included in the list to ensure consistency amongst the various analyses both within this section and throughout the rest of the EIR’s chapters. See Appendix EIR-11 for more details.

The data developed for the cumulative data set are based only on “worst-case” scenario build out of all available land uses. This was done to ensure that this EIR analyzes the full spectrum of development/ land use capacity identified by the various General Plan scenarios discussed in this section. In reality, the actual future demographics of Riverside County (and, hence land use build out) are influenced greatly by a number of subtle and varied demographic, economic and political factors. For example, Riverside County’s official demographic forecasts are much more complicated and sophisticated projections than those used in this section. However, adjusting each of the scenarios (including each of the 138 GPAs) for such myriad details and factors was infeasible within the scope of this cumulative impacts analysis.

For each of the cumulative impacts analyzed herein, the CULM data set was compared against existing conditions (baseline data set) and the two other General Plan build out scenarios mentioned above: the existing (2008) General Plan (CURR GP) and the General Plan as it would be if amended by GPA No. 960 (i.e., the GPU build out scenario). For further details on how the spatial analyses were conducted for each of these scenarios, see Subsection 5.5.D.1 (Land Use), below.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-46 Public Review Draft . March 2014

2. Cumulative GPA Build Out Scenario - Data and Projections

The work efforts outlined above resulted in the creation of a CULM build out scenario data set that included both land use capacity (spatial) component and a set of demographic projections. The total acreages for each LUD associated with the CULM data set are shown in Table 5.5-B (Land Use Summary for Cumulative GPA Build Out Scenario), below. The demographic results are shown in Table 5.5-C (Demographic Summary for Cumulative GPA Build Out Scenario). Additional details on each of the data sets used in this section are provided in Appendix EIR-11.

Table 5.5-B: Land Use Summary for Cumulative GPA Build Out Scenario DATA SET: CULM SCENARIO CHANGE FROM Development Categories and ADDITIONAL CULM BUILD OUT3 EXISTING (BASELINE)4 Land Use Designations (LUDs)1 GPAs2 (acres) (acres) TO BUILD OUT (acres) URBAN / SUBURBAN Subtotal + 9,600 118,130 + 61,140 Residential Uses + 2,300 80,310 + 46,110 LDR-CD (Low Density Residential) + 670 9,210 - 5,260 MDR (Medium Density Resi.) - 1,690 54,360 + 48,260 MHDR (Med.-High Density Resi.) + 1,790 10,560 - 2,660 HDR (High Density Resi.) + 710 4,290 + 3,880 VHDR (Very High Density Resi.) + 660 1,700 + 1,700 HHDR (Highest Density Resi.) + 160 190 + 190 Commercial & Industrial Uses + 7,300 37,820 + 15,030 CR (Commercial-Retail) + 6,280 9,710 + 12, 560 CT (Commercial-Tourist) + 250 2,390 + 510 CO (Commercial-Office) + 60 300 + 120 LI (Light Industrial) + 130 18,330 + 370 HI (Heavy Industrial) + 300 1,920 + 600 BP (Business Park) + 280 3,750 + 540 MUPA & CC (Mixed Use LUDs)5 0 1,420 + 330 PUBLIC FACILITIES Subtotal - 1,750 37,410 - 4,070 PF (Public Facilities) + 330 31,350 + 1,530 FWY (Freeways & Major Roads)6,8 + 420 7,480 + 820 MISC (Misc. Development)6 - 2,500 - 1,420 - 6,420 RURAL / AGRICULTURE Subtotal + 4,290 295,050 + 8,260 Residential Uses + 7,570 93,830 + 16,060 EDR-CD (Estate Density Resi.) + 90 2,770 + 350 EDR-RC (Estate Density Resi., RC) + 7,260 35,300 + 14,350 VLDR-CD (Very Low Density Resi.) + 640 19,930 + 7,300 VLDR-RC (V. Low Density Resi, RC) - 310 22,060 - 5,250 LDR-RC (Low Density Resi., RC) - 110 13,770 - 690 Economic Land Uses - 3,280 201,220 - 7,800 AG (Agriculture) - 3,130 193,660 - 7,500 OS-MIN (Mineral Resources, OS) - 150 7,560 - 300 INTERFACE/WILDLAND Subtotal - 12,830 2,280,590 - 38,490 Residential Uses - 16,720 2,221,900 - 46,780 RR-RUR (Rural Residential, RUR) - 1,370 132,030 - 8,540 RM-RUR (Rural-Mountains, RUR) - 2,090 137,270 - 9,050 RD-RUR (Rural-Desert, RUR) 0 21,240 - 890 OS-RUR (Rural Residential, OS) - 13,260 1,918,020 - 28,300 Economic Land Uses + 1,130 15,200 + 1,990 OS-REC (Recreation, OS) + 1,130 15,200 + 1,990

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-47

DATA SET: CULM SCENARIO CHANGE FROM Development Categories and ADDITIONAL CULM BUILD OUT3 EXISTING (BASELINE)4 Land Use Designations (LUDs)1 GPAs2 (acres) (acres) TO BUILD OUT (acres) Open Land Uses + 2,760 56,830 + 60,000 OS-C (Conservation, OS) + 2,760 56,830 + 63,000 VACANT / OPEN SPACE Subtotal + 690 1,288,060 - 26,300 OS-C (Conservation, OS)7 0 0 0 OS-CH (Conservation Habitat, OS)7 + 170 1,213,160 + 10,640 OS-W (Water, OS)7 + 520 74,900 + 1,410 VAC (Vacant)6 0 0 - 38,890 GRAND TOTAL 0 4,019,240 0

Footnotes: 1. CD = Community Development Foundation; RC = Rural Community Foundation; RUR = Rural Foundation; OS = Open Space Foundation. Foundation is CD if not listed otherwise. For LUD abbreviations, see Table 4.2-D. 2. Change in acreage (+/-) attributed to the CULM GPAs data set. 3. CULM SCENARIO BUILD OUT = Build out of Current (2008) General Plan as amended per CULM GPA data set plus GPA No. 960 changes. See Table 5.5-A for list of GPAs encompassed by CULM GPAs DATA SET. 4. CULM SCENARIO BUILD OUT minus EXISTING (baseline existing uses of land). 5. MUPA = Mixed Use Planning Area; CC = Community Center. 6. Not an LUD in the General Plan; category used for existing uses of land and/or GIS mapping only. 7. Existing “Natural Open Space” and undeveloped public/quasi-public parklands categorized as “OS-C.” Existing “Natural (Reserve)” categorized as “OS-CH.” Existing land uses under OS-W include “Water (Colorado River).” 8. For built uses, LUDs generally include roadway acreages (i.e., those totals not included in “roadways”). Source: SCAG, 2008. County Center for Demographic Research, 2010. Riverside County Planning Dept., Project application materials, 2013.

Table 5.5-C: Demographic Summary for Cumulative GPA Build Out Scenario DATA SET: CHANGE FROM Development Categories and CULM SCENARIO ADDITIONAL CULM EXISTING (BASELINE) Land Use Designations (LUDs) BUILD OUT3 GPAs2 TO BUILD OUT4 URBAN / SUBURBAN Residential Uses (acres)4 + 2,300 ac 80,300 ac + 46,100 ac Dwelling Units (du) + 12,300 du 376,100 du + 185,400 du Population (persons) + 46,900 pers 1,238,000 pers + 726,300 pers Average Residential Density (du/ac) --- 4.7 du/ac --- Commercial & Industrial Uses (acres)5 + 7,300 ac 37,800 ac - 6,200 ac Employment Generated (jobs) + 89,600 jobs 538,100 jobs + 442,100 jobs Subtotal + 9,600 ac 118,100 ac + 62,400 ac PUBLIC FACILITIES Public Facilities & Infrastructure (acres)6 - 18,000 ac 37,400 ac + 22,600 ac Employment Generated (jobs) - 200 jobs 3,300 jobs + 3,200 jobs Subtotal - 18,000 ac 37,400 ac + 62,400 ac RURAL / AGRICULTURE Residential Uses (acres)4 + 7,600 ac 93,800 ac + 90,600 ac Dwelling Units (du) - 1,600 du 69,100 du + 64,200 du Population (persons) - 3,700 pers 227,300 pers + 214,200 pers Average Residential Density (du/ac) --- 0.74 du/ac --- Natural Resource Uses (acres)7 - 3,300 ac 201,200 ac - 38,200 ac Employment Generated (jobs) - 9,000 jobs 98,600 jobs + 87,200 jobs Open Space Uses (acres)7 0 ac 0 ac - 109,300 ac Subtotal + 4,300 ac 295,100 ac - 84,800 ac INTERFACE/WILDLAND Residential Uses (acres)4 - 16,700 ac 2,221,900 ac + 2,158,600 ac Dwelling Units (du) - 6,400 du 79,500 du + 68,800 du Population (persons) - 1,900 pers 261,600 pers + 232,900 pers Average Residential Density (du/ac) --- 0.04 du/ac --- Natural Resource Uses (acres)7 + 1,100 ac 15,200 ac + 9,200 ac

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-48 Public Review Draft . March 2014

DATA SET: CHANGE FROM Development Categories and CULM SCENARIO ADDITIONAL CULM EXISTING (BASELINE) Land Use Designations (LUDs) BUILD OUT3 GPAs2 TO BUILD OUT4 Employment Generated (jobs) + 300 jobs 2,300 jobs + 2,200 jobs Open Space (acres)7 + 2,800 ac 56,800 ac - 631,000 ac Subtotal - 12,800 ac 2,280,600 ac + 1,536,900 ac VACANT / OPEN SPACE Open Space (acres)8 + 700 ac 1,288,100 ac - 1,514,500 ac Subtotal + 700 ac 1,288,100 ac - 1,514,500 ac GRAND TOTALS acres 0 ac 4,019,200 ac 0 ac dwelling units + 4,300 du 525,300 du + 318,300 du population + 41,300 pers 1,726,800 pers + 1,173,400 pers employment + 80,700 jobs 642,300 jobs + 534,400 jobs gross average density --- 0.22 du/ac --- jobs:housing ratio --- 1.22 jobs/du --- Footnotes: 1. CURRENT GP = Current (2008) General Plan; OVERALL CULM BUILD OUT = the current (2008) General Plan, plus the GPA No. 960 changes, as well as the changes proposed by the existing GPAs approved or applied for through the end of 2009 (see Table 5.5-A). Also see Table 5.5.B footnotes for additional land use notes. 2. Change in acreage (+/-) attributed to the CULM GPAs data set. 3. CULM SCENARIO BUILD OUT = Build out of Current (2008) General Plan as amended per CULM GPA data set plus GPA No. 960 changes. See Table 5.5-A for list of GPAs encompassed by CULM GPAs DATA SET. 4. Residential Uses encompass: Urban/Suburban: LDR, MDR, MHDR, HDR, VHDR and HHDR (all CD Foundation); Rural/Agricultural: EDR, RC-EDR, VLDR, RC-VLDR and RC-LDR; Interface/Wildland: RR, RD, RM and OS-RUR. 5. Commercial & Industrial Uses encompass: CR, CT, CO, LI, HI, BP, CC and MUPA. 6. Public Facilities & Infrastructure Uses encompass: PF, FWY and MISC. (FWY and MISC are not LUDs, rather they denote existing uses of land and/or GIS mapping categories only.) 7. Natural Resource Uses encompass: Rural/Agricultural: AG and OS-MIN; Interface/Wildland: OS-REC. 8. Open Space encompasses: OS-C, OS-CH, OS-W and VAC (VAC is an existing use of land designation, not a General Plan LUD). Source: SCAG, 2008. County Center for Demographic Research, 2010. Riverside County Planning Dept., Project application materials, 2013.

3. Environmental Assumptions

The specific methods used for modeling environmental effects are as outlined in the corresponding parts of Section 4.0. The modeling in the cumulative effects subsections uses theoretical projections because specific area- by-area calculations for each resource, using each independent area or agency’s own variables and procedures (for example, each of the 23 individual water districts or each school district) were beyond the scope of this programmatic analysis. In addition, controlling these variables in the modeling process by using standardized factors countywide enables valid comparisons amongst the various scenarios and regions for the given resource. Notwithstanding any of the modeling used herein, the ultimate methods and timing for meeting the resource needs discussed in this section will always be at the discretion of the responsible agency. For example, each individual school district determines where, when and what type of schools are built within its district, regardless of any land use designations in the Riverside County General Plan. This also applies to water agencies, parks districts, municipalities, etc. Thus, the cumulative data herein should not be construed as the actual specific needs, demands or effects that would arise for a given location. Such determinations will be made on a project-by- project basis as development occurs and may vary based on the surrounding area.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-49

County of Riverside is the entity with discretion for review and approval of such development applications for most cases within unincorporated Riverside County. Demand for additional development is often a result of many interrelated factors, including population growth and economic demand, as well as location, local supply, infrastructure availability, costs, etc.

C. Cumulative Effects

In this subsection, each of the individual areas of environmental analysis previously covered in Section 4.0 (i.e., Sections 4.1 through 4.19) are addressed here for the CULM scenario and the project’s incremental contributions to the cumulative effects of Riverside County build out. According to the State CEQA Guidelines, CCR Section 15130 (b):

“The discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as great detail as is provided for the effects attributable to the project alone. The discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness, and should focus on the cumulative impact to which the identified other projects contribute rather than the attributes of other project which do not contribute to the cumulative impact.”

Accordingly, in the subsections that follow, each environmental topic is described relative to its existing setting and future conditions, as they apply to the cumulative scenarios developed for this EIR. The existing setting, project-specific effects, impacts and mitigation for each environmental topic have already been provided in Sections 4.1 through 4.19. Thus, to avoid repetition, the discussions below refer back to those sections where ever possible. Also, see those sections for information on the specific sources and data development methods employed for each environmental resource or topic. The discussions below focus on the cumulative impacts that are significant and, in particular, those areas where the project’s contribution to such cumulative impacts would be considerable. Lastly, following these discussions is a table summarizing the project’s overall cumulatively substantial impacts.

1. Cumulative Effects on Land Use

Section 4.2 (Land Use) of this EIR discusses in great detail the existing uses of land within Riverside County, as well as the land use data sources used. The section also analyzes the impacts that would arise from future development accommodated by the changes proposed by the project, GPA No. 960, as well as the regulatory mitigation measures that would ensure impacts are less than significant. Thus, to avoid repetition, information already covered in Section 4.2 is not repeated here. The reader is encouraged to refer back to Section 4.2 directly for additional details on land use.

a. Existing and Future Conditions

Within Riverside County are 26 incorporated cities, which are not included in the scope of the Riverside County General Plan other than for planning and coordination purposes. The General Plan and the proposed project’s land use data were updated to reflect the transfer of the cities of Wildomar and Menifee from County land use jurisdiction. Two other new cities, Eastvale and Jurupa Valley, are included in this EIR, as their incorporations occurred well after the April 13, 2009, release of the NOP for this project. This means that impacts to northwestern Riverside County are addressed by this programmatic EIR, even though they now represent impacts to cities (and hence are not subject to County of Riverside jurisdiction).

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-50 Public Review Draft . March 2014

Existing development and uses of land within Riverside County are a mosaic of varying types of uses, ownerships, character and intensity. Table 5.5-D (Cumulative Land Use Effects) shows the generalized existing (2008) land use throughout Riverside County based on raw data provided by SCAG and developed by RCCDR. This table defines land uses into four broad categories (Urban/Suburban, Rural/ Agricultural, Interface/Wildland and Vacant/Open Space) based on the associated level of development density and intensity.

The table also shows three scenarios for General Plan build out which were developed from the three land use scenarios described in the introduction to this section: build out of the current (2008) General Plan (“CURR GP”), the updated General Plan as amended per GPA No. 960 (“GPU”) and the General Plan as amended per the cumulative GPA set (“CULM” or “CULM GP”). These four land use build out scenarios were analyzed against various GIS data in RCLIS.

As shown in the table, at present, the majority of land within unincorporated Riverside County (just over 90%) is not developed. In particular, vacant and open lands predominant in the eastern desert areas outside the Coachella Valley. Of the existing types of residential uses within the unincorporated county, 61% are of the rural or interface/wildland type and only 38% are within areas considered urban or suburban (e.g., lots under a half-acre). Of the developed areas, most are located in western Riverside County (i.e., roughly the third of the county located west of the San Jacinto Mountains) and the Coachella Valley. Large tracts of federal lands, including National Forests, account for open space areas in southern Riverside County, much of the San Jacinto Mountains and parts of the eastern desert as well. See Section 4.2 for additional details on the land use patterns existing within Riverside County and its cities.

In regards to land use-related cumulative impacts, Table 5.5-D reveals a number of trends as Riverside County develops over time. First, in the long run Riverside County will still be facing large growth pressures. Even with the slower pace of growth following the collapse of the housing market in the late 2000s, a substantial increase in growth is still anticipated to result in the implementation of future GPAs over the next 50 years if all of the changes proposed by GPA No. 960 and the cumulative General Plan scenario occur. These changes and growth pressures will have a direct bearing on land uses within Riverside County.

Table 5.5-D: Cumulative Land Use Effects EXISTING FUTURE (GP BUILD OUT)2 Development Categories and USES of LAND CURRENT GP GPU / GPA960 TOT CULM GP Land Use Designations (LUDs)1 (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) URBAN / SUBURBAN Subtotal 78,260 105,480 108,530 118,130 Residential Uses 34,200 75,390 78,010 80,310 LDR-CD (Low Density Residential) 14,470 9,090 8,540 9,210 MDR (Medium Density Resi.) 6,100 55,000 56,050 54,360 MHDR (Med.-High Density Resi.) 13,220 7,240 8,770 10,560 HDR (High Density Resi.) 410 3,130 3,580 4,290 VHDR (Very High Density Resi.) 0 900 1,040 1,700 HHDR (Highest Density Resi.) 0 30 30 190 Commercial & Industrial Uses 44,060 30,090 30,520 37,820 CR (Commercial-Retail) 10,300 3,430 3,430 9,710 CT (Commercial-Tourist) 2,010 2,130 2,140 2,390 CO (Commercial-Office) 15,350 240 240 300 LI (Light Industrial) 12,650 18,090 18,200 18,330 HI (Heavy Industrial) 3,620 1,620 1,620 1,920 BP (Business Park) 0 3,490 3,470 3,750

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-51

EXISTING FUTURE (GP BUILD OUT)2 Development Categories and USES of LAND CURRENT GP GPU / GPA960 TOT CULM GP Land Use Designations (LUDs)1 (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) MUPA & CC (Mixed Use LUDs)3 130 1,090 1,420 1,420 PUBLIC FACILITIES & INFRA. Subtotal 42,780 37,730 39,160 37,410 PF (Public Facilities) 32,380 30,150 31,020 31,350 FWY (Freeways & Major Roads)4, 5 5,590 7,080 7,060 7,480 MISC (Misc. Development)4 4,810 2,500 1,080 - 1,420 RURAL / AGRICULTURE Subtotal 351,940 291,080 290,760 295,050 Residential Uses 3,220 85,340 86,260 93,830 EDR-CD (Estate Density Resi.) 0 2,510 2,680 2,770 EDR-RC (Estate Density Resi., RC) 820 28,210 28,040 35,300 VLDR-CD (Very Low Density Resi.) 0 13,270 19,290 19,930 VLDR-RC (V Low Density Resi, RC) 640 27,000 22,370 22,060 LDR-RC (Low Density Resi., RC) 1,760 14,350 13,880 13,770 Non-Residential Uses 239,430 205,740 204,500 201,220 AG (Agriculture) 229,030 198,030 196,790 193,660 OS-MIN (Mineral Resources, OS) 10,400 7,710 7,710 7,560 Open Land Uses 109,290 0 0 0 VAC (Vacant)4 109,290 0 0 0 INTERFACE/WILDLAND Subtotal 687,640 2,306,250 2,293,420 2,280,590 Residential Uses 49,930 2,238,620 2,225,280 2,221,900 RR-RUR (Rural Residential, RUR) 49,930 139,200 133,400 132,030 RM-RUR (Rural-Mountains, RUR) 0 144,230 139,360 137,270 RD-RUR (Rural-Desert, RUR) 0 22,130 21,240 21,240 OS-RUR (Rural Residential, OS) 0 1,933,060 1,931,280 1,918,020 Non-Residential Land Uses 5,960 14,340 14,070 15,200 OS-REC (Recreation, OS) 5,960 14,340 14,070 15,200 Open Land Uses 631,750 53,290 54,070 56,830 OS-C (Conservation, OS) 631,750 53,290 54,070 56,830 VACANT / OPEN SPACE Subtotal 2,858,620 1,276,700 1,287,370 1,288,060 OS-C (Conservation, OS)6 0 0 0 0 OS-CH(Conservation Habitat, OS)6 3,630 1,202,690 1,212,990 1,213,160 OS-W (Water, OS)6 59,470 74,010 74,380 74,900 VAC (Vacant)4 2,795,500 ------GRAND TOTAL 4,019,240 4,019,240 4,019,240 4,019,240 Footnotes: 1. CD = Community Development Foundation; RC = Rural Community Foundation; RUR = Rural Foundation; OS = Open Space Foundation. Foundation is CD if not listed otherwise. For LUD abbreviations, see Table 4.2-D. 2. Build out scenarios: CURR GP = Current (2008) General Plan; GP/GPA960 = Current (2008) General Plan with changes proposed by GPA No. 960; TOT CULM GP = Current (2008) General Plan, plus GPA No. 960, as well as changes proposed by existing GPAs approved or applied for through the end of 2009 (see Table 5.5-A). 3. MUPA = Mixed Use Planning Area; CC = Community Center. 4. Not an LUD in the General Plan; category used for existing uses of land and/or GIS mapping only. 5. For built uses, LUDs generally include roadway acreages (i.e., no separate totals for “roadways”). 6. Existing “Natural Open Space” and undeveloped public/quasi-public parklands categorized as “OS-C.” Existing “Natural (Reserve)” categorized as “OS-CH.” Existing land uses under OS-W include “Water (Colorado River).” Source: SCAG, 2008. County Center for Demographic Research, 2010. Riverside County Planning Dept., Project application materials, 2013.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-52 Public Review Draft . March 2014

In terms of urban/suburban residential development, build out of the existing General Plan (CURR GP) will increase the amount of land devoted to residential uses by more than double (120%). In particular, nearly 50,000 additional acres of Medium Density Residential (MDR) are planned, which alone would accommodate nearly 180,000 additional homes. In Riverside County, this substantial increase will occur mainly through the development of vacant lands, with infill providing opportunities for densification and urbanization as communities mature. These effects were originally addressed by the EIR for the current General Plan (EIR No. 441). The proposed project, GPA No. 960, would increase the amount of urban/suburban residential units planned by roughly 2,600 acres. Incrementally, this contribution is not substantial, as it represents only 2% of the total urban/suburban residential area planned. Similarly, the cumulative General Plan scenario (CULM GP) would further add 2,300 acres to the urban/suburban residential total. Proportionally, this increase is also only a 2% increment and also not substantial.

Given the nature of Riverside County, the vast majority of land planned for residential development (e.g., per the current General Plan) is located in rural areas. Specifically, the existing General Plan calls for over 2.32 million acres of rural residential uses, particularly in the Interface/Wildlands category (i.e., lots 5 acres and larger). This is a substantial increase addressed under EIR No. 441. It should be noted, however, that this increase represents all of the lands designated for rural residential land uses within Riverside County, including vast portions of the far eastern desert (beyond the Coachella Valley) that are designated OS-RUR (open space-rural) by default. The OS- RUR designation is frequently used in the remote and least-developed portions of Riverside County to provide the minimal level of development potential necessary for private lands. It is unlikely that all of the lands so- designated would actually see development based on historic and economic data and trends. However, this EIR and this cumulative analysis nevertheless assume full development in order to ensure a “worst case” scenario.

With its reduced or eliminated footprints for several rural villages and other rural areas, GPA No. 960 would lessen the severity of land use effects by reducing the amount of residential acreage planned in outlying rural areas (i.e., wildlands and interface). In total, the project calls for over 12,400 acres less rural residential uses. Similarly, the cumulative General Plan scenario would further reduce interface/wildland residential uses by an additional 16,720 acres. Even after accounting for the 7,570-acre increase in the rural/agricultural category, this still yields an overall net decrease of 9,150 acres for net non-urban residential. Thus, in total, either of these General Plan scenarios would have a net beneficial cumulative effect by slightly offsetting the existing General Plan’s proposed increases in rural and interface residential acreage.

The need to extend infrastructure further into rural portions of Riverside County, particularly remote areas not currently served, however, would trigger additional environmental impacts associated with their construction and operation. For details on environmental effects associated with specific types of infrastructure see the relevant parts of Section 4.0: Section 4.10 for energy resources (including electricity and natural gas), Section 4.18 for roads and other circulation infrastructure, Section 4.17 for public facilities and Section 4.19 for water resources, including potable water, sewer and storm drainage. No new highways or major infrastructure that would divide a community (e.g., dams, canals or rail lines) are planned or proposed under GPA No. 960 or the cumulative General Plan scenarios. Environmental impacts associated with new major county highways were addressed initially in EIR No. 441 for the current General Plan and additionally through CETAP (Community Environ- mental Transportation Accountability Process) also undertaken (along with the MSHCPs) as part of the overall Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP).

In terms of non-residential uses, existing land use patterns show large amounts of land devoted to commercial, industrial and public facility uses. This includes areas buffering landfills, surrounding reservoirs, canals, public airports and other facilities. Table 5.5-D indicates build out of the current General Plan would result in a reduction of developed commercial and industrial uses by a third. Rural lands devoted to large-scale public facilities (e.g., landfills, jails, canals, schools, highways, etc.) would decrease slightly after taking into account excess lands

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-53

left vacant by base closures and other changes in proposed public uses. Under GPA No. 960, the amount of commercial and industrial uses would increase slightly (by 430 acres), but the amount of public facilities would decrease by 570 acres. Thus, the project would contribute to a net benefit environmentally by reducing the potential public facilities footprint within Riverside County.

Under the cumulative General Plan scenario, land devoted to public facilities would be further reduced by another 1,750 acres, a beneficial effect. Uses specifically proposed for Commercial-Retail (CR), however, would increase by nearly 6,300 acres. In total, the cumulative scenario would result in an increase of 7,300 acres of developed commercial and industrial uses. This is an increase of more than 25% and would be cumulatively substantial if the effects of such development are not mitigated. Individual future implementing projects would be required to mitigate significant adverse environmental impacts through compliance with the General Plan EIR (No. 441), this EIR (if applicable), the MSHCPs, the proposed Riverside County Climate Action Plan and other applicable environmental programs, as well as individual CEQA compliance.

In terms of agricultural uses, build out of the current General Plan would result in the loss of 31,000 acres of existing agriculture (the largest single-category change for a developed use). Both the project (GPA No. 960) and the cumulative General Plan scenario would add further to these losses by slightly increasing the amount of agricultural lands allowed to convert to developed non-agricultural uses. GPA No. 960 would decrease the amount of land designated agricultural (“AG” LUD) by 1,240 acres; the cumulative scenario would subtract another 3,130 acres from this amount. Thus, each of these scenarios would contribute incrementally (0.6% and 1.6%, respectively), but not substantially, to the loss of agricultural land uses.

Lastly, the General Plan build out scenarios were analyzed relative to their effects on open space and vacant (undeveloped) lands. This issue was complicated by the difference between how SCAG classifies lands (i.e., as outlined for the Existing Uses of Land scenario in Table 5.5-B) and how the General Plan designates land uses. When developing a land use inventory, SCAG identified lands with no structures or other disturbances as “vacant.” While descriptive, this term only reflects what is currently on a parcel, not what is planned for the land. Conversely, the land use mapping (LUDs) in the General Plan (and each of the build out scenarios analyzed here), do the exact opposite. They indicate what use(s) a parcel of land may someday develop, without regard for what is actually on the land at present. Also, they do not reflect the likelihood of the mapped use actually being realized, nor do they reflect when such development might occur. Accordingly, Table 5.5-D reflects this schism with existing lands labeled as “vacant.” At build out, all unincorporated lands are assigned a specific use, even if that use is one that preserves the land in its vacant, undeveloped state, for example “OS-CH.”

Despite these challenges, several trends were noted. Under the current General Plan, vacant lands, including open space, would be reduced by over half (63%). EIR No. 441 found this loss of open space a significant impact, although the environmental effects of this loss are offset (though not reduced to less-than-significant) through a variety of means, including habitat conservation pursuant to the two MSHCPs covering parts of Riverside County. See Section 4.8 (Biological Resources) for specifics on this issue. The overall trend for the current General Plan is loss of “vacant” lands due to development of nearly 1.5 million acres of rural uses (particularly within interface and wildland areas). This is in addition to the offsetting effect of over preserving roughly 1.2 million acres as conservation lands (OS-CH, in particular) in the General Plan. (Note, the specific assembly of these OS-CH lands would be accomplished pursuant to the two MSHCPs; see Section 4.8 for specifics.)

Under GPA No. 960, the amount of land specifically preserved as open space (i.e., OS-C, OS-CH or OS-W) would further increase by nearly 11,500 acres, resulting in a net beneficial effect on the preservation of open space within Riverside County. The cumulative scenario would contribute nearly 3,500 additional acres as well. Thus, either scenario would contribute a net beneficial effect to the cumulatively adverse impacts associated with build out of the existing General Plan.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-54 Public Review Draft . March 2014

b. Impacts

Future development accommodated by the project will contribute incrementally to cumulative land use impacts as Riverside County builds out (develops) over time pursuant to the Riverside County General Plan (regardless of scenario). Specific land use impacts of the severities indicated will include:

(1) Cumulatively Considerable Impacts

 Increase the number, density and intensity of residential and non-residential development within Riverside County, including both infill development and conversion of vacant land to developed uses.

 Increase the amount of roadways, storm drains, water reservoirs and storage tanks, pipelines, transmission lines and other infrastructure within Riverside County, including both as infill and through conversion of vacant land.

(2) Non-Substantial Incremental Impacts

 Physically divide an established community through development of intervening residential tracts, economic uses and, in particular, highways. (Though no new major highways or other circulation routes are planned in GPA No. 960. See the circulation discussion below for more details.)

 Conflict with land use plans, policies or regulations for avoiding or mitigating and environmental effect, in particular an Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) or the proposed Climate Action Plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. (See the greenhouse gas and safety discussions, respectively, later in Section 5.5 for more on these.)

 Conflict with an HCP or MSHCP. (See biology discussion later in Section 5.5.)

c. Mitigation

As described in detail in Section 4.2.3, a variety of measures would be implemented to avoid, reduce and minimize adverse cumulative land use impacts. These include the following:

Key Regulations and Program: See Section 4.2.3 for details on each regulation.

 Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (Clean Water Act)

 Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code [CGC] section 66410, et seq.)

 California Planning and Zoning Law (CGC sections 65000-66499.58)

 State Aeronautics Acts (Public Utilities Code [PUC] section 21001 et seq.)

 Ordinance No. 348 (Zoning and Land Use)

 Ordinance No. 448 (Airport Approaches Zoning)

 Ordinance No. 460 (Subdivision Regulations)

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-55

 Ordinance No. 461 (Road Improvement Standards and Specifications)

 Ordinance No. 509 (Agricultural Preserves)

 Ordinance No. 576 (Regulating County Airports)

 Ordinance No. 659 (Development Mitigation Fee for Residential Development)

 Ordinance No. 671 (Consolidated Fees for Land Use and Related Functions)

 Ordinance No. 673 (Establishing the Coachella Valley Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee)

 Ordinance No. 726 (Transportation Management Requirements for New Development)

 Ordinance No. 748 (Traffic Signal Mitigation Program)

 Ordinance No. 824 (Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program)

 Ordinance No. 875 (Local Development Mitigation Fee for Funding the Preservation of Natural Ecosystems Under the Coachella Valley MSHCP)

 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)

 Coachella Valley MSHCP

 Riverside County Climate Action Plan (proposed in conjunction with GPA No. 960). See Section 4.7.3 for full details.

Key General Plan Policies: See Section 4.2.3 for the text of each policy.

 Land Use Element Policies: LU 1.1, 1.3, 1.5, 1.6, 1.8, 2.1, 3.1, 5.4, 7.6, 9.1, 9.4, 15.2, 15.3, 15.8, 19.1, 25.2, 28.6, 28.9, 30.3, 30.4, 30.6, 31.1-31.3 and 36.1

 Open Space Element Policies: OS 8.1, 17.1-17.3 and 18.1

 Circulation Element Policies: C 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.7, 3.7, 3.11, 3.12, 3.21, 3.30, 3.31, 4.1, 4.3, 4.6, 4.8, 4.9, 6.1-6.3, 7.1-7.4, 7.6, 7.8, 8.5, 8.7, 15.3, 15.4, 20.9 and 20.10 d. Significance

The analysis presented above indicates that future development consistent with the proposed project, GPA No. 960, would contribute less than significant incremental impacts on land use-related environmental issues, including physical division of an established community, consistency with land use plans, policies and regulations adopted to avoid or mitigate environmental effects, and consistency with habitat conservation plans. Moreover, implementation of, and compliance with, the above regulations, Riverside County ordinances and General Plan policies would ensure that cumulative impacts on land use are either avoided or minimized to less than significant.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-56 Public Review Draft . March 2014

2. Cumulative Effects on Population and Housing

Section 4.3 (Population and Housing) of this EIR discusses population and housing in detail, including future population growth and housing needs within Riverside County. It also analyzes impacts on population and housing from future development accommodated by the changes proposed by the project, GPA No. 960, and discusses individual project mitigation measures. Areas already covered in Section 4.3 are not repeated here.

The cumulative population, jobs and housing data presented in this subsection were developed pursuant to proposed General Plan Appendices E-1 and F-1. The land use-based data and associated build out projections are as outlined in Section 5.5.B. Data presented in Section 4.3 includes Table 4.3-A (Population Growth Trends, 1997-2007), Table 4.3-B (Housing Growth Trends, 1990-2007), Table 4.3-C (Housing Unit Building Permits Issued, 1990-2007), Table 4.3-D (Regional Housing Needs Assessment, 2006-2014), Table 4.3-E (Annual Average Payroll Employment by Industry, Riverside County 1999-2007), Table 4.3-F (Theoretical Build Out Projections (Land Use-Based Capacities) and Table 4.3-G (Comparison of Regional Projections).

a. Existing Conditions

Population growth in Riverside County as a whole has been quite rapid over the past two decades. As reported in proposed General Plan Appendix F-1, the population grew from approximately 1.2 million 1990 to nearly 2.1 million as of January 1, 2008. In 2007, the unincorporated portion of Riverside County had a population of 537,600 people. Between 1997 and 2007, the population of unincorporated Riverside County increased by 26.7%.

Housing was the major driver of growth in Riverside County between 2000 and 2009. As indicated in Table 2 of proposed Appendix F-1, during this period Riverside County’s housing stock grew by more than 34% (roughly 199,700 units). Average household size also increased steadily during that time, from 2.49 persons per household in 1990 to a peak of 3.09 persons per household in 2004. Since then, the average household size has declined slightly to 3.06 persons per household as of 2009. Since 2006, however, housing demand and home values have been greatly affected by changes in the national and local economies, as well as mortgage and banking industry changes. Housing starts have slowed markedly and this downturn has also affected employment in the region, as many construction jobs were lost.

b. Future Conditions

To provide a consistent set of projections across the various build out scenarios analyzed for cumulative impacts, the land use data (acreages) developed as outlined in subsection 5.5.B was used to model a series of theoretical socioeconomic data (SED) encompassing housing (dwelling units, du), population (based on the countywide standard of 3.06 persons per du) and jobs (based on the employment-generating factors associated with each economic land use). See Section 4.17 for specifics on the methodology used. The resultant SED data is presented in Table 5.5-E (Cumulative Socioeconomic Effects), below.

As Table 5.5-E shows, the overall residential density increases with each build out scenario as vacant lands infill. The urban population would more than double by build out of the current General Plan; a cumulatively substantial increase. GPA No. 960 would incrementally add roughly 7% more people than already planned; a small fraction overall, but cumulatively substantial given the significance of the increase over existing conditions.

The development growth patterns are more noticeable within the rural/agriculture and interface/wildland areas of Riverside County. Demographic data indicate that as of 2008, roughly 15,600 homes occurred in these two categories on over 53,000 acres, housing nearly 42,000 people. Under the current General Plan, nearly 2,300,000

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-57

additional acres of land would be subject to development potential, mainly in the form of Open Space-Rural Residential (OS-RUR), which allocates residential lots of 20 acres minimum. Based on historical trends and development patterns, it is unlikely that all of the OS-RUR lots within Riverside County would actually achieve full build out. Nevertheless, even if only 50% of the lots build out, the total area converted from vacant and open lands to rural residential would still be increasing 20-fold and the number of homes, particularly within the interface and wildland areas, would increase more than 10-fold. This increase would also result in a variety of related growth effects, such as the need for additional public services, energy resources (gas, electricity) and potable water. Under the GPU/960 scenario, 12,300 fewer acres of rural, interface and wildland development capacity would be allowed; resulting in over 11,000 dwelling units and over 33,000 fewer people being added to the region. The CULM scenario would decrease capacity by an additional 3,200 acres, 8,000 homes and roughly 23,000 people.

Thus, overall build out of the current General Plan would increase residential units by 250,000 and the number of people by 765,000. The addition of the project’s changes would add roughly 24,000 more homes and 72,000 more people (6% more). The addition of the cumulative build out scenario would add another 8% more people and homes on top of this (i.e., 30,400 du and 93,000 people). With the large (176%) increase over existing conditions already associated with build out of the current General Plan, the incremental contributions of the proposed project and cumulative scenarios would be cumulatively significant. The extensive housing inventory that would result, however, would ensure that no people or homes are displaced by future development without replacement available.

Table 5.5-E: Cumulative Socioeconomic Effects Development Categories & EXISTING FUTURE (GP BUILD OUT)1 Land Use Designations (LUDs) USES of LAND CURRENT GP GPU / GPA960 TOT CULM GP URBAN / SUBURBAN Residential Uses (acres)2 34,200 ac 75,400 ac 78,000 ac 80,300 ac Dwelling Units (du) 191,300 du 363,900 du 364,400 du 376,700 du Population (persons) 511,700 pers 1,182,500 pers 1,191,100 pers 1,238,000 pers Average Residential Density (du/ac) 5.6 du/ac 4.8 du/ac 4.7 du/ac 4.7 du/ac Commercial & Industrial Uses (acres)3 44,100 ac 30,100 ac 30,500 ac 37,800 ac Employment Generated (jobs) 96,100 jobs 477,900 jobs 452,000 jobs 538,100 jobs Urban / Suburban Subtotal 78,300 ac 105,500 ac 108,500 ac 118,100 ac PUBLIC FACILITIES & INFRASTRUCTURE Public Facilities & Infrastructure (acres)3 14,900 ac 39,700 ac 39,200 ac 37,400 ac Employment Generated (jobs) 100 jobs 3,600 jobs 3,500 jobs 3,300 jobs Public Facilities Subtotal 14,900 ac 39,700 ac 39,200 ac 37,400 ac RURAL / AGRICULTURE Residential Uses (acres)2 3,200 ac 85,300 ac 86,300 ac 93,800 ac Dwelling Units (du) 4,900 du 74,800 du 70,700 du 69,100 du Population (persons) 13,100 pers 243,200 pers 231,000 pers 227,300 pers Average Residential Density (du/ac) 1.50 du/ac 0.88 du/ac 0.82 du/ac 0.74 du/ac Natural Resource Uses (acres)4 239,400 ac 205,700 ac 204,500 ac 201,200 ac Employment Generated (jobs) 11,400 jobs 115,600 jobs 107,600 jobs 98,600 jobs Open Space (acres)4 109,300 ac 0 ac 0 ac 0 ac Subtotal 379,900 ac 291,100 ac 290,800 ac 295,100 ac INTERFACE/WILDLAND Residential Uses (acres)2 49,900 ac 2,238,600 ac 2,225,300 ac 2,221,900 ac Dwelling Units (du) 10,700 du 92,900 du 85,900 du 79,500 du Population (persons) 28,700 pers 301,700 pers 280,600 pers 261,600 pers Average Residential Density (du/ac) 0.21 du/ac 0.04 du/ac 0.04 du/ac 0.04 du/ac Natural Resource Uses (acres)4 6,000 ac 14,300 ac 14,100 ac 15,200 ac Employment Generated (jobs) 100 jobs 2,500 jobs 2,300 jobs 2,300 jobs Open Space Uses (acres)4 631,800 ac 53,300 ac 54,100 ac 56,800 ac

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-58 Public Review Draft . March 2014

Development Categories & EXISTING FUTURE (GP BUILD OUT)1 Land Use Designations (LUDs) USES of LAND CURRENT GP GPU / GPA960 TOT CULM GP Subtotal 687,700 ac 2,306,300 ac 2,293,400 ac 2,280,600 ac VACANT / OPEN SPACE Open Space (acres)5 2,858,600 ac 1,277,000 ac 1,287,400 ac 1,288,100 ac Subtotal 2,858,600 ac 1,277,000 ac 1,287,400 ac 1,288,100 ac GRAND TOTALS acres 4,019,200 ac 4,019,200 ac 4,019,200 ac 4,019,200 ac dwelling units 206,900 du 531,500 du 520,900 du 525,300 du population 553,500 pers 1,727,400 pers 1,702,600 pers 1,726,800 pers employment 107,900 jobs 596,000 jobs 561,900 jobs 642,300 jobs jobs:housing ratio6 0.52 jobs/du 1.12 jobs/du 1.08 jobs/du 1.22 jobs/du Footnotes: 1. CURRENT GP = Current (2008) General Plan; GP/GPA960 = the current (2008) General Plan with the changes proposed under GPA No. 960 made to it; and, TOT CULM GP = the current (2008) General Plan, plus the GPA No. 960 changes, as well as the changes proposed by the existing GPAs approved or applied for through the end of 2009 (see Table 5.5-A). Also see footnotes to Table 5.5.B for additional notes on land use descriptors. 2. Residential Uses encompass: Urban/Suburban: LDR, MDR, MHDR, HDR, VHDR and HHDR (all CD Foundation); Rural/Agricultural: EDR, RC-EDR, VLDR, RC-VLDR and RC-LDR; Interface/Wildland: RR, RD, RM and OS-RUR. 3. Commercial & Industrial Uses encompass: CR, CT, CO, LI, HI, BP, CC and MUPA. Public Facilities & Infrastructure Uses encompass: PF, FWY and MISC. (FWY and MISC are not LUDs, rather they denote existing uses of land and/or GIS mapping categories only.) 4. Natural Resource Uses encompass: Rural/Agricultural: AG and OS-MIN; Interface/Wildland: OS-REC. 5. Open Space encompasses: OS-C, OS-CH, OS-W and VAC (VAC is an existing use of land designation, not a General Plan LUD). 6. Jobs/housing balance value from proposed Appendix F-1 and calibrated off the Board-approved RCP-10 SED data set used throughout the rest of this EIR for demographic values. Source: SCAG, 2008. County Center for Demographic Research, 2010. Riverside County Planning Dept., Project application materials, 2013.

In terms of employment, build out of the current General Plan would also result in a roughly six-fold increase in the number of jobs available within Riverside County (from over 100,000 to nearly 600,000). This increase is cumulatively significant and was addressed under EIR No. 441 certified for the 2003 RCIP General Plan. Under the LUD changes proposed for GPA No. 960, the total number of jobs at build out would actually decrease slightly (to 562,000). Thus, the project’s incremental contribution to employment would be insubstantial. Under the cumulative build out scenario, the total number of jobs available from non-residential land uses (commercial, industrial, public facilities and natural resources) would also be slightly less (1.3%) than that of the current General Plan. When compared to the reduced growth potential of GPA No. 960, the cumulative scenario proposes greater growth and economic development from non-residential land uses through 25,000 additional jobs.

Overall, the land use reductions associated with either the project or the cumulative scenario would each contribute to fewer employment opportunities within Riverside County. This would worsen the jobs-to-housing imbalance, causing more people to leave Riverside County on a daily basis for employment. These commuters would increase in daily traffic, resulting in increased circulation impacts and contributing to air pollution in the region.

Compared to existing levels, the additional homes and population accommodated by the project, GPA No. 960, as well as those proposed under the cumulative build out scenario, would each contribute substantially to cumulatively significant direct and indirect population growth. In addition, the reduced numbers of jobs proposed under each of these two scenarios, particularly in relation to the large numbers of homes proposed, would also contribute substantially to the jobs/housing imbalance within Riverside County.

c. Impacts

Future development accommodated by the project will contribute incrementally to cumulative population and housing impacts as Riverside County builds out over time pursuant to the Riverside County General Plan (regardless of scenario). Specific impacts of the severities indicated will include the following:

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-59

(1) Cumulatively Substantial Impacts

 Induce substantial population growth within Riverside County, both directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) and indirectly (e.g., through the extension of roads and other infrastructure). This is particularly true of the new homes that would be constructed within previously vacant portions of Riverside County.

 Increase in the jobs-housing imbalance due to the construction of additional homes in excess of an equivalent number of employment-generating land uses (commercial, industrial, public facilities, etc.)

(2) Non-Substantial Incremental Impacts

 Small number of homes and their residents will be displaced where new development, particularly new highways and major roadways, is constructed on previously developed lands. Such displacements would be insubstantial, however, because of the existing and future housing inventories available within Riverside County for replacement. Displacement would not necessitate the construction of additional replacement housing elsewhere.

 As a result of population growth and new homes, in particular, the amount of roadways, storm drains, water reservoirs and storage tanks, pipelines, transmission lines and other infrastructure needed within Riverside County would also increase.

d. Mitigation

As described in detail in Section 4.3.4, a variety of existing regulations and policies would be implemented to avoid, reduce and minimize adverse impacts to population and housing. These include the following:

 General Plan Policies: LU 5.1, 5.2, 8.1, 9.4; C 1.1, 1.4, 1.5, 2.4, 3.16 and 7.9. See Section 4.3.4 for text of each.

 Riverside County Climate Action Plan: Proposed in conjunction with GPA No. 960. See Section 4.7.3 for full details.

e. Significance

The analysis above indicates that future development consistent with any of the General Plan build out analyzed, including the proposed project (GPA No. 960), would contribute mostly non-substantially to incremental impacts related to population and housing issues. However, even with mitigation, the project would contribute substantially to significant cumulative impacts stemming from the inducement of substantial population growth directly and indirectly. Build out of the cumulative General Plan scenario would do likewise. Due to the inherently growth-inducing and growth-accommodating nature of a General Plan, there is no feasible mitigation to fully reduce these cumulative impacts to below the level of significance. Thus, even though project effects would be individually limited, GPA No. 960’s incremental contribution to cumulative housing and population impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Build out of the cumulative General Plan scenario would also result in significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts to population and housing within Riverside County.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-60 Public Review Draft . March 2014

3. Cumulative Effects on Aesthetics and Visual Resources

Section 4.4 (Aesthetics and Visual Resources) details the existing aesthetic and visual resources within Riverside County. It also analyzes aesthetic impacts that would arise from future development accommodated by the changes proposed by the project, GPA No. 960, as well as the mitigation necessary to ensure impacts are less than significant. As a result, areas already covered in Section 4.4 are not repeated here.

As noted in Section 4.4, aesthetic and visual resources include scenic vistas and viewsheds, scenic highways and scenic/visual resources, such as trees, rock outcroppings and elements of the built environment like historic buildings. It also addresses light and glare, which can adversely affect visual resources, ecosystems and the nighttime use of the Palomar Astronomical Observatory (which relies on dark skies for scientific purposes). Section 4.4 includes a summary of Riverside County’s aesthetic resources by “visual analysis area” (in Table 4.4- A), it also discusses glare, nighttime light and (in Table 4.4-B) scenic highways throughout Riverside County.

a. Existing Conditions

Visual Character: Because of its large size, Riverside County offers a great variety of visual resources, including scenic vistas, viewsheds and panoramic natural landscapes, as well as built environments, old and new, including numerous architectural features. Since 1999, when the Existing Setting Report was prepared for EIR No. 441 (for the 2003 RCIP General Plan), Riverside County’s visual character has undergone substantial changes, particularly in the urban/suburban fringes, as growth fueled the urbanization of existing suburban areas and the conversion of open, vacant lands to developed uses. According to the State of California, Riverside County and its cities accounted for nearly a quarter of all new urban areas within California between 2006 and 2008. Between 2000 and 2008, the California Department of Conservation estimates that “developed or built-up land” in Riverside County increased by nearly 61,000 acres, much of it concentrated around existing city centers and other urban centers. Areas that have had considerable amount of visual changes associated with growth are noted in Table 4.4-A.

Nighttime Light, Glare and Palomar Observatory: Light pollution, i.e., the alteration of natural light levels in the outdoor environment due to artificial light sources, is most commonly taken to mean excessive or obtrusive artificial light. Artificial light pollution also includes “sky glow, glare, light trespass, light clutter, decreased visibility at night and energy waste,” as well as incidental or obtrusive outdoor lighting, such as glare (visual impairment), trespass into areas not needing lighting, use when or where lighting is not needed and disturbance of the natural nighttime landscape. As a result, the visibility of stars and other natural night sky phenomena is decreased. Night lighting and glare can affect human vision, navigation and other activities. It also can lead to skyglow, which interferes with the operation of astronomical observatories, as well as with nocturnal wildlife, particularly night-hunting or foraging animals, such as owls and rodents.

A major scientific resource, the Palomar Observatory is located in San Diego County approximately 5.5 miles south of the Riverside County border. In order to minimize effects of nighttime light pollution within the region surrounding the observatory, the County of Riverside enforces Ordinance No. 655 (Regulating Light Pollution). This ordinance establishes two zones for specific lighting controls based on distance from the observatory: a 15- mile-radius sphere is denoted as “Zone A” and a “Zone B” encompasses a 15- to 45-mile radius from the observatory (see Figure 4.4.1 in Section 4.4). Special lighting restrictions apply within these zones.

Scenic Vistas, Highways and Roadways: Scenic vistas and natural features, including low-lying valleys, mountain ranges, ridgelines, rock formations, rivers and lakes are often enjoyed via Riverside County’s many roadways. Due to the visual significance of many of these areas, certain roadways within Riverside County have been officially recognized as either “eligible” or “designated” State or County scenic highways. Section 4.4 in-

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-61

cludes Table 4.4-B and Figure 4.4.2 describing these highways. Development along designated scenic highways and roadways is managed to preserve the areas’ scenic qualities.

b. Future Conditions

Light and Glare: Table 5.5-F (Cumulative Palomar Lighting Zone Effects), below, shows how each of the General Plan build out scenarios (including cumulative) would incrementally affect light and glare levels within Riverside County relative to the Palomar Special Lighting Zones established under Riverside County Ordinance No. 655. Due to its proximity, excessive lighting from future development occurring within Zone A in particular has the greatest potential to incrementally affect observatory operations. Because of the additive nature of light, such incremental contributions would be cumulatively significant.

As shown in the table, the main changes to the General Plan as a result of the project, GPA No. 960, would spare roughly 6,200 acres of land in Zone A, the most light-sensitive zone, by preserving this land as vacant or open space and reducing development potential in interface/wildlands by an equivalent amount. Within Zone B, the project’s changes would add nearly 4,000 acres of development potential within built areas (urban/suburban, rural/agriculture and public facilities). This increase, however, is offset by a reduction of nearly 8,000 acres in interface/wildlands development potential and an increase of over 4,000 acres of vacant/open space areas. Nevertheless, overall the project’s incremental contribution to cumulative light and glare impacts would be considerable.

Under the Cumulative scenario, General Plan build out would result in nearly an additional 7,000 acres of development within Rural/Agricultural areas in Zone A and roughly 3,600 acres of Urban/Suburban in Zone B, with corresponding decreases in development in interface/wildland areas. Lastly, for all of the build out scenarios, the largest amount of vacant lands lost would be in Zone B, particularly due to the roughly 300,000- acre increase in Interface/Wildland areas that would result under the current General Plan, as well as the other two build out scenarios. For these reasons, all of the build out scenarios would have cumulatively considerable impacts on light and glare effects.

Table 5.5-F: Cumulative Palomar Lighting Zone Effects Ordinance No. 655 (Palomar Urban/ Rural/ Interface/ Vacant / Public Observatory) Lighting Suburban Agriculture Wildlands Open Space Facilities Totals3 Zones1 (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Zone A (0 to 15-mile radius) Existing Total 3,250 6,700 6,860 112,500 760 130,070 CURR GP Total 1,300 7,610 91,790 16,940 0 117,640 GP W/960 Change2 0 0 - 6,250 + 6,250 0 0 CULM GP Change2 + 60 + 6,840 - 6,900 0 0 0 Zone B (15 to 45-mile radius) Existing Total 43,270 101,340 60,990 855,500 19,750 1,080,850 CURR GP Total 63,700 116,590 375,400 455,630 12,920 1,024,240 GP W/960 Change2 + 2,290 + 1,000 - 7,860 + 4,040 + 670 + 140 CULM GP Change2 + 3,570 - 330 - 3,370 + 260 - 60 + 70 No Zone Existing Total 32,460 131,390 682,240 1,827,620 134,610 2,808,320 CURR GP Total 40,480 166,880 1,785,770 859,920 24,310 2,877,360 GP W/960 Change2 + 760 - 1,320 + 500 - 260 + 180 - 140 CULM GP Change2 + 5,970 - 2,220 - 5,320 + 690 + 810 - 70 TOTAL AREA Existing Total 78,980 239,430 750,090 2,795,620 155,120 4,019,240 CURR GP Total 105,480 291,080 2,252,960 1,332,490 37,230 4,019,240 GP W/960 Change2 + 3,050 - 320 - 13,610 + 10,030 + 850 0

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-62 Public Review Draft . March 2014

Ordinance No. 655 (Palomar Urban/ Rural/ Interface/ Vacant / Public Observatory) Lighting Suburban Agriculture Wildlands Open Space Facilities Totals3 Zones1 (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) CULM GP Change2 + 9,600 + 4,290 - 15,590 + 950 + 750 0 Footnotes: 1. The Palomar Astronomical Observatory is located in San Diego County, approximately 5.5 miles south of the Riverside County border. 2. These are the acreages that indicated scenario would contribute to build out impacts, in addition to those associated with build out of the current (2008) General Plan (which are shown under “CURR GP Total”). 3. For details on the specifics of each scenario, see Table 5.5-D. All values rounded to nearest 10 acres. Source: Riverside County GIS, RCLIS layer (Palomar Special Lighting Zones) and Project Application Data, 2013.

Scenic Vistas, Highways and Roadways: Growth pressures within Riverside County will result in development that causes the incremental loss, fragmentation and degeneration of the natural viewsheds and vistas within Riverside County, regardless of the General Plan build out scenario. To examine the potential effects of General Plan build out on scenic highways, spatial analysis was performed to determine the amount of future development that could occur within proximity of these resources under each of the scenarios examined. As shown in Table 5.5-G (Cumulative Scenic Highway Effects), growth within Riverside County would result in encroachment of developed uses into areas within the viewsheds of a variety of State- and County-designated and eligible scenic highways and related scenic vistas.

Per Table 5.5-G, build out of the existing General Plan will contribute incrementally to the loss of natural scenic resources and viewsheds along scenic highways and vistas within Riverside County and result in varying degrees of incremental impacts, depending on the size, scope and location of the incremental development proposed. Within proximity to State-designated scenic highways, interface/wildland areas would see the greatest increase in development potential (roughly 10,000 acres); rural/agricultural areas would also see a roughly three-fold increase as well. The amount of land devoted to public facilities would decrease slightly, but the increased development would occur mainly at the expense of available vacant and open space lands. Since much more land is in proximity to State-eligible and County-eligible scenic highways, this pattern of development potential increasing in urban/suburban and rural/agricultural areas at the expense of vacant and open space lands is even more pronounced. In particular, development potential within interface/wildland areas greatly increases under the existing General Plan. Proposed changes from both the project and for the cumulative scenario slightly lessen these increases, but the overall impact on scenic resources is still significant. Similar trends occur for both the project and cumulative General Plan build out scenarios. In areas with scenic resources, development potential for urban/suburban uses would increase by roughly 9% and 6%, respectively. For these reasons, even without the proposed project, build out of the General Plan would result in cumulatively significant impacts to scenic highways and vistas. Overall, however, both the project and cumulative General Plan build out scenarios would also contribute significantly to cumulative impacts to scenic vistas, viewsheds and scenic highway views.

Table 5.5-G: Cumulative Scenic Highway Effects Urban/ Rural/ Interface/ Vacant / Public Land Uses in Proximity1 to Suburban Agriculture Wildlands Open Space Facilities Totals3,4 (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) State Designated Scenic Highways2 Existing Total 1,840 920 2,860 31,670 1,030 38,320 CURR GP Total 1,090 3,290 10,400 21,330 650 36,760 GP W/960 Change3 0 0 + 30 - 40 0 - 10 CULM GP Change3 0 + 170 - 170 0 0 0 State Eligible Scenic Highways2 Existing Total 6,570 7,640 2,940 21,570 2,000 40,720 CURR GP Total 10,720 11,730 12,400 8,020 110 42,980 GP W/960 Change3 + 700 - 620 - 140 - 40 + 120 + 20 CULM GP Change3 + 350 - 290 - 150 + 90 0 0

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-63

Urban/ Rural/ Interface/ Vacant / Public Land Uses in Proximity1 to Suburban Agriculture Wildlands Open Space Facilities Totals3,4 (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) County Eligible Scenic Highways2 Existing Total 4,870 17,460 2,700 86,400 3,050 114,480 CURR GP Total 8,820 17,870 74,040 16,600 2,590 119,920 GP W/960 Change3 + 1,160 - 1,490 - 750 + 900 + 170 - 10 CULM GP Change3 + 880 + 1,370 - 2,560 + 50 + 170 - 90 Not in Scenic Highway Proximity Existing Total 65,700 213,410 741,590 2,655,980 149,040 3,825,720 CURR GP Total 84,850 258,190 2,156,120 1,286,540 33,880 3,819,580 GP W/960 Change3 + 1,190 + 1,790 - 12,750 + 9,210 + 560 0 CULM GP Change3 + 8,370 + 3,040 - 12,710 + 810 + 580 + 90 TOTAL AREA Existing Total 78,980 239,430 750,090 2,795,620 155,120 4,019,240 CURR GP Total 105,480 291,080 2,252,960 1,332,490 37,230 4,019,240 GP W/960 Change3 + 3,050 - 320 - 13,610 + 10,030 + 850 0 CULM GP Change3 + 9,600 + 4,290 - 15,590 + 950 + 750 0 Footnotes: 1. Within 2,500 feet (roughly one-half mile). 2. Encompass the following roadways; see Table 4.4-B (section 4.4) for descriptions of the specific segments. State Designated Scenic Highways: Portions of State Routes 62, 74 and 243. State Eligible Scenic Highways: Portions of Interstates 10 and 15, and State Routes 71, 74, 79, 91 and 111. County Eligible Scenic Highways: Portions of Interstates 10 and 215, U.S. Highway 95, State Route 79, and portions of Dillon Rd., Oak Glen Rd., Beaumont Ave., San Timoteo Canyon Rd., Redlands Blvd., Gilman Springs Rd., Ramona Expressway, Cajalco Rd., El Sobrante Rd., Mockingbird Canyon Rd. and La Sierra Ave. 3. These are the acreages that indicated scenario would contribute to build out impacts, in addition to those associated with build out of the current (2008) General Plan (which are shown under “CURR GP Total”). 4. For details on the specifics of each scenario, see Table 5.5-D. All values rounded to nearest 10 acres. Source: Riverside County GIS, RCLIS layer (Scenic Highways) and Project Application Data, 2013. c. Impacts

Future development accommodated by the project will contribute incrementally to cumulative aesthetic impacts as Riverside County builds out over time pursuant to the Riverside County General Plan (regardless of scenario). Specific impacts of the severities indicated will include the following:

(1) Cumulatively Considerable Impacts

 In addition to infill, future development would result in the physical conversion of open space, vacant and agricultural lands to more urban types of uses, incrementally affecting scenic vistas and leading to cumulatively substantial impacts to these resources. See similar discussion under Impact 4.4.A.

 The extension of roadways and infrastructure into previously undeveloped areas, particularly into undisturbed wildlands, would add incrementally to visual impacts. Long, linear improvements, such as roads and powerlines, can be particularly noticeable in open vistas. Where located in, or immediately adjacent to, large expanses of scenic open space, future development could have major visible aesthetic effects, particularly for sites with limited or no existing access ways that would require road construction, leading to cumulatively considerable impacts.

 Development would incrementally damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings and historical buildings within a State scenic highway. Where located along a designated or eligible scenic highway, scenic vista or other scenic resource, these incremental impacts could substantially impair the aesthetics of the resource. See similar discussion under Impact 4.4.B.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-64 Public Review Draft . March 2014

 Future development would create new sources of light and glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the areas. Lighting associated with higher intensity and density uses will increase nighttime light levels and daylight glare effects on sensitive areas, such as residences and natural habitat areas. See similar discussion under Impact 4.4.D.

(2) Non-Substantial Incremental Impacts

 Future development per any of the build out scenarios would contribute incrementally to changing the visual character of Riverside County over time.

 Development would also contribute to the overall increase in light levels and skyglow within the county. Where development occurs in Special Lighting Zone A or B, additional light sources would contribute incrementally to interference with the nighttime use of Palomar Observatory.

d. Mitigation

As described in detail in Section 4.4.6, a variety of existing regulatory compliance and specific mitigation measures would be implemented to avoid, reduce and minimize adverse cumulative impacts to aesthetics and visual resources within Riverside County. These include the following items:

(1) Regulatory Compliance

Key Regulations and Programs: See Section 4.4.6 for detailed information on how each of the following items contributes to avoiding, reducing or minimizing cumulative impacts.

 California Scenic Highway Program (CalTrans)

 Ordinance No. 655 (Regulating Light Pollution)

 Ordinance No. 460 (Regulating the Division of Land)

 Ordinance No. 461 (Road Improvement Standards and Specifications)

 Ordinance No. 655 (Regulating Light Pollution)

 Ordinance No. 915 (Regulating Outdoor Lighting)

 Riverside County Design Guidelines

Key General Plan Policies: See Section 4.4.3 for text of each policy.

 Land Use Policies: LU 4.1, 4.5, 14.3 - 14.8, 16.4, 16.5, 16.12, 19.1, 28.6, 28.10, 29.9, 30.8 and 31.5.

 Circulation Policies: C 5.3, 19.1 and 20.1.

 Open Space Policies: OS 9.3 and 9.4.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-65

(2) CEQA Mitigation

Existing Mitigation Measures: As part of EIR No. 441 certified for the RCIP General Plan adopted in October 2003, the following mitigation measures (MMs) would apply for future development.

 Existing MM 4.4.1A: Development projects shall be subject to the requirements of all relevant guidelines, including the community center guidelines, Riverside County supervisorial district guidelines and all applicable standards, policies and/ or regulations of the County of Riverside or other affected entities pertaining to scenic vistas and 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 identified scenic vista or aesthetic resource.

 Existing MM 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.

 Existing MM 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).

 Existing MM 4.4.2C: Riverside County shall require exterior lighting for buildings to be of a low profile and intensity.

 Existing MM 4.4.2D: The County [of Riverside] shall establish a liaison with California Institute of Technology [which operates the Palomar Observatory] to ensure “dark skies” preservation procedures are incorporated, as necessary, in future [Riverside] County ordinances.

 Existing MM 4.4.2E: The County [of Riverside] shall participate in Mount Palomar [sic] Observatory’s “dark sky” conservation area.

New Mitigation Measures: As part of EIR No. 521, the following new mitigation measure (MM) is proposed to reduce aesthetic impacts.

 New MM 4.4.A-N1: No development shall be approved for parcels without adequate legal access and adequate physical access. Adequate and accessible circulation facilities must also exist to meet the demand of the proposed land use. e. Significance

Implementation of all of the above regulations, General Plan policies and mitigation measures, would be sufficient to ensure that all of the incremental (non-substantial) cumulative impacts listed above would be less than significant. For the substantial impacts listed above, however, even with the existing and additional mitigation indicated, the cumulative impacts associated with build out of any of the above General Plan scenarios would be significant and unavoidable.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-66 Public Review Draft . March 2014

4. Cumulative Effects on Agriculture and Forestry Resources

Section 4.5 (Agricultural and Forestry Resources) of this EIR discusses existing agricultural and forestry resources within Riverside County, as well as the sources used (and any updates made to them) for this data. The section also analyzes the agricultural impacts that would arise from future development accommodated by the changes proposed by the project, GPA No. 960, as well as the mitigation (both through regulatory compliance and CEQA-specific mitigation) necessary to ensure impacts are less than significant. As a result, areas already covered in Section 4.5 are not repeated here; see that section directly for additional resource details.

Included in Section 4.5 are data and statistics on cultivated crops, State-designated farmlands and forestry areas, specifically: Table 4.5-A (Cultivated Crop Production Statistics), Table 4.5-B (Other Agricultural Product Valuation Data), Table 4.5-C (Crop Valuation by Agricultural District), Table 4.5-D (State-Designated Farmland Data for Riverside County), Table 4.5-E (Project Effects on Agriculture Land Use Designations in the General Plan), Table 4.5-F (Project Effects on Lands in Agricultural Use), Table 4.5-G (Effects on State-Designated Farmlands) and Table 4.5-H (Project Relationship to Existing Agricultural Preserves). It also includes Figure 4.5.1 (Agricultural Resources Map) and Figures 4.5.2 and 4.5.3 (High-Elevation Forestry Resources for Western and Eastern Riverside County, respectively).

a. Existing Conditions

Agriculture: The wide variety of climates and soil types within Riverside County allows a diverse array of crops to be grown. Agricultural resources include lands cultivated for crops for both human and animal use, providing livestock forage or as a source of fiber or other raw materials, as well as non-cultivation (ranch) activities, such as livestock for meat, milk and dairy products, and fiber and other non-edible products (wool, leather, etc.). Also in this category are aquaculture (fish farms) and poultry (producing poultry meat, eggs, chicks) and other products. Historically, agricultural production has occurred in western Riverside County along Temescal and Perris valleys, though both areas have been under increasing urbanization pressures in recent years. Agriculture still thrives in southwestern Riverside County, particularly in the wine country of Temecula Valley. It is even more prominent in eastern Riverside County in areas such as the Coachella Valley and, in particular, the Palo Verde Valley area. Although there are state-designated Farmlands (i.e., Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance) throughout Riverside County, agricultural activities are not limited to these areas.

Forestry: There is no commercial forestry or timber production industry within Riverside County other than Christmas tree farms of nursery stock production (that is, cultivated rather than wild-harvested plants). Riverside County’s forestry resources do, however, play a vital role in establishing the character of Riverside County. The Cleveland National Forest frames southwestern Riverside County and the San Bernardino National Forest frames edges of eastern Riverside County; both forests fall within the Sierran montane range. These ranges are characterized by winter snows and summer fires, large conifers (pine and fir trees) and a great diversity of animal species. Per the State of California, no “California forest land” ownership, either public or private, is mapped for Riverside County, although some coniferous forests do occur within Riverside County. At lower elevations (generally below 5,000 feet), these forests commonly border mixed evergreen forest, oak woodland and chaparral. According to Cal Fire (2003), there are no fixed commercial timber operations subject to a Timber Harvesting Plan in Riverside County. The County of Riverside does, however, participate in a “woody biomass utilization program” funded by the U.S. Forest Service and run by CalFire (Riverside Unit).

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-67

b. Future Conditions

Spatial analysis was performed to examine the cumulative results of General Plan build out on agricultural and forestry resources. To encapsulate the scope of impacts resulting from build out of the Riverside County General Plan, the various General Plan cumulative build out scenarios were analyzed against the state-mapped farmlands (i.e., Figure 4.5.1) and mature forests within Riverside County (i.e., Figures 4.5.2 and 4.5.3). Table 5.5-H (Cumulative Farmland Effects) shows the cumulative conditions for impacts to farmlands for the three General Plan build out scenarios examined in this section (CURR GP, GPU/GPA960 and CULM GP, see Section 5.5.1 for specifics on each).

Cumulative effects of General Plan build out were compared to the farmland mapping data from the State Department of Conservation and several trends were noted. The amount of Prime Farmland lost to urban/suburban development would increase nearly 250% under the existing General Plan. For both the project (GPU/GP960) and cumulative (CULM) General Plan build out scenarios, Prime Farmlands lost to urban/suburban development would increase by roughly 12% and 23%, respectively. Both these losses are cumulatively considerable. Rural/agricultural lands designated as Prime Farmland would also be lost, though in incrementally insignificant amounts (1.4% and 2.1%, respectively). The amount of vacant/open land would decrease roughly 80% under the existing General Plan, but the project and cumulative scenarios would lessen these losses by roughly 10% each. The other types of designated farmlands show similar trends. These development trends would have similar incremental effects on existing agricultural preserves and result in incremental land use conflicts between agricultural and non-agricultural uses.

For forestry resources, see Table 5.5-M (Cumulative Biological Effects) for data on cumulative effects to woodland and forest acreage throughout Riverside County. Since forestry resources within Riverside County are tracked according to these habitat types, the table is not repeated here. Data in Table 5.5-M indicate that land use changes occurring as the General Plan builds out (regardless of scenario) will affect only sporadic or occasional stands of forest vegetation at altitudes above 5,000 feet sea level. This includes stands of “Montane Hardwood” and “Montane Hardwood-Conifer Forest,” primarily in the San Jacinto Mountains of central Riverside County. None of these forest resources, however, supports industrial or commercial timber production. Overall, neither the project (GPU/GPA960) nor the cumulative (CULM) build out scenarios would result in significant cumulative forestry impacts.

Table 5.5-H: Cumulative Farmland Effects Urban/ Rural/ Interface/ Vacant / Public Type of Farmland Suburban Agriculture Wildlands Open Space Facilities Totals1 or Other Land (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Prime Farmland Existing Total 2,520 95,930 340 2,770 1,300 102,860 CURR GP Total 8,700 87,910 3,820 550 160 101,140 GPU w/960 Change2 +1,050 -1,230 +170 +60 +20 +70 CULM GP Change2 +1,990 -1,880 +100 +50 +40 +300 Farmland of Statewide Importance Existing Total 640 34,310 130 700 290 36,070 CURR GP Total 1,580 33,130 1,700 160 0 36,570 GPU w/960 Change2 +460 -560 +100 +20 +10 +30 CULM GP Change2 +250 -450 +140 +50 +10 0 Farmland of Local Importance Existing Total 6,890 42,830 4,740 99,870 3,030 157,360 CURR GP Total 24,410 56,610 43,110 11,620 3,790 139,540 GPU w/960 Change2 +300 -520 -650 +820 +180 +130 CULM GP Change2 +1,410 +160 -1,180 -50 0 +340

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-68 Public Review Draft . March 2014

Urban/ Rural/ Interface/ Vacant / Public Type of Farmland Suburban Agriculture Wildlands Open Space Facilities Totals1 or Other Land (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Unique Farmland Existing Total 1,090 26,080 1,130 2,870 270 31,440 CURR GP Total 960 15,910 14,110 560 20 31,560 GPU w/960 Change2 +460 -450 -30 0 0 -20 CULM GP Change2 +1,230 -750 -110 +130 0 +500 Grazing Land Existing Total 4,830 3,410 2,400 83,780 1,160 95,580 CURR GP Total 3,440 3,420 46,460 13,050 1,580 67,950 GPU w/960 Change2 +260 -220 -610 +580 -10 0 CULM GP Change2 +1,910 0 -2,660 -1,280 +410 -1,620 Water / Waterbodies Existing Total 60 90 450 56,670 60 57,330 CURR GP Total 20 110 1,110 55,790 20 57,050 GPU w/960 Change2 0 +50 0 +200 0 +250 CULM GP Change2 0 +200 -200 +80 0 +80 Urban and Built-Up Lands Existing Total 34,420 7,700 10,330 7,030 8,080 67,560 CURR GP Total 39,910 22,260 6,750 860 6,200 75,980 GPU w/960 Change2 -170 -10 +30 -40 +220 +30 CULM GP Change2 +260 -70 -150 0 -40 0 Other Land Existing Total 24,080 30,930 57,300 702,620 12,410 827,340 CURR GP Total 24,380 70,200 433,380 259,320 9,670 796,950 GPU w/960 Change2 +700 +2,610 -12,380 +9,500 +450 +880 CULM GP Change2 +1,680 +5,920 -7,070 -40 -90 +400 Areas Not Mapped Existing Total 4,770 123,970 671,800 1,837,380 5,780 2,643,700 CURR GP Total 2,060 8,590 1,755,380 937,760 8,710 2,712,500 GPU w/960 Change2 0 0 +510 -1,880 0 -1,370 CULM GP Change2 +1,910 0 -2,660 -1,280 +410 -1,620 TOTALS by Development Category Existing Total 79,300 365,250 748,620 2,793,690 32,380 4,019,240 CURR GP Total 105,460 298,140 2,305,820 1,279,670 30,150 4,019,240 GPU w/960 Change2 +3,060 -330 -12,860 +9,260 +870 0 CULM GP Change2 +10,640 +3,130 -13,790 -2,340 +740 -1,620 Footnotes: 1. For details on the specifics of each scenario, see Table 5.5-D. All values rounded to nearest 10 acres. 2. These are the acreages that indicated scenario would contribute to build out impacts, in addition to those associated with build out of the current (2008) General Plan (which are shown under “CURR GP Total”). Source: Riverside County GIS, RCLIS layer (State Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program) and project application data, 2013. c. Impacts

Future development accommodated by the project will contribute incrementally to cumulative agricultural and forestry impacts as Riverside County builds out over time pursuant to the Riverside County General Plan (regardless of scenario). Specific impacts of the severities indicated will include the following:

(1) Cumulatively Considerable Impacts

 Direct loss due to the incremental conversion of state-designated Farmlands to non-agricultural uses over time. See discussion under Impact 4.5.A.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-69

 Growth pursuant to General Plan build out (any scenario) would indirectly result in additional development and infrastructure demand that would further conversion of designated Farmlands to urban uses and result in other changes in the existing environment leading to additional Farmland conversion.

 Some incremental growth would encroach on or conflict with existing agricultural zoning, agricultural uses, land subject to a Williamson Act contract and land within Riverside County Agricultural Preserves. See discussion under Impact 4.5.B.

 Additional growth would also result in further conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses, encroach on existing agricultural activities and mapped farmlands, and result in other changes in the existing environment leading to additional farmland conversion.

 Growth would result in development of non-agricultural uses within 300 feet of agriculturally zoned property, as well as other environmental changes that, due to their location or nature, would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use.

(2) Non-Substantial Incremental Impacts

 Encroachment of residential and other urban-density land uses into agricultural areas would result in incremental impacts due to agricultural nuisances (dust, odors, noise, flies, soil or groundwater contamination, chemical overspray and runoff exposure, etc.).

 For farmers, urban encroachment would adversely affect the efficiency of remaining farming operations due to increased air pollution, livestock predation by pets, crop diseases, etc., as well as water scarcity, theft, crop pilferage, farm trespass and the like.

 Future development would incrementally result in the loss or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses, as well as other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in forest land conversion as well.

 Growth would indirectly result in additional development and infrastructure demand that would create additional potential for forest land conversion or encroachment of incompatible land uses.

 Growth would also involve other incremental changes that could result in conversion of forest land to non-forest use. This includes incremental loss of oak trees and other mature forest canopy, either through direct take or through indirect causes, such as hydrological changes, etc.

d. Mitigation

As described in detail in Section 4.8.3, a variety of measures would be implemented to avoid, reduce and minimize adverse cumulative agricultural and forestry impacts. These include the following regulatory compliance measures:

Key Regulations and Program: See Section 4.8.3 for details on each regulation.

 California Land Conservation Act (aka “Williamson Act”)

 California Timberland Productivity Act California Forest Practice Act

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-70 Public Review Draft . March 2014

 Ordinance No. 509 (Establishing Agricultural Preserves)

 Ordinance No. 559 (Regulating the Removal of Trees)

 Ordinance No. 625 (Right To Farm)

 Riverside County Rules and Regulations Governing Agricultural Preserves

Key General Plan Policies: See Section 4.8.3 for the text of each policy.

 Land Use Policies: LU 7.6, 7.10, 20.1, 20.2 and 20.4 - 20.11

 Open Space Policies: OS 7.1, 7.3 - 7.5, 8.1, 8.2 and 9.4

e. Significance

The analysis above indicates that future development consistent with any of the General Plan build out analyzed, including the proposed project (GPA No. 960), would contribute non-substantially to incremental impacts to forestry resources and uses in Riverside County. However, even with mitigation, growth within Riverside County pursuant to any of the General Plan build out scenarios, including that of the project (GPA No. 960), would contribute substantially to significant cumulative agricultural impacts. These include direct and indirect conversion of designated farmlands, as well as encroachment on existing agricultural uses. General Plan build out would also result in the “significant conversion of active agricultural land and agricultural soils to non-agricultural uses.” Due to the inherently growth-inducing and growth-accommodating nature of a General Plan, there is no feasible mitigation to fully reduce these cumulative impacts to below the level of significance. Thus, even where impacts from future implementing project effects would be individually limited, GPA No. 960’s incremental contribution to cumulative agricultural impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

5. Cumulative Effects on Air Quality

Section 4.6 (Air Quality) of this EIR discusses specifics regarding existing and future air pollution levels within Riverside County. It also analyzes the impacts that would arise from future development accommodated by the changes proposed by the project, GPA No. 960, as well as the regulatory mitigation measures that would ensure impacts are less than significant or at least reduced to the extent feasible. Thus, to avoid repetition, information already covered in Section 4.6 is not repeated here. The reader is encouraged to refer back to that section directly for additional details on air pollution.

Section 4.6 of this EIR provides a complete description of the ambient air quality in Riverside County, as well as analysis of the existing and future air quality impacts projected to occur as Riverside County builds out. This data includes Table 4.6-A (Ambient Air Quality Reporting for Criteria Pollutants – SCAB, 2007-2009), Table 4.6-B (Ambient Air Quality Reporting for Criteria Pollutants – SSAB, 2007-2009), Table 4.6-C (Emission Thresholds for Air Basins within Riverside County), Table 4.6-D (Typical Project Construction Emission Estimates), Table 4.6-E (Comparison of Unmitigated Project Operational Emissions – SCAQMD, Table 4.6-F (Comparison of Unmitigated Project Operational Emissions – MDAQMD, Table 4.6-G (Mitigated Net Project Operational Emissions – SCAQMD), Table 4.6-H (Mitigated Net Project Operational Emissions – MDAQMD), Table 4.6-I (Localized Significant Analysis for 5 Acre Site – Construction), Table 4.6-J (Localized Significant Analysis for 5- Acre Site – Operational). It also includes Figure 4.6.1 (Air Basins in Riverside County).

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-71

a. Existing Conditions

Riverside County spans three different air basins: South Coast (SCAB), Salton Sea (SSAB) and Mojave Desert (MDAB). The portions of Riverside County within the South Coast and Salton Sea Air Basins are regulated by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The easternmost third of the county, within the Mojave Desert Air Basin, is under the jurisdiction of the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD). Each of the three air basins covering Riverside County have unique characteristics affecting regional air quality. The climate and meteorology of each air basin, as well as their effects on air quality, detailed in Section 4.6.2.

Air pollutant emissions within the air basins are generated from stationary, mobile and natural sources. Stationary sources occur as point and area sources. Point sources occur at an identified location and are usually associated with manufacturing and industry. Area sources are widely distributed and arise from many small emissions. Among others, construction activities that create fugitive dust, such as excavation and grading, contribute to area source emissions. Mobile sources refer to emissions from on- and off-road motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions. On-road sources are vehicles operated on roadways and highways. Off-road sources include vehicles not operated on roads, as well as aircraft, trains and construction equipment. Mobile sources account for the majority of the air pollutant emissions within most air basins. Air pollutants can also be generated by the natural environment, such as when fine dust particles are pulled off the ground surface and suspended in the air during high winds.

To protect the public health and welfare, the federal and state governments identified five criteria air pollutants and a host of air toxics that have established ambient air quality standards through the federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act. Air pollutants are typically classified as primary or secondary pollutants. The criteria pollutants carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and lead (Pb) are considered primary pollutants because they are emitted directly into the atmosphere. Ozone (O3) is considered a secondary pollutant because it is not directly emitted but formed through a photochemical reaction in the atmosphere when reactive organic gases (ROGs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) combine in the presence of sunlight and produce O3. Both the federal and state governments have established ambient air quality standards for outdoor concentrations of various pollutants in order to protect public health. See Section 4.6.2 for details on each criteria pollutant, as well as discussions of toxic air contaminants (TACs) and odors. See Tables 4.6-A and 4.6-B in Section 4.6 for detailed air quality data for the basins with Riverside County and Section 4.6.4 for specifics on construction, operation and other emissions thresholds.

At the federal level, SCAB is designated as “extreme nonattainment” for ozone and “serious nonattainment” for PM10. SCAB’s federal status for CO was recently upgraded from nonattainment to “serious maintenance area.” It is also in federal nonattainment for PM2.5, but is in attainment for NO2 and SO2. At the state level, SCAB is designated “extreme nonattainment” for ozone and also in nonattainment for particulates PM2.5 and PM10. It is in attainment for the State of California’s CO standard and for SO2 and NO2, a subcategory of NOX. In an effort to monitor the various concentrations of air pollutants throughout the basin, the SCAQMD has divided the region into 38 source receptor areas (SRAs), which are tracked by 32 monitoring stations. Ambient air data are provided in the tables in Section 4.6.2.

MDAB is designated as “severe nonattainment” for ozone, nonattainment for PM10, “unclassified/attainment” for PM2.5 and attainment for CO, NO2 and SO2 at the federal level and at the state level “moderate nonattainment” for ozone and “nonattainment” for PM10 and PM2.5. It is in state attainment for CO and NO2, and attainment/unclassified for SO2. The MDAQMD also monitors air quality within the MDAB, but does not have a monitoring station within the Riverside County portion of the basin.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-72 Public Review Draft . March 2014

In regards to air toxics, CARB has produced a series of estimated inhalation cancer risk maps based on modeled levels of outdoor composite toxic pollutant levels. Its 2010 estimated map indicates the majority of Riverside County is exposed to a theoretical inhalation cancer risk of less than 250 persons per million. However, the northwestern portion of Riverside County that includes portions of the Jurupa, Highgrove, Eastvale, Reche Canyon and Temescal Area Plans are exposed to inhalation cancer risks of greater than 250 persons per million. These risk maps depict theoretical inhalation cancer risk due to modeled outdoor toxic pollutant levels and do not account for cancer risk due to other types of exposure. The largest contributors to inhalation cancer risk are diesel engines.

b. Future Conditions

The location and densities of development and other human activities affect the amount of air pollutants generated. When land uses are spread throughout a community, they tend to increase the number and length of motor vehicle trips and associated air pollutant emissions because of the limited opportunities to walk, ride bicycles and use public transportation between uses, at homes and work or shopping. Smaller, more compact, higher density uses tend produce less air emissions from vehicle trips, as well as natural gas, on a per-unit basis. The following data discuss both short-term (construction) and long-term (operational) emissions, as well as toxic air contaminants and local effects.

Construction Emissions: As outlined in Section 4.6.5.B.1, construction emissions are site-specific and thus will vary depending on the particulars of the implementing project. Because construction factors can vary so widely, estimating all of the construction emissions or impacts for any of the Riverside County build out scenarios is infeasible. Instead, Table 4.6-D in Section 4.6 shows examples of the construction emissions associated with various sizes of development projects. The table demonstrates the construction emissions that would result from onsite grading activities, transport of materials to and from the site and the actual building construction, painting and paving associated with the individual developments. Most notably it shows that SCAQMD and MDAQMD thresholds for PM10 will be exceeded when construction activities result in the disturbance of 25 or more acres at a time. In addition, the construction of 150 single-family residential units or more would also exceed the SCAQMD threshold for ROG.

Because of the ease with which individual projects can exceed regulatory thresholds, construction air quality impacts would likely be considered individually significant for many of these future projects. Further, since the precise timing of future development cannot be controlled or readily foreseen, it is possible multiple projects would undergo construction simultaneously. The result would be cumulatively considerable, even if the individual projects were individually below the thresholds. Thus, for these reasons, construction air quality impacts are considered cumulatively considerable for any of the General Plan build out scenarios addressed.

Operational Emissions: Air quality effects are most often determined on the basis of traffic patterns which reflect land use, population and employment sources. Air quality effects are also influenced by growth projections and patterns. For the project and cumulative build out scenarios (i.e., GPU/GPA960 and CULM scenarios), operational emissions were calculated using URBEMIS for stationary and mobile source emissions. Scenario-specific data for the types and amounts of land use development planned were entered into URBEMIS to determine the pollutant emissions anticipated at full build out. This data includes the number of residential dwelling units, square footage of non-residential land uses, average daily trips, vehicle miles traveled and average trip lengths. Where project-specific data was not available, URBEMIS defaults were used. The result of the modeling indicates estimated air quality impacts for a variety of future scenarios, including each of the General Plan build out scenarios proposed for this cumulative analysis. For specifics on how the air quality data was modeled, see Section 4.6.4 and the letter addendum issued by Atkins, dated July 2013 (see Appendix EIR-10).

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-73

The threshold values analyzed in Tables 5.5-I and 5.5-J, below, are as established by the agencies indicated. For a full listing of threshold standards, see Table 4.6-C in Section 4.6.3.

Table 5.5-J (Cumulative Unmitigated Operational Emissions) shows the anticipated unmitigated emissions for the various build out scenarios, and Table 5.5-K (Cumulative Mitigated Operational Emissions) shows the same results after reductions derived from proposed mitigation. Note that the build out scenario for the existing (2008) General Plan was not modeled since it was not one of the proposed project outcomes and its results would only provide a plan-to-plan comparison. As indicated in the tables below, all of the build out scenarios would result in net emissions exceeding SCAQMD and MDAQMD thresholds of significance for CO, ROG, SOX, PM10 and PM2.5 but would be less than significant for NOX emissions. The negative net emissions associated with NOX reflects the substantial decrease in anticipated emissions from vehicles resulting from state and federally mandated vehicle efficiency increases over time.

Table 5.5-I: Cumulative Unmitigated Operational Emissions CO NOX ROG SOX PM10 PM2.5 Emission Source1, 2 (lbs/day)1 (lbs/day) 1 (lbs/day) 1 (lbs/day) 1 (lbs/day) 1 (lbs/day) 1 SCAQMD Thresholds 3 SCAQMD SCAB 550 55 55 150 150 55 SCAQMD SSAB 550 100 75 150 150 55 Existing 2 Mobile Source 196,880 31,670 18,320 160 25,020 5,100 Area source 44,370 3,480 22,130 120 6,720 6,470 Existing Total 241,250 35,140 40,450 280 31,740 11,570 GPU / GPA 960 Build Out 4 Mobile Source 185,490 21,480 18,750 700 109,480 21,340 Area Emissions 139,810 9,770 68,690 390 21,300 40 GPU/GPA 960 Total 325,300 31,250 87,430 1,090 130,790 21,380 Net Emissions 6 91,420 -3,800 48,320 810 99,070 30,300 Significant3 for SCAB? YES NO YES YES YES YES Significant3 for SSAB? YES NO YES YES YES YES CULM GP / GPAs Build Out 5 Mobile Source 200,920 23,250 20,240 760 118,330 23,070 Area Emissions 139,810 9,770 68,690 390 21,300 20,510 CULM GP/GPAs Total 340,730 33,020 88,930 1,150 139,630 43,580 Net Emissions 6 99,480 -2,120 48,480 860 107,900 32,010 Significant3 for SCAB? YES NO YES YES YES YES Significant3 for SSAB? YES NO YES YES YES YES MDAQMD Thresholds 3 MDAQMD MDAB 100 25 25 25 15 15 Existing 2 Mobile Source 21,950 3,190 1,940 20 2,820 580 Area source 990 260 970 1 50 50 Existing Total 22,940 3,450 2,910 20 2,870 630 GPU / GPA 960 Build Out 4 Mobile Source 21,420 2,270 2,020 80 12,970 2,530 Area Emissions 2,840 690 3,020 5 180 170 GPU / GPA960 Total 24,260 2,960 5,050 80 13,150 2,700 Net Emissions 6 1,320 -490 2,140 60 10,270 2,070 Significant3 for MDAB? YES NO YES YES YES YES CULM GP/GPAs Build Out5 Mobile Source 23,200 2,460 2,180 85 14,020 2,730 Area Emissions 2,840 690 3,020 5 180 170 CULM GP / GPAs Total 26,050 3,150 5,200 90 14,190 2,900 Net Emissions 6 3,110 -300 2,290 70 11,320 2,280

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-74 Public Review Draft . March 2014

CO NOX ROG SOX PM10 PM2.5 Emission Source1, 2 (lbs/day)1 (lbs/day) 1 (lbs/day) 1 (lbs/day) 1 (lbs/day) 1 (lbs/day) 1 Significant3 for MDAB? YES NO YES YES YES YES Footnotes: 1. All values (except thresholds) rounded to nearest 10. Thus, totals may not sum precisely. 2. All build out scenarios calculated for 2040, the limit for URBEMIS2007 results. Although build out is anticipated for 2060, well beyond 2040, use of 2040 represents a conservative approach. See Appendix EIR-10. No data available for existing General Plan build out (CURR GP scenario). 3. Thresholds established by agency listed. Emission is significant (“yes”) if net emission exceeds this value. 4. Source: Table 4.6-E for SCAQMD, Table 4.6-F for MDAQMD. 5. Source: Table Add-1 for SCAQMD and Table Add-2 for MDAQMD from Atkins Letter Addendum, July 2013. 6. Net emissions are build out scenario minus existing year emissions. Source: Atkins, Air Quality Study for General Plan Update, 2011; Atkins, Letter Addendum, July 2013. (See Appendix EIR-10)

Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs): Localized significance thresholds (LSTs) were developed by the SCAQMD to determine maximum allowable concentrations of criteria air pollutants during construction or operation for individual developments. Due to the programmatic nature of the General Plan and the proposed project, detailed construction phasing, equipment and intensities are not available for the development area. Further, the exact size and location of future development within Riverside County is unknown at this time. Therefore, a countywide build out analysis of impacts to sensitive receptors and population groups cannot be accurately determined using LST analysis and would be inappropriate under the SCAQMD’s LST methodology, because specific acreages, uses and distances to sensitive receptors are required in order to calculate localized pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptors. For reference, however, the LST emissions associated with “typical” construction and operation activities are presented in Tables 4.6-I and 4.6-J of Section 4.6.5.

Table 5.5-J: Cumulative Mitigated Operational Emissions CO NOX ROG SOX PM10 PM2.5 Emission Source1, 2 (lbs/day)1 (lbs/day) 1 (lbs/day) 1 (lbs/day) 1 (lbs/day) 1 (lbs/day) 1 SCAQMD Thresholds 3 SCAQMD SCAB 550 55 55 150 150 55 SCAQMD SSAB 550 100 75 150 150 55 GPU / GPA 960 Build Out and Reductions Mobile Source4 - 11,390 - 10,190 430 550 84,460 16,240 Reduction5 - 4,070 - 3,640 - 150 - 200 - 30,180 - 5,800 Net Mobile Source Subtotal - 15,460 - 13,830 280 350 54,280 10,440 Area source4 102,810 6,390 47,890 270 14,610 14,060 Reduction5 - 93,690 - 2,230 - 33,940 - 260 - 14,470 - 13,920 Net Area Source Subtotal 9,120 4,160 13,950 10 140 140 Mit. GPU/GPA960 Total - 6,340 - 9,660 14,230 360 54,420 10,570 Significant3 for SCAB? NO NO YES YES YES YES Significant3 for SSAB? NO NO YES YES YES YES CULM GP / GPAs Build Out and Reductions Mobile Source6 4,040 - 8,420 1,920 600 93,310 17,970 Reduction7 - 1,760 - 3,660 - 840 - 260 - 40,600 - 7,820 Net Mobile Source Subtotal 2,280 - 12,080 1,080 340 52,710 10,150 Area source6 95,440 6,300 46,560 260 14,590 14,040 Reduction7 - 86,320 - 2,130 - 32,610 - 260 - 14,450 - 13,900 Net Area Source Subtotal 9,120 4,170 13,950 0 140 140 Mit. CULM GP/GPAs Total 11,400 - 7,910 15,030 350 52,850 10,290 Significant3 for SCAB? YES NO YES YES YES YES Significant3 for SSAB? YES NO YES YES YES YES MDAQMD Thresholds 5 MDAQMD MDAB 100 25 25 25 15 15 GPU / GPA 960 Build Out4 and Reductions Mobile Source4 - 530 - 920 80 60 10,150 1,950 Reduction5 - 190 - 330 - 30 - 20 - 3,630 - 700 Net Mobile Source Subtotal - 720 - 1,250 50 40 6,520 1,260

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-75

CO NOX ROG SOX PM10 PM2.5 Emission Source1, 2 (lbs/day)1 (lbs/day) 1 (lbs/day) 1 (lbs/day) 1 (lbs/day) 1 (lbs/day) 1 Area source4 1,860 430 2,060 2 120 120 Reduction5 - 810 - 90 - 340 - 2 - 120 - 120 Net Area Source Subtotal 1,050 350 1,720 0 0 0 Mit. GPU/GPA960 Total 1,130 - 820 2,110 40 6,650 1,370 Significant3 for MDAB? YES NO YES YES YES YES CULM GP/GPAs Build Out4 Mobile Source6 1,260 - 730 230 70 11,200 2,160 Reduction7 - 550 - 320 - 100 - 30 - 4,870 - 340 Net Mobile Source Subtotal 710 - 1,050 130 40 6,330 1,220 Area source6 1,860 430 2,060 2 120 120 Reduction7 - 810 - 90 - 340 - 2 - 120 - 120 Net Area Source Subtotal 1,050 350 1,720 0 0 0 Mit. GPU/GPA960 Total 1,760 - 710 1,850 40 6,330 1,220 Significant3 for MDAB? YES NO YES YES YES YES Footnotes: 1. All values (except thresholds) rounded to nearest 10. Thus, totals may not sum precisely. 2. All build out scenarios calculated for 2040, the limit for URBEMIS2007 results. Although build out is anticipated for 2060, well beyond 2040, use of 2040 represents a conservative approach. See Appendix EIR-10. No data available for existing General Plan build out (CURR GP scenario). 3. Thresholds established by agency listed. Emission is significant (“yes”) if net emission exceeds this value. 4. Net unmitigated emission values from Table 4.6-E for SCAQMD and Table 4.6-F for MDAQMD. 5. Mitigation reduction values from Table 4.6-G for SCAQMD and Table 4.6-H for MDAQMD. 6. Net unmitigated emission values from Table Add-1 for SCAQMD and Table Add-2 for MDAQMD. 7. Mitigation reduction values from Table Add-3 for SCAQMD and Table Add-4 for MDAQMD. Source: Atkins, Air Quality Study for General Plan Update, 2011; Atkins, Letter Addendum, July 2013. (See Appendix EIR-10)

Toxic Air Contaminants: In addition to criteria pollutant analysis, localized emissions of toxic air contaminants (TACs) are also of concern with respect to sensitive receptors. Sources of TACs include diesel particulate matter from railroads, emissions from the combustion of airplane fuel, benzene emissions in close proximity to gasoline dispensing stations, dry cleaners and film processing services that use perchloroethylene, auto body shops due to various solvents, furniture manufacturers and repair facilities that use methylene chloride and print shops that use various solvents. The primary source of TACs within Riverside County is diesel-fueled trucks and other vehicles traveling the freeways and major roadways. In 2005, CARB published the “Air Quality and Land Use Handbook – A Community Health Perspective,” to provide guidance on how to analyze TAC emissions. The CARB Guidance recommends buffer zones to insulate sensitive receptors from TAC sources.

Due to the programmatic nature of the various General Plan build out scenarios, it is not possible to forecast the detailed construction phasing, equipment and intensities, as well as project size, timing, etc., necessary to model LSTs or TACs with any degree of accuracy or reliability. It can be assumed, however, that various sizes and types of project will be developed. And because of the increased densities planned on the General Plan land use maps and the stated desire for residential land uses to be developed close to both transit and commercial centers (to reduce vehicle miles driven in the county, to improve regional air quality), it can be assumed that both the construction and the operation of commercial and industrial sources would be developed relatively close to sensitive receptors, including residences, schools and medical facilities. Since TACs are measured based on their localized significance relative to exposure of adjacent or nearby sensitive receptors, however, a cumulative level of significance cannot be assigned to such values; they are only cumulatively significant in terms of localized contributions. Such localized contributions cannot be calculated at the programmatic level.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-76 Public Review Draft . March 2014

c. Impacts

As discussed in greater detail in Section 4.6, future development will contribute incrementally to cumulative air quality impacts as Riverside County builds out over time pursuant to the General Plan (regardless of the scenario). Specific impacts will include the following:

(1) Cumulatively Considerable Impacts

 Relative to the 2008 SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCP), the existing (2008) General Plan would be consistent because it predates the projections used in the RCP and the RCP includes this county build out scenario in its forecasts. For the project scenario (build out of the General Plan as amended by GPA No. 960), the build out capacity, populations and overall densities are reduced compared to that of the current General Plan. However, when gaged against the existing conditions, build out of the General Plan with the project would result in a cumulatively considerable impact. The same holds for the cumulative build out scenario. The CULM scenario represents increases in capacity, density, land uses and populations that greatly exceed that of the current General Plan. As such, its incremental contributions would result in cumulatively considerable conflicts with the regional air quality plans.

 As demonstrated by Table 4.6-D, both individual and cumulative emissions from future development, including that accommodated by the proposed project, GPA No. 960, would have the potential to exceed construction emission thresholds (see Table 4.6-C). Thus, incremental emissions from build out of any of the General Plan scenarios, including that encompassing the project (GPU/GPA960), have the potential to be cumulatively significant.

 Construction equipment emit both criteria pollutants and diesel particulate matter (DPM), which is a toxic air contaminant (TAC), and construction activities such as grading generate fugitive dust emissions, including PM10 and PM2.5. The cumulative emissions of criteria pollutants and DPM resulting from all construction activities throughout Riverside County will have the potential to affect the health of residents within Riverside County. In the absence of data to prove otherwise, it is assumed that future development accommodated by the proposed project would result in varying incremental amounts of construction on a daily and annual basis through that would be cumulatively significant, even if individually consistent with applicable construction thresholds, for any of the General Plan build out scenarios, including that encompassing the project (GPU/GPA960).

 Stationary and mobile sources would emit criteria pollutants based on the level of daily operation. Modeling results indicate that such emissions would be large, both for the project, GPA No. 960 (see Impact 4.6B(2) in Section 4.6) and cumulatively for any of the General Plan build out scenarios due to hundreds of individual sources that would be developed across Riverside County. Even with mitigation through regulatory compliance and CEQA-specific mitigation measures (from both this EIR and the prior EIR No. 441), operational criteria pollutant emissions would still cumulatively exceed regulatory thresholds. Thus, this impact would be cumulatively considerable.

 As discussed in Impact 4.6.B of Section 4.6, even when individual projects can mitigate construction or operational impacts to below regional thresholds, when emissions from all of the individual developments are considered together as one project, the regional thresholds would be exceeded as shown in Tables 4.6-E and 4.6-F. The measures outlined in Impact 4.6.B would aid in reducing cumulative impacts. However, the mitigated emissions shown in Tables 4.6-G and 4.6-H demonstrate that combined emissions associated with GPA No. 960 are above the thresholds of significance, and even with the implementation of reductions, emissions of criteria pollutants are not reduced to below

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-77

regulatory thresholds due to the level of residential and non-residential growth. Therefore, impacts associated with future development accommodated by the project would be cumulatively considerable and result in a significant and unavoidable impact. Impacts would be similarly considerable for build out of the CULM scenario as well.

 Future development will expose sensitive receptors (residence, school, hospital, etc.) to air pollutant emissions from both construction and operational activities. Such impacts are generally localized to just the sensitive receptors surrounding the emission source. On a cumulative basis, impacts to sensitive receptors could be cumulatively considerable where more than one source emitter occurs in proximity to a sensitive receptor. Even when the individual sources are within regulatory limits, the potential exists for limits to be exceeded on a cumulative basis. This is particularly true for incremental mobile source (vehicular) emissions from major freeways with existing or future high traffic volumes.

 Further, as the exact location, timing and level of future development activities arising from build out of any of the General Plan scenarios cannot be foreseen to the degree of specificity necessary, specific impacts to sensitive receptors cannot be quantified. Thus, even after complying with regulations and implementing all mitigation measures, impacts cannot be guaranteed to be reduced to below applicable agency thresholds. Thus, this impact is considered cumulatively significant and unavoidable with respect to exposure of sensitive receptors for any of the General Plan build out scenarios, including that encompassing the project (i.e., GPU/GPA960).

 Due to the programmatic nature of the project, detailed construction phasing, equipment and intensities cannot be foreseen with reasonable accuracy at this time. Because of the increased density seen for the land uses and desired proximity of residential land uses to both transit and commercial centers, it can be assumed that both construction and operation of commercial and potentially industrial sources would be developed relatively close to sensitive receptors such as residences or schools. Thus, effects of project emissions on sensitive receptors throughout Riverside County must be considered significant and unavoidable.

 Localized emissions of toxic air contaminants (TAC) are of concern with respect to sensitive receptors. The primary source of TACs within the County of Riverside is vehicles, particularly diesel-fueled trucks, using the freeways and major roadways throughout the county. Buffer zones can help insulate sensitive receptors from TAC sources. However, residual incremental impacts must be assumed to be cumulatively considerable and unavoidable in the absence of site-specific proof of adequate mitigation.

(2) Non-Substantial Incremental Impacts

 Although almost any land use has the potential to emit odors, some land uses, such as chemical plants, composting operations, dairies, certain agricultural activities, landfills, etc., are more likely to produce odors because of their operations. For such uses, however, setbacks or buffers, and other site-specific and industry-specific measures are typically required to control odors. Although incremental odor emissions would result, such uses are not typically allowed to be developed in concentrations that would yield cumulatively considerable impacts.

 Construction activities associated with project implementation would generate airborne odors as a result of operation of construction vehicles (i.e., diesel exhaust), paving with hot asphalt and the application of architectural coatings. Because of the volatile nature of odor compounds, they either react quickly in the atmosphere or are diluted as they are carried away from the odor source. Therefore, construction odors are generally isolated and limited to the duration of construction and its immediate site vicinity. As such,

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-78 Public Review Draft . March 2014

they would not affect a substantial number of people as impacts related to these odors are limited to the number of people living and working nearby the source. Further, while some components of asphalt and diesel emissions are considered toxic air contaminants, construction activities do not generally cause significant odor impacts because of the duration of exposure. Future build out of any of the various General Plan scenarios, including that encompassing the project (GPU/GPA960) would not have cumulatively significant impacts due to odors.

d. Mitigation

As described in detail in Section 4.6.3, a variety of measures would be implemented to avoid, reduce and minimize adverse cumulative air quality impacts. These include the following:

(1) Regulatory Compliance

Key Regulations and Program: See Section 4.6.3 for the text of each policy.

 SCAG 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)

 SCAQMD Attainment Plans

 MDAQMD Attainment Plans

 SCAQMD Rules addressing odors: e.g., Rule 402 (Nuisances), Rule 410 (Odors), Rule 1179 (Treatment Works)

 Ordinance No. 659 (Residential Development Impact Fee Program)

 Ordinance No. 706 (Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Programs Funding)

 Ordinance No. 726 (Transportation Demand Management for New Development)

 Ordinance No. 748 (Mitigation of Traffic Congestion Through Signalization)

 Ordinance No. 782 (Golf Cart Transportation Plan)

 Ordinance No. 824 (Western Riverside County Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee Program)

Key General Plan Policies: See Section 4.6.3 for the text of each policy.

 Air Quality Element Policies: AQ 1.1-1.11, 2.1-2.4, 3.1-3.4, 4.1-4.10, 5.1-5.4, 7.1-7.4, 8.2, 8.4, 8.6-8.9, 9.1, 9.2, 10.1-10.4, 11.3, 11.4, 13.1-13.3, 14.1, 14.2, 14.4, 15.1, 16.1-16.4, 17.1-17.11, 19.1, 20.1, 22.1, 23.1, 24.1, 25.1, 26.1, 26.2, 27.1, 28.1 and 29.1-29.3

 Circulation Element Policies: C 1.2, 1.7, 4.1, 4.8, 9.2, 11.2, 11.4-11.7, 12.1-12.3, 13.1-13.3, 17.3, 17.4, 20.14 and 21.1

 Land Use Element Policies: LU 1.5, 2.1, 4.1, 8.12, 11.1-11.4 and 13.1-13.4

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-79

 Open Space Element Policies: OS 12.1 and 16.1-16.8

(2) CEQA Mitigation

Existing Mitigation Measures: In EIR No. 441, prepared for the 2003 RCIP General Plan, mitigation was imposed to reduce impacts to air quality. These measures remain applicable to this project (GPA No. 960) and would lessen impacts to air quality.

 Existing MM 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).

a. Water active sites at least twice daily. (Locations where grading is to occur will be thoroughly watered prior to earthmoving).

b. 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 Section 23114 (freeboard means vertical space between the top of the load and top of the trailer).

c. Pave construction access roads at least 100 feet onto the site from main road.

d. Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads shall be reduced to 15 mph or less.

 Existing MM 4.5.1B: [Implement the following] additional SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook dust measures:

a. Revegetate disturbed areas as quickly as possible.

b. All excavating and grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph.

c. All streets shall be swept once a day if visible soil materials are carried to adjacent streets (recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water).

d. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads, or wash trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip.

 Existing MM 4.5.1C: [Implement the following] mitigation measures for construction equipment and vehicles exhaust emissions:

a. The construction contractor shall select the construction equipment used on site based on low emission factors and high energy efficiency.

b. 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.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-80 Public Review Draft . March 2014

c. The construction contractor shall utilize electric- or diesel-powered equipment, in lieu of gasoline- powered engines, where feasible.

d. 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.

e. 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.

f. The construction contractor shall support and encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew.

g. Dust generated by the development activities shall be retained on site and kept to a minimum by following the dust control measures listed below.

i. 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.

ii. 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.

iii. 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.

iv. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation.

v. 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.

New Mitigation Measures: The following additional project-specific mitigation measures would be necessary to ensure that air quality impacts are avoided, reduced or minimized to the extent feasible. Implementation of these additional mitigation measures would help reduce project impacts, although it would not be guaranteed that the impacts would be cumulatively reduced to below threshold levels (even if individual emission reductions to adequate levels were achieved). See Section 4.6.6 for more details. Note, MMs numbered in the 4.7 series are greenhouse gas reduction measures proposed in Section 4.7.6 that will also help reduce criteria pollutant emissions.

 New MM 4.6.B-N1: The construction contractor shall ensure that all disturbed areas and stock piles are watered at least three times per day or soil stabilizers are applied as necessary to prevent visible dust plumes from these areas. Stock piles not in use may be covered with a tarp to eliminate the need for watering or other stabilizers.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-81

 New MM 4.6.B-N2: All construction equipment shall have EPA rated engines of Tier 3 or better.

 New MM 4.6.B-N3: As soon as electric utilities are available at construction sites, the construction site shall be supplied with electricity from the local utility and all equipment that can be electrically operated shall use the electric utility rather than portable generators.

 New MM 4.6.B-N4: All new development shall ensure that all interior and exterior architectural coatings used are low in reactive organic gases.

 New MM 4.6.B-N5: If hearths are included in new residential developments, they shall be energy- efficient natural gas appliances. No wood-burning hearths or stoves shall be permitted in new residential developments.

 New MM 4.6.D-N1: New developments shall include the following requirements to reduce emissions associated with toxic air contaminants (TACs):

a. Electrical outlets shall be included in the building design of any loading docks to allow use by refrigerated delivery trucks. Signage shall also be installed, instructing commercial vehicles to limit idling times to five minutes or less. If loading and/or unloading of perishable goods would occur for more than five minutes and continual refrigeration is required, all refrigerated delivery trucks shall use the electrical outlets to continue powering the truck refrigeration units when the delivery truck engine is turned off.

b. Electrical outlets shall be installed on the exterior of new structures for use with electrical landscaping equipment. Further, the property owner(s) shall ensure that the hired landscape companies use electric powered equipment where available to a minimum of 20% of the equipment used.

 New MM 4.6.D-N2: The County of Riverside shall require minimum distances between potentially incompatible land uses, as described below, unless a project-specific evaluation of human health risks defines, quantifies and reduces the potential incremental health risks through site design or the implementation of additional reduction measures to levels below applicable standards (e.g., standards recommended or required by CARB, SCAQMD or MDAQMD).

SCAQMD Jurisdiction:

a. Proposed dry cleaners and film processing services that use perchloroethylene must be sited at least 500 feet from existing sensitive land uses including residential, schools, day care facilities, congregate care facilities, hospitals or other places of long-term residency for people.

b. Proposed auto body repair services shall be sited at least 500 feet from existing sensitive land uses.

c. Proposed gasoline dispensing stations with an annual throughout throughput of less than 3.6 million gallons shall be sited at least 50 feet from existing sensitive land uses. Proposed gasoline dispensing stations with an annual throughput at or above 3.6 million gallons shall be sited at least 300 feet from existing sensitive land uses.

d. Other proposed sources of TACs including furniture manufacturing and repair services that use methylene chloride or other solvents identified as a TAC shall be sited at least 300 feet from existing sensitive land uses.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-82 Public Review Draft . March 2014

e. Proposed sensitive land uses shall be sited at least 500 feet from existing freeways, major urban roadways with 100,000 vehicles per day or more and major rural roadways with 50,000 vehicles per day or more.

f. Proposed sensitive land uses shall be sited at least 500 feet from existing dry cleaners and film processing services that use perchloroethylene.

g. Proposed sensitive land uses shall be sited at least 500 feet from existing auto body repair services.

h. Proposed sensitive land uses shall be sited at least 50 feet from existing gasoline dispensing stations with an annual throughput of less than 3.6 million gallons and 300 feet from existing gasoline dispensing stations with an annual throughput at or above 3.6 million gallons.

i. Proposed sensitive land uses shall be sited at least 300 feet from existing land uses that use methylene chloride or other solvents identified as a TAC.

MDAQMD Jurisdiction:

a. Proposed industrial projects must be sited at least 1,000 feet from existing sensitive land uses.

b. Proposed distribution centers with 40 or more trucks per day shall be sited at least 1,000 feet from existing sensitive land uses.

c. Proposed dry cleaner using perchloroethylene shall be sited at least 500 feet from existing sensitive land uses.

d. Proposed gasoline dispensing facility shall be sited at least 300 feet from existing sensitive land uses.

f. Proposed sensitive land uses shall be sited at least 1,000 feet from existing industrial facilities or distribution centers with more than 40 trucks per day.

g. Proposed sensitive land uses shall be sited at least 500 feet from existing dry cleaners using perchloroethylene.

h. Proposed sensitive land uses shall be sited at least 300 feet from existing gasoline dispensing stations.

 New MM 4.6.E-N1: Locate potential new odor sources predominantly down- or crosswind from existing sensitive receptors and potential new sensitive receptors predominantly upwind from existing odor sources. As indicated by the “Right-to-Farm” ordinance, agricultural uses that have been operated for more than three years cannot be re-classified as a public or private nuisance by new development.

 New MM 4.6.E-N2: Maintain an adequate buffer between potential new odor sources and receptors such that emitted odors are dissipated before reaching the receptors (minimum of 500 feet depending on odor source). As indicated by the “right-to-farm” ordinance, agricultural uses that have been operated for more than three years cannot be re-classified as a public or private nuisance by new development.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-83

 New MM 4.6.E-N3: Design odor-emitting facilities such that odor emitters are located as far from potential receptors as possible. Also, balance stack heights to provide the maximum dispersion of odor between the stack and the nearest sensitive receptor.

 New MM 4.7.A-N1: To ensure GHG emissions resulting from new development are reduced to levels necessary to meet State of California targets, the County of Riverside shall require all new discretionary development to comply with the Implementation Measures of the Riverside County Climate Action Plan or provide comparable custom measure backed by a project GHG study (for example, using CalEEMod modeling) demonstrating achievement of the same target. The target to be met is a GHG emissions reduction of 25% below emissions for the adjusted BAU scenario for residential, commercial, industrial, institutional and mixed-use projects. The adjusted BAU is based upon the 2020 BAU found in the Final Supplement to the AB 32 Scoping Plan (CARB 2011).

 New MM 4.7.A-N2: In lieu of a project-specific GHG analysis per Mitigation Measure 4.7.A-N1, a future discretionary project pursuant to the Riverside County General Plan shall incorporate into the project design, operational features and/or Implementing Measures from the Riverside County Climate Action Plan, in such a manner as to garnish at least 100 points. The point values within the CAP’s Screening Tables constitute GHG emission reductions.

e. Significance

The analysis presented above indicates that future development consistent with the proposed project, GPA No. 960, would contribute less than significant incremental impacts with respect to odors. For all other air quality impacts, however, incremental contributions will be cumulatively considerable, even with implementation of all feasible mitigation. Incremental contributions of future development, including that accommodated by GPA No. 960, would result in cumulatively considerable impacts due to construction and operational emissions of criteria pollutants, associated violations of air quality standards or thresholds, and effects to sensitive receptors, both locally and regionally. Even where individual future development projects were successfully mitigated to less than significant levels, they would still contribute incrementally to cumulatively significant air quality impacts. Because there is no feasible mechanism for the County of Riverside to control individual projects with respect to their incremental pollutant contributions, impacts to air quality would remain significant and unavoidable.

6. Cumulative Effects on Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Section 4.7 (Greenhouse Gases) of this EIR discusses specifics regarding existing and future greenhouse gas emissions in Riverside County. It also analyzes the impacts from future development accommodated by the changes proposed by the project, GPA No. 960, as well as the regulations, policies and mitigation measures that would ensure impacts are less than significant. To avoid repetition, information already covered in Section 4.7 is not repeated here. Refer back to Section 4.7 directly for additional details on greenhouse gases, particularly background information on global climate change.

Section 4.7 provides a complete description of the carbon inventory of Riverside County, as well as analysis of existing and future greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts projected to occur as Riverside County builds out. This data includes Table 4.7-A (Existing Riverside County Landfills), Table 4.7-B (Closed Riverside County Landfills), Table 4.7-C (2008 Net Total GHG Emissions for Unincorporated Riverside County), Table 4.7-D (Construction GHG Emissions – Residential Examples), Table 4.7-E (2020 BAU [Business As Usual] Operational GHG Emissions Inventory), Table 4.7-F (2020 Reduced GHG Emissions Inventory), Table 4.7-G (2020 Operational GHG Emissions – Scenario Comparisons), Table 4.7-H (2020 Operational GHG Emissions – Scenario

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-84 Public Review Draft . March 2014

Comparisons) and Table 4.7-I (SB 375 Target Comparisons). It also includes three pie charts: Figure 4.7.1 (2008 Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Unincorporated Riverside County), Figure 4.7.2 (2020 BAU Greenhouse Gas Emissions) and Figure 4.7.3 (2020 Reduced Scenario – Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions).

a. Existing Conditions

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) trap heat in the atmosphere, which in turn heats the surface of the Earth. Some GHGs occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes, while others are created and emitted solely through human activities, primarily through the combustion of fossil fuels. In the last decade, the State of California has recognized that anthropogenic (human-caused) greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to changes in the global climate and that such changes have adverse effects on the environment, the economy and public health. These are cumulative effects of past, present and future actions worldwide. While the worldwide contributions of GHG emissions are expected to have widespread consequences, it is not possible to link particular changes to the environment of California or elsewhere to GHG emitted from a particular source or location. Thus, this EIR only examines GHG emissions at the regional (countywide) and local (future implementing projects) levels.

Direct emissions are those emitted directly from a project’s onsite sources, such as gas-powered equipment (e.g., lawnmowers, etc.), backyard grills, etc., as well as mobile (vehicular) sources associated with travel. Indirect emissions are associated with off-site GHG generation, such as production of electricity or pumping imported water across the state. Impacts from GHG emissions are inherently cumulative: unlike criteria pollutants, they do not cause “local” effects. They only cause effects at the global level (climate change) as a result of many millions of sources and contributing actions worldwide. Thus, in large part the analyses presented in Section 4.7 can already be said to represent “cumulative” effects. Presented herein, however, is the additional “cumulative GPAs” General Plan build out scenario not already covered in Section 4.7.

California law defines GHGs to include the following compounds: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15364.5 and Health and Safety Code, Section 38505(g)). The most common GHG that results from human activity is carbon dioxide, followed by methane and nitrous oxide. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), primarily used as refrigerants, aerosol propellants and cleaning solvents, are banned in California and Riverside County does not have any significant CFC emissions. Other synthesized gases, such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and carbon tetrafluoride (CF4), have also been banned and are no longer available on the market. Thus, Riverside County does not have any significant sources of these GHGs either. Another GHG with a high GWP, SF6 is mainly used in the electric switchgear of high voltage electric transmission lines and medical use in retinal detachment surgery and ultrasound imaging. These are the only two uses of SF6 reported in Riverside County and are not used in cumulatively significant levels.

Section 4.7.2 includes the specifics on the baseline GHG emissions data that was developed for unincorporated Riverside County and the County of Riverside government operations. Note that the GHG emissions herein encompass only those from emission sources within unincorporated Riverside County or from activities that the County of Riverside has direct or indirect jurisdictional control (for example, county buildings located in a city). The GHG emissions inventories identify major sources and quantities of GHG emissions produced by Riverside County residents, businesses and government (County of Riverside) operations. Using historic emissions and business-as-usual (BAU) practices as the basis, the inventories include GHG emissions from 2008 (baseline) and projected for 2020 and beyond. The year 2008 was used as the baseline to inventory emissions for existing conditions as it was the most recent year with complete data. The methodology and data sources used to estimate the various types of existing (2008) GHG emissions are described in Section 4.7.2 and the 2035 results of modeled estimates for, including both BAU and reduced scenarios, are described in Section 4.7.4.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-85

In terms of land use, GHG emissions are predicted based on the types of activities associated with the given use and may span a number of sectors. For example, a single-family home would be associated with GHG emissions from transportation (commuting to work, say), waste generation (trash and lawn clippings) and energy consumption (electricity to run appliances and lights, natural gas to heat the house and cook, etc.). Accordingly, GHG inventories include emissions from the following categories: electricity, natural gas, solid waste, area sources, water-related emissions, agriculture and transportation. See Section 4.7.2 for more information.

b. Future Conditions

The GHG inventories for a variety of existing and future conditions are presented below. The data used below comes from Section 4.7 plus an addendum document issued by Atkins entitled: Technical Summary Report of Changes to Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions from Cumulative Traffic Associated with the [Cumulative] General Plan Amendments, dated July 18, 2013 (see Appendix EIR-10). The addendum includes analyses of GHG emissions associated with the CULM General Plan build out scenario.

Consistent with Section 4.7, the Atkins addendum indicates that without mitigation, build out of the General Plan with the project (GPU/GPA 960) would be cumulatively considerable with respect to GHG emissions and AB 32 targets for 2020. However, with the mitigation provided in the General Plan, proposed Riverside County Climate Action Plan (CAP) and the EIR (i.e., the “2020 Reduced” column in Table 5.5-K), project and GPU/GPA 960 GHG emissions would be cumulatively non-substantial. The same pattern holds for the project, the GPU/GPA 960 build out and per-capita emissions relative to SB 375 (see Table 5.5-L).

When examining the CULM scenario, however, Atkins finds that “there would be a marked increase in mobile source GHG emissions in both the business as usual (BAU) and reduced operational emissions conditions” due to the increased vehicle trips (VMT, vehicle miles traveled). Unlike the project and the GPU/GPA 960 scenario, however, the CULM scenario’s incremental GHG emissions at build out would be cumulatively considerable even with mitigation. As shown in Tables 5.5-K and 5.5-L, for the CULM scenario, the Atkins addendum concludes that impacts would be cumulatively significant and unavoidable because the reduction target could not be met. See addendum for full details on the assumptions, calculations and modeling results used.

c. Impacts

As discussed in greater detail in Section 4.7, future development accommodated by the project will contribute incrementally to cumulative greenhouse gas emissions as Riverside County builds out over time pursuant to the various General Plan scenarios. Specific impacts will include the following:

 Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Build out of Riverside County over time pursuant to any of the General Plan scenarios, including GPU/GPA 960, which encompasses the proposed project (GPA 960), would result in future construction and operational activities that generate GHGs. Either individually or collectively, these activities can result in substantial emissions of GHGs; for example, exceeding the 3,000-10,000 metric tons per year (MTY) thresholds proposed by the SCAQMD in Tier 3 of its 2008 Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas Significance Thresholds. For all but the CULM scenario, however, implementation of the proposed General Plan policies and particularly, the Implementation Measures in the proposed CAP, plus a variety of proposed mitigation measures, would be sufficient to ensure that incremental GHG emissions in Riverside County are less than significant.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-86 Public Review Draft . March 2014

Table 5.5-K: Cumulative Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions (AB 32) Net GHG Emissions (Metric Tons of CO2e) Scenarios & Net GHG 2008 2020 BAU 2020 Reduced Emission Sources1 (Existing)2 (Unmitigated) (Mitigated) Existing2 Mobile Source Emissions 2,850,520 ------Area Emissions 4,251,800 ------Existing GHG Total 7,102,320 ------GPU/ GPA 960 Build Out Mobile Source Emissions 2,850,520 4,950,300 2,529,270 Area Emissions 4,251,800 5,318,640 3,505,690 GPU/GPA 960 GHG Total 7,102,320 10,268,940 6,034,960 Regulatory (AB 32) Target 6,036,970 6,036,970 6,036,970 Significant? 3 YES YES NO CULM GP / GPAs Build Out Mobile Source Emissions 2,850,520 6,977,330 3,539,390 Area Emissions 4,251,800 6,704,490 3,592,540 CULM GP/GPAs GHG Total 7,102,320 13,681,820 7,131,920 Regulatory (AB 32) Target 6,036,970 6,036,970 6,036,970 Significant? 3 YES YES YES Footnotes: 1. All values (except thresholds) rounded to nearest 10. Thus, totals may not sum precisely. See Appendix EIR-10 for data. No data available for existing General Plan build out (CURR GP scenario). 2. All scenarios use the same data for 2008 since they all start from the same unmitigated baseline conditions. It should be noted that the “yes” results for the build out scenarios reflect the fact that even if no General Plan Amendments were approved, Riverside County would still have significant GHG emissions if unmitigated. 3. Significant (“yes”) if target exceeded. For source of AB 32 targets, see Table 4.7-C. Source: Atkins, Letter Addendum, July 2013, Table GHG-1. See Appendix EIR-10.

Table 5.5-L: Cumulative Per-Capita Greenhouse Gas Emissions (SB 375) Per-Capita Passenger Vehicle GHG Emissions (Metric Tons of CO2e) Scenarios & Net GHG 2008 2020 BAU 2020 Reduced 2035 BAU 2035 Reduced Emission Sources1 (Existing)2 (Unmitigated) (Mitigated) (Unmitigated) (Mitigated) Existing 2 Mobile Source3 GHGs (MT CO2e) 2,512,800 ------Population (# of people) 553,500 ------Existing GHGs Per-Capita 4.54 ------GPU / GPA 960 Build Out Mobile Source3 GHGs (MT CO2e) 2,512,800 3,395,900 2,167,200 5,603,300 2,761,300 Population (# of people) 553,500 800,600 880,600 969,100 969,100 GPU/GPA 960 GHGs Per-Capita 4.54 3.86 2.46 5.78 2.85 Regulatory (SB 375) Target --- 3.07 3.07 2.90 2.90 Significant? 4 --- YES NO YES NO CULM GP / GPAs Build Out Mobile Source3 GHGs (MT CO2e) 2,512,800 4,929,130 3,539,390 9,099,960 4,733,370 Population (# of people) 553,500 1,049,280 1,049,280 1,602,240 1,602,240 CULM GP/GPAs GHGs Per-Capita 4.54 4.70 3.37 5.68 2.95 Regulatory (SB 375) Target --- 3.07 3.07 2.90 2.90 Significant? 4 --- YES YES YES YES Footnotes: 1. All values (except per-capita) rounded to nearest 10. Thus, totals may not sum precisely. See Appendix EIR-10 for data. No data available for existing General Plan build out (CURR GP scenario). 2. All scenarios use the same data for 2008 since they all start from the same unmitigated baseline conditions. It should be noted that the “yes” results for the build out scenarios reflect the fact that even if no General Plan Amendments were approved, Riverside County would still have significant GHG emissions if unmitigated. 3. Automobiles and light-duty trucks. 4. Significant (“yes”) if target exceeded. For SB 375 targets, see Table 4.7-H. Source: Atkins, Letter Addendum, July 2013, Table GHG-2. See Appendix EIR-10.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-87

 Construction GHG Emissions: Construction activities will result in GHG emissions from individual public and private projects implemented pursuant to General Plan build out. The exact amount of emissions would be dependent on the particular construction equipment used, length of construction and the number of projects occurring at any given time. Following SCAQMD methodology, construction emissions are amortized into a project’s GHG emissions total, which must then be mitigated as outlined in the draft CAP. The results in Table 5.5-K indicate that with the implementation of the items outlined for the “2020 Reduced” scenarios (i.e., emission results after imposition of regulatory and mitigation measures), incremental GHG emissions associated with the GPU/GPA 960 (i.e., with project) build out scenario in Riverside County will be cumulatively less than significant.

 Operational GHG Emissions: To comply with state laws (AB 32), cumulative GHG emissions for Riverside County need to be at or below the 1990 emission levels by the year 2020. Using this threshold, the regulatory and mitigation measures outlined below (and, in particular, from the draft CAP) would ensure that cumulative GHG emissions in Riverside County are consistent with this target. As indicated in Table 5.5-K, incremental GHG emissions associated with the GPU/GPA 960 (project) build out scenario will be cumulatively less than significant.

 Conflict with GHG Reduction Plans, Policies or Regulations: Implementation of the General Plan, as updated pursuant to the proposed project (i.e., the GPU/GPA 960 scenario), would result in future construction and operational activities that generate GHGs. This generation of GHGs would potentially conflict with the implementation of AB 32 and SB 375, California policies for reducing GHG emissions. However, implementation of the proposed General Plan policies and particularly the Implementation Measures of the Riverside County CAP, plus proposed new Mitigation Measures 4.7.A-N1 and 4.7.A-N2, would ensure that build out of the General Plan, as amended by GPA No. 960, would be consistent with both Riverside County’s proposed Climate Action Plan (CAP) and State of California mandates (under AB 32 and SB 375), as well as have a less than significant impact on their implementation.

 Consistency with AB 32 and SB 375: Per Tables 5.5-K and 5.5-L, with mitigation, in particular the CAP Implementation Measures (as discussed under Impact 4.7.1 in Section 4.7), Riverside County’s cumulative 2020 GHG emissions would meet regulatory targets for both AB 32 and SB 375 for the GPU/GPA 960 (i.e., with project) build out scenario. Thus, the incremental contributions associated with GPA No. 960 would be cumulatively less than significant. For the CULM scenario, however, the same tables indicate that even with mitigation, impacts would be cumulatively considerable and further reduction measures related to electric vehicles, for example, would be necessary. See the Atkins addendum for more information. d. Mitigation

As described in detail in the applicable subsections of 4.7.5, a variety of measures would be implemented to avoid, reduce and minimize adverse cumulative impacts from GHG emissions and ensure regulatory compliance. These include the following items:

(1) Regulatory Compliance

Key Regulations and Program: See Section 4.7.3 for information on each regulation.

 California Executive Order S-3-05 (Establishing GHG Emission Reduction Targets)

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-88 Public Review Draft . March 2014

 California Executive Order S-13-08 (Establishing Climate Adaption Strategies)

 California Assembly Bill 32 (Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006)

 California Senate Bill 375 (Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act)

 California Ambient Air Quality Standards

 CCR Title 24, Part 6 (Energy Efficiency Standards)

 Ordinance No. 559 (Regulating the Removal of Trees)

 Ordinance No. 655 (Regulating Light Pollution)

 Ordinance No. 659 (Residential Development Impact Fee (DIF) Program)

 Ordinance No. 695 (Requiring the Abatement of Hazardous Vegetation)

 Ordinance No. 706 (Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Programs (Funding) )

 Ordinance No. 726 (Transportation Demand Management for New Development)

 Ordinance No. 748 (Mitigation of Traffic Congestion through Signalization)

 Ordinance No. 782 (Golf Cart Transportation Plan)

 Ordinance No. 810 (Establishing an Interim Open Space Mitigation Fee)

 Ordinance No. 824 (Western Riverside County Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program)

 Ordinance No. 859 (Establishing Water-Efficient Landscaping Standards)

 Ordinance No. 875 (Establishing Mitigation Fees for Coachella Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan)

 Board of Supervisors Policy No. A-64 (Environmental Purchasing)

 Board of Supervisors Policy No. H-4 (Energy Conservation)

 Board of Supervisors Policy No. H-25 (Water Efficient Landscaping)

 Board of Supervisors Policy No. H-29 (Sustainable Building)

Key General Plan Policies: See Section 4.7.3.E and F. for the text of each policy.

 Air Quality Element Policies: AQ 1.1-1.4, 1.7, 3.2, 3.4, 4.4, 5.1, 5.2, 5.4, 8.4-8.9, 10.1-10.4, 13.1, 21.1- 21.5, 22.1, 23.1, 23.2, 24.1, 24.2, 25.1-25.3, 26.1, 26.2, 27.1, 27.2, 28.1, 28.2, 29.1-29.4 and 30.1-30.5

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-89

 Circulation Element Policies: C 1.2, 1.7, 4.1, 4.8, 5.2, 9.2, 11.2, 11.4, 11.5, 11.7, 12.1, 12.2, 13.1-13.3, 17.3, 17.4, 21.1 and 21.9

 Land Use Element Policies: LU 1.5, 2.1, 4.1, 8.12, 11.1, 11.3, 11.4 and 13.1-13.4

 Open Space Element Policies: OS 2.2, 2.5, 10.1, 11.1-11.3, 12.1 and 16.3-16.8

(2) CEQA Mitigation

Existing Mitigation Measures: In EIR No. 441, prepared for the 2003 RCIP General Plan, mitigation was imposed to reduce air quality pollutants. Since GHG emissions are also produced from some of the same sources (particularly vehicular exhaust), these measures are also applicable to this project (GPA No. 960) and would lessen impacts from GHG emissions as well.

 Existing MM 4.5.1C: Mitigation measures for construction equipment and vehicles exhaust emissions:

a. The construction contractor shall select the construction equipment used on site based on low emission factors and high energy efficiency.

c. The construction contractor shall utilize electric- or diesel-powered equipment, in lieu of gasoline- powered engines, where feasible.

e. 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 flag person shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways.

f. The construction contractor shall support and encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew.

g. [Item g, dust control measures omitted, since not applicable to GHGs].

New Mitigation Measures: The following additional project-specific mitigation measures would be necessary to ensure that GHG impacts are avoided, reduced or minimized to below threshold levels. See Section 4.7.6 for additional details.

 New MM 4.7.A-N1: To ensure GHG emissions resulting from new development are reduced to levels necessary to meet State targets, the County of Riverside shall require all new discretionary development to comply with the Implementation Measures of the Riverside County Climate Action Plan or provide comparable custom measures backed by a project GHG study (for example, using CalEEMod modeling) demonstrating achievement of the same target. The target to be met is a GHG emissions reduction of

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-90 Public Review Draft . March 2014

25% below emissions for the adjusted BAU scenario for residential, commercial, industrial, institutional and mixed-use projects. The adjusted BAU is based upon the 2020 adjusted BAU found in the Final Supplement to the AB 32 Scoping Plan (CARB 2011).

 New MM 4.7.A-N2: In lieu of a project-specific analysis per Mitigation Measure 4.7.A-N1, a future discretionary project proposed pursuant to the Riverside County General Plan shall incorporate into the project design, operational features and/or Implementing Measures from the Riverside County Climate Action Plan, in such a manner as to garnish at least 100 points. The point values within the CAP’s Screening Tables constitute GHG emission reductions.

e. Significance

Implementation of, and compliance with, the above regulations, policies and mitigation measures would ensure that incremental impacts due to greenhouse gas emissions from future development within Riverside County are minimized to a level that is cumulatively less than significant, including GHG emissions from construction and operational activities. Following the 2020 emissions analysis, it was determined that future development authorized pursuant to the General Plan, as amended by the proposed project (i.e., the GPU/GPA 960 scenario), would not conflict with the implementation of AB 32. Through an analysis of passenger vehicle emissions for 2020 and 2035, it was also determined that the updated General Plan would be consistent with the targets for the SCAG region under SB 375 with mitigation. Compliance with existing and proposed General Plan policies and, in particular, the County Climate Action Plan’s implementing measures and screening tables, plus the mitigation measures herein, would ensure that any future development activities approved within Riverside County reduce greenhouse gas emissions, fully mitigate or avoid any GHG impacts and are consistent with the State of California and County of Riverside’s greenhouse gas reduction polices and the Climate Action Plan.

7. Cumulative Effects on Biological Resources

Section 4.8 (Biological Resources) discusses existing biological resources within Riverside County, as well as the sources used (and any updates made to them) for this data. The section also analyzes biological impacts from future development accommodated by the changes proposed by the project, GPA No. 960, as well as the mitigation (both through regulatory compliance and CEQA-specific mitigation) necessary to ensure impacts are less than significant. As a result, areas already covered in Section 4.8 are not repeated here. See Section 4.8 for additional details.

a. Existing and Future Conditions

In Riverside County, variations in topography, elevation, soil and climate create conditions for a wide variety of natural communities, each with its own assemblage of native plants and animals. Hence the biological resources of Riverside County include a rich range of habitats, plants, animals and insects that cover a wide spectrum, from banal (pigeons, gophers and coyotes) to highly endangered and endemic to very small portions of the county (fairy shrimp, Quino checkerspot butterfly and Stephens’ kangaroo rat, for example).

Section 4.8 provides a complete description of the natural communities (habitats), species and existing conservation areas. This data includes Table 4.8-A (Western Riverside County Natural Communities), Table 4.8- B (Coachella Valley Natural Communities), Table 4.8-C (Non-MSHCP Areas Natural Communities), Table 4.8-D (Sensitive Species of the County within the WRC-MSHCP or CV-MSHCP) and Table 4.8-E (Additional Candidate, Sensitive and Special Status Species Potentially in Riverside County). It also includes Figure 4.8.1 (MSHCP Coverage Areas and Non-MSHCP Areas within Riverside County), Figure 4.8.2 (Western Riverside

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-91

County Natural Communities), Figure 4.8.3 (Coachella Valley Natural Communities) and Figure 4.8.4 (Non- MSHCP Areas Natural Communities). Section 4.8 also discusses the role of environmental regulations and, in particular, the two major Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plans (MCHCPs) that cover parts of tRiverside Ccounty: the Western Riverside County MSHCP and the Coachella Valley MSHCP.

Spatial analyses were performed to examine the cumulative results of General Plan build out on biological resources. To encapsulate the scope of impacts resulting from build out of Riverside County, the various General Plan build out scenarios were analyzed against the natural communities mapped within Riverside County (i.e., General Plan Figures OS-4a, 4b and 4c). These land use and habitat analyses reflect the range of impacts to species, as site-specific or species-specific surveys are well beyond the scope of this programmatic EIR. Table 5.5-M (Cumulative Biological Effects in Unincorporated Riverside County), below, shows the cumulative conditions for the three General Plan build out scenarios examined in this section: the existing (2008) General Plan (CURR GP), the General Plan updated per the project (GPU/GPA960) and the cumulative General Plan as per the additional proposed GPAs through 2009 (CULM GP).

Growth pressures within Riverside County will result in development that causes the incremental loss, fragmentation and degeneration of natural habitat regardless of the General Plan build out scenario. Per Table 5.5-M, General Plan build out will contribute incrementally to the loss of species and habitat within Riverside County and result in varying degrees of impacts, depending on the size, scope and location of the incremental future development. Under build out of the current (2008) General Plan, the amount of disturbed and developed land overall would increase 20% countywide. This includes increases in urban/suburban uses of roughly 63% (30,600 acres) and an increase in interface/wildland uses of 48,700 acres (119%). Due to greater accuracy in mapping, public facility uses would decrease 42%, which is a gain of roughly 6,400 acres of mainly undisturbed habitat. These land use changes show similar trends across the various natural communities; that is, habitat acreage within vacant/open uses decreasing and in urban/suburban and, in particular, interface/wildland uses increasing.

Table 5.5-M: Cumulative Biological Effects in Unincorporated Riverside County Urban / Rural / Interface / Vacant / Open Public Habitat Type Suburban Agriculture Wildlands Space Facilities Totals Grassland Existing Total 3,260 7,190 7,120 44,720 1,190 63,480 CURR GP Total 4,440 11,300 23,590 15,930 2,090 57,350 GPU /GPA 960 Change +60 +160 -440 +150 +150 +80 CULM GP/GPAs Change +500 +60 -350 -130 -150 -70 Scrub1 Existing Total 14,680 107,350 571,810 1,746,150 10,530 2,450,520 CURR GP Total 15,140 42,690 1,595,550 758,360 13,630 2,425,370 GPU /GPA 960 Change +290 +330 -3,240 +3,070 +280 +730 CULM GP/GPAs Change +1,450 +2,260 -1,140 -2,650 -120 -200 Chaparral Existing Total 7,630 3,680 9,680 430,760 2,000 453,750 CURR GP Total 530 8,360 190,960 214,080 1,310 415,240 GPU /GPA 960 Change +20 +2,120 -8,980 +6,790 +60 +10 CULM GP/GPAs Change +70 +2,060 +4,770 -6,850 -60 -10 Playa & Vernal Pool2 Existing Total 0 0 140 13,210 0 13,350 CURR GP Total 0 40 13,120 190 0 13,350 GPU /GPA 960 Change 0 0 0 0 0 0 CULM GP/GPAs Change 0 0 0 0 0 0 Marsh & Meadow3 Existing Total 190 530 550 2,610 150 4,030 CURR GP Total 100 90 1,330 1,490 10 3,020

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-92 Public Review Draft . March 2014

Urban / Rural / Interface / Vacant / Open Public Habitat Type Suburban Agriculture Wildlands Space Facilities Totals GPU /GPA 960 Change 0 -10 -30 +20 +10 -10 CULM GP/GPAs Change 0 +30 0 -20 -10 0 Riparian Scrub, Woodland & Forest4 Existing Total 2,210 32,660 34,610 297,360 2,010 368,850 CURR GP Total 2,520 20,740 296,140 44,370 3,730 367,500 GPU /GPA 960 Change -90 -290 +100 +150 +150 +20 CULM GP/GPAs Change +1,220 +950 -2,330 -30 +90 -100 Water Existing Total 170 480 1,030 13,880 210 15,770 CURR GP Total 100 240 2,320 12,780 280 15,720 GPU /GPA 960 Change 0 0 0 0 0 0 CULM GP/GPAs Change 0 +60 -60 0 0 0 Desert Dunes & Sand Fields Existing Total 650 180 37,330 69,900 380 108,440 CURR GP Total 2,270 460 64,330 41,560 130 108,750 GPU /GPA 960 Change +80 0 0 0 -80 0 CULM GP/GPAs Change 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conifer Woodland & Forest Existing Total 890 90 15,630 29,640 310 46,560 CURR GP Total 1,170 1,610 7,010 36,210 150 46,150 GPU /GPA 960 Change 0 0 +80 -70 0 +10 CULM GP/GPAs Change 0 +10 -90 +70 0 -10 Woodland & Forest (Broadleaf) Existing Total 1,250 1,180 33,610 87,060 440 123,540 CURR GP Total 220 1,550 22,010 98,250 100 122,130 GPU /GPA 960 Change 0 +360 -550 +190 0 0 CULM GP/GPAs Change +20 +50 +120 -200 0 -10 Natural Habitats - Subtotal Existing Total 30,930 153,340 711,510 2,735,290 17,220 3,648,290 CURR GP Total 26,490 87,080 2,216,360 1,223,220 21,430 3,574,580 GPU /GPA 960 Change +360 +2,670 -13,060 +10,300 +570 +840 CULM GP/GPAs Change +3,260 +5,480 +920 -9,810 -250 -400 Total Natural Habitats, With 30,110 95,230 2,204,220 1,223,710 21,750 3,575,020 Culm B/O Changes -2.7% -37.9% 209.8% -55.3% 26.3% -2.0% Developed/Disturbed Existing Total 35,860 16,300 36,050 23,580 11,030 122,820 CURR GP Total 41,350 49,750 51,300 48,610 6,530 197,540 GPU /GPA 960 Change +340 -280 -10 -1,600 +110 -1,440 CULM GP/GPAs Change +390 +280 -680 +210 -160 +40 Agriculture Existing Total 12,500 195,590 4,980 30,940 4,120 248,130 CURR GP Total 37,610 161,270 38,430 7,610 2,200 247,120 GPU /GPA 960 Change +2,380 -2,740 +230 +560 +170 +600 CULM GP/GPAs Change +2,230 -1,120 -230 -400 -120 +360 Development Category - Total Existing Total 79,290 365,230 752,540 2,789,810 32,370 4,019,240 CURR GP Total 105,450 298,100 2,306,090 1,279,440 30,160 4,019,240 GPU /GPA 960 Change +3,080 -350 -12,840 +9,260 +850 0 CULM GP/GPAs Change +5,880 +4,640 +10 -10,000 -530 0 General Plan Totals, With 114,410 302,390 2,293,260 1,278,700 30,480 4,019,240 Cumulative Changes 44.3% -17.2% 204.7% -54.2% -5.8% Footnotes: 1. Encompasses coastal sage scrub, desert alkali scrub and desert scrub habitats. 2. Encompasses alkali playa and playa/vernal pool habitats.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-93

3. Encompasses cismontane alkali marsh and meadow/marsh habitats. 4. Encompasses dry wash woodland/mesquite, riparian scrub/woodland/forest, and Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub habitats. Source: Riverside County GIS, RCLIS layers (natural communities: western, Coachella Valley and non-MSHCP areas) and project application data, 2013.

The with-project General Plan build out scenario, GPU/GPA960, will further increase these amounts of habitat loss to development and urbanization in general, though in incremental amounts generally not substantial. Of particular note, the GPU/GPA960 scenario would add over 10,000 additional acres of natural habitat within vacant and open space uses. For the cumulative GPAs/General Plan build out (i.e., the CULM scenario), the incremental losses of native habitat and gains in developed acreage continue in larger, but still incrementally insignificant, amounts. In particular, when compared against the offsetting habitat conservation targets to be achieved through the Western Riverside County and Coachella Valley MSCHPs, the incremental effects of habitat loss for the GPU/GPA960 and CULM scenarios are not cumulatively significant.

b. Impacts

Future development accommodated will contribute incrementally to cumulative biological impacts as Riverside County builds out over time pursuant to the Riverside County General Plan (regardless of scenario). Specific impacts of the severities indicated will include the following:

(1) Cumulative Impacts Mitigated to Non-Substantial Levels

 Loss of habitat, including riparian and other sensitive habitat types. See discussion under Impact 4.8.A in Section 4.8.

 Direct take of species (that is, kill, harass, harm, etc.), including species protected by law (threatened or endangered under the federal or California Endangered Species Act), as well as species otherwise protected or identified as sensitive (e.g., within the WR-MSHCP or CV-MSHCP, etc.). See discussion under Impact 4.8.B.

 Indirect “take” of species (through habitat loss, loss of breeding, nesting or roosting areas, noise and disturbance by humans, pets, etc.), including protected and sensitive species. See discussion under Impact 4.8.B.

 Adverse effects to, including loss of, wetlands and riparian habitat through direct removal, fill or hydrological interruption; or indirectly through topographic changes, alteration of soils, slopes or hydrology; etc. See discussion under Impact 4.8.C.

 Adverse effects to, including loss of, areas used for the movement of both resident and migratory native species of fish and wildlife. This includes loss of wildlife corridors and open space lands connecting natural habitat areas, as well as the use of wildlife nursery and hibernation sites. See discussion under Impact 4.8.D.

(2) Non-Substantial Cumulative Impacts

The following effects will contribute incrementally, but not substantially, to the cumulative impact on biological resources occurring as a result of build out of the Riverside County General Plan. See Section 4.8.6 for additional details on these impacts.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-94 Public Review Draft . March 2014

 Loss of habitat directly, e.g., through conversion of natural habitats to developed uses or the clearing of native vegetation; indirect habitat loss (e.g., through alteration of drainage and hydrology, introduction of invasive plants species [weeds] or due to increased disturbance by human activities, etc.); as well as habitat fragmentation (loss of continuity among natural habitats, resulting in “edge effects”).

 Edge effects in which human activities (particularly development of previously vacant lands) introduce disturbances in the vicinity of natural plant communities and wildlife habitat. Noise, trash and refuse, light pollution, predation by house pets and human encroachment are all associated with edge effects.

 Loss of oak trees and other mature forest canopy, either through direct take or through indirect causes, such as hydrological changes, etc.

c. Mitigation

As described in detail in Section 4.8 (see Section 4.8.3), a variety of existing regulatory compliance and specific mitigation measures would be implemented to avoid, reduce and minimize adverse cumulative biological impacts. These include the following:

(1) Regulatory Compliance

Key Regulations and Programs:

 Federal Endangered Species Act

 Federal Clean Water Act (Sections 401, 402 and 404, in particular)

 Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

 California Endangered Species Act (CFGC section 2050 et seq.),

 California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), section 1600, et seq.

 Natural Community Conservation Planning Act

 California Native Plant Protection Act.

 Western Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan

 Coachella Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan

 Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan

 Riverside County Oak Tree Management Guidelines

 Ordinance No. 559 (Regulating the Removal of Trees)

Key General Plan Policies: See Section 4.8.3 for text of each policy.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-95

 Land Use Element Policies: LU 7.7, 9.1 and 9.2

 Open Space Element Policies: OS 5.1-5.3, 5.5, 5.6, 6.1, 6.2, 9.3, 9.4, 17.1, 17.2, 18.1, 18.3, 18.4 and 20.2

 Circulation Element Policies: C 20.9

(2) CEQA Mitigation

As part of EIR No. 521, the following new mitigation measures (MMs) are proposed to ensure that biological impacts are reduced to less than significant. See the cited impacts in Section 4.8.6 for the full text of each mitigation measure.

 New MM 4.8.A-N1: For sites not governed by an existing MSHCP, where site conditions (for example, topography, soils, vegetation, etc.) indicate a project could adversely affect any riparian or riverine resources, then an appropriate assessment shall be prepared by a qualified professional. An assessment shall include, but not be limited to, identification and mapping of any riparian/riverine areas and evaluation of species composition, topography/hydrology and soil analysis, as applicable. An assessment shall be completed as part of the environmental review for the development proposal prior to its approval. Upon receipt of an assessment, the Riverside County Ecological Resources Specialist (ERS) shall review the document and make a finding that either:

a. Riparian/riverine areas do not exist on site;

b. Project-specific avoidance measures have been identified that would be sufficient to ensure avoidance of riparian/riverine areas; or

c. Impacts to riparian/riverine areas are significant and unavoidable. If avoidance is not feasible, a practicable alternative that minimizes direct and indirect effects to riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools and associated functions and values to the greatest extent possible must be developed.

If impacts remain significant and unavoidable then the ERS will require the project applicant to obtain a Section 404 permit from the ACOE and/or a Fish and Game Code Section 1600 agreement from CDFW prior to the issuance of any grading permit or other action by the County of Riverside that would lead to the disturbance of the riparian resource.

 New MM 4.8.A-N2: For sites not governed by an MSHCP, a general biological resources assessment (BRA) shall be required as part of the discretionary project review process at the County of Riverside’s discretion. For example, if site inspection, aerial or other photos, resource agency data or any other information indicates potential for sensitive habitat to occur on, or be adversely affected by the proposed project. The BRA shall be prepared and reviewed as per the requirements outlined in Mitigation Measure 4.8.B-N1.

 New MM 4.8.B-N1: Prior to discretionary project approval for projects with the potential to substantially adversely affect sensitive (listed, candidate or special status) species or habitats not covered by an existing MSHCP or HCP, a general biological resource assessment (BRA) shall be performed. The following requirements shall apply:

a. The BRA shall be performed by a Riverside County-approved biologist pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) executed between the biologist and the County of Riverside.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-96 Public Review Draft . March 2014

b. The biology/environmental firm or biologist preparing the BRA must be on the County of Riverside’s list of qualified consultants.

c. Fieldwork must be performed by qualified biologists according to professional standards.

d. If included in the BRA, presence/absence surveys for specific plants must be conducted during the applicable blooming season or other conditions as deemed scientifically appropriate and valid.

e. Should affected species or habitat occur on the project site, then a “Focused Protocol Survey” must be prepared for those species using existing protocols established by the USFWS or CDFGCDFW. If no such protocols exist, the survey must be based on generally accepted biological survey protocols appropriate to the species.

The BRA requirement may be waived if any of the following conditions are documented to exist.

a. The area affected by the proposed project (“footprint” herein) consists entirely of built environment (structures, pavement, etc.) and none of the biota or plant material present (i.e., landscaping) represent likely habitat used by a sensitive species.

b. The Riverside County Environmental Resource Specialist (ERS) finds in writing that the proposed footprint does not have any biological resources expected to be used by a protected species or plant.

c. The project or activity proposed is to be performed under an existing incidental take permit, habitat conservation plan or other governing permit, license or authorization (i.e. Section 7 consultation) and no new significant effect to the covered species or other protected species or resource is expected to occur.

In addition to the items herein, the BRA shall also be prepared in accordance with the Riverside County “Guide to Preparing General Biological Resource Assessments,” as well as any other requirements of the Riverside County Environmental Programs Department, Planning Department or other County of Riverside agency.

Upon receipt of the BRA, the Riverside County ERS shall review it and all supporting documentation. If the Riverside County ERS finds that the project does not have the potential to substantially affect sensitive species or habitat, no further mitigation is required. If the Riverside County ERS finds that the project has the potential to substantially adversely affect sensitive species or habitat, then additional mitigation will be developed and imposed to reduce such impacts to below a level of significance. Such mitigation may include but not be limited to obtaining an incidental take permits from the USFWS and/or CDFW, as applicable and acquisition and conservation of replacement habitat at appropriate ratios.

 New MM 4.8.C-N1: If site conditions (for example, topography, soils, vegetation, etc.) indicate that the proposed project could affect riparian/riverine areas or federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the CWA, then an appropriate assessment shall be prepared by a qualified professional as part of Riverside County’s project review process. An assessment shall include, but not be limited to, identification and mapping of any wetland(s) or riparian resources present; evaluation of plant species composition, topography and hydrology; a soils analysis (where appropriate) and conclusions stating the presence or absence of jurisdictional wetlands. An assessment shall be completed as part of the CEQA review for the development proposal.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-97

Should any grading or construction be proposed within or alongside the banks of the watercourse or wetland, the land divider/permit holder shall provide written notification to the Riverside County Planning Department that the alteration of any watercourse or wetland, located either on site or on any required offsite improvement areas, complies with the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Nationwide Permit Conditions. Or, the land divider shall obtain a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Copies of any agreements shall be submitted along with the notification.

 New MM 4.8.C-N2: If site conditions (for example, topography, soils, vegetation, etc.) indicate that the proposed project could affect riparian/riverine areas or federally protected wetlands as defined by CFGC Section 1600 et seq., then an appropriate assessment shall be prepared by a qualified professional as part of Riverside County’s project review process. An assessment shall include, but not be limited to, identification and mapping of any wetland(s) or riparian resources present; evaluation of plant species composition, topography and hydrology; a soils analysis (where appropriate) and conclusions stating the presence or absence of jurisdictional wetlands. An assessment shall be completed as part of the CEQA review for the development proposal.

Should any grading or construction be proposed within or along the banks of any natural watercourse or wetland located either on site or on any required offsite improvement areas, the land divider/permit holder shall provide written notification to the Riverside County Planning Department that the appropriate California Department of Fish and Wildlife notification pursuant to Sections 1601/1603 of the California Fish and Game Code has taken place. Or, the land divider shall obtain an “Agreement Regarding Proposed Stream or Lake Alteration” (Section 1601/1603 Permit). Copies of any agreements shall be submitted along with the notification.

 New MM 4.8.D-N1: Should a wildlife nursery site or native resident or migratory wildlife corridor be uncovered through a biological resources assessment (BRA), then a consultation with a Riverside County Ecological Resources Specialist (ERS) shall occur. The ERS shall make a determination if the site is essential for the long term viability of the species. If such a determination is made, then the ERS shall work with the applicant to avoid the effects of development on the resource in question and condition the land use case accordingly. Should significant impacts to nursery site or corridor not be avoidable, project applicant shall be required to ensure the preservation of comparable nursery or corridor habitat off site.

d. Significance

Implementation of all of the above regulations, General Plan policies and mitigation measures, would be sufficient to ensure that all of the incremental cumulative impacts listed above would be less than significant. Thus, build out of any of the above General Plan scenarios would contribute incrementally but not substantially to cumulative impacts.

8. Cumulative Effects on Cultural and Paleontological Resources

Section 4.9 (Cultural and Paleontological Resources) discusses existing cultural resources, including historical and archeological, within Riverside County, as well as the data sources used and any updates to them. The section also analyzes impacts from future development accommodated by the changes proposed by the project, GPA No. 960, as well as the mitigation (both regulatory and CEQA-specific) necessary to ensure impacts are less than significant. As a result, topics already covered in Section 4.9 are not repeated here.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-98 Public Review Draft . March 2014

Section 4.9 provides a complete description of the cultural and paleontological resources known or expected to occur in Riverside County. This data includes Table 4.9-A (Cultural Resources of Riverside County) and Table 4.8-B (Paleontological Resources By Age, Formation and Location). It also includes Figure 4.9.2 (Historical Resources in Riverside County) and Figure 4.9.3 (Paleontological Sensitivity).

a. Existing Conditions

Cultural resources include areas, places, sites (particularly archeological sites), buildings, structures, objects, records or manuscripts associated with history or prehistory. Cultural resources may also include places that have historic or traditional associations or that are important for their natural resources. Paleontological resources consist of evidence of past life forms and their biota. They yield valuable information about the history of the earth and its past ecological settings. The cultural resource characteristics of Riverside County reflect patterns of human settlement, human use of the land and its resources, the artistic expressions on material culture and natural features, technologies and ideologies, as well as past environmental conditions. The existing paleontological setting reflects the paleontological record and related geology as they are currently known for Riverside County.

Historical and Archeological Resources: The large number of known prehistoric resources in Riverside County are documented via CHRIS, the California Historical Resources Information System, which is archived and maintained by the Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University of California, Riverside (UCR); a branch of the California Office of Historical Preservation. Of these recorded sites within Riverside County, a few have been designated as federal, state and/or county cultural resources, as shown in Table 4.9.A in Section 4.9.

Prehistoric resources, artifacts and features include evidence of the 14,000-plus years of occupation and transient use by Native American populations. The Ethnohistoric Period of Riverside County at the time of Euro- American contact was distinguished by eight distinct resident cultural groups of Native Americans which occupied territories across Southern California and Riverside County. See Section 4.7 of EIR No. 441 for further background on these ethnological groups and cultures.

The advent of written documentation of events separates the Historic Era from the Prehistoric Period. In Riverside County, the Historic Era is generally said to begin around 1772, with the European exploration of the western coast of North America. As settlement patterns became established, systems of documentation became more regularized and increasingly preserved, creating a body of “historical record” from which historical resources may be ascertained, rediscovered and documented. In addition, many historic structures and sites dating from only the last century or so are extant (still standing), with many buildings still being used.

Table 4.9.A in Section 4.9 provides a catalog of the various cultural resources that have been listed within Riverside County, including the cities. Because of the vast size of Riverside County, Table 4.9.A only includes known listed sites/resources recognized at the levels indicated and should not be considered exhaustive or exclusive. In particular, the potential also exists for sites in Riverside County to have previously unknown archeological and historical resources present either on the surface or below ground. It is expected that a large number of archeological and historical resources occur within Riverside County that are currently undiscovered or unknown, particularly for resources located below the ground’s surface. For sub-surface resources, discovery most often only occurs if the site is disturbed, such as through archeological investigation, or as more commonly happens, when construction activities such as grading or trenching are initiated.

Paleontological Resources: Fossils, which are nonrenewable paleontological resources, are important for dating sedimentary rocks and thus determining the time of movement of faults against which those sediments lie. Riverside County has an extensive record of fossil life. Eastern and western Riverside County have fossiliferous sediments that occur in various settings. In the western portion of Riverside County, fossils occur in sediments

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-99

lying on the surface of crystalline bedrock or are deposited in or between the major fault zones. The eastern desert portions of Riverside County are marked by fault block mountains that contain older fossil-bearing sediments with younger fossil-containing deposits found around dry lakes, along high stands of the Salton Sea and in terraces left by the Colorado River. The geological eras represented by the fossil records found in Riverside County are briefly summarized as follows, and as shown in Table 4.9.B. Figure 4.9.3 identifies the sensitivity of lands within Riverside County in relation to the potential for finding paleontological resources.

b. Future Conditions

Effects to known cultural resources (historical, archeological and paleontological) can be mitigated to less than significant levels through the regulatory and mitigation measures outlined in Section 4.9. However, since most cultural resources occur below ground (particularly paleontological resources, which are heavily geology- dependent), most cultural resources remain unknown and undiscovered until uncovered by ground-disturbing activity, for example site grading, road construction or trenching for pipelines. As a result, the likelihood of subsurface resource disturbance by future development typically cannot be fully determined in advance, particularly within the scope of this countywide programmatic EIR. Rather, such determinations will have to be made at the individual implementing project stage and addressed (mitigated) via the mechanisms outlined in Section 4.9. The cultural resources section (4.9) presents explicit, mandatory measures that must be taken when an artifact or other cultural resource is unearthed.

Nevertheless, since paleontological resources do correlate with geology, a generalized assessment of relative paleontological sensitivity was developed for much of Riverside County (i.e., see Figure 4.9.3) and the existing and proposed land uses associated with the various General Plan build out scenarios was assessed against this sensitivity to examine cumulative impacts. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 5.5-N, below.

The results indicate that build out of the existing General Plan (CURR GP) will result in disturbance of a great deal of additional land with high paleontological sensitivity (e.g., Ha or Hb). In particular, acreage devoted to urban/suburban uses will roughly double and the area potentially developed within the interface/wildland fringes of Riverside County will increase roughly ten-fold (23,000 to 234,000 acres). Lastly, the area left vacant and open will decrease by roughly two-thirds.

For the updated General Plan (i.e., with-project) and cumulative General Plan build out scenarios (GPU/GPA 960 and CULM GP), similar trends will occur, however in much smaller amounts. The incremental increases associated with the individual future projects pursuant to these scenarios will be individually insignificant. However, cumulatively they will amount to upwards of 3% to 8% of the total area by category. Specifically, for the GPU/GPA960 scenario, uses within high-sensitivity areas will increase roughly 3% in urban/suburban areas and over 6% for public facility uses. Though offset by a nearly 8% increase in open space and nearly 6% less development within interface/wildland areas, the overall cumulative effects to paleontologically sensitive lands will still be considerable. Similar trends are seen for the CULM scenario, with slightly higher amounts of urban/suburban and rural/agricultural uses (4% and 3%, respectively) and no offsetting increase in vacant/open space (rather, an additional 1% would be loss). Public facility lands would decrease by roughly 4%, however this amounts to less than 500 acres, which is not enough to offset cumulatively considerable effects countywide.

Table 5.5-N: Cumulative Paleontological Effects in Riverside County Paleontological Sensitivity Urban / Rural / Interface / Vacant / Open Public Category Suburban Agriculture Wildlands Space Facilities Totals High A (Ha)1 Existing Total 20,360 42,080 19,230 341,770 6,680 430,120 CURR GP Total 29,730 50,560 223,700 107,340 6,620 417,961 GPU/GPA960 Change -430 +390 -1,430 +1,310 +290 +130

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-100 Public Review Draft . March 2014

Paleontological Sensitivity Urban / Rural / Interface / Vacant / Open Public Category Suburban Agriculture Wildlands Space Facilities Totals CULM GP Change +2,590 +1,390 -2,150 -1,160 -300 +370 High B (Hb)2 Existing Total 8,190 31,400 4,180 24,270 5,240 73,280 CURR GP Total 25,890 19,600 10,340 15,920 4,010 75,763 GPU/GPA960 Change +2,260 +900 -11,510 +7,890 +390 -70 CULM GP Change -620 +620 +320 -100 -170 +50 High Sensitivity - subtotal Existing Total 28,550 73,480 23,410 366,040 11,920 503,400 CURR GP Total 55,620 70,160 234,040 123,260 10,630 493,710 GPU/GPA960 Change +1,830 +1,290 -12,940 +9,200 +680 +60 CULM GP Change +1,970 +2,010 -1,830 -1,260 -470 +420 Cumulative B/O Total 59,420 73,460 219,270 131,200 10,840 494,190 Change from Exist +30,870 -20 +195,860 -234,840 -1,080 -9,210 Low3 Existing Total 42,390 207,500 631,290 1,903,350 17,000 2,801,530 CURR GP Total 42,720 170,920 1,547,800 973,830 13,640 2,748,910 GPU/GPA960 Change +1,540 +810 -10,370 +8,960 +310 +1,250 CULM GP Change +1,520 +1,940 +3,940 -8,580 -160 -1,340 Undetermined4 Existing Total 8,370 84,330 94,090 483,430 3,460 673,680 CURR GP Total 7,140 57,060 524,280 141,650 5,880 736,010 GPU/GPA960 Change +720 +90 -1,140 -1,070 +80 -1,320 CULM GP Change +2,430 +690 -2,120 -200 +100 +900 Waterbodies Existing Total 0 0 0 40,630 0 40,630 CURR GP Total 0 0 0 40,610 0 40,610 GPU/GPA960 Change 0 0 0 0 0 0 CULM GP Change 0 0 0 +20 0 +20 Total Area at Build Out Existing Total 79,310 365,310 748,790 2,793,450 32,380 4,019,240 CURR GP Total 105,480 298,140 2,306,120 1,279,350 30,150 4,019,240 GPU/GPA960 Change +4,090 +2,190 -24,440 +17,090 +1,070 0 CULM GP Change +5,920 +4,640 -10 -10,020 -530 0 Cumulative B/O Total 115,490 304,970 2,281,670 1,286,420 30,690 4,019,240 Change from Exist +36,180 -60,340 +1,532,880 -1,507,030 -1,690 0 Footnotes: 1. Geological formation or mapped rock units known to contain or have the correct age and depositional conditions for potentially containing significant paleontological resources. 2. Equivalent to High A, but based on the occurrence of fossils at a specified depth below the surface. 3. Determined through field survey. 4. No literature or studies (published or unpublished) available for the underlying geology. More study needed prior to determining paleontological potential. Source: Riverside County GIS, RCLIS layer (Paleontological Sensitivity), 1999, and Project Application Data, 2013. c. Impacts

Future development accommodated will contribute incrementally to cumulative impacts to cultural and paleontological resources as the county builds out over time pursuant to the Riverside County General Plan (regardless of scenario). Specific impacts of the severities indicated will include the following:

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-101

(1) Cumulatively Considerable Impacts

 Land disturbances from construction of new development would uncover and/or adversely affect presently unknown historic or archeological resources. See discussion under Impacts 4.9.A and 4.9.B in Section 4.9.

 Future development would result directly or indirectly in the destruction of unique paleontological resources, sites or unique geological features, particularly previously unknown subsurface resources. See discussion under Impact 4.9.C.

 Lastly, since uncovered human remains can also be of modern origins, and hence potentially part of a crime scene, specific County of Riverside regulations require contacting the Riverside County Coroner’s Office for initial assessment of any uncovered human remains. Specifically, HSC Section 7050.5(b) states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(b), remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to their treatment and disposition has been made. If the remains are determined not to be modern, subsequent treatment of the discovery is handled in coordination with the Tribe determined by the State of California to be the “Most Likely Descendent,” see Existing MM 4.9.1A for additional details.

(2) Non-Substantial Cumulative Impacts

 Land disturbances from construction of development would adversely affect known historic and archeological resources. See discussion under Impacts 4.9.A and 4.9.B.

 Future development could disturb undiscovered human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Remains can be historic, prehistoric or modern. All remains are first examined by the Riverside County Coroner’s Office. Those deemed modern are handled as a criminal case. Those deemed archeological (historic or prehistoric) are handled per applicable regulations, in particular those addressing Native American and ancestral remains. See Impact 4.9.D discussion. d. Mitigation

As described in detail in Section 4.9.3, a variety of measures would be implemented to avoid, reduce and minimize adverse cumulative impacts to cultural and paleontological resources. These include the following:

(1) Regulatory Compliance

Key Regulations and Programs: See Section 4.9.3 for details on each regulation.

 National Historic Preservation Act

 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

 Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (Section 325, Appendix C)

 Traditional Tribal Cultural Places Act (California Government Code Section 65352.3)

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-102 Public Review Draft . March 2014

 California Public Resources Code, Section 5097 (Regulating Paleontological Resources)

 California Environmental Quality Act (Calif. Code of Regulations, section 15064.5)

 Ordinance No. 578 (Historic Preservation Districts)

Key General Plan Policies: See Section 4.9.3 for text of each policy.

 Land Use Policies: LU 4.5

 Open Space Policies: OS 19.2 – 19.9

(1) Regulatory Compliance

Existing Mitigation Measures: As part of EIR No. 441 certified for the RCIP General Plan adopted October 2003, the following mitigation measure (MM) applies to future development.

 Existing MM 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.

New Mitigation Measures: As part of EIR No. 521, the following new mitigation measure (MM) is proposed to ensure that impacts are reduced to less than significant where feasible.

 New MM 4.9.B-N1: If avoidance and/or preservation in place of cultural resources is not feasible, the following mitigation measures shall be initiated for each impacted site:

a. Discoveries shall be discussed with the Native American tribal (or other appropriate ethnic/ cultural group representative) and the Riverside County Archeologist, and a decision shall be made with the concurrence of the Planning Director, as to the appropriate mitigation (documentation, recovery, avoidance, etc.) appropriate for the cultural resource.

b. Further ground disturbance shall not resume within the area of the discovery until an agreement has been reached by all parties as to appropriate preservation or mitigation measures.

e. Significance

The analysis above indicates that future development consistent with any of the General Plan build out scenarios analyzed, including the proposed project (GPA No. 960), would contribute to a variety of incremental impacts related to cultural resources. The regulatory and mitigation measures presented in Section 4.9 were deemed sufficient to ensure that a project’s individual cultural impacts can be avoided, reduced or minimized to less-than-significant levels. Cumulatively considerable impacts will occur as Riverside County grows pursuant to the General Plan, regardless of the scenario. The removal or destruction of cultural resources and the cumulative effect of their disturbance cannot be guaranteed to be reduced to less than significant levels even with mitigation. This is due to the unknown nature of the extent, location and cultural significance of such resources. For these reasons,

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-103

both the updated General Plan build out scenario (encompassing the changes proposed by the project, GPA No. 960), as well as the cumulative General Plan scenario (i.e., updated per the GPAs listed previously), would contribute substantially to significant cumulative impacts to previously unknown historical, archeological, cultural and paleontological resources.

9. Cumulative Effects on Energy Resources

Section 4.10 (Energy Resources) discusses existing energy resources and demands within Riverside County, as well as the sources used for this data and any updates made. The section also addresses the energy conservation issues identified in State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F. It also analyzes energy impacts from future development accommodated by the changes proposed by the project, GPA No. 960, as well as the mitigation (both regulatory compliance and EIR mitigation) necessary to ensure impacts are less than significant. Topics covered in Section 4.10 are not repeated here.

Section 4.10 includes a complete description of the energy resources generated in Riverside County, as well as an analysis of the resources used currently and projected to be needed as the county builds out. This data includes Table 4.10-A (Summary of Electrical Production), Table 4.10-B (Southern California Edison System Projects), Table 4.10-C (Imperial Irrigation District Electricity System Projects), Table 4.10-D (Energy Consumption by Major Energy Provider), Table 4.10-E (Theoretical Annual Electricity Demand for Existing Uses of Land), Table 4.10-F (Theoretical Annual Electricity Demand for Proposed Land Use Build Out), Table 4.10-G (Theoretical Annual Natural Gas Demand for Existing Uses of Land) and Table 4.10-H (Theoretical Annual Natural Gas Demand for Proposed Land Use Build Out). It also includes Figure 4.10.1 (Electricity Providers Serving River- side County) and Figure 4.10.2 (Energy Transmission Corridors and Lines). Section 4.10 also discusses the role of energy regulations and conservation.

a. Existing Conditions

Provision of adequate power and energy is a significant component of public services in Riverside County. The following section describes the current power and energy resources serving unincorporated Riverside County, including electricity, natural gas and alternative energy sources.

According to the California Energy Commission (CEC), all of the fossil-fuel powered electrical generators in Riverside County use natural gas as the “primary fuel” in their “oil/gas” type facilities. Some of the generating facilities located outside Riverside County that provide electricity for use in Riverside County use other fossil fuels, including diesel and coal, in addition to natural gas, as well as a variety of alternate (renewable) energy sources. The CEC tracks usage of renewable energy resources which include: biomass and waste, geothermal, solar, wind and “small hydroelectric,” which the CEC defines as facilities generating under 30 megaWatts (MW).

b. Future Conditions

Typically, the introduction of new development into an area brings with it an attendant new demand for energy resources, including natural gas and, in particular, electricity. Development may also utilize propane and other fuels. Accordingly, spatial analysis was performed to examine the cumulative demands of General Plan build out on energy resources. To encapsulate the scope of impacts resulting from build out, the various General Plan build out scenarios were analyzed for theoretical use/demand for the energy resources. These energy analyses reflect the range of impacts associated with the theoretical demand for energy (electricity and natural gas) for the specific land uses indicated for each scenario. For specifics on methodology used, see Section 4.10.4.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-104 Public Review Draft . March 2014

Tables 5.5-O and 5.5-P, below, show the cumulative conditions for the three General Plan build out scenarios examined in this section: Existing General Plan (CURR GP), the Updated General Plan as per GPA No. 960 (GP/GPA960) and the cumulative General Plan as per the additional proposed GPAs through 2009 (CULM GP). It should be noted that the baseline (existing) energy levels listed in the table are theoretical, i.e., based on standardized modeling. The same modeling procedures were used to estimate results for each of the build out scenarios. By controlling these variables, valid comparisons amongst the scenarios are possible.

These data should not be construed as the actual energy usage for a given location, a specific existing use or its future development. Privacy laws protect such information from being publicly released for private properties. Further, specific information is typically provided by the associated utility provider when an implementing development is proposed. Each utility provider has developed its own methods, formulae and factors for projecting future demand, which are neither available nor practicable for calculating for this programmatic EIR. In general, however, where the proposed project is consistent with regional (Southern California Association of Governments [SCAG]) and county growth projections, it is assumed long-range planning undertaken by individual utilities and service providers would be sufficient to meet future needs, since they also reference these same SCAG and county projections.

The results of the energy modeling (electricity and natural gas, the only two energy sources for which sufficient information was available for accurate modeling) for baseline (existing) conditions and the various cumulative build out scenarios are presented in Tables 5.5-O and 5.5-P, respectively. All data represent direct energy usage. Indirect energy uses, such as by water providers, are addressed separately at the regional scale (e.g., see Section 4.7). Because energy use depends on the technology, generation source, service area size and a number of other factors, specific indirect energy use projections are not feasible as part of this programmatic EIR. See Section 4.10.4 for specifics on the assumptions used in these analyses.

Table 5.5-O: Cumulative Effects on Theoretical Electricity Demand General Plan Build Out Scenarios ELECTRICITY DEMAND Existing GPU/ (in MWh/y)1,2 Conditions % CURR GP3 % GPA9603 % CULM GP3 % Residential, Urban/Sub. 751,200 11% 1,709,700 27% 1,823,000 28% 1,881,600 26% Residential, Rural/Agri. 19,200 <1% 351,500 6% 353,500 5% 366,500 5% Residential, Interf./Wild. 42,100 1% 436,300 7% 429,500 7% 432,700 6% RESIDENTIAL - subtotal 812,500 12% 2,497,500 40% 2,606,000 40% 2,680,800 37% Commercial4 3,568,000 54% 1,073,300 17% 1,105,400 17% 1,760,400 24% Industrial4 2,255,500 34% 2,738,400 43% 2,753,100 43% 2,797,300 39% ECONOMIC - subtotal 5,823,500 88% 3,811,700 60% 3,858,500 60% 4,557,700 63% Total 6,636,000 6,309,200 6,464,500 7,238,500 Difference (from EXIST) ------326,800 -5% -171,500 -3% +602,500 +9% Difference (from CURR) ------+155,300 +2% +929,300 +14% Footnotes: 1. MWh/y = megawatt-hours per year (rounded to nearest 100). 2. Electricity Factors: Residential 5,626 kWh/y/du; Commercial 13.20 kWh/y/sf; Industrial 10.50 kWh/y/sf. 3. CURR GP = General Plan as of end of 2008. See Section 5.5.1 for descriptions of each GP scenario. 4. Commercial uses include CR, CO & CT. Industrial uses include HI, LI & BP. Uses too variable for factors omitted. Source: Riverside County Planning Dept., Project Application Data, 2013. Factors from SCAQMD Handbook, 1993.

As shown in Tables 5.5-O and 5.5-P, General Plan build out (of any scenario) will contribute incrementally to the demand for energy resources within Riverside County and result in varying degrees of impacts in order to meet such demand, depending on the size, scope and location of the incremental development proposed. For both the with-project scenario (GPU/GPA960) and the cumulative GPAs scenario (CULM GP), General Plan build out would result in cumulatively considerable increases in demand for both electricity (+21%) and natural gas (+23%) to serve the additional residential units that would result, even though individual increases associated with

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-105

implementing projects over time would be incrementally insignificant. For natural gas, the CULM scenario would also significantly increase incremental demand as a result of additional commercial development.

It should be noted that the theoretical demands estimated in the above tables are based on worst-case (business- as-usual) scenarios that do not take into account any energy efficiency and other conservation standards enacted by the County of Riverside or State of California. As outlined in Section 4.7, implementation of specific building energy-efficiency standards outlined in Riverside County’s proposed Climate Action Plan and other energy-related measures affecting electricity supplies, are documented to reduce 2020 electricity demands by nearly half (48%). A full discussion of these measures, including their relationship to existing and proposed energy conservation efforts of both the State of California and the County of Riverside, is provided in Section 4.7.

Table 5.5-P: Cumulative Effects on Theoretical Natural Gas Demand NATURAL GAS DEMAND Existing General Plan Build Out Scenarios (in kcf/y)1,2 Conditions % CURR GP3 % GPU/ GPA9603 % CULM GP3 % Residential, Urban/Sub. 10,677,400 40% 24,300,400 53% 25,910,400 55% 26,744,600 53% Residential, Rural/Agri. 272,800 1% 4,997,200 11% 5,024,400 11% 5,209,200 10% Residential, Interf./Wild. 599,100 2% 6,200,900 14% 6,104,100 13% 6,149,700 12% RESIDENTIAL - subtotal 11,549,300 43% 35,498,500 78% 37,038,900 78% 38,103,500 76% Commercial4 9,406,400 35% 2,826,500 6% 2,911,600 6% 4,637,500 9% Industrial4 5,928,500 22% 7,198,100 16% 7,236,700 15% 7,352,700 15% ECONOMIC - subtotal 15,334,900 57% 10,024,600 22% 10,148,300 22% 11,990,200 24% Total 26,884,200 100% 45,523,100 100% 47,187,200 100% 50,093,700 100% Difference (from EXIST) ------+18,638,900 +69% +20,303,000 +76% +23,209,500 +86% Difference (from CURR) ------+1,664,100 +4% +4,570,600 +10% Footnotes: 1. kcf/y = thousand cubic feet per year (rounded to nearest 100). 2. Natural Gas Factors: Residential 79,980 cfy/du; Commercial 34.8 cfy/sf; Industrial 27.6 cfy/sf. 3. CURR GP = General Plan as of end of 2008. GPU/GPA960 = Current General Plan as amended per GPA No. 960. CULM GP = Current General Plan as amended per list of active GPAs. See Section 5.5.1 for full descriptions of each. 4. Commercial uses include CR, CO & CT. Industrial uses include HI, LI & BP. Uses too variable for factors omitted. Source: Riverside County Planning Dept., Project Application Data, 2013. Factors from SCAQMD Handbook, 1993.

c. Impacts

Future development will contribute incrementally to cumulative energy demand and impacts on electricity and natural gas infrastructure as Riverside County builds out over time pursuant to the Riverside County General Plan (regardless of scenario). Specific impacts of the severities indicated will include the following:

(1) Cumulatively Considerable Impacts

 Build out of any of the General Plan scenarios will introduce new development and intensify existing development on previously vacant or less-developed lands, incrementally increasing the demand for electricity over time.

 Build out of any of the General Plan scenarios will also introduce new development and intensify existing development on previously vacant or less-developed lands, increasing the demand for natural gas.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-106 Public Review Draft . March 2014

(2) Non-Substantial Incremental Impacts

 As Riverside County builds out pursuant to any of the General Plan scenarios, energy demand increases, additional transmission lines and pipelines for conveying electricity, natural gas, etc., may be necessary to adequately meet energy demands.

 The project (and hence, the GPU/GPA960 scenario) proposes new policies and programs targeting energy efficiency and conservation directly in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by roughly 30% (see EIR Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gases). As a result of implementation of such measures, new development would be more energy-efficient and less wasteful of energy than existing uses or proposed uses without GPA No. 960. Thus, in terms of energy efficiency and conservation, the project would result in incremental net benefits from these additional energy savings.

d. Mitigation

As described in detail in Section 4.10.3, a variety of measures would be implemented to avoid, reduce and minimize adverse cumulative energy resource impacts. These include the following:

(1) Regulatory Compliance

Key Regulations and Programs: See Section 4.10.3 for details on each regulation, as well as Section 4.7.3 for details on energy conservation measures derived from greenhouse gas reduction efforts within Riverside County.

 California Energy Code, Title 24 (CCR Title 24, Part 6): Forms the California Energy Code, (often referred to simply as “Title 24,” for short). Formally titled “California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings.”

 California Green Building Standards Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11): Encompasses the “California Green Building Standards Code.”

 California's Renewables Portfolio Standard (Senate Bill 1078, 2002)

 California’s Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (RETI)

 Riverside County Climate Action Plan (proposed in conjunction with GPA No. 960)

 County Wind Implementation Monitoring Program (WIMP)

 Board of Supervisors (BOS) Policy H-29 (Sustainable Building Policy)

 BOS Policy H-4 (Conservation of Energy in County Facilities)

 County Weatherization Program

 County Low Income Energy Assistance Program

Key General Plan Policies: See Section 4.10.3 for the text of each policy.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-107

 Air Quality Element Policies: AQ 4.1-4.4, 5.2-5.4, 13.1, 18.3-18.5, 19.3, 20.10-20.12, 20.18-20.21 and 20.25-20.28

 Open Space Element Policies: OS 10.1, 10.2, 11.1-11.4, 12.1-12.4 and 16.1-16.14

(2) CEQA Mitigation

The following CEQA mitigation measures (MMs) were adopted as part of certification of EIR No. 441 for the RCIP General Plan in October 2003 and remain applicable to GPA No. 960 and future General Plan implementing projects:

 Existing MM 4.8.1A: The County [of Riverside] 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.

 Existing MM 4.8.1B: The County [of Riverside] 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.

e. Significance

Implementation of all of the above regulations, General Plan policies and mitigation measures, would be sufficient to ensure that all of the incremental (non-substantial) cumulative impacts listed above would be less than significant. In particular, the project’s incremental contribution to energy conservation efforts would be cumulatively beneficial. In terms of increased demand for energy, in particular electricity and natural gas, build out of any of the above General Plan scenarios would result in cumulatively considerable impacts to energy resources.

10. Cumulative Effects on Flood and Dam Inundation Hazards

Section 4.11 (Flood and Dam Inundation Hazards) discusses existing flooding and dam inundation hazards within Riverside County, as well as the sources used (and any updates made to them) for this data. The section also addresses flooding related hazards, such as seiche, mudflow, etc., and analyzes flood hazards that would arise from future development accommodated by the project, GPA No. 960, as well as measures (both regulatory and mitigation) to ensure impacts are less than significant. Thus, areas already covered in Section 4.11 are not repeated here. Hydrology, water quality and storm drainage issues are discussed in Section 4.19 (Water Resources).

Section 4.11 provides a complete description of flood-related hazards affecting Riverside County, as well as analysis of the existing and future flooding risks projected to occur as Riverside County builds out. This data includes Table 4.11-A (Potential Flooding Sources Studied in Riverside County), Table 4.11-B (National Inventory of Dam Data) and Table 4.11-C (Local Flood Risk Management Agencies). It also includes Figure 4.11.1 (100-Year Flood Hazard Zones) and Figure 4.11.2 (Dam Inundation Failure Zones in Riverside County).

a. Existing Conditions

In Riverside County, the three largest drainages of concern for main-stream flooding are the Santa Ana River, San Jacinto River and Whitewater River. In the western portion of Riverside County, the large rivers are dry most of

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-108 Public Review Draft . March 2014

the year and only pose flood threats to developments within the floodplain during general storms of long duration. In the western county, these include the Santa Ana, San Jacinto, San Gorgonio and Santa Margarita Rivers, as well as Temescal and Murrieta Creeks. Lake Elsinore and other lakes, as well as various alluvial fans throughout Riverside County, are also susceptible to flooding, for example Millard Canyon. Major floods along the San Jacinto River resulting from intense rainfall have been shown typically to peak in approximately 1.5 days with a total duration of flooding of four days.

Eastern Riverside County, being marked by extensive desert, does not possess as many major flood-prone drainages; the Whitewater and Colorado Rivers being the two principal ones. Rather, because of the arid climate and extremely porous (sandy) soils, water flows tend to pass rapidly through the region. Tributaries to the major rivers present additional flood hazards, mostly caused by local thunderstorms. Within Coachella Valley, there are many smaller washes that run out of the surrounding mountains and down into the valley floor, in some cases emptying into Whitewater River to the northwest or the Salton Sea to the southeast. The desert areas extending to the east from the Palm Springs area are also susceptible to sheet flow flooding, with flow depths of generally less than 2 feet. These types of flows leave the mouths of canyons and often follow unpredictable paths. Lastly, the desert also contains numerous washes (for example, Morongo Wash) and alluvial fans that are susceptible to flooding.

Additionally, many of the smaller drainages throughout Riverside County, particularly those running through the alluvial fans that flank Riverside County’s hillsides, are susceptible to smaller-scale floods and also flash-flooding. Figure 4.11.1 in Section 4.11 shows the areas of Riverside County considered potentially at risk for flooding based on information from FEMA mapping, plus DWR and County of Riverside data. Key waterbodies are described in Section 4.11.2 and a list of all potential flooding sources studied by FEMA are provided in Table 4.11-A.

b. Future Conditions

Mainstream Flooding and Dam Inundation: Table 5.5-Q (Cumulative 100-Year Floodplain Effects), below, shows the cumulative conditions for the three General Plan build out scenarios examined in this section: Existing (2008) General Plan (CURR GP), the updated General Plan as per GPA No. 960 (GP/GPA960) and the cumulative General Plan as per the additional proposed GPAs through 2009 (CULM GP), as well as GPA No. 960. As outlined in Table 5.5-Q, General Plan build out (regardless of scenario) will contribute incrementally to hazards due to development within areas prone to flooding, dam inundation, seiche, alluvial fan flooding, mudflow and other related conditions. Through the means outlined in Section 4.11.5, future development occurring pursuant to any of the General Plan build out scenarios would incrementally introduce additional people, property, homes, public facilities, roads and other infrastructure into 100-year flood hazard areas.

For build out of the current General Plan, the data indicate that the amount of land proposed for urban and suburban uses situated within the current 100-year floodplain would more than double (increase 126%). Interface/wildland uses proposed within the floodplain would increase even more (nearly 740%) and vacant/open space lands within floodplains would decrease 75% (mainly due to conversion to developed uses). The CULM build out scenario shows similar trends.

Table 5.5-Q: Cumulative 100-Year Floodplain Effects Urban/ Rural/ Interface/ Vacant / Open Public SCENARIO Suburban Agriculture Wildlands Space Facilities Totals EXIST (Existing Uses of Land) In Floodplain2 14,860 79,330 41,620 410,300 7,720 553,830 Outside Floodplain 64,440 285,920 707,000 2,383,390 24,660 3,465,410 Total 79,300 365,250 748,620 2,793,690 32,380 4,019,240

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-109

Urban/ Rural/ Interface/ Vacant / Open Public SCENARIO Suburban Agriculture Wildlands Space Facilities Totals CURR GP (Current1 General Plan Build Out) In Floodplain2 33,520 55,740 349,180 101,410 4,940 544,790 Change from EXISTING +18,660 -23,590 +307,560 -308,890 -2,780 -9,040 Outside Floodplain 64,440 285,920 707,000 2,383,390 24,660 3,465,410 Total 79,300 365,250 748,620 2,793,690 32,380 4,019,240 GPU/GP960 (Updated General Plan with GPA 960 Build Out) In Floodplain2 34,160 55,260 349,750 101,690 5,210 546,070 Change from CURR GP +640 -480 +570 +280 +270 +1,280 Outside Floodplain 74,360 242,550 1,943,210 1,187,240 25,810 3,473,170 Total 108,520 297,810 2,292,960 1,288,930 31,020 4,019,240 CULM GP (Cumulative GP with Additional Proposed GPAs Build Out) In Floodplain2 38,720 53,320 347,100 101,860 5,180 546,180 Change from CURR GP +5,200 -2,420 -2,080 +450 +240 +1,390 Change from EXISTING +23,860 -26,010 +305,480 -308,440 -2,540 -7,650 Outside Floodplain 75,720 249,140 1,945,870 1,177,030 25,300 3,473,060 Total 114,440 302,460 2,292,970 1,278,890 30,480 4,019,240 Footnotes: 1. That is, the General Plan as of end of 2008. 2. Includes updates to floodplain as proposed in GPA No. 960 (see changes described in Section 4.11.4). Source: Riverside County Planning Dept., project application data, 2013. GIS Dept., RCLIS layer, 100-Year Floodplains (updated), 2012.

Since the General Plan build out horizon is approximately 2060, this means that the flooding and inundation risks associated with these areas would increase incrementally over 50 years. If development were allowed to occur in an unregulated fashion, county growth would result in potentially significant impacts. However, per federal, state and county regulations, many types of habitable structures (including homes, schools, etc.) are not allowed in 100- year floodplains. Compliance with these and a variety of other regulations and programs, as described below, would ensure that risks associated with development within 100-year flood hazard and other water hazard areas would be cumulatively less than significant.

Further, in terms of the GPU scenario, which accommodates the changes proposed by the project, Table 5.5-Q indicates that its incremental contributions would be insubstantial (between 1-4% at most) for the various development categories. Thus, the project’s contribution to flooding risks would not be cumulatively considerable.

As detailed in Section 4.11.5, future development within Riverside County (regardless of scenario) also has the potential to incrementally introduce people, property, public facilities, roads and other infrastructure into areas potentially at risk of dam inundation or flooding due to other sources, e.g., failure of a levee or of a debris basin above an alluvial fan. As with 100-year floodplain effects, without measures that reduce flooding risks, this impact would be potentially cumulatively considerable. However, compliance with existing regulations and programs, as described below, would ensure that risks associated with development in dam inundation zones and other areas potentially prone to flooding or inundation hazards due to failure of a flood control facility are less than significant.

Drainage, Runoff and Hydrology Alterations: Future development would result in the incremental alteration of drainage patterns throughout Riverside County that would contribute to cumulative changes in drainage patterns, runoff and hydrological alternations. In addition to direct drainage alterations, temporary ponding or flooding could also result from development activities, reducing the water-carrying capacity of drainages, flood control facilities, storm drains, etc. Such drainage alterations and changes in runoff conditions must be reduced to prevent serious cumulative flooding risks.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-110 Public Review Draft . March 2014

Future development would also result in new land uses that would convert permeable surfaces (such as undisturbed soils and vacant lands) to impermeable surfaces, such as buildings (rooftops), parking lots and roadways. Increased impermeable surfaces would substantially alter the existing drainage patterns by incrementally increasing surface runoff, thereby increasing flooding hazards. Impermeable surfaces and development would also divert natural runoff patterns potentially resulting in flooding. Developed areas where much of the land surface is covered by roads, buildings and other impermeable structures have little capacity to store rainfall. As a result of accelerated runoff from disturbed areas, peak discharge, volume and frequency of floods increases incrementally in nearby streams. To prevent this urban runoff from creating flood hazards, future development must be designed to direct and channel runoff appropriately into storm drain facilities adequately sized to handle expected flows. Such measures are, in fact, included as Conditions of Approval required for implementing projects; see regulatory compliance measures, below.

Seiche: Seiche, a standing wave in a completely or partially enclosed body of water, can in certain circumstances result in inundation (flooding) of areas located along the shoreline of a lake or reservoir. In Riverside County’s semi-arid climate, naturally occurring enclosed water bodies are not common and none have documented seiche risks. For man-made water bodies, such as reservoirs, these are typically built by local municipalities or water districts to provide water service to local residents and businesses. Accordingly, most land around the reservoirs’ shorelines is in public holdings, which restrict private land development and minimize risk of inundation from seiche. Moreover, such public land holdings are not within the jurisdiction of unincorporated Riverside County.

Mudflows and Debris Flows: Unincorporated Riverside County contains many areas with steep slopes and mountainous areas that could be subject to mudflows in the event of large amounts or precipitation. Narrow canyons, arroyos, alluvial fans and desert channels are also susceptible to flashfloods which can cause flooding damage directly or indirectly through mudflows. Areas of proposed land use-related changes with the potential for introducing or intensifying future development will contribute incrementally to increased exposure to mudflow hazards if they are: on or below a steep or unstable slope; within a steep-sided canyon; within an area with flashflood potential; on loose, unconsolidated soils; or in an area denuded of vegetation by recent wildfire, particularly if any of the other factors also occur. Flashflood potential generally exists along any canyon, swale or other low-lying area in which heavy precipitation fall may be channeled rapidly and unexpectedly. Risks to future development as a result of flashflood are minimized through the various regulatory floodplain and drainage flow control measures (as discussed under Impacts 4.11.A, 4.11.B and 4.11.C). In addition, site design and engineering requirements established for 100-year flood hazard management, e.g., under Riverside County Ordinance No. 458, generally provides sufficient measures to ensure the protection of development on alluvial fans.

c. Impacts

Future development accommodated will contribute incrementally to cumulative flooding and inundation impacts as Riverside County builds out over time pursuant to the Riverside County General Plan (regardless of scenario). With the regulatory and mitigation measures proposed (see below), cumulative impacts would be avoided, reduced or minimized to non-substantial levels. Specifically, these impacts will include the following:

 Encroachment into areas of mapped 100-year floods (including some alluvial fans) and other delineated flood hazards areas. Encroaching land uses would incrementally increase the people, structures and property at risk from a flooding event.

 Placement of structures within 100-year flood hazard areas to accommodate future growth can incrementally contribute to the impediment or redirection of flood flows. This could expose existing people, structures and property, as well as those introduced by new development, to increased flooding risks.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-111

 Future development would incrementally increase the structures, including habitable ones, within dam inundation zones, alluvial fan flooding zones and other areas of potential flood hazard. Such development would be at greater risk of flood hazards should a dam, levee debris basin or other critical flood control structure fail.

 Development throughout Riverside County would incrementally alter drainage patterns, streams and river courses. It would also cumulatively increase surface runoff through the introduction of non-permeable surfaces (roofs, pavement, roads, etc.). If not properly managed, this would cause hydrological changes that could expose existing and new people, structures and property to increased flooding risks.

 Future development in areas subject to seiche have the potential to threaten people, structures and property. There is no documented significant potential for seiche in any of the waterbodies within Riverside County. Based on morphology and hydrology, however, two waterbodies in Riverside County (Lake Perris and Lake Elsinore) may have the potential for seismically induced seiche. Thus, future development downstream from or within the seiche flooding zones of these waterbodies may cumulatively increase the number of people and property potentially at risk. However, setbacks and flood hazard area regulations are expected to be sufficient protection against significant risks and thus future development along or near lakes and reservoirs is considered to be at minimal risk.

 Due to its inland location, by definition there are no tsunami risks, cumulative or otherwise, in Riverside County.

 Mudflow or debris flow can occur in areas with steep slopes, particularly areas with loose soils and/or denuded of vegetation (e.g., fire burn areas) when exposed to large amounts of precipitation, and narrow canyons, arroyos and desert channels are also susceptible to flashfloods which can cause flooding damage directly or indirectly through mudflows. Growth within Riverside County will incrementally increase the people and property potentially at risk for mudslide. However, when addressed through the required soil engineering, site design and maintenance, these risks can be maintained at less than significant. d. Mitigation

As described in detail in Section 4.11.3, a variety of measures would be implemented to avoid, reduce and minimize adverse cumulative flooding and inundation impacts. These include the following:

(1) Regulatory Compliance

Key Regulations and Programs: See Section 4.11.3 for details on each regulation.

 FEMA Floodplain National Flood Insurance Program (see Ordinance No. 458)

 Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (Clean Water Act [CWA]) Section 404

 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) per the CWA

 Cobey-Alquist Floodplain Management Act

 Ordinance No. 348 (Regulating Land Use)

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-112 Public Review Draft . March 2014

 Ordinance No. 457 (Adopting and Amending Various Building and Construction Codes)

 Ordinance No. 458 (Regulating Flood Hazard Areas and Implementing the National Flood Insurance Program)

 Ordinance No. 461 (Road Improvement Standards)

 Ordinance No. 659 (Development Impact Fee [DIF] Program)

Key General Plan Policies: See Section 4.11.3 for the text of each policy.

 Safety Element Policies: S 4.1-4.10, 4.12, 4.16-4.22

(2) CEQA Mitigation

The following CEQA mitigation measures were adopted as part of certification of EIR No. 441 for the RCIP General Plan in October 2003 and remain applicable to GPA No. 960 and future General Plan implementing projects:

 Existing MM 4.9.1 A: 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.

 Existing MM 4.9.1 B: Riverside County shall prohibit alteration of floodways and channelization unless alternative methods of flood risk management are found to be technically, economically and practicably infeasible.

 Existing MM 4.9.1 C: 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.

 Existing MM 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.

 Existing MM 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 one foot.

 Existing MM 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.

 Existing MM 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.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-113

 Existing MM 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 may allow development into the floodway fringe.

e. Significance

Implementation of the above regulations, General Plan policies and mitigation measures would be sufficient to ensure that all of the incremental cumulative impacts listed above would be less than significant. As such, the project’s incremental increase in exposure to flooding hazards would not be cumulatively considerable. In total, build out of any of the above General Plan scenarios would result in cumulatively considerable impacts due to flooding hazards, including dam inundation, seiche and mudflow.

11. Cumulative Effects on Geology and Soils

Section 4.12 (Geology and Soils) discusses existing geology, seismicity and soils within Riverside County and also analyzes geological and seismic hazards from future development. Areas already covered in Section 4.12 are not repeated here; see that section for additional details on sources and existing geological setting.

Section 4.12 of this EIR provides a complete description of geological and seismic hazards affecting Riverside County, as well as analysis of the existing and future seismic and geologic risks projected to occur as Riverside County builds out. This data includes Table 4.12-A (Probable Earthquake Scenarios), Table 4.12-B (General Liquefaction Potential Zones), Table 4.12-C (Geology Hazard Areas) and Table 4.12-D (Potential Project Areas Affected by Geological Hazard Areas). It also includes Figure 4.12.1 (Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones), Figure 4.12.2 (Earthquake Probability), Figure 4.12.3 (Liquefaction Zones), Figure 4.12.4 (Steep Slopes), Figure 4.12.5 (Documented Subsidence Areas), Figure 4.12.6 (Wind Erosion Susceptibility Areas) and Figure 4.12.7 (Near- Source Zone Regions, UBC Zone Boundary).

a. Existing Conditions

Seismic Hazards: A variety of geological hazards pose threats in Riverside County, particularly those associated with earthquakes. Seismic activity can cause hazards directly due to fault rupture and, more widely, groundshaking. It can also cause liquefaction or subsidence of soils, rockfall, seiche and more. See Section 4.12.2 for full background on these hazards, including their relative likelihoods for occurrence in the various regions of Riverside County.

Earthquake risk is very high in the heavily populated western portion of Riverside County due to the presence of three of California's most active faults: the San Andreas, the San Jacinto and the Elsinore. Risk is moderate in the eastern portion of Riverside County which includes the Coachella Valley and Blythe. Riverside County is at risk from larger, more damaging earthquakes than the moderate sized, Mw 6.7 Northridge earthquake, which in 1994 caused 54 deaths and $20-$30 billion in damage.

Liquefaction Hazards: Liquefaction is a process by which water-saturated materials (including certain types of soil and sediment) lose strength and may fail during strong groundshaking, potentially resulting in one or more type of ground failure: lateral spread, flow failure, ground oscillation or loss of bearing strength. Areas of Riverside County with soil and hydrological conditions creating susceptibility for liquefaction hazards are depicted in Figure 4.12.3. Also, because there are several faults in Riverside County capable of generating peak ground accelerations of over 0.10 g (that is, acceleration with one-tenth the force of gravity), there is a high potential for seismically-induced rockfall and landslides to occur. Figure 4.12.1 shows areas of steep slopes within Riverside

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-114 Public Review Draft . March 2014

County, which are areas where rockfall hazards are greatest. In addition, Riverside County’s valley regions containing 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.

Ground subsidence can disrupt surface drainage, reduce aquifer system storage, form earth fissures and damage wells, buildings, roads and utility infrastructure. In addition to seismic sources, subsidence and fissuring have also been caused by falling groundwater tables and by hydrocollapse when groundwater tables rise in Riverside County. Figure 4.12.5 depicts areas of documented subsidence and other areas of Riverside County that may be susceptible to subsidence. Subsidence has been documented in three areas of Riverside County: the Elsinore Trough, including Temecula and Murrieta; the San Jacinto Valley from Hemet to Moreno Valley; and the southern Coachella Valley.

Wind Erosion Hazards: Much of Riverside County (approximately 20%) is vulnerable to high or very high wind erosion susceptibility. The Coachella Valley, the Santa Ana River channel and the Hemet region feature zones of high wind erosion susceptibility. See Figure 4.12.6 for wind erosion risks countywide. In particular, windblown sand is a well-recognized hazard for developments in the Coachella Valley. It has even 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.

Other Geological Hazards: In terms of soil erosion, topography and the length and steepness of slopes are crucial to determining the volume and velocity of runoff. As slope’s length or steepness increases, the rate of runoff increases and the potential for erosion is magnified. Heavy or frequent rainfall also plays heavily into soil erosion hazards, particularly in post-burn areas where vegetation is absent.

b. Future Conditions

For future condition related to seismic and geological hazards, Tables 5.5-R, 5.5-S and 5.5-T, below, show cumulative conditions for the three General Plan build out scenarios examined in this section: Existing General Plan (CURR GP), the Updated General Plan as per GPA No. 960 (GPU/GPA960) and the cumulative General Plan as per the additional proposed GPAs through 2009 (CULM GP).

Seismic Hazards: Known and unknown fault zones criss-cross the County of Riverside. Future development within county fault hazard areas and state Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault hazard zones, would increase the potential for property loss, injury or death due to fault rupture. In terms of cumulative earthquake hazards, as measured by fault zone proximity (both county and Alquist-Priolo [state] fault zones), Table 5.5-R (Cumulative Fault Zone Effects) indicates that build out of the existing (current) General Plan will greatly increase (by nearly 200%) the amount of developed uses within the interface/wildland regions, with available open space and vacant land decreasing by nearly half (roughly 48,000 acres). This is consistent with the conclusions in Section 4.12 that show wide swaths of Riverside County lie within regions with the potential for strong groundshaking hazards in the event of a major earthquake, as does much of Southern California.

For General Plan build out with the project (GPU/GP960 scenario), the data indicate that GPA No. 960’s incremental contributions to new development within the fault zones will be negligible (under 3% per development category) compared to that expected for the current General Plan. As such, the project’s cumulative contribution to seismic hazards associated with fault rupture in Riverside County would be less than significant.

For the CULM scenario (build out of the General Plan assuming the project and all GPAs in process through 2009), incremental trends in development increasing in fault zones are generally similar to the GPU scenario.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-115

Development in fault zones would show slight incremental increases (0-4%) for all categories except for the Rural/Agricultural category, which would see roughly a 25% increase in development potential. However, these types of uses accommodate low residential densities and feature large amounts of open land (pastures, farmlands, etc.). In addition, in terms of acreage the incremental increase totals only about 2,300 acres, which is less than 1% of the total rural/agricultural area within unincorporated Riverside County. For this reason, the incremental increase in seismic fault rupture hazards associated with the CULM scenario is not considered cumulatively considerable.

Table 5.5-R: Cumulative Fault Zone Effects LAND USE Urban/ Rural/ Interface/ Vacant / Open Public SCENARIO Suburban Agriculture Wildlands Space Facilities Totals EXIST (Existing Uses of Land) In Fault Zone2 4,830 8,110 20,570 112,090 2,500 148,100 Outside Fault Zone 74,470 357,140 728,050 2,681,600 29,880 3,871,140 Total 79,300 365,250 748,620 2,793,690 32,380 4,019,240 CURR GP (Current1 General Plan Build Out) In Fault Zone2 5,050 8,210 59,600 63,970 690 137,520 Change from EXISTING +220 +100 +39,030 -48,120 -1,810 -10,580 Outside Fault Zone 100,410 289,930 2,246,220 1,215,700 29,460 3,881,720 Total 105,460 298,140 2,305,820 1,279,670 30,150 4,019,240 GPU/GP960 (Updated General Plan with GPA 960 Build Out) In Fault Zone2 5,030 8,420 58,950 64,640 690 137,730 Change from CURR GP -20 +210 -650 +670 0 +210 Outside Fault Zone 103,490 289,390 2,234,020 1,224,290 30,330 3,881,520 Total 108,520 297,810 2,292,970 1,288,930 31,020 4,019,250 CULM GP (Cumulative GP with Additional Proposed GPAs Build Out) In Fault Zone2 5,230 10,370 57,270 63,970 690 137,530 Change from CURR GP +180 +2,160 -2,330 0 0 +10 Change from EXISTING +400 +2,260 +36,700 -48,120 -1,810 -10,570 Outside Fault Zone 109,210 292,090 2,235,700 1,214,920 29,790 3,881,710 Total 114,440 302,460 2,292,970 1,278,890 30,480 4,019,240 Footnotes: 1. Defined as the General Plan as of end of 2008. 2. Includes updates to fault zones as proposed in GPA No. 960 (see changes described in Section 4.12.4). Source: Riverside County Planning Dept., project application data, 2013. GIS Dept., RCLIS layer, fault zones (updated), 2012.

Liquefaction Hazards: The cumulative effects of future development relative to potential liquefaction hazards are analyzed in Table 5.5-S (Cumulative Liquefaction Effects). The data indicate that build out of the current General Plan will continue the trend of development occurring in areas of high to very high liquefaction potential, as valley floors are favored growth areas and also contain sedimentary soils prone to liquefaction. Urban/suburban development in areas of high to very high liquefaction potential will nearly double under the CURR scenario and uses within interface/wildland areas will approach nearly 140% (a nearly 10,000-acre increase). These increases will be offset by decreased vacant/open space uses and also public facilities. Similar trends are reflected in areas of moderate, low and very low liquefaction potential.

For incremental impacts associated with the project, Table 5.5-S indicates that the with-project build out scenario (GPU/GPA960) would see a slight (2%) reduction in development capacity within areas of high to very high liquefaction potential for both urban/suburban uses and rural/agricultural uses, as well as a 5% reduction in public facilities. These reductions are offset by a slight (350-acre, 4%) increase for interface/wildland uses. All together, the incremental increase in liquefaction hazard potential associated with GPA No. 960 is negligible and not cumulatively considerable.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-116 Public Review Draft . March 2014

For the CULM scenario, however, the concentration on increasing urban/suburban development potential means this category would see an increase of nearly 2,000 acres within the high to very high liquefaction hazard potential zones. This increase is offset by a nearly 1,700-acre reduction in acreage for rural/agricultural lands within the same (high-very high) category. Interface/wildlands would see a slight (3%, roughly 300-acre) increase and the remaining two categories would see negligible (30- to 300-acre) increases as well. There is a slight potential for the incremental urban/suburban increases in the high/very high category to be cumulatively considerable. However, adequate geoengineering techniques and requirements can avoid, reduce or minimize such impacts at the implementing project level to ensure they are not cumulatively significant. See mitigation discussion below.

Table 5.5-S: Cumulative Liquefaction Effects Liquefaction Urban / Rural / Interface / Vacant / Open Public Potential Zone1 Suburban Agriculture Wildlands Space Facilities Totals Very High Existing Total 5,140 91,570 4,790 15,260 1,870 118,630 CURR GP2 Total 8,070 89,830 12,850 5,050 460 116,260 GPU/GPA960 Change -80 -180 +230 +550 +70 +590 CULM GP Change +320 -290 +10 +10 +10 +60 High Existing Total 9,140 34,950 2,370 25,090 5,310 76,860 CURR GP2 Total 19,160 32,660 4,150 6,320 4,180 66,470 GPU/GPA960 Change -220 +250 +120 -250 +50 -50 CULM GP Change +1,550 -1,390 +260 +140 +20 +580 High / Very High - subtotal Existing Total 14,280 126,520 7,160 40,350 7,180 195,490 CURR GP2 Total 27,230 122,490 17,000 11,370 4,640 182,730 GPU/GPA960 Change -300 +70 +350 +300 +120 +540 CULM GP Change +1,870 -1,680 +270 +150 +30 +640 Cumulative B/O Total 29,100 120,810 17,270 11,510 4,670 183,370 Change from Exist +14,830 -5,710 +10,110 -28,830 -2,500 -12,100 Moderate Existing Total 25,390 77,480 196,860 1,025,250 15,740 1,340,720 CURR GP2 Total 40,570 66,700 926,410 285,410 10,440 1,329,530 GPU/GPA960 Change +880 -730 +610 -400 +350 +710 CULM GP Change +3,200 -690 -2,540 +220 +180 +370 Low Existing Total 8,290 47,270 73,840 338,820 2,720 470,940 CURR GP2 Total 18,640 38,820 325,510 88,430 3,700 475,100 GPU/GPA960 Change +310 -120 -400 +30 +260 +80 CULM GP Change +2,140 -770 -1,170 +130 +120 +450 Very Low Existing Total 2,770 2,950 2,450 22,060 480 30,710 CURR GP2 Total 3,560 4,460 15,400 4,790 120 28,330 GPU/GPA960 Change +40 -20 -280 +280 +10 +30 CULM GP Change +210 +3,300 -3,530 +10 0 -10 Rest - subtotal Existing Total 36,450 127,700 273,150 1,386,130 18,940 1,842,370 CURR GP2 Total 62,770 109,980 1,267,320 378,630 14,260 1,832,960 GPU/GPA960 Change +1,230 -870 -70 -90 +620 +820 CULM GP Change +5,550 +1,840 -7,240 +360 +300 +810 Cumulative B/O Total 68,330 111,820 1,260,080 379,000 14,550 1,833,780 Change from Exist +31,880 -15,880 +986,930 -1,007,140 -4,380 -8,590 None Mapped Existing Total 28,580 111,030 468,320 1,367,180 6,270 1,981,380 CURR GP2 Total 15,450 65,670 1,021,500 889,670 11,260 2,003,550 GPU/GPA960 Change +2,140 +470 -13,130 +9,030 +130 -1,360

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-117

Liquefaction Urban / Rural / Interface / Vacant / Open Public Potential Zone1 Suburban Agriculture Wildlands Space Facilities Totals CULM GP Change +1,560 +4,160 -5,880 -1,290 0 -1,450 Development Totals at Build Out Existing Total 79,310 365,250 748,630 2,793,660 32,390 4,019,240 CURR GP2 Total 105,450 298,140 2,305,820 1,279,670 30,160 4,019,240 GPU/GPA960 Change +3,070 -330 -12,850 +9,240 +870 0 CULM GP Change +8,980 +4,320 -12,850 -780 +330 0 Cumulative B/O Total 114,440 302,460 2,292,970 1,278,890 30,480 4,019,240 Change from Exist +36,180 -60,340 +1,532,880 -1,507,030 -1,690 0 Footnotes: 1. For criteria used to define liquefaction potential zones, see Table 4.12-B in Section 4.12. 2. Defined as the General Plan as of end of 2008. Source: Riverside County GIS, RCLIS layer (Liquefaction Potential Zones, updated as outlined in Section 4.12) and project application data, 2012.

Wind Erosion Hazards: Lastly, growth pressure within Riverside County will result in development that causes the incremental loss, fragmentation and degeneration of areas of natural blowsand (such as sand dunes, for example) and sandy soils potentially prone to wind erosion regardless of the General Plan build out scenario. It will also result in potential incremental increases in windborne soil erosion when vegetation is removed and soils are disturbed as part of the construction process for buildings, roads and infrastructure.

The cumulative effects of future development relative to potential wind erosions hazards are analyzed in Table 5.5-T (Cumulative Wind Erosion Effects). Of all the build out scenarios, the table indicates that only under the current General Plan will there result in increased development (roughly 1,000 acres) within areas of “very high” wind erosion potential. None of the other scenarios proposes additional development within “very high” hazard areas.

Within areas of “high” erosion potential, build out pursuant to the current General Plan will significantly increase the amount of disturbed areas in Riverside County. Specifically, urban/suburban development will increase over 80%, rural/agricultural uses will increase nearly 10% and development in interface/wildlands will increase nearly 225%. The amount of open and vacant acreage on “high” wind erosion potential soils will correspondingly decrease by 60%. Due to more accurate mapping, the amount of public facility uses within “high” hazard areas will decrease by roughly a third (by nearly 4,000 acres).

For build out of the General Plan with-project (GPU/GPA960 scenario), incremental changes to wind erosion hazards will be negligible. Both urban/suburban and rural/agricultural areas would decrease by roughly 1% and public facility uses would decrease by nearly 10% (330 acres). Within the interface/wildlands, development in “high” wind erosion hazard areas would increase by roughly 1% (roughly 1,200 acres). None of these changes are cumulatively considerable. The only large change for the GPU scenario is the roughly 3,200-acre increase in developed urban/suburban areas at “moderate” wind erosion risk. However, such an increase is not cumulatively significant since the soils’ erosion potential can be adequately mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of various mandatory regulatory and mitigation measures (see below). The CULM build out scenario shows trends similar to that of the GPU scenario. The incremental increases associated with the CULM scenario are similarly less than cumulatively significant.

Table 5.5-T: Cumulative Wind Erosion Effects Urban / Rural / Interface / Vacant / Open Public Wind Erosion Susceptibility Suburban Agriculture Wildlands Space Facilities Totals Very High1 Existing Total 390 10 70 490 40 1,000 CURR GP2 Total 980 30 70 0 0 1,080 GPU/GPA960 Change 0 0 0 0 0 0

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-118 Public Review Draft . March 2014

Urban / Rural / Interface / Vacant / Open Public Wind Erosion Susceptibility Suburban Agriculture Wildlands Space Facilities Totals CULM GP Change 0 0 0 0 0 0 High2 Existing Total 28,910 100,610 97,580 439,950 12,350 679,400 CURR GP2 Total 52,390 108,210 315,940 174,620 8,460 659,620 GPU/GPA960 Change -140 -40 +1,170 -710 +330 +610 CULM GP Change +3,840 -2,720 +250 +290 -50 +1,610 High / Very High - subtotal Existing Total 29,300 100,620 97,650 440,440 12,390 680,400 CURR GP2 Total 53,370 108,240 316,010 174,620 8,460 660,700 GPU/GPA960 Change -140 -40 +1,170 -710 330 +610 CULM GP Change +3,840 -2,720 +250 +290 -50 +1,610 Cumulative B/O Total 57,200 105,520 316,250 174,910 8,410 662,290 Change from Exist +27,910 +4,890 +218,610 -265,530 -3,980 -18,100 Moderate3 Existing Total 48,210 215,480 382,700 1,830,100 19,080 2,495,570 CURR GP2 Total 51,890 185,450 1,508,740 693,850 17,430 2,457,360 GPU/GPA960 Change +3,190 -300 -14,290 +11,390 +530 +520 CULM GP Change +5,130 +7,020 -13,060 +360 +390 -160 Low4 Existing Total 1,740 48,870 267,890 523,910 870 843,280 CURR GP2 Total 210 4,360 480,920 411,630 4,070 901,190 GPU/GPA960 Change 0 0 +280 -1,420 +10 -1,130 CULM GP Change +10 0 -20 -1,440 0 -1,450 Moderate / Low - subtotal Existing Total 49,950 264,350 650,590 2,354,010 19,950 3,338,850 CURR GP2 Total 52,100 189,810 1,989,660 1,105,480 21,500 3,358,550 GPU/GPA960 Change +3,190 -300 -14,010 +9,970 +540 -610 CULM GP Change +5,140 +7,020 -13,080 -1,080 +390 -1,610 Cumulative B/O Total 57,240 196,840 1,976,580 1,104,410 21,890 3,356,950 Change from Exist +7,280 -67,520 +1,326,000 -1,249,600 +1,940 +18,100 Development Totals at Build Out Existing Total 79,250 364,970 748,240 2,794,450 32,340 4,019,250 CURR GP2 Total 105,470 298,050 2,305,670 1,280,100 29,960 4,019,250 GPU/GPA960 Change +3,050 -340 -12,840 +9,260 +870 0 CULM GP Change +8,980 +4,300 -12,830 -790 +340 0 Cumulative B/O Total 114,440 302,357 2,292,834 1,279,314 30,295 4,019,240 Change from Exist +35,190 -62,630 +1,544,610 -1,515,130 -2,040 0 Footnotes: 1. For criteria used to define susceptibility categories, see Figure 4.12.6 in Section 4.12. 2. Defined as the General Plan as of end of 2008. Source: Riverside County GIS, RCLIS layer (Wind Erosion Potential Zones, updated as outlined in Section 4.12) and project application data, 2012.

Other Geological Hazards: For technical reasons (the sheer size of compiled topographic data that comprises Riverside County’s steep slope data), it was not possible to perform a cumulative analysis for rockfall hazards. Section 4.12.6 provides a programmatic response for avoiding, reducing or minimizing rockfall hazards to the extent feasible. However, as outlined in Section 4.12.6, it cannot be ascertained at the countywide scale if such measures would be sufficient to fully reduce rockfall hazards to less than significant levels. For this reason, the project’s incremental contributions to future development in areas potentially at risk for rockfall, mudslide and other slope-related geological hazards must be considered cumulatively considerable.

In terms of development on unstable geologic units and soils, as well as expansive soils, future growth may incrementally increase the potential for structure damage or interruption of utility service (through disruption of the facility). However, such impacts are not considered cumulatively considerable since the regulatory compliance

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-119

measures identified below would ensure that impacts are avoided, reduce or minimized to less than significant levels. Cumulative impacts to subsurface sewer services would be similarly avoided, reduced or minimized to less than significant levels as well. c. Impacts

Future development accommodated will contribute incrementally to cumulative geology and soil impacts as Riverside County builds out over time pursuant to the Riverside County General Plan (regardless of scenario). Specific impacts of the severities indicated will include the following:

(1) Cumulatively Considerable Impacts

 Like all of Southern California, Riverside County has experienced and will continue to face groundshaking resulting from activity on local and regional faults. Thus, future development of any of the General Plan build out scenarios will incrementally increase the number of people and structures at risk of injury, death or property loss due to substantial strong seismic groundshaking.

 Landslides and rockfall can occur throughout Riverside County as a result of seismic activity and other natural processes, as well as resulting from human activity. Accordingly, future development of any of the General Plan build out scenarios will incrementally increase the number of people and structures at risk of injury, death or property loss due to substantial landslide or rockfall effects.

(2) Non-Substantial Incremental Impacts

For the risk outlined below, mandatory regulatory and/or mitigation measures (as listed below) will be sufficient to ensure adverse impacts are mitigated to cumulatively insignificant levels.

 Future development as the General Plan builds out (per any of the scenarios) will increase the potential for property loss, injury or death resulting from development where it occurs on or adjacent to known or as of yet undetected earthquake fault zones. This will incrementally expose people and structures to adverse effects due to rupture of a known earthquake fault. This risk, however, will be mitigated through compliance with various regulatory measures, including the prohibition on building on or adjacent to active faults.

 Portions of unincorporated Riverside County are susceptible to liquefaction, a destructive secondary effect of strong seismic shaking. This will incrementally expose people and structures to adverse effects due to seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction.

 Areas potentially subject to soil erosion or topsoil loss will be incrementally exposed during future development activities as the General Plan (any scenario) builds out. Wind and water are the two biggest factors causing soil erosion, particularly where human activities have removed vegetation or otherwise disturbed the underlying soil.

 Unstable geological units and soils occur throughout Riverside County. Both natural and human activities have the potential to cause geologic instability. If improperly engineered or constructed, some types of development, particularly those involving heavy loads (concrete dams, for example) or affecting subsurface water levels (e.g., groundwater pumping or replenishment facilities), have an increased potential to cause ground or soil failures. Accordingly, future development resulting from General Plan

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-120 Public Review Draft . March 2014

build out (of any scenario) would incrementally increase the potential for landslides, liquefaction, lateral spreading and subsidence as a result of placement on unstable geological units or soils.

 Expansive soils are widely distributed throughout Riverside County. Thus, any future development may incrementally increase the potential for the placement of structures and facilities in areas susceptible to damage resulting from expansive soils.

 Future development in areas outside of existing water and sewer service providers has the potentially to incrementally increase the number of structures and facilities in areas where soils are incapable of adequately supporting septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Regulations are in-place to ensure this does not result in development on soils incapable of supporting septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems. (Development cannot be approved by the County of Riverside if sufficient waste disposal systems cannot be provided.)

d. Mitigation

As described in detail in Section 4.12.3, a variety of measures would be implemented to avoid, reduce and minimize adverse cumulative geological impacts. These include the following:

(1) Regulatory Compliance

Key Regulations and Programs: See Section 4.12.3 for details on each regulation.

 Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (Clean Water Act)

 California Building Standards Codes, Title 24 and Section 1613

 California Building Standards Codes, Part 2, Chapters 18 and 18A (Soils and Foundations), Chapters 16 and 16A (Structural Design) and Chapters 17 and 17A (Structural Tests and Special Inspections)

 Riverside County Municipal Code Chapter 15.60 (Earthquake Fault Area Construction Regulations)

 Ordinance No. 547 (Implementing the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act)

 Ordinance No. 484 (Blowing Sand Control)

Key General Plan Policies: See Section 4.12.2 for the text of each policy.

 Safety Element Policies: S 2.1 - 2.8, 3.1 - 3.11, 3.13, 3.14, 7.7, 7.8, 7.11

(2) CEQA Mitigation

Existing Mitigation Measures (MMs): In EIR No. 441, which was certified for the 2003 RCIP General Plan, it was determined that mitigation would be necessary in order to reduce certain impacts associated with seismic groundshaking, fault rupture, soil and wind erosion, and topsoil loss. The mitigation measures listed below are from EIR No. 441 and remain applicable to GPA No. 960 and future General Plan implementing projects.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-121

 Existing MM 4.10.1A: Before a project is approved or otherwise permitted within an Alquist-Priolo Zone, County Fault Zone, within 150 feet of any other active or potentially active fault mapped in a published United States Geologic Survey (USGS) or CGS reports, or within other potential earthquake hazard area (as determined by the [Riverside] County Geologist), a site-specific geologic investigation shall be prepared to assess potential seismic hazards resulting from development of the project site. 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 [Riverside] 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 presented to and accepted by the [Riverside] County Geologist.

 Existing MM 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), [Riverside] 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.

 Existing MM 4.10.2B: As determined by the [Riverside] County Geologist, a site-specific assessment shall be prepared to ascertain potential groundshaking impacts resulting from development. The site- specific groundshaking 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 [existing EIR No. 441] Mitigation Measure 4.10.1A. The site-specific groundshaking assessment shall include specific measures to reduce the significance of potential groundshaking hazards. This site- specific groundshaking assessment shall be prepared by a licensed geologist and shall be submitted to the [Riverside] County Geologist for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.

 Existing MM 4.10.2C: The standards stated in [existing EIR No. 441] Mitigation Measures 4.10.2A and 4.10.2B shall apply to any structure of facility that undergoes expansion, remodeling, renovation, refurbishment or other modification.

 Existing MM 4.10.3A: As determined by the [Riverside] 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 [existing EIR No. 441] Mitigation Measure 4.10.1A. This site-specific groundshaking assessment shall be prepared by a licensed geologist and shall be submitted to the [Riverside] County Geologist for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.

 Existing MM 4.10.3B: Where development is proposed within an identified or potential liquefaction hazard area (as determined by the [Riverside] 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

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-122 Public Review Draft . March 2014

such measures shall be submitted to the Riverside County Geologist and the [Riverside] County Department of Building and Safety for review prior to the approval of the building permits.

 Existing MM 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 [California] Building Code related to the construction of structures and facilities on expansive soils.

 Existing MM 4.10.8A: New development within identified or potential (as determined by the [Riverside] County Geologist) wind hazard areas shall adhere to applicable provisions of Riverside County Ordinance No. 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 [Riverside] 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.

 Existing MM 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.

 Existing MM 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 [of Riverside], 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 [of Riverside] for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits.

 Existing MM 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:

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-123

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 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.

e. Significance

The analysis above indicates that future development consistent with any of the General Plan build out analyzed, including the proposed project (GPA No. 960), would contribute mostly non-substantially to incremental impacts related to geology, seismicity and soils. Implementation of existing regulations, General Plan policies and CEQA mitigation measures would reduce potential incremental effects of fault rupture hazards, groundshaking, liquefaction, landslides and rockfall, seismically induced settlement, subsidence and collapsible soils, soil erosion and loss of topsoil are either avoided or minimized to less than significant levels. Compliance with existing laws would also ensure structures, people and property are protected from cumulative geologic hazards through engineering designed according to the applicable seismic and geological risks or that development is not permitted where such risks are excessive (i.e., higher than typical for the given area or geology) and cannot be avoided.

However, even with mitigation, the project would contribute substantially to significant cumulative impacts stemming from growth leading to the potential exposure of additional people and structures to substantial strong seismic groundshaking and also to substantial adverse effects due to landslide or rockfall. Build out of the cumulative General Plan scenario would do likewise. Due to the inherently growth-inducing and growth- accommodating nature of a General Plan, there is no feasible mitigation that will fully reduce these cumulative impacts to below the level of significance, although mitigation to address these hazards is included herein. Thus, even though project effects would be individually limited, GPA No. 960’s incremental contribution to cumulative groundshaking and landslide/rockfall hazards would be significant and unavoidable.

12. Cumulative Effects on Hazardous Materials and Safety

Section 4.13 (Hazardous Materials and Safety) discusses existing risks from hazardous materials, wildfires, air travel and other hazards in Riverside County, as well as the sources and updates used. It also analyzes safety hazards from future development accommodated by the project, GPA No. 960, as well as the mitigation (through regulatory compliance) necessary to ensure impacts are less than significant. Areas already covered in Section 4.13 are not repeated here; see that section directly for additional resource details.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-124 Public Review Draft . March 2014

Section 4.13 provides a complete description of the safety hazards and hazardous material risks affecting Riverside County, as well as analysis of the existing and future risks projected to occur as Riverside County builds out. This data includes Table 4.13-A (Major Hazardous Material Sites in Riverside County), Table 4.13-B (Airport Compatibility Zone Safety and Airspace Protection Factors), Table 4.13-C (Air Facilities In and Around Riverside County), Table 4.13-D (Largest Fires in California Over the Past Decade), Table 4.13-E (California State Jurisdiction Wildfire Statistics for 2000-2010), Table 4.13-F (Housing Density Classes for Defining Types of Fire Hazard Lands) and Table 4.13-G (Minimum Fire Protection Flows).

It also includes Figure 4.13.1 (Location of Major Hazardous Materials Sites), Figure 4.13.2 (Location of Public Airports), Figure 4.13.3 (Military Airspace Over Riverside County), Figure 4.13.4 (Military Training Airspace and Training Routes Over Riverside County), Figure 4.13.5 (Weapon, Laser and Surface Danger Safety Zones at CMAGR), Figure 4.13.6 (Fire Responsibility Areas) and Figure 4.13.7 (Fire Hazard Severity Zones).

a. Existing Conditions

Hazardous Materials: Federal and state databases indicate 36 major sites of hazmat contamination in Riverside County; i.e., federal Superfund or National Priorities List (NPL), State Response or Cortese List sites. See Figure 4.13.1 and Table 4.13-A for locations and descriptions for each of these major sites. By category, Riverside County contains four “Superfund” or federally listed hazmat sites, 26 “State Response” sites and 19 contaminated sites on the “Cortese List” (some of these sites overlap lists). In addition, information from the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health (DEH) and Planning Department indicates there are nearly 9,000 individual sites in Riverside County permitted to transport, generate, handle or dispose of hazardous materials. According to state records, there are also 15 voluntary cleanup sites, 14 school cleanup sites, 12 corrective action sites and 21 tiered-permit sites, although some of these include the 36 sites identified above.

See Section 4.13 for more information on all of the various sources of existing hazardous materials and sites of potential contamination, such as LUSTs (Leaking Underground Storage Tanks) tracked by the State of California, hazardous waste generators (which also require permits from the state) and military sites (home to both past contaminations and current/on-going use of hazardous materials, particularly fuels and other petroleum products). For military sites, including closed facilities, the most significant hazardous material potentially found on or near these facilities is unexploded ordnance (e.g., bombs). Major medical facilities in Riverside County, such as Riverside County Regional Medical Center and over 20 others, also generate a variety of hazardous substances in the form of “medical wastes,” which may also be biohazardous.

There are currently seven active landfills within the unincorporated Riverside County; six operated by the Riverside County Waste Management Department and one (El Sobrante) privately owned and operated. All of the landfills currently located in Riverside County are Class III landfills and accept only nonhazardous solid waste. Hazardous waste generated within Riverside County must be disposed of in Kern County or Santa Barbara County, which have active Class I landfills.

Rail and highway transportation routes, and the varied industries that use them, create the potential for hazardous materials incidents within Riverside County. Although incidents can happen almost anywhere, certain areas of Riverside County are at higher risk for inadvertent release of hazardous materials. Locations near freeways and roadways that are frequently used for transporting hazardous materials (e.g., SR-91, I-15) and locations near industrial facilities that use, store or dispose of these materials all have an increased potential for a release incident, as do locations along the county’s freight railways. The amount of hazardous materials transported over county roadways on a daily basis is unknown, but is estimated to be steadily increasing due to the growth of overall traffic and industry in Riverside County. In addition to the accidental release of gasoline, diesel, oil and

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-125

other automotive products during vehicle collisions, the transport of hazardous materials on highways within Riverside County presents a risk of upset and/or release of these substances.

There are also many rail lines running through Riverside County, which often carry hazardous cargoes. Major rail lines which cross Riverside County are shown in Section 4.18 (Transportation and Traffic). The most common hazardous material incidents involving rail transport are due to train wrecks and derailments. And, not to be overlooked as a potential source of hazardous materials, particularly petroleum-based ones, are Riverside County’s public airports and private fields and airstrips. Even with stringent federal regulations on hazardous materials, accidents still occur. The types of incidents most commonly occurring at airports in Riverside County are illegal disposal of hazardous materials, fuel spills and leaking underground storage tanks; that is, activities related to aircraft and airport maintenance, rather than air transport.

Riverside County is also home to an extensive network of pipeline distribution systems, including a jet fuel (JP-8) line and three high-pressure natural gas transmission pipelines. All areas with natural gas pipelines are at risk for potential pipeline failure and gas-release hazards. Petroleum products are also stored and distributed at many major points throughout Riverside County.

Airports and Aircraft Hazards: Hazards associated with air travel, such as accidents and mishaps during flight can technically occur at any point along a plane’s flight path, which can span thousands of miles. The locations most likely to experience air hazards are those closest to airport runways because statistically takeoff and landing are the most common points of mishap during air flight. Airport master plans and airport land use compatibility plans are designed to keep people and property out of the most dangerous portions of the runways and ensure that land uses permitted in proximity to the airport are compatible with the air hazards.

The western part of Riverside County has some of the busiest air traffic in the United States, including very heavy commercial, as well as military, air traffic. The airspace in Riverside County is constantly occupied by aircraft arriving and departing from other airports in the region. The number of near misses reported by pilots underscores the increasing possibility of a mid-air collision over Riverside County. Accordingly, the use of airspace and aircraft overflight represents a remote hazard to many portions of Riverside County. There are also two major airports in Riverside County, March Joint Air Reserve Base (MARB) and Palm Springs International, a military air bombing range (the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range), 13 smaller public commercial airports and dozens of private airstrips; see Table 4.13-C.

A variety of military airspace uses can lead to conflicts between military and civilian aircraft if an error is made by one or more pilots, mechanical failure, etc. As a result, there is a very small risk of accident for the thousands of people and properties on the ground below these routes. To prevent conflicts, MOAs (“military operations areas”) segregate certain non-hazardous military activities from civilian and commercial air traffic. Areas above military bases, near actual combat or other military emergencies are generally designated as “restricted airspace.” MOAs in Southern California, including portions of eastern Riverside County, are shown in Figure 4.13.3 and a number of “military training routes” (MTRs), which link the various facilities of the Bob Stump Complex, as well as providing routes across the country and overlie Riverside County are shown in Figure 4.13.4.

Wildland Fire Hazards: In California, wildfire and, in particular, wildland-urban interface fires, represent the third-most destructive source of hazard, vulnerability and risk. As people and development encroach further into wildlands, these fire risks increase. In addition, increasingly dry years due to climate change, plus insect predation and other factors led to record amounts of dead and dying vegetation accumulating in the state’s wildlands, further exacerbating fire hazards. As the urban environment extends into open areas, fires in wildland-urban interfaces present unique challenges due to the complex mixture of fuels, properties and threats. According to

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-126 Public Review Draft . March 2014

the California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (MHMP), California experiences an average of 5,000 wildland/urban interface (WUI) fires each year.

Compared to historic fire regimes, many mixed-conifer forests in California now experience more intense and severe fires. The state’s chaparral shrublands also now burn more frequently. Both trends can be traced back to the prior century of fire exclusion and rigorous suppression, which has led to these altered regimes. This trend is particularly acute in Southern California where burgeoning population growth in fire-prone areas has resulted in increased ignitions through accident or arson. As a result, this has contributed to the conversion of much of the original sage scrub habitats, particularly in flatlands and low hills, to non-native grasslands and ruderal (weedy) fields. Overall, much of Riverside County is considered to have a moderate to high potential for wildland fires according to CalFire. See Section 4.13.3 for details on each of the habitat types and their relative fire hazards for Riverside County.

To ensure adequate coverage across numerous jurisdictions, the state organizes lands into three basic categories according to the agency fiscally responsible for fire response: Federal Responsibility Areas (FRAs), State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) and Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs). See Section 4.13.3.C for specifics on each. As shown in Figure 4.13.6, in Riverside County SRAs (under CalFire jurisdiction) comprise the largest portion of unincorporated territory, over 544,000 acres. LRAs under CalFire are associated mostly with the cities (plus over 13,000 acres in unincorporated areas), and there are large swaths of FRAs within Riverside County as well (nearly 53,000 acres under BLM jurisdiction and over 62,000 acres under the U.S. Forest Service).

CalFire also designates fire hazard severity zones (FHSZs), which are “geographical areas classified as Very High, High or Moderate in State Responsibility Zones or as Local Agency Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones” pursuant to the California Fire Code. These zones are used to determine the appropriate construction materials for new buildings within WUI areas. Specifically, the regulations of the California Building Code (CBC) Chapter 7A (as amended via County Ordinance No. 787) are mandatory in SRA FHSZs and LRA very high FHSZ areas. Much of the hilly portions of unincorporated Riverside County have substantial fire risks and are designated as SRAs with moderate, high or very high fire hazard. See Figure 4.13.7.

The County of Riverside contracts with the State of California (i.e., CalFire) for fire protection. Under CalFire management, the Riverside County Fire Department (RCOFD) operates 95 fire stations in 17 battalions. Fifty- one of these stations, as well as three stations operated directly by CalFire, are located in the unincorporated portion of Riverside County (see Table 4.17.2-A in Section 4.17.2 for full details).

b. Future Conditions

Table 5.5-U (Cumulative Fire Responsibility Area Effects), below, shows the cumulative conditions for the three General Plan build out scenarios examined in this section: Existing General Plan (CURR GP), the Updated General Plan as per GPA No. 960 (GP/GPA960) and the cumulative General Plan as per the additional proposed GPAs through 2009 (CULM GP). Only cumulative fire hazards are examined quantitatively. The spatial data associated with the other types of hazards in this section, most notably hazardous materials and air hazards, do not readily lend themselves to this type of analysis. They are instead approached programmatically for cumulative impacts within Riverside County.

Hazardous Materials: With the extensive distribution of hazmat sites throughout Riverside County, some of the future development will occur near sites or facilities where hazardous materials are present, regardless of the General Plan build out scenario. However, due to prohibitions on development (and/or strict remediation requirements) for contaminated sites, the incremental effects would not be cumulatively considerable for any of the scenarios.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-127

Effects from the accidental release of a hazardous material into the environment could have serious consequences on the environment, property and human health depending upon the size, location, type and quantity of the release. However, hazardous material uses, siting, transport and disposal are subject to extensive federal and state regulation and permit requirements. These measures ensure that risks are minimized, regardless of location. Thus, build out of Riverside County, regardless of General Plan scenario, would not result in cumulatively considerable hazardous material effects due to accidental release.

Airports and Aircraft Hazards: For any of the General Plan build out scenarios, population growth in Riverside County would create incremental increases in demand for air transportation. At the same time, growth and urbanization would also introduce incompatible land uses, people and property into airports’ vicinities. To ensure incremental effects of encroachment on existing and future air operations are not cumulatively significant, the State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code section 21670 et seq.) requires the adoption of airport land use compatibility plans by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). These plans ensure that existing and future land uses planned around public use airports are compatible and safe through a variety of limits, restrictions (e.g., on building heights, hazardous material use or storage, sensitive uses, etc.) and other land use requirements.

Wildland Fire Hazards: Future development occurring as the General Plan builds out will result in an increase in the people, property and infrastructure needing fire protection and potentially at risk of wildfire threat. The data in Table 5.5-U show the cumulative effects of scenario build out on the various Fire Responsibility Areas within Riverside County. In addition to reflecting increased uses exposed to fire hazards, the future uses indicated also reflect the amount of increased demand for (and wear-and-tear on) the various fire agencies, equipment and personnel providing the needed fire services. See Section 4.17.2 (Public Services - Fire Protection) for specifics on fire departments, staffing, etc., and Section 5.5.16 for cumulative effects on fire services.

Per Table 5.5-U, growth pressures within Riverside County will result in increased urban, suburban and rural development. Under the existing General Plan (CURR GP scenario), build out will greatly increase the amount of developed uses within the State Responsibility Area (SRA); from roughly 150,000 acres to over 520,000 acres. Interface/wildland areas, typically at greatest risk for wildfires due to adjacent and interspersed open vegetation, account for nearly 350,000 acres of this increase alone. Similar increases would also occur within Local Responsibility Areas as well under the CURR GP scenario. As such, build out of the existing General Plan (CRR GP) would result in cumulatively considerable increases wildfire hazards within Riverside County.

Build out according to the General Plan with GPA No. 960 (i.e., the GPU/GPA960 scenario) would reduce the amount of developed uses allowed within interface/wildland areas (by over 15,000 acres) and increase the amount of vacant and open space land. These changes, however, would be offset by increased development of urban/suburban and public facility uses in SRAs and LRAs. The incremental contributions of each of these increases are individually minor. However, given the significant wildland fire hazards already associated with General Plan build out, even these increases would be cumulatively considerable.

For the CULM scenario (General Plan plus proposed GPAs), both SRAs and LRAs would see even greater increases in developed uses. This is particularly true of rural/agricultural uses in SRAs and urban/suburban uses in LRAs. Interface/wildland uses would actually decrease under the CULM scenario. However, nearly all of the acreage decreased would instead be converted to urban/ suburban or rural/agricultural uses and thus would substantially reduce cumulative impacts. Thus, overall, the CULM General Plan build out scenario would also result in incremental increases in fire hazard potential that are individually minor but cumulatively considerable.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-128 Public Review Draft . March 2014

Table 5.5-U: Cumulative Fire Responsibility Area Effects Fire Responsibility Area Urban / Rural / Interface / Vacant / Open Public Category Suburban Agriculture Wildlands Space Facilities Totals State Responsibility Area (SRA) Existing Total 26,170 55,080 62,590 500,410 7,590 651,840 CURR GP* Total 20,660 85,050 407,650 141,250 8,700 663,310 GPU/GPA960 Change +2,660 +380 -15170 +11,470 +650 -10 CULM GP Change +1,490 +8,070 -9760 +240 -40 0 Local Responsibility Area (LRA) Existing Total 39,450 178,070 32,970 427,690 15,370 693,550 CURR GP Total 83,050 187,330 331,560 91,210 15,690 708,840 GPU/GPA960 Change +450 -810 +2,130 -880 +160 +1,050 CULM GP Change +6,700 -3870 -3360 +290 +380 +140 SRA & LRA - subtotal Existing Total 65,620 233,150 95,560 928,100 22,960 1,345,390 CURR GP Total 103,710 272,380 739,210 232,460 24,390 1,372,150 GPU/GPA960 Change +3,110 -430 -13,040 +10,590 +810 +1,040 CULM GP Change +8,190 +4,200 -13,120 +530 +340 +140 Cumulative B/O Total 111,900 276,580 726,090 232,990 24,730 1,372,290 Change from Exist +46,280 +43,430 +630,530 -695,110 +1,770 +26,900 Federal Responsibility Area (FRA) Existing Total 11,880 122,260 652,040 1,783,560 5,080 2,574,820 CURR GP Total 510 23,000 1,540,620 928,710 2,360 2,495,200 GPU/GPA960 Change 0 +160 -30 +210 +20 +360 CULM GP Change 0 +80 -60 -20 0 0 None Existing Total 1,790 9,890 1,200 81,800 4,350 99,030 CURR GP Total 1,260 2,770 26,420 118,050 3,390 151,890 GPU/GPA960 Change -70 -70 +220 -1,520 +40 -1,400 CULM GP Change +790 +30 +340 -1,300 0 -140 FRA & None - subtotal Existing Total 13,670 132,150 653,240 1,865,360 9,430 2,673,850 CURR GP Total 1,770 25,770 1,567,040 1,046,760 5,750 2,647,090 GPU/GPA960 Change -70 +90 +190 -1,310 +60 -1,040 CULM GP Change +790 +110 +280 -1,320 0 -140 Cumulative B/O Total 2,560 25,880 1,567,320 1,045,440 5,750 2,646,950 Change from Exist -11,110 -106,270 +914,080 -819,920 -3,680 -26,900 Development Totals at Build Out Existing Total 79,290 365,300 748,800 2,793,460 32,390 4,019,240 CURR GP Total 105,480 298,150 2,306,250 1,279,220 30,140 4,019,240 GPU/GPA960 Change +3,040 -340 -12,850 +9,280 +870 0 CULM GP Change +8,980 +4,310 -12,840 -790 +340 0 Cumulative B/O Total 114,460 302,460 2,293,410 1,278,430 30,480 4,019,240 Change from Exist +35,170 -62,840 +1,544,610 -1,515,030 -1,910 0 * “Current General Plan” defined for these purposes as the General Plan as amended through the end of 2008. Source: Riverside County GIS, RCLIS layer (Fire Responsibility Areas, updated per CalFire 2007-2008 data, as outlined in section 4.13) and project application data, 2012. c. Impacts

Future development will contribute incrementally to cumulative impacts related to hazardous materials, wildfires, air travel and other safety hazards as Riverside County builds out over time pursuant to the County General Plan (regardless of scenario). Specific impacts of the severities indicated will include the following:

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-129

(1) Cumulatively Considerable Impacts

 Build out of Riverside County would result in development in previously undisturbed areas, including some with high or very-high fire hazards, particularly rural mountainous areas. This would increase the people, property and structures potentially exposed to wildland fire hazards, particularly within the expanding urban-wildland interface areas within Riverside County. Additionally, there is the potential for an increase in the occurrence of fires, particularly in urban-wildland interface areas, due to increasing human encroachment. See discussion under Impact 4.13.H. The incremental effect of growth within Riverside County would result in cumulatively considerable fire hazard increases regardless of the General Plan build out scenario, including the future growth associated with the project, GPA No. 960.

(2) Non-Substantial Incremental Impacts

 Future development would introduce more people, property and structures to potential hazards as a result of the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, for example through toxic spills or other contamination events.

 Growth would increase the use, transport and disposal of hazardous substances, increasing the risk of accidental release of hazardous materials, e.g., during transport or through accidental explosion or other accidental means.

 Future development would also increase the potential for hazardous emissions or related hazards within one-quarter mile of a school; both by increasing use of hazardous substances near existing schools and by introducing new schools potentially into proximity of hazardous materials.

 Similarly, future development would also increase the potential for hazards due to development on or near a site on the State of California’s Cortese List of contaminated sites, leaking underground storage tanks, hazardous waste sites, etc.

 Future development would introduce more people, property and structures to potential hazards as a result of their proximity (generally within 2 miles) to public use airports, as well as private air facilities, heliports, military air bases, etc.

 Future development would result in more people and their vehicles needing to evacuate an area in the event of an emergency, particularly for wildfires. This additional traffic could hinder emergency response plans for public safety personnel and equipment in a disaster or emergency. d. Mitigation

As described in detail in Section 4.13.3, a variety of measures would be implemented to avoid, reduce and minimize adverse cumulative hazardous material and safety impacts. These include the following:

(1) Regulatory Compliance

Key Regulations and Programs: See Section 4.13.3 for details on each regulation.

 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-130 Public Review Draft . March 2014

 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

 Hazardous Materials Transportation Act

 California Emergency Services Act

 Statewide Standardized Emergency Management System

 Hazardous Waste Control Law

 Riverside County Fire Protection Master Plan

 Ordinance No. 269 – Height Limits of Structures within Certain Distances of March Field

 Ordinance No. 348 - Regulating Land Use

 Ordinance No. 448 - Airport Operations

 Ordinance No. 576 - Regulating County Airports

 Ordinance No. 615 – Hazardous Waste Storage, Treatment and Recycling

 Ordinance No. 617 – Underground Storage Tanks Containing Hazardous Substances

 Ordinance No. 651 – Disclosure of Hazardous Materials and Emergency Response

 Ordinance No. 695 - Abatement and Notices for Hazardous Vegetation

 Ordinance No. 718 - Regulating Medical Wastes

 Ordinance No. 787 - Fire Code Standards

Key General Plan Policies: See Section 4.13.3 for the text of each policy.

 Safety Policies: S 5.1 - 5.21, 6.1, 7.1 - 7.3, 7.6, 7.9 and 7.14

 Land Use Policies: LU 1.8, 5.1, 7.8, 7.9, 10.1, 15.1 - 15.9 and 31.2

e. Significance

The analysis above indicates that future development consistent with any of the General Plan build out scenarios analyzed, including the proposed project (GPA No. 960), would contribute mostly non-substantially to incremental impacts related to hazardous materials and safety issues. Non-substantial cumulative impacts associated with GPA No. 960 include: use, storage and transport of hazardous materials, accidental release of hazardous materials, hazardous emissions near schools and effects from existing site contamination, as well as safety hazards for people within two miles of a public or public-use airport, private airstrip or heliport.

Even with mitigation, however, the project would contribute substantially to significant cumulative impacts due to increased people and property in areas at risk for high or very high fire hazards, particularly within interface/

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-131

wildland areas. Build out of the cumulative General Plan scenario would do likewise. Due to the vast expanse covered by Riverside County, the wide variety of potential fire sources and fuels, and the sheer number of people and properties involved, even with the reduction of individual implementing projects to less than significant levels, the wildfire risk within Riverside County overall would remain cumulatively considerable for all of the General Plan build out scenarios. There is no feasible mitigation that would fully reduce these cumulative impacts to below the level of significance. Thus, even though project effects would be individually limited, GPA No. 960’s incremental contribution to cumulative housing and population impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Build out of the cumulative General Plan scenario would also result in significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts to population and housing within Riverside County.

13. Cumulative Effects on Mineral Resources

Section 4.14 (Mineral Resources) discusses existing mineral resources in Riverside County, as well as the sources (and any updates) used. It also analyzes impacts from future development accommodated by the project, GPA No. 960, as well as the mitigation (through regulatory compliance) that would ensure impacts are less than significant. Areas already covered in Section 4.14 are not repeated here.

Section 4.14 of this EIR provides a complete description of the mineral resources and industry in Riverside County, as well as analysis of the existing and future impacts projected to occur as the county builds out. This data includes Table 4.14-A (Changes Affecting State Mineral Resource Areas) and Figure 4.14.1 (Mineral Resource Areas in Riverside County), Figure 4.14.2 (Riverside County Aggregate Resources of the Temescal Valley-Orange County and San Bernardino Production-Consumption Regions) and Figure 4.14.3 (Aggregate Resources of the Palm Springs Production-Consumption Region).

a. Existing Conditions

In Riverside County, most of the economically valuable mineral deposits known to occur in the county are located along Interstates 15, 215 and 10. Industrial minerals occurring and extracted in Riverside County currently include: clay, limestone, sand and gravel (“aggregates”), specialty sands and rock commodities. See Section 4.14.2 for specifics on the mineral commodities, locations and estimated amounts occurring in Riverside County.

The State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB) uses “Mineral Resource Zones” (MRZs) to classify lands that contain valuable mineral deposits. Use of MRZs can help identify mineral deposits to be protected from encroaching urbanization and land uses incompatible with mining. After an area has been classified into MRZs, the SMGB then determines if the “classified” mineral resource deposit warrants “designation” as being of either “regional” (multi-community) or “statewide economic significance.” Figure 4.14.1 in Section 4.14 identifies the areas within Riverside County with potential mineral resource deposits, according to State of California MRZ classifications. There are no sites within Riverside County designated as “locally important mineral recovery sites.”

In defining economic viability, the State of California uses large, multi-county “Production-Consumption Regions” as their boundaries for study areas for aggregate production and their associated market areas. Figures 4.14.2 and 4.14.3 in Section 4.14 show the production-consumption regions occurring in Riverside County. See Section 4.14.3 for specifics on each region.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-132 Public Review Draft . March 2014

b. Future Conditions

Table 5.5-V (Cumulative Mineral Resource Zone Effects), below, shows the cumulative conditions for the three General Plan build out scenarios examined in this section: Existing General Plan (CURR GP), the Updated General Plan as per GPA No. 960 (GP/GPA960) and the cumulative General Plan as per the additional proposed GPAs through 2009 (CULM GP).

It should be noted that, as shown in Figure 4.14.1 in Section 4.14, the Riverside County General Plan does not contain any “locally important mineral resource recovery sites.” Since GPA No. 960 does not propose to change this, the proposed project would not have an effect on this type of resource. Similarly, build out of the CULM scenario would likewise have no effect as well.

Table 5.5-V: Cumulative Mineral Resource Zone Effects Mineral Resource Zone Urban / Rural / Interface / Vacant / Open Public Category Suburban Agriculture Wildlands Space Facilities Totals MRZ-2 in Sectors1 Existing Total 590 1,260 120 13,910 450 16,330 CURR GP2 Total 740 1,850 11,020 3,040 0 16,650 GPU/GPA960 Change 0 -20 0 0 +20 0 CULM GP Change +10 0 -10 0 0 0 MRZ-21 Existing Total 2,060 4,380 900 26,350 1,170 34,860 CURR GP2 Total 2,780 3,560 24,010 3,190 860 34,400 GPU/GPA960 Change +10 -30 -30 +50 -10 -10 CULM GP Change 0 0 0 -10 0 -10 MRZ-2 and Sectors - subtotal Existing Total 2,650 5,640 1,020 40,260 1,620 51,190 CURR GP2 Total 3,520 5,410 35,030 6,230 860 51,050 GPU/GPA960 Change +10 -50 -30 +50 +10 -10 CULM GP Change +10 0 -10 -10 0 -10 Cumulative B/O Total 3,530 5,410 35,020 6,220 860 51,040 Change from Exist +880 -230 +34,000 -34,040 -760 -150 MRZ-41 Existing Total 4,850 113,390 171,910 1,418,030 6,300 1,714,480 CURR GP2 Total 5,020 132,200 1,405,170 170,170 8,570 1,721,130 GPU/GPA960 Change -250 -500 +1,390 -140 +150 +650 CULM GP Change +2,300 -340 -2,620 +180 +430 -50 UNSTUDIED1 Existing Total 10,400 157,110 497,710 667,380 4,730 1,337,330 CURR GP2 Total 10,300 57,340 385,900 891,630 3,130 1,348,300 GPU/GPA960 Change +170 +160 -9,320 +7,470 +110 -1,410 CULM GP Change +3,930 +3,430 -6,190 -1,140 +20 +50 MRZ-4 & UNSTUDIED - subtotal Existing Total 15,250 270,500 669,620 2,085,410 11,030 3,051,810 CURR GP2 Total 15,320 189,540 1,791,070 1,061,800 11,700 3,069,430 GPU/GPA960 Change -80 -340 -7,930 +7,330 +260 -760 CULM GP Change +6,230 +3,090 -8,810 -960 +450 0 Cumulative B/O Total 21,550 192,630 1,782,260 1,060,840 12,150 3,069,430 Change from Exist +6,300 -77,870 +1,112,640 -1,024,570 +1,120 +17,620 MRZ-31 Existing Total 57,690 81,390 77,020 660,290 17,710 894,100 CURR GP2 Total 77,890 93,960 478,980 209,160 16,020 876,010 GPU/GPA960 Change +3,100 +60 -4,890 +1,890 +610 +770 CULM GP Change +2,710 +1,260 -4,030 +180 -110 +10

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-133

Mineral Resource Zone Urban / Rural / Interface / Vacant / Open Public Category Suburban Agriculture Wildlands Space Facilities Totals MRZ-11 Existing Total 3,700 7,750 1,140 7,550 2,000 22,140 CURR GP2 Total 8,750 9,240 1,140 2,050 1,570 22,750 GPU/GPA960 Change 0 0 0 0 0 0 CULM GP Change +20 -40 +20 0 0 0 REST - subtotal Existing Total 61,390 89,140 78,160 667,840 19,710 916,240 CURR GP2 Total 86,640 103,200 480,120 211,210 17,590 898,760 GPU/GPA960 Change +3,100 +60 -4,890 +1,890 +610 +770 CULM GP Change +2,730 +1,220 -4,010 +180 -110 +10 Cumulative B/O Total 89,370 104,420 476,110 211,390 17,480 898,770 Change from Exist +27,980 +15,280 +397,950 -456,450 -2,230 -17,470 Development Totals at Build Out Existing Total 79,290 365,280 748,800 2,793,510 32,360 4,019,240 CURR GP2 Total 105,480 298,150 2,306,220 1,279,240 30,150 4,019,240 GPU/GPA960 Change +3,030 -330 -12,850 +9,270 +880 0 CULM GP Change +8,970 +4,310 -12,830 -790 +340 0 Cumulative B/O Total 114,450 302,460 2,293,390 1,278,450 30,490 4,019,240 Change from Exist +35,160 -62,820 +1,544,590 -1,515,060 -1,870 0 Footnotes: 1. Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) classifications as established by the State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB): MRZ-1: Available geologic information indicates no significant mineral deposits present or there is little likelihood for their presence. MRZ-2: Available geologic information indicates significant measured (MRZ-2a) or inferred (MRZ-2b) mineral deposits present. MRZ-2 in Sectors: “Sectors” are MRZ-2 areas identified by SMGB as having “significant aggregate resources.” MRZ-3: Available geologic information indicates existing mineral deposits of undetermined significance, with moderate potential for economic viability (MRZ-3a) or inferred viability (MRZ-3b). MRZ-4: Areas where not enough information is available to determine presence/absence of mineral deposits. Unstudied: Areas not studied by the SMGB. For more details on MRZ categories, see Section 4.14.2.B. 2. Defined as the General Plan as of end of 2008. Source: Riverside County GIS, RCLIS layer (Mineral Resource Zones, updated per SMGB data, as outlined in Section 4.14) and project application data, 2012.

As indicated in Table 5.5-V, build out of the current (2008) General Plan will result in incremental increases in the amount of MRZ-2 land lost to urban/suburban and rural/agricultural development, including to a lesser degree land within Sectors (that is, significant aggregate resources). Larger amounts of both MRZ-2 and Sectors will also be converted from vacant/open space to interface/wildland uses. MRZ-4 areas will see similar incremental conversions. In these areas, build out would contribute incrementally to loss of potentially valuable mineral resources in Riverside County.

For the General Plan scenario that includes the proposed project (i.e., the GPU/GPA960 scenario), incremental growth accommodated by the project would have a negligible (plus or minus less than 50 acres) effect on MRZ-2 and Sectors within any development category. Incremental effects on MRZ-4 areas will also be minimal, as the largest area of loss would only be 2% of the total (for 150 acres of additional public facility uses). Unstudied areas would be similarly affected, with losses of 2% (under 200 acres) due to new urban/suburban uses and 4% (110 acres) of additional vacant/open space area lost. Areas of undetermined significance (MRZ-3) would be similarly affected, with the greatest incremental losses totaling 4% due to additional urban/suburban uses and public facilities; that is, 3,100 acres and 610 acres, respectively. None of these losses, however, would have a cumulatively considerable effect on mineral resource availability, including aggregates.

For build out of the CULM scenario, similar trends for MRZ-2 and Sectors are observed. Table 5.5-V also indicates that this scenario would have somewhat greater cumulatively losses of mineral resources due to larger increases in urban/suburban areas. Growth in these areas would increase losses of unstudied and MRZ-4 areas by an additional 40-50% (3,900 acres and 2,300 acres, respectively). These losses are not likely to be cumulatively

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-134 Public Review Draft . March 2014

considerable, however, because of the large inventory of vacant land (roughly 1.3 million acres) that would remain available for potential mineral resource utilization under the CULM scenario even at full build out.

c. Impacts

Future development will contribute incrementally to cumulative mineral resource and mining impacts as Riverside County builds out over time pursuant to the Riverside County General Plan (regardless of scenario). Specific impacts will include the following:

 Future development pursuant to any of the General Plan build out scenarios, including that with the project, will contribute incrementally, but not significantly, to the loss of availability of known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State of California, including within Sectors containing significant aggregate resources.

 Future development would also contribute incrementally, but not significantly, to the loss of lands where the availability and/or economic viability of mineral resources has yet to be established (for example, MRZ-3, MRZ-4 or unstudied areas).

 Indirect incremental impacts could also occur where MRZ-2 lands are encroached upon by incompatible uses, particularly residences and other sensitive uses, and where development lies adjacent to MRZ-2 sites otherwise suitable for mining. The regulatory and mitigation measures outlined below would ensure such impacts are not cumulatively considerable.

 The incremental loss of areas with potentially viable mineral resources could also result in the need for development of mineral resources further away from the locations where they would be used. This would result in additional incremental contributions to other cumulative effects, such as traffic, air pollutants, noise and loss of biological habitat. See discussions under these sections, in particular Section 5.4 (Growth Inducement), for more information.

d. Mitigation

As described in detail in Section 4.14.3, a variety of measures would be implemented to avoid, reduce and minimize adverse cumulative impacts to mineral resources and resulting from mining activities. These include the following items:

Key Regulations and Programs: See Section 4.14.3 for details on each regulation.

 California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA), PRC sec. 2710 et seq.

 Ordinance No. 555 (Implementing SMARA in Riverside County)

Key General Plan Policies: See Section 4.14.2 for the text of each policy.

 Open Space Element Policies: OS 14.1-14.5

 Land Use Element Policies: LU 9.6, 9.7 and 27.1-27.5

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-135

e. Significance

Implementation of all of the above regulations and General Plan policies would be sufficient to ensure that all of the incremental impacts listed above would be less than significant. As such, the project’s incremental impacts to mineral resources and their availability would not be cumulatively substantial. Implementation of the above regulations and Riverside County General Plan policies would ensure that significant cumulative impacts to known mineral resources of regional or statewide significance are either avoided or minimized to less than significant.

14. Cumulative Effects on Noise

Section 4.15 (Noise) evaluates the potential for the project, GPA No. 960, to affect or be affected by noise and vibration levels within unincorporated Riverside County. This includes assessing the potential for exposure of Riverside County’s population to new noise or vibration sources introduced as a result of the project, as well as the potential for increased or new populations near existing or new noise and vibration sources. It also analyzes the mitigation (both through regulatory compliance and EIR mitigation) necessary to ensure impacts are less than significant or mitigated to the extent feasible. Areas already covered in Section 4.15 are not repeated here; see that section directly for additional resource details.

Section 4.15 of this EIR provides a description of the existing noise environment within Riverside County, as well as modeling of existing and future noise impacts projected to occur as Riverside County builds out over time. This data includes Table 4.15-A (Definitions of Acoustical Terms), Table 4.15-B (Common Sound Levels and Their Noise Sources), Table 4.15-C (Human Responses to Groundborne Vibration), Table 4.15-D (Short-Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results), Table 4.15-E (Long-Term Ambient Noise Locations), Table 4.15-F (Long- Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results), Table 4.15-G (Traffic Noise Levels, Base Year Conditions [Existing, 2007]), Table 4.15-H (Incremental Noise Impact Criteria for Noise-Sensitive Uses), Table 4.15-I (Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria), Table 4.15-J (County Ordinance No. 847 Sound Level Standards), Table 4.15-K (Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Exposure), Table 4.15-L (Stationary Source Land Use Standards) (aka General Plan Table N-2), Table 4.15-M (Future Traffic Noise Levels, With and Without Project), Table 4.15-N (Typical Vibration Levels Associated with Construction Equipment), Table 4.15-O (Typical Maxi- mum Noise Levels for Construction Equipment) and Table 4.15-P (Airport Compatibility Zones and Noise Levels).

It also includes Figure 4.15.1 (Short-Term and Long-Term Noise Monitoring Locations Map), Figures 4.15.2 – 4.15.4 (Typical Railroad Noise Contours, for various rail configurations), Figures 4.15.5 – 4.15.17 (Existing and Planned Noise Contours, for various public airports), Figure 4.15.18 (Military Airspace in Southern California), Figure 4.15.19 (Existing Noise Contours for Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range), Figure 4.15.20 (March Joint Air Reserve Base, Noise Contours), Figure 4.15.21 (Military Training Airspace in the CMAGR Operating Area), Figure 4.15.22 (Special Use Airspace in Riverside County), Figures 4.15.23 – 4.15.39 (Future Noise Contours, for various public airports) and Figure 4.15.40 – 4.15.53 (Projected Roadway Noise Contours, for various street and highway configurations).

a. Existing Conditions

Land uses within Riverside County include a range of residential, commercial, institutional, industrial, recreational, agricultural and open space areas. In general, vehicular traffic is the dominant noise source in the unincorporated Riverside County area, with a myriad of other noises associated with daily life also contributing (engine startups, lawn mower operations, dogs barking, people conversing, music, construction activity, wind blowing, birds

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-136 Public Review Draft . March 2014

chirping, etc.) Significant noise also occurs from airplane traffic, railroads and various stationary sources as described below. Sensitive noise receptors typically include residences, schools, child-care centers hospitals, long- term health care facilities, convalescent centers and retirement homes.

Ambient Noise: Ambient noise measurements provide a snapshot of the existing noise environment for a given area and may be done in both short and long term locations (29 and 8 sites, respectively). As reported in Section 4.15, surveys of the existing noise environment were conducted in 2010 at locations representative of the areas of greatest anticipated growth across Riverside County in order to document the existing noise environment and capture the noise levels associated with typical daily operations and activities in unincorporated Riverside County. Short-term noise measurements locations are identified in Table 4.15-D and illustrated in Figure 4.15.1. Long- term noise measurement locations are identified in Table 4.15-E and also illustrated in Figure 4.15.1. The resultant monitoring data is summarized in Table 4.15-F. The full data set is included in the noise study (see Appendix EIR-7).

Roadway Noise: Freeway and highway traffic-related noise levels in unincorporated Riverside County were estimated from a variety of parameters, including traffic volumes, vehicle mix, vehicle speed and roadway geometry. In particular, average daily traffic (ADT) volumes are used for traffic noise modeling, as generated by the Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model (RIVTAM). Noise results for the cumulative scenarios were modeled by the same procedures using the cumulative traffic data set (based on the cumulative additional GPAs data set described in the introduction to Section 5.5). The resultant noise levels are modeled into traffic noise contours by computer to facilitate comparisons amongst roadways. Table 4.15-G provides the results of the base year (2007) traffic noise calculations adjacent to representative segments of the freeways and the major roads (traffic volumes above 6,000 ADT) in unincorporated Riverside County. Figures 4.15.40 to 4.15.53 in Section 4.15 show typical roadway noise contours.

Railroad Noise: Riverside County is traversed by three rail mainlines: BNSF Transcon, owned by Burlington Northern/Santa Fe (BNSF); UP Los Angeles Subdivision (UP LA Sub) and UP El Paso Line, both owned by Union Pacific (UP). On average, 85 freight trains per day pass through Riverside County and Metrolink operates 24 daily passenger (commuter rail) trains per day on the San Bernardino line and 38 per day on the West Riverside (Orange County) line. However, the amount of traffic along the principal railroad lines fluctuates considerably. Daily train traffic produces noise that may disrupt activities in proximity to railroad tracks, for example horns sounded at at-grade crossings. Figures 4.15.2, 4.15.3 and 4.15.4 in Section 4.15 provide typical railroad noise contours.

Air Travel Noise: Riverside County is served by seven public use general aviation airports along with a number of smaller airports and air fields. Most of the airports in Riverside County have published airport noise contour maps; see Figures 4.15.5 through 4.15.17 (existing and planned conditions) and Figures 4.15.23 through 4.15.39 (future conditions) in Section 4.15. Public use airports located in or affecting unincorporated Riverside County include: Banning Municipal, Bermuda Dunes, Blythe, Chiriaco Summit, Corona Municipal, Desert Center, Flabob, French Valley, Hemet-Ryan, Jacqueline Cochran Regional, Palm Springs International, Perris Valley, Riverside Municipal and (located in San Bernardino County) Chino. Noise contours from Los Angeles International and Ontario International airports are not included here because they do not extend to the Riverside County border.

Military Noise Sources: Riverside County is home to a number of military bases, including three active facilities: the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range (part of the Bob Stump Training Range Complex), March Joint Air Reserve Base and the Naval Surface Warfare Center. The Naval Warfare Center is not associated with aircraft, munitions or other significant military noise sources, however, the other two are active sources of these noises. See Figure 4.15.19 for noise contours for the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range and Figure 4.15.20 for noise contours for the March Joint Air Reserve Base. Military activities can have various

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-137

effects on the ambient noise environment, mainly due to aircraft noise (including supersonic flight) and ordnance delivery. Ground-based noise and vibration can also be generated from artillery fire, ground-based arms, artillery and ordnance, detonation of high explosives and demolition charges, vehicles and operation of fixed and portable equipment, etc. Military facilities also have noise from typical non-military sources, such as vehicles and ORVs, commercial and industrial operations, landscaping and agricultural activities, etc.

Stationary Noise Sources: Stationary noise sources present in residential areas include HVAC and landscaping maintenance equipment (leaf-blowers, lawnmowers, etc.). Commercial uses often include larger, rooftop- mounted HVAC equipment which can produce point-source noise that most directly affects adjacent land uses. Amplified sound, e.g., from personal, home or automotive audio equipment, outdoor loudspeakers and music or theatrical performances, is another source. Conditional use permits, as well as Riverside County Ordinance No. 847, establish limitations on time and magnitude of noise for these sources.

Agricultural, Industrial, Recreational and Other Major Noise Sources: Agricultural operations may produce significant noise during planting and harvesting times from equipment operation. Agricultural noise may be disturbing to neighboring residential areas, particularly as urban development intrudes into agricultural lands. Industrial land uses can be associated with a variety of noise impacts, including shipping and loading facilities, concrete crushing facilities, recycling activities and other large mechanical or hydraulic equipment use, as well as natural gas extraction facilities, water treatment facilities and mining activities throughout Riverside County. Recreational lands and wildlife habitat are also impacted by noise from recreational uses, including sports park activities and ORV uses, particularly the uncontrolled use of ORVs. 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.

b. Future Conditions

As noted above, for existing (baseline) conditions, noise data was developed both directly (through onsite measurement) and indirectly (through computer modeling), particularly for roadway noise levels. Similarly, for future conditions, computer modeling was used to estimate expected noise levels for a variety of situations, including various configurations and volumes for air traffic, railroad lines and roadways (both freeway and local networks). Future condition results for the expected build out conditions of Riverside County as it would exist if the General Plan was updated per GPA No. 960 (i.e., GPU/GP960 scenario) are presented in Section 4.15, as noted previously. Likewise, data for build out of the existing General Plan was developed as part of EIR No. 441, which was certified for the RCIP General Plan in October 2003, and is thus collected in Section 4.13 of that EIR. (Note: that data was not rerun as part of this analysis since the document has already been approved and the roadway network has since changed.) An additional set of data was run, however, for build out (future) conditions for the CULM GP scenario. Because the noise modeling results are voluminous, they are not included in this section. The data is presented instead in Appendix EIR-12.

Lastly, because mobile noise sources (i.e., vehicular traffic) generate the vast majority of sound affecting ambient noise levels, this cumulative analysis compares the roadway noise levels projected for each of the build out scenarios. Additional modeling for hypothetical air and rail noise levels were not performed as these transportation noise sources are minor contributors overall to the ambient noise environment. Also, future noise contours for both air and rail are included in the figures presented in Section 4.15 of this EIR, for example, see Figures 4.15.23 through 4.15.39 for future noise conditions for airports within Riverside County.

Analysis of Riverside County noise data indicates that build out of any of the analyzed General Plan scenarios (including the General Plan as amended per GPA No. 960, i.e., the “GPU/GPA960 scenario”) would increase noise levels as a result of increased development. These impacts would incrementally contribute to cumulatively considerable noise levels and result in significant noise exposures to sensitive receptors at both existing and future

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-138 Public Review Draft . March 2014

uses. As discussed in greater detail in Section 4.15, future development will contribute incrementally to cumulative noise impacts as Riverside County builds out (develops) over time pursuant to the Riverside County General Plan.

As demonstrated by both the existing setting and future noise level data, the noise conditions in which existing uses are occurring and, more importantly (for the purposes of this EIR), in which future uses and sensitive receptors would be exposed, have been increasing over time. Data indicate that the effect of General Plan build out, with or without the project’s proposed General Plan changes, would be potentially significant for any development that introduces new sensitive receptors into areas in which exterior noise levels exceed 55 dBA. It would likewise be significant for incremental traffic noise increases attributable to the project that would result in either an existing noise level (at any point) that exceeded 55 dBA or in an incremental increase exceeding any of the levels noted in Table 4.15-H of Section 4.15.

c. Impacts

Future development will contribute incrementally to cumulative noise and vibration impacts, both short-term (construction) and long-term (operational) as Riverside County builds out over time pursuant to the Riverside County General Plan (regardless of scenario). Specific impacts of the severities indicated will include the following:

(1) Cumulatively Considerable Impacts

 Future development would incrementally increase rural, suburban and urban uses in Riverside County resulting in new noise-sensitive land uses in areas of existing excess noise or areas in which county growth would eventually lead to excess noise levels.

 Future development would contribute incrementally to increased traffic volumes on county roads, resulting in noise increases affecting sensitive land uses along existing and future roads. As a result, new development, particularly residential uses along and adjacent to major transit corridors, could be exposed to noise levels that exceed Riverside County’s noise standards. Existing sensitive uses (residences, schools, etc.) would also be subject to these higher noise levels. Mitigation, such as setbacks and insulation are feasible for new uses. However, noise levels would increase incrementally over time to levels exceeding Riverside County noise standards, exposure of existing sensitive uses would be significant and unavoidable. Mitigation of the extremely small but numerous incremental increases that lead to this significant impact is infeasible due to the extremely widespread nature of the impacts.

 Future development would introduce new uses that increase noise levels several ways. First, new development would contribute noise from its construction and from the construction of needed new roads, infrastructure, public services, etc. Construction would result in temporary (short-term) noise impacts. Once completed, some of these new uses could be associated with stationary noise sources, possibly exceeding applicable noise standards. A stationary source that exposes sensitive receptors to noise levels exceeding these standards may be significant if not reducible through regulatory compliance or mitigation measures.

 Under any of the General Plan build out scenarios, future development of noise-sensitive uses would occur in areas that either are currently exposed to or would be exposed to future traffic, airport or railroad noise levels that exceed the current standards, resulting in incremental increases in the number of people and properties exposed. Such development could also cause incremental exposure to noise from

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-139

non-transportation (stationary) noise sources that exceed standards. Where setbacks and other mitigation measures are not feasible or do not sufficiently lower noise levels, such impacts would be cumulatively considerable.

 Future development associated with build out of any of the General Plan scenarios (including the with- project scenario) would contribute to incremental increases in traffic, resulting in corresponding incremental increases in traffic noise. Where this causes ambient noise levels to either exceed the threshold of acceptability (65 dBA CNEL, for example) or to become further unacceptable in areas already exceeding noise thresholds, such ambient noise increases would be cumulatively significant.

 For existing noise-sensitive land uses, however, due to the widespread and pervasive nature of noise impacts, it is generally not be feasible to mitigate the impact fully for all affected receptors. Thus, this cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable, even with the implementation of all feasible mitigation.

 Future development near major rail lines or truck routes would also introduce new sensitive receptors into areas affected by existing groundborne vibration, incrementally increasing the people and properties exposed. In general, the potential for vibration-induced structural damage from such sources would be low, but disruptions or annoyance to occupants could occur if the uses were close enough to such sources. However, such vibration-induced disruption/annoyance can be avoided by not approving vibration-sensitive uses in areas where FTA vibration criteria (Table 4.15-I in Section 4.15, for example) are exceeded and requiring setbacks of sufficient distance to ensure vibration levels are within acceptable limits. Thus, compliance with regulations, as well as existing mitigation measures would ensure that operational vibration effects on new development are not cumulatively considerable.

(2) Non-Substantial Incremental Impacts

 Future development (of any of the General Plan build out scenarios, including the with-project scenario) will require construction activities that will cause incremental increases in temporary, short-term vibrations. These vibrations would be disruptive if located near sensitive receptors and will result in various levels of temporary groundborne vibration. Construction vibration can affect existing buildings (i.e., through structural damage) and their occupants (i.e., through activity disruption, annoyance, etc.) if they are located close enough to the construction sites. However, the temporary nature of the construction activities means that the disturbance would be of limited duration and, for this reason, would not be cumulatively significant. See also Impact 4.15-B discussion.

 Future development would necessitate construction activities which could affect nearby noise-sensitive receptors. Where these increases individually or cumulatively exceed applicable Riverside County standards, even if temporarily or only periodically, such impacts would be cumulatively considerable. In many cases, the peak sound levels would be extremely brief and overall ambient noise levels would remain within acceptable limits. At times, however, construction requirements and/or the proximity of the sensitive land use (e.g., within 150 feet or less) would make significant noise impacts unavoidable, even though temporary. Because of the close distances involved, mitigation of sound levels to less than significant are technologically impossible. Thus, future development from any of the General Plan build out scenarios may result in cumulatively significant short-term noise impacts that would be significant and unavoidable.

 Future development resulting from build out of any of the General Plan scenarios may result in incremental increases in new noise-sensitive land uses that would be exposed to noise from operations at

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-140 Public Review Draft . March 2014

public and private airports, airstrips and helipads. Around larger public airports, noise levels can exceed acceptable standards in certain areas, as shown by noise-contour maps of existing, future and ultimate build out operational conditions for public airports. Compliance with ALUC, Riverside County and other applicable standards, as well as existing mitigation measures (see below), would ensure that airport- related noise impacts on future development are not cumulatively considerable.

d. Mitigation

As described in detail in Section 4.14.3, a variety of measures would be implemented to avoid, reduce and minimize adverse cumulative noise and vibration impacts. These include the following:

(1) Regulatory Compliance

Key Regulations and Programs: See Section 4.14.3 for details on each regulation.

 Federal Noise Control Act of 1972

 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Standards (CFR, Title 14, Part 150)

 California Building Standards Code (CCR Title 24)

 California Noise Insulation Standard (CCR Title 24)

 Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans

 County Ordinance No. 847 (Regulating Noise)

Key General Plan Policies: See Section 4.14.2 for the text of each policy.

 Noise Element Policies: N 1.1, 1.2, 1.7, 2.2, 3.2, 3.5, 4.4, 6.4, 7.1-7.4, 9.3, 9.7, 10.1-10.4, 11.1-11.5, 12.1, 12.2, 13.1-13.4, 14.2, 15.2 and 16.1-16.3

 Land Use Element Policies: LU 1.8, 4.1, 15.1, 15.2, 16.9, 16.10, 29.6, 30.6, 31.3 and 32.10

 Open Space Element Policies: OS 14.5

 Circulation Element Policies: C 3.27-3.29, 6.7, 9.4, 9.5, 13.7, 14.3, 20.8 and 23.9

(2) CEQA Mitigation

Existing Mitigation Measures: In EIR No. 441, a number of mitigation measures were imposed to reduce long-term impacts from mobile and stationary noise sources. These measures remain applicable to this project and would also apply to future development.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-141

 Existing MM 4.13.1A: Prior to the issuance of any grading plans, the County [of Riverside] 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 [of Riverside] 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 use of such methods as:

a. The construction contractor shall use temporary noise attenuation fences where feasible, to reduce construction noise impacts on adjacent noise sensitive land uses.

b. 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.

c. 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.

d. The construction contractor shall limit all construction-related activities that would result in high noise levels to between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm Monday through Saturday. No construction shall be allowed on Sundays and public holidays.

 Existing MM 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 [Riverside] County staff.

 Existing MM 4.13.2A: All new residential developments within the County [of Riverside] 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.

 Existing MM 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 of the California [Building] Code (Noise Insulation Standards), for multiple-family attached homes, hotels, motels, etc. No development permits or approval of land use applications shall be issued until an acoustic analysis is received and approved by the [Riverside] County Planning Department.

 Existing MM 4.13.2C: The County [of Riverside] 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 [of Riverside] will require that all direct impacts to noise-sensitive land uses be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-142 Public Review Draft . March 2014

 Existing MM 4.13.2D: Ensure that all new schools, particularly in subdivisions and specific plans, are sited more than 2 miles away from any airport.

 Existing MM 4.13.3A: Acoustical studies shall be required for all new noise-sensitive projects that may be affected by existing noise from stationary sources.

 Existing MM 4.13.3B: To permit new development of residential and noise-sensitive land uses where existing stationary noise sources exceed [Riverside] 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.

 Existing MM 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 [Riverside] 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 [Riverside] County staff.

 New Mitigation Measures: The new mitigation measure below is proposed to help minimize the effect of operational vibrations on existing uses. Compliance with this measure would ensure that potential adverse impacts of operational groundborne vibrations on new development are reduced to less than significant levels.

 New MM 4.15.B-N1: Prior to the issuance of any grading permit for new development involving vibration-sensitive land uses (which shall include, but not be limited to: hospitals, residential areas, concert halls, libraries, sensitive research operations, schools and offices), the project proponent shall provide evidence to the County of Riverside that placement of such uses within the area would not exceed groundborne vibration or groundborne noise impact criteria identified by the FTA (for example, the standards shown in Table 4.15-I [of Section 4.15] of this EIR) or as otherwise deemed appropriate for the situation by the County of Riverside.

e. Significance

As outlined above, future development accommodated by any of the General Plan build out scenarios, including that with the project (GPA No. 960), would result in cumulatively considerable increases in ambient noise levels and in the number of people and noise-sensitive land uses exposed to substantial noise levels. It would also incrementally increase ambient noise levels throughout Riverside County to cumulatively considerable levels in some places (where regulatory and mitigation measures are insufficient to reduce noise impacts). These measures would be sufficient when applied to new development, but are not feasible for existing development. Thus, for impacts to existing noise-sensitive uses, however, the wide-spread, diffuse nature of the noise impacts, particularly those from increase traffic volumes resulting from build out of any of the General Plan scenarios, as well as from the project itself, would result in cumulatively significant impacts that cannot be feasibly reduced to acceptable noise levels. Thus, the project would result in incremental generation or cumulative exposure of existing uses to

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-143

excessive noise in some areas, or would result in a cumulatively substantial permanent or temporary increase in ambient noise levels. These cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable for the reasons outlined herein. For the impacts listed as not considerable, implementation of the regulatory programs and mitigation measures listed above would be sufficient to ensure that incremental impacts are not cumulatively significant. This includes incremental airport noise impacts and groundborne vibration impacts.

15. Cumulative Effects on Parks and Recreation

Section 4.16 (Parks and Recreation) of this EIR discusses existing parks and recreational facilities, including trails and bikeways, within Riverside County, as well as the sources used and the updates made to them for this data. It also analyzes the demand on existing and the need for future parks, trails and recreation facilities that would arise from future development accommodated by the changes proposed by the project, GPA No. 960, as well as the mitigation (through regulatory compliance) necessary to ensure impacts are less than significant. As a result, areas already covered in Section 4.17 are not repeated here; see section directly for additional resource details.

Section 4.16 of this EIR provides a complete description of existing park, trail and recreation facilities within Riverside County, as well as analysis of the existing and future need for such facilities projected as Riverside County builds out. This data includes Table 4.16-A (Park and Recreation Jurisdictional Totals), Table 4.16-B (Existing and Proposed Parks and Recreation) and Table 4.16-C (Theoretical Parkland Needs, With and Without the Project). It also includes Figure 4.16.1 (Existing Parks and Recreational Resources), Figure 4.16.2 (Countywide Trails and Bikeways Map), Figure 4.16.3 (Existing Trail Cross-Sections) and Figure 4.16.4 (Proposed Trail Cross-Sections).

a. Existing Conditions

Riverside County parks, trails, bikeways and other recreational areas and uses offer residents and visitors a myriad of recreational opportunities, while providing valuable buffers within built-up urban spaces. The locations of existing parks and recreation areas in unincorporated Riverside County are shown in Figure 4.16.1. A summary of all the existing parks within unincorporated Riverside County is provided in Table 4.16.B. Large swaths of open space and recreational lands fall under state or federal jurisdictions and many of these facilities, particularly the National Parks and Forests stretch beyond Riverside County. Table 4.16-A summarizes the parks and recreation areas under state and federal jurisdiction.

The County of Riverside currently maintains 35 regional parks encompassing roughly 22,300 acres total. More than half of these parks are located in the western portion of Riverside County, with the other facilities scattered throughout the eastern desert, central mountains and Colorado River regions. There are four park and recreation districts covering portions of Riverside County: Beaumont-Cherry Valley, Desert, Jurupa and Valleywide. Together, they provide approximately 27 neighborhood and community parks on approximately 275 acres of parkland. Additionally, some County Service Areas (for example, CSA 134) also provide local park or trail maintenance services, often for parks and trails constructed as part of new development projects. The cities within Riverside County also offer numerous park and recreational facilities; currently 215 parks spanning over 1,500 acres. However, these city facilities are outside the scope of the County of Riverside’s jurisdiction (though they may still be affected by growth within Riverside County, see discussions below). Note: the cities of Jurupa Valley and Eastvale are treated as unincorporated land for the purposes of this EIR section since their incorporation dates (July 2011 and October 2010) post-date this EIR’s NOP date of April 2009.

The Riverside County Regional Park and Open Space District (Park District) acquires, manages, develops and maintains 27 neighborhood and regional parks throughout Riverside County. The Park District maintains

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-144 Public Review Draft . March 2014

approximately 71,700 acres of land including 150 miles of multi-purpose recreational trails, seven archeological sites, 16 wildlife reserves and natural areas. It also operates one boxing facility, manages four nature centers and patrols six historic sites, and provides annual interpretive programs to more than 82,000 students. The Park District’s park and open space resources provide enjoyment to residents of Riverside County and visitors alike. There are also a number of off-road vehicle (ORV) parks within Riverside County operated by the USFS and BLM on federal lands, as well as numerous private recreational facilities throughout the county.

There are also many miles of trails located throughout Riverside County in a variety of designs for pedestrians, equestrians, bicyclists and (on some) all-terrain vehicle enthusiasts to enjoy. The General Plan outlines standards for several trail types. Existing trails and proposed trail alignments are shown in Figure C-7 of the General Plan for the countywide system; more detailed maps are included in the Area Plans. Figure 4.16.2, below, shows the countywide system map. In addition to pedestrian uses, the Riverside County trail system includes plans for bicycle use, with three types of bike paths plus a combination trail for bikes and pedestrians. The General Plan Circulation Element contains specifications and cross-sections for each of these trails, as well as standards for their construction and maintenance. See Figure 4.16.3 for existing trail cross-sections and Figure 4.16.4 (later in this section) for proposed cross-sections.

As part of GPA No. 960, an extensive revamping of the standards and specifications for both trails and bikeways is proposed to enable the realization of trails types that better suit the level of use and connectivity needed. This includes revising the existing “regional trail” standard to include two trail sub types that distinguish between the urban and rural usage associated with developed areas and the open space trails used more for regional connectivity and in open space both within and between developed areas. Other lesser changes are also proposed for other trails and bikeways. For text of relevant General Plan policies and trail standards, including those revised as part of GPA No. 960, see Section 4.16.3.

b. Future Conditions

In general, the introduction of new development into an area brings with it an attendant new demand for resources, including recreational opportunities and, in particular, parklands. State laws, in particular the Quimby Act, establish minimum standards for the amount of parkland to be provided for a given population. Per its implementation via Riverside County Ordinance No. 460, this minimum is 3.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 population or comparable in-lieu fee payment. Individual park and recreation districts or CSAs may have other standards.

Spatial analysis was performed to examine the cumulative effects of the various General Plan build out scenarios on demand/need for recreational opportunities. In addition, theoretical modeling was performed for each build out scenario to examine the hypothetical park needs associated with each as dictated by Quimby Act standards. These analyses reflect the range of impacts associated with theoretical parkland needs for the specific land uses indicated for each scenario. See Section 4.16.5.B for details on the specifications, assumptions and methodology applied to the analyses presented here.

Table 5.5-W (Cumulative Theoretical Parkland Effects), below, shows the cumulative conditions for the three General Plan build out scenarios examined in this section: Existing General Plan (CURR GP), the Updated General Plan as per GPA No. 960 (GP/GPA960) and the cumulative General Plan as per the additional proposed GPAs through 2009 (CULM GP). The same modeling procedures were used to estimate theoretical park acreage needs based on the populations predicted (i.e., under Section 5.5.2, cumulative population and housing effects) for each build out scenario. By controlling these variables in the modeling process, valid comparisons amongst the scenarios are possible.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-145

Note, these data should not be construed as the actual specific park demands that would arise for a given area. Such determinations will be made on a project-by-project basis as development occurs and may vary based on the surrounding area. For areas within a park and recreation district, that agency will have final say on the future park and recreational facilities needed, as well as where, how and to what standards such facilities are developed. Each agency has developed its own plans, standards and requirements. Thus, because of the scope of these various countywide build out scenarios, individual districts and area plan calculations were not feasible for this analysis.

Per Table 5.5-W, General Plan build out will contribute incrementally to growth in populations throughout Riverside County which will utilize existing recreational facilities and add to the demand for additional recreational uses. Even with no project, build out of the current General Plan (CURR GP scenario) shows that over 1,500 acres of additional parklands, more than double the existing amount, will be necessary to serve expected urban/suburban populations. The project (GPU/GPA960 scenario) would incrementally increase the need for parklands by 3% (140 acres) and the cumulative (CULM) build out scenario would incrementally add 280 acres (7%). Neither of these increases is cumulatively considerable in terms of demand for additional parklands.

Growth pressures within Riverside County will result in development that causes the incremental increases in use of existing parks, trails and other recreational facilities, both within unincorporated Riverside County and its cities, regardless of the General Plan build out scenario. Provision of additional facilities, as per the policies and regulations discussed below, would offset many of these impacts. However, due to the sheer size of the population growth, overall impacts to existing facilities would be cumulatively considerable for any of the build out scenarios, including that encompassing GPA No. 960. Similarly, future development pursuant to any of the scenarios would also increase demand for additional trails and bikeways within new development and increase use of existing trails and bikeways, particularly those that connect new uses to existing destinations (schools, bus stops, retail areas, etc.).

Table 5.5-W: Cumulative Theoretical Parkland Effects General Plan Build Out Scenarios PARKLANDS Existing2 GPU/ (Total Acres)1 Conditions % CURR GP3 % GPA9603 % CULM GP3 % Residential, Urban/Sub. 1,230 93% 2,800 68% 2,970 70% 3,060 70% Residential, Rural/Agri. 20 2% 580 14% 570 13% 600 14% Residential, Interf./Wild. 70 5% 710 18% 690 17% 710 16% Total 1,320 4,090 4,230 4,370 Difference (from EXIST) ------+ 2,770 210% +2,910 +220% +3,050 +231% Difference (from CURR) ------+140 +3% +280 +7% Footnotes: 1. Calculations use 3.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 population. All values rounded to nearest 10. 2. “Existing” values per theoretical baseline calculations, see applicable portion of Section 4.16 for actual values. 3. Build out scenarios: CURR GP = Current (2008) General Plan; GP/GPA960 = Current (2008) General Plan with changes proposed by GPA No. 960; TOT CULM GP = Current (2008) General Plan, plus GPA No. 960, as well as changes proposed by existing GPAs approved or applied for through the end of 2009 (see Table 5.5-A). 4. Commercial uses include CR, CO and CT. Industrial uses include HI, LI and BP. Uses too variable for factors omitted. Source: Riverside County Planning Dept., Project Application Data, 2013. Factor from EIR No. 441, 2003. c. Impacts

Future development will contribute incrementally to cumulative impacts to parks, trails and other recreational facilities as Riverside County builds out over time pursuant to the Riverside County General Plan (regardless of scenario). Specific impacts of the severities indicated will include the following:

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-146 Public Review Draft . March 2014

(1) Cumulatively Considerable Impacts

 Future development per any of the scenarios would result in population growth in Riverside County, incrementally increasing the number of people using existing neighborhood and regional parks, trails, bikeways and other recreational facilities. Where new facilities are not provided to offset such increased use, this would contribute to cumulatively substantial increases in the wear and tear on existing facilities.

(2) Non-Substantial Incremental Impacts

 As noted earlier, future development per any of the scenarios would result in population growth in Riverside County, incrementally increasing the number of people using existing neighborhood and regional parks, trails, bikeways and other recreational facilities. As compared to the existing (CURR) General Plan build out scenario, incremental effects on parks and recreational facilities, including trails and bikeways, associated with either the with-project (GPU/GPA960) scenario or the cumulative (CULM) scenario would be less than significant (3%-7%).

 Incremental population growth over time will necessitate construction of new or expansion of existing parks and recreational facilities. The construction or expansion of such facilities could have an adverse physical effect on the environment. However, compliance with existing regulations, Riverside County ordinances, mitigation measures from EIR No. 441 and General Plan policies, as outlined throughout this EIR, would be sufficient to ensure that resultant environmental impacts are less than significant.

d. Mitigation

As described in detail in Section 4.16.3, a variety of regulatory compliance measures would be implemented to avoid, reduce and minimize adverse cumulative park, trail and recreation impacts. These include the following:

Key Regulations and Programs: See Section 4.16.3 for details on each regulation.

 Quimby Act (CGC section 66477)

 Ordinance No. 328 (Rules and Regulations for the Government of County or District Owned or Operated Parks and Open Space Areas)

 Ordinance No. 460 (Regulating the Division of Land)

Key General Plan Policies: See Section 4.16.3 for the text of each policy.

 Land Use Element Policies: LU 9.2 and 25.1-25.4

 Open Space Element Policies: OS 20.3, 20.5 and 20.6,

 Circulation Element Policies: C 4.9, 15.1-15.4, 16.1, 16.2, 16.7, 17.2, 17.3 and 18.1-18.3

e. Significance

Implementation of all of the above regulations and General Plan policies would be sufficient to ensure that all of the non-substantial incremental cumulative impacts listed above would be less than significant. As such, the

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-147

project’s incremental increase in demand for additional opportunities and the environmental effects of meeting such needs, would not be cumulatively considerable for build out of the General Plan as amended either per the proposed project (GPA No. 960) or the cumulative projects list (see Table 5.5-A). However, in terms of wear and tear on existing park and recreation facilities, including trails, incremental increases in use as county population grows will be cumulatively significant for either cumulative scenario (with-project or with all GPAs).

16. Cumulative Effects on Public Facilities

Section 4.17 (Public Facilities) of this EIR discusses existing public facilities, such as fire and law enforcement and solid waste disposal (landfills), as well as medical, educational and library facilities. Infrastructure not covered in Section 4.17 are discussed elsewhere; e.g., parks and recreation in Section 4.16, electricity and other energy sources in Section 4.10 and water supplies in Section 4.19. Section 4.17 discusses the data sources used for this topic and any General Plan updates made to them. It also analyzes the demand on existing public facilities and the need for future facilities that would arise from future development accommodated by the changes proposed by the project, GPA No. 960, as well as the mitigation (both through regulatory compliance and EIR mitigation) necessary to ensure individual project impacts are less than significant. As a result, areas already covered in Section 4.17 are not repeated here; see that section directly for additional resource details.

Section 4.17 of this EIR provides a complete description of existing public facilities within Riverside County, as well as analysis of the existing and future need for such facilities projected as Riverside County builds out. Specifically, fire protection is covered in Section 4.17.2 and includes: Figure 4.17.1 (Fire Stations in Riverside County) and Figure 4.17.2 (Fire Responsibility Areas), plus Table 4.17-A (Cities Served by The Riverside County Fire Department, i.e., CalFire), Table 4.17-B (CalFire Aid Agreements), Table 4.17-C (Fire Stations Serving Riverside County), Table 4.17-D (Theoretical Fire Station Needs With and Without the Project), Table 4.17-E (Theoretical Fire Station Needs for Areas of New Development Potential) and Table 4.17-F (Comparison of Theoretical Fire Support Needs at General Plan Build out).

Law enforcement is covered in Section 4.17.3 and includes: Figure 4.17.3 (Police and Sheriff Station Locations), plus Table 4.17-G (County Sheriff’s Department Substations Serving Riverside County), Table 4.17-H (Theoretical Law Enforcement Needs With and Without the Project), Table 4.17-I (Theoretical Law Enforcement Needs for New Development Potential Area) and Table 4.17-J (Theoretical Law Enforcement Needs at General Plan Build out).

Solid waste management is covered in Section 4.17.4 and includes: Figure 4.17.4 (Landfill Locations in Riverside County), plus Table 4.17-K (Solid Waste Disposal Facilities in Riverside County), Table 4.17-L (Active Landfills in Riverside County), Table 4.17-M (Fifteen-Year Disposal Capacity Projections for Riverside County), Table 4.17-N (Theoretical Solid Waste Generation for Existing and Build out Conditions), Table 4.17-O (Theoretical Solid Waste Generation for New Development Potential Areas) and Table 4.17-P (Comparison of Theoretical Solid Waste Generation at General Plan Build out).

Schools are covered in Section 4.17.5, which includes: Figure 4.17.5 (Public School Locations in Riverside County), plus Table 4.17-Q (Total School Enrollment for Riverside County School Districts), Table 4.17-R (Theoretical Student Generation With and Without the Project), Table 4.17-S (Theoretical Student Generation for New Development Potential Areas), Table 4.17-T (Theoretical Student Generation at General Plan Build out) and Table 4.17-U (Total Project-Related Student Population Changes by School District).

Libraries are covered in Section 4.17.6, which includes: Figure 4.17.6 (County Public Library Locations in Riverside County), plus Table 4.17-V (County Libraries Serving Riverside County) and Table 4.17-W (Theoretical Library Services Need Projections).

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-148 Public Review Draft . March 2014

Medical facilities are covered in Section 4.17.7, which includes: Figure 4.17.7 (Hospital Locations in Riverside County), plus Table 4.17-X (Riverside County Family Care Clinics and Related Facilities), Table 4.17-Y (Theoretical Medical Service Needs With and Without the Project), Table 4.17-Z (Theoretical Medical Needs for Areas of New Development Potential) and Table 4.17-AA (Theoretical Medical Service Needs at General Plan Build out).

a. Existing Conditions

Fire Protection Services: The County of Riverside contracts with the State of California (the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, also now known as “CalFire”) for fire protection. Under CalFire “Riverside Operational Unit” management, the Riverside County Fire Department (RCOFD) operates 95 fire stations in 17 battalions with about 230 pieces of equipment. Fifty-one of these stations, as well as three stations operated directly by CalFire, are located in the unincorporated portion of Riverside County. See Table 4.17-A. In addition to all of unincorporated Riverside County, the CalFire Riverside Unit serves small portions of San Diego and Orange counties, and also operates 18 city fire departments and one community services district (CSD) fire department for the Rubidoux CSD. The RCOFD also responds to a number of cities and communities through mutual and automatic aid agreements and also provides dispatch under contract. See Table 4.17-B.

Within its service area, RCOFD provides fire suppression, emergency medical, rescue and fire prevention services and is equipped to fight both urban and wildland emergency conditions. The department also provides weed abatement, ambulance response, swift water rescue and a Level 1 hazardous material team. The State of California (CalFire) also has primary responsible responsibility for managing fires on lands designated “State Responsibility Areas” (SRAs). A variety of local fire agencies, for example city fire departments, have jurisdiction over “Local Responsibility Areas” (LRAs). And on federal lands, Federal Responsibility Areas (FRAs), federal agencies (BLM or U.S. Forest Service) are responsible. Within Riverside County, the CalFire Riverside Unit is responsible for 544,180 acres of SRA, plus 2,630 acres in San Diego County and 620 acres in Orange County. As the contract fire protection agency for various cities within Riverside County, CalFire is also responsible for 13,206 acres of LRA land within Riverside County. Other agencies, such as city fire departments, etc., are responsible for 572 acres of LRA. On federal lands (FRA) within Riverside County, the BLM is responsible for 52,650 acres and the U.S. Forest Service for 62,520 acres. For a full discussion on SRAs, LRAs, etc., see Section 4.13 (Hazardous Materials and Safety).

Law Enforcement Services: Riverside County provides community policing and operates and maintains a number of correctional facilities under the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, which has 4,500 established positions, including roughly 2,300 sworn personnel. The Sheriff’s Department is a “demand response” agency that maintains limited patrol services. Nine Sheriff Department stations are located throughout Riverside County to provide area-level community service. See Table 4.17.3-A in Section 4.17.3.A for the locations of these substations. The Sheriff’s Department also operates the Moreno Valley Police Department station in the City of Moreno Valley, providing law enforcement services under contract. The Sheriff’s Department also operates five adult correction or detention centers located throughout Riverside County. The Riverside County Probation Department operates the juvenile detention facilities.

The County of Riverside requires the payment of developer mitigation fees prior to the final inspection by the Building and Safety Department for residential units. The fees are for the construction and acquisition of public facilities. The Sheriff’s Department’s ability to support the needs of future growth is dependent upon their financial ability to hire additional deputies. In addition, a growing population would require that the Sheriff’s Department secure sites and construct new detention facilities on a timely basis.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-149

Solid Waste Management: The Riverside County Waste Management Department (RCWMD) is responsible for the efficient and effective landfill disposal of non-hazardous county waste. To accomplish this, the RCWMD operates six active landfills and administers a contract agreement for waste disposal at the private El Sobrante Landfill, as well as oversees several transfer station leases and a number of recycling and other special waste diversion programs. As all of the private haulers serving unincorporated Riverside County ultimately dispose of their waste to County-owned or contracted facilities, they are not further discussed separately here; their county waste is included in the data discussed here.

All of the active landfills currently located in Riverside County are rated as Class III landfills per CCR Title 27 and only accept nonhazardous, municipal solid wastes. Franchise solid waste collection companies are granted permits to collect commercial and residential waste throughout unincorporated Riverside County under the County of Riverside’s general operating authority. These companies are regulated by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health (RCDEH). In addition, Riverside County landfills accept wastes collected in incorporated cities. Within these cities, solid wastes are either collected by the city as a municipal service or are collected by private firms pursuant to a franchise agreement with the city.

The RCWMD is specifically charged with the responsibility of: 1) implementing programs that adhere to the goals, policies and objectives outlined in Riverside County’s Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) to ensure that unincorporated Riverside County achieves 50% diversion of solid waste from landfill disposal; 2) implementing programs that adhere to the goals, policies and objectives outlined in Riverside County’s Household Hazardous Waste Element to reduce the amount of HHW disposed within landfills; 3) continuing to meet the solid waste disposal needs of all Riverside County residents into the future; and 4) maintaining and updating the CIWMP and reporting to the CIWMB on Riverside County’s progress in complying with AB 939.

As part of its long-range planning and management activities, the RCWMD also ensures that Riverside County has a minimum of 15 years of capacity, at any time, for future landfill disposal. The RCWMD also maintains closed landfills and historic “dump sites” within the county and is involved in the closure and post-closure of 30 disposal sites, requiring in some cases construction, monitoring and maintenance activities. In general, waste originating from anywhere within Riverside County may be accepted for disposal at any of Riverside County’s sites. In practice, to minimize truck traffic and vehicular emissions, each landfill has a service area that dictates where trash is received from. In Section 4.17.4.A, Tables 4.17-K and 4.17-L describe the solid waste disposal facilities in Riverside County.

All RCWMD sites have the potential for expansion. Currently, the Lamb Canyon Landfill is in the design and permitting stage for its next expansion (Phase 3) to provide capacity for an additional 30-plus years beyond the estimated closure date of 2021. The closure dates listed for RCWMD sites are estimated dates and subject to change based on actual tonnage received and any future RCWMD re-permitting activities. The specific operational details, such as daily, yearly and lifetime capacities, intake volumes and estimated closure dates, are provided in Table 4.17-K for each active landfill serving Riverside County. The 15-year projection of disposal capacity is prepared each year by the RCWMD as part of the annual reporting requirements for the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP). The most recent 15-year projection submitted to the State Integrated Waste Management Board by the RCWMD is shown in Table 4.17-L. Riverside County’s projection is disposal-based, accounting for both growth in disposal needs or demand (4% per year) and diversion requirements.

Schools: A total of 23 school districts serve Riverside County. Most of these are “Unified School Districts” providing schooling for grades K (kindergarten) through 12. Occasionally, differing grades are provided by separate districts, e.g., the Perris Union High School District only serves grades 9-12. Riverside County Office of Education (RCOE) provides educational and administrative support services to the school districts and over

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-150 Public Review Draft . March 2014

430,000 students living in Riverside County. It also acts as an intermediary between the State of California and the local school districts.

RCOE reports a total of 467 K-12 school sites, including 17 charter schools, 273 elementary sites, 75 middle/junior high sites, 69 high school sites and 33 continuation/adult education sites, as well as 16 Head Start/preschool program sites. RCOE also reports that the average State of California funding per pupil is $5,011 for elementary districts, $6,022 for high school districts and $5,239 for unified districts. The Riverside County Public School Directory for 2010-2011 indicates there are more than 18,740 teachers and 17,480 non-teaching school employees serving the County of Riverside. Table 4.17-P in Section 4.17.5.A indicates student enrollment levels for the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years. The 18 charter schools and four “independent study” schools located in Riverside County are privately run and not included. Since provision of private educational services, such as charter schools, is based on economic factors, rather than state mandate, they are not further discussed or analyzed in this section. There are also several community college districts providing advanced educational instruction in Riverside County, as well as a number of private, public and technical/professional schools of higher education.

Overcrowding in public schools is caused by increases in student enrollment. In April 2003 (the most recent year of data available), the State Department of Education established a list of schools and school districts identified as overcrowded under criteria set by the State of California. To be classified as a “Critically Overcrowded School,” a school must have a pupil density greater than 115 pupils per acre for grades K-6 and 90 pupils per acre for grades 7-12. Within Riverside County, five elementary schools within the Riverside Unified School District were identified as such. No other schools or school districts within Riverside County were included in the state list.

Libraries: The County of Riverside operates a system of 32 libraries and two book mobiles. The names and locations of these county libraries are presented in Table 4.17-V in section 4.17.6.A. The Riverside County Library System operates an automated network that currently deploys over 350 computer/terminal workstations in a number of library branches and can also be accessed by Riverside County residents via 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 and videos. In 2010, the Riverside County Library System reported over 681,000 “registered borrowers” utilizing county library services. In addition to providing the opportunity to review and/or check-out materials for personal use, the County of Riverside also operates a number of specific programs including adult and family literacy, and after-school and pre-school programs. Based on 2010 reported registered borrowers (681,117) and current square footage of library facilities available (333,884), at present facilities provide approximately 0.49 square feet of space per registered borrower (not the county population as a whole).

The County of Riverside’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.

Medical Facilities: The County of Riverside operates the Riverside County Regional Medical Center (RCRMC) in Moreno Valley, which in turn operates a number of adjunct clinics. The Riverside County Department of Public Health also operates ten separate clinics throughout the county. Additional medical facilities and services, such as private/for profit and municipal facilities, exist within the county and are not addressed in this analysis. The RCRMC is a 520,000-square foot state-of-the-art tertiary care and level II adult and pediatric facility, licensed for a total of 439 beds and with a staff of approximately 2,100. The RCRMC provides upwards of 200,000 annual patient visits in its specialty outpatient clinics and 100,000 annual patient visits to its emergency room/trauma unit. The community-based clinics operated by the Riverside County Department of Public Health provide a wide array of family care services. See Table 4.17.6-A for full list of clinics and locations.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-151

b. Future Conditions

The ongoing growth of Riverside County over time will introduce people, property and structures into previously undeveloped areas and also increase urban densities through infill and expansion, all of which would require adequate public services and facilities to ensure their health, safety and well-being. In terms of future conditions, a variety of data and analyses were collected or performed to determine what effects build out of Riverside County over time (in any of the respective scenarios, including cumulative) would have on existing public facilities, as well as the demand for future services. The results of these analyses are shown in tables below. For the methods used in calculating the individual metrics shown, see the respective subsections of Section 4.17.

The tables show the cumulative conditions for the three General Plan build out scenarios examined in this section: Existing General Plan (CURR GP), the Updated General Plan as per GPA No. 960 (GP/GPA960) and the cumulative General Plan as per the additional GPAs proposed or approved through 2009 (CULM GP) (see Table 5.5-A). See Sections 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 for specifics on each scenario.

It should be noted that the public services addressed here encompass the jurisdictions and responsibilities of numerous independent public agencies, both within and at times outside of Riverside County. Thus, for baseline (existing) services a theoretical value is used rather than actual data because of the variability in existing conditions and the amount of data available. See table footnotes for specifics. For all of the metrics, the same modeling procedures used to estimate theoretical needs in Section 4.17 were used. Estimates consist of theoretical data because specific area-by-area calculations for each resource, using each independent agency’s own variables and procedures were beyond the scope of this programmatic analysis. Also, controlling these variables in the modeling process by using standardized factors countywide enables valid comparisons amongst the various scenarios without inconsistencies caused by varying models amongst agencies.

These data should not be construed as the actual specific demands for public facilities that shall arise for a given location. Such determinations will be made on a project-by-project basis as development occurs and may vary based on the surrounding area. For resources or areas overseen by a specific public entity (e.g., individual school districts), that agency will have final say on the future facilities needed, as well as where, how, when and to what standards such facilities are ultimately developed. Further, each agency has its own plans, standards and requirements that will apply. The values presented here are for comparative planning purposes only.

The theoretical projections are also based on the assumption that all the land uses proposed under each scenario are actually developed fully and as mapped/planned. As such, each represents the theoretical, worst-case scenario and likely over-states the actual real-world development potential likely to result. Actual future development of individual parcels and areas mapped in the various build out scenarios, including those of GPA No. 960, are subject to the discretion of many hundreds to thousands of individual property owners, including private individuals, business entities and even various public agencies and other entities. The County of Riverside has little to no control over the decision to propose development (new or redeveloped) on a given site although the County of Riverside is the entity with discretion for review and approval of such development applications for most cases within unincorporated Riverside County. Demand for additional development is often a result of many interrelated factors, including population growth and economic demand, as well as location, local supply, infrastructure availability, costs, etc.

Table 5.5-X: Cumulative Effect on Theoretical Demand for Fire Protection FIRE STATIONS Existing2 General Plan Build Out Scenarios NEEDED1 Conditions % CURR GP3 % GPU/ GPA9603 % CULM GP3 % Residential, Urban/Sub. 60 30% 160 47% 170 49% 160 46% Residential, Rural/Agri. 0 0% 40 12% 40 11% 40 11% Residential, Interf./Wild. 0 0% 30 9% 30 9% 30 9%

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-152 Public Review Draft . March 2014

RESIDENTIAL - subtotal 60 30% 230 68% 240 69% 230 66% Commercial4 80 40% 30 9% 30 9% 40 11% Industrial4 60 30% 80 24% 80 23% 80 23% ECONOMIC - subtotal 140 70% 110 32% 110 31% 120 34% Total 200 340 350 350 Difference (from EXIST) ------+140 +70% +150 +75% +150 +75% Difference (from CURR) ------+10 +3% +10 +3% Footnotes: 1. Based on standards from EIR No. 441: one fire station needed per 2,000 dwelling units (residential) and one station per 3.5-million square feet of commercial or industrial land use. All values rounded to nearest 10. 2. “Existing” values per theoretical baseline calculations, see applicable portion of Section 4.17 for actual values. 3. CURR GP = General Plan as of end of 2008. See Section 5.5.1 for descriptions of each GP scenario. 4. Commercial uses include CR, CO and CT. Industrial uses include HI, LI and BP. Uses too variable for factors omitted. Source: Riverside County Planning Dept., Project Application Data, 2013. Factors from EIR No. 441, 2003.

Table 5.5-Y: Cumulative Effect on Theoretical Demand for Law Enforcement General Plan Build Out Scenarios LAW ENFORCEMENT (# of Sworn Officers)1 Existing2 GPU/ Conditions % CURR GP3 % GPA9603 % CULM GP3 % Residential, Urban/Sub. 610 94% 1,390 68% 1,480 70% 1,540 70% Residential, Rural/Agri. 10 1% 290 14% 300 14% 300 14% Residential, Interf./Wild. 30 5% 360 18% 340 16% 350 16% Total 650 2,040 2,120 2,190 Difference (from EXIST) ------+ 1,390 213% +1,470 +226% +1,540 +237% Difference (from CURR) ------+80 +4% +150 +7% Footnotes: 1. Calculations use 1.5 sworn officers per 1,000 population pursuant to EIR No. 441’s Mitigation Measure 4.15.C, adopted in October 2003. All values rounded to nearest 10. 2. “Existing” values per theoretical baseline calculations, see applicable portion of Section 4.17 for actual values. 3. Build out scenarios: CURR GP = Current (2008) General Plan; GP/GPA960 = Current (2008) General Plan with changes proposed by GPA No. 960; TOT CULM GP = Current (2008) General Plan, plus GPA No. 960, as well as changes proposed by existing GPAs approved or applied for through the end of 2009 (see Table 5.5-A). 4. Commercial uses include CR, CO and CT. Industrial uses include HI, LI and BP. Uses too variable for factors omitted. Source: Riverside County Planning Dept., Project Application Data, 2013. Factor from EIR No. 441, 2003.

Table 5.5-Z: Cumulative Effect on Theoretical Solid Waste Generation General Plan Build Out Scenarios SOLID WASTE GENERATED Existing2 GPU/ (tons/y)1 Conditions % CURR GP3 % GPA9603 % CULM GP3 % Residential, Urban/Sub. 54,800 2% 124,600 4% 133,000 4% 137,100 4% Residential, Rural/Agri. 1,400 0% 25,700 <1% 25,700 <1% 26,800 <1% Residential, Interf./Wild. 3,100 0% 31,900 1% 31,300 1% 31,600 1% RESIDENTIAL - subtotal 59,300 2% 182,200 5% 190,000 5% 195,500 5% Commercial4 648,800 21% 499,300 14% 503,300 14% 648,200 17% Industrial4 2,819,800 98% 2,816,700 81% 2,831,800 80% 2,877,100 77% ECONOMIC - subtotal 2,968,600 98% 3,316,000 95% 3,335,100 94% 3,525,300 94% Total 3,027,900 3,498,200 3,525,100 3,720,800 Difference (from EXIST) ------+470,300 +16% +497,200 +16% +692,900 +23% Difference (from CURR) ------+26,900 +1% +222,600 +6%

Footnotes: 1. Based on standards from EIR No. 441 (tons/year): 0.4100 per dwelling unit, 0.0024 per commercial square foot and 0.0108 per industrial square foot. All values rounded to nearest 100. 2. “Existing” values per theoretical baseline calculations, see applicable portion of Section 4.17 for actual values. 3. CURR GP = General Plan as of end of 2008. See Section 5.5.1 for descriptions of each GP scenario. 4. Commercial uses include CR, CO and CT. Industrial uses include HI, LI and BP. Uses too variable for factors omitted. Source: Riverside County Planning Dept., Project Application Data, 2013. Factors from EIR No. 441, 2003.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-153

Table 5.5-AA: Cumulative Effect on Theoretical Student Generation General Plan Build Out Scenarios STUDENTS GENERATED Existing2 GPU/ (# students)1 Conditions % CURR GP3 % GPA9603 % CULM GP3 % Residential, Urban/Sub. 108,930 92% 247,930 68% 264,340 70% 272,850 70% Residential, Rural/Agri. 2,790 2% 50,980 14% 51,250 14% 53,130 14% Residential, Interf./Wild. 6,100 5% 63,250 17% 62,260 16% 62,730 16% Total 117,830 362,160 377,850 388,710 Difference (from EXIST) ------+244,330 +207% +260,020 +221% +270,880 +230% Difference (from CURR) ------+15,690 +4% +26,550 +7% Footnotes: 1. Based on standards from EIR No. 441 (# of students per dwelling unit): 0.3690 elementary, 0.2010 middle and 0.2460 high school. All values rounded to nearest 10. Note: Each school district has its own factors and is responsible for the actual planning and implementation of its school facilities. 2. “Existing” values per theoretical baseline calculations, see applicable portion of Section 4.17 for actual values. 3. CURR GP = General Plan as of end of 2008. See Section 5.5.1 for descriptions of each GP scenario. 4. Commercial uses include CR, CO and CT. Industrial uses include HI, LI and BP. Uses too variable for factors omitted. Source: Riverside County Planning Dept., Project Application Data, 2013. Factors from EIR No. 441, 2003.

Table 5.5-AB: Cumulative Effect on Theoretical Library Demand General Plan Build Out Scenarios LIBRARY DEMAND Existing2 GPU/ (# volumes)1 Conditions % CURR GP3 % GPA9603 % CULM GP3 % Residential, Urban/Sub. 1,021,300 92% 2,324,400 68% 2,478,400 70% 2,558,100 70% Residential, Rural/Agri. 26,100 2% 477,900 14% 480,700 14% 498,300 14% Residential, Interf./Wild. 57,300 5% 593,100 17% 583,900 16% 588,200 16% Total 1,104,700 3,395,400 3,543,000 3,644,600 Difference (from EXIST) ------+2,290,700 +207% +2,438,300 +221% +2,539,900 +230% Difference (from CURR) ------+147,600 +4% +249,200 +7% Footnotes: 1. Based on standard from EIR No. 441: 2.5 volumes per person. All values rounded to nearest 100. 2. “Existing” values per theoretical baseline calculations, see applicable portion of Section 4.17 for actual values. 3. CURR GP = General Plan as of end of 2008. See Section 5.5.1 for descriptions of each GP scenario. 4. Commercial uses include CR, CO and CT. Industrial uses include HI, LI and BP. Uses too variable for factors omitted. Source: Riverside County Planning Dept., Project Application Data, 2013. Factors from EIR No. 441, 2003.

Table 5.5-AC: Cumulative Effect on Theoretical Hospital Demand General Plan Build Out Scenarios HOSPITAL DEMAND Existing2 GPU/ (# of beds)1 Conditions % CURR GP3 % GPA9603 % CULM GP3 % Residential, Urban/Sub. 780 93% 1,770 68% 1,880 70% 1,940 70% Residential, Rural/Agri. 20 2% 380 15% 370 14% 380 14% Residential, Interf./Wild. 40 5% 450 17% 450 17% 450 16% Total 840 2,600 2,700 2,770 Difference (from EXIST) ------+1,760 +210% +1,860 +221% +1,930 +230% Difference (from CURR) ------+100 +4% +170 +7% Footnotes: 1. Based on EIR No. 441 standard: 1.9 hospital beds per 1,000 population. All values rounded to nearest 10. 2. “Existing” values per theoretical baseline calculations, see applicable portion of Section 4.17 for actual values. 3. CURR GP = General Plan as of end of 2008. See Section 5.5.1 for descriptions of each GP scenario. 4. Commercial uses include CR, CO and CT. Industrial uses include HI, LI and BP. Uses too variable for factors omitted. Source: Riverside County Planning Dept., Project Application Data, 2013. Factors from EIR No. 441, 2003.

Review of the theoretical demand calculations in the tables above reveal several trends, which is expected since each is derived from the same population and land use data. In general, build out of the current General Plan (CURR scenario) will result in cumulatively significant impacts across the gamut of public services. For many, the demand for services will be roughly doubled over the next 50 or so years. This applies to schools, as evidenced by the predicted 207% increase in the expected number of students by 2060. Law enforcement services show nearly 1,400 (213%) additional sworn officers being needed. Library services show nearly 2.3 million volumes

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-154 Public Review Draft . March 2014

would be needed to serve the projected build out population of Riverside County. Similarly, demand for medical services would also be significantly affected, as indicated by the projected 210% increase in the number of hospital beds that would be needed to serve the population of Riverside County at build out. Further, these projections are merely indicators for the overall needs of each public service; for example, to meet the needs of the students projected per Table 5.5-AA, affected primary school districts will need to incrementally add schools, teachers, support staff, etc., for elementary, middle and high school, as the student census increases. Secondary education services and facilities, such as continuing education and adult schools, junior colleges, vocational schools and universities, as well as private schools, specialty schools, etc., will be similarly affected.

For a few public services, current General Plan build out would contribute fewer, but still significant, cumulative increases. These include fire protective services, which have a projected increase in demand of 70% over existing needs. These demands take the form of increased numbers of both people and property needing protection from fires, both urban and wildfires. For fire services, cumulative impacts are particularly significant due to the extensive incremental expansion of urban fringes and rural development into interface/wildland and open, undeveloped areas that are at greater risk for wildland fires (see Section 4.17.2) and also more remote, which results in longer response times and greater difficulty in providing services.

For solid waste disposal facilities, the projected increase is a much more modest, but still cumulatively significant, 16% over the next 50-plus years. The various waste stream reduction and recycling (diversion) laws enacted by the state and implemented at the county and city level continue to contribute to the lower rates of cumulative increase being projected. Nevertheless, because of existing environmental constraints, landfill siting difficulties and also the long-term environmental impacts inherent in landfill operations (particularly emissions from trucks hauling wastes), EIR No. 441, certified for the current General Plan, found these cumulative impacts to be significant for existing waste disposal facilities.

As shown in the tables above, build out of each of the various General Plan scenarios shown will contribute incrementally to utilization of existing public facilities and demand for additional public facilities and services in Riverside County. On a cumulative basis, the effect of General Plan build out with the project, GPA No. 960, added to it (i.e., the GPU/GPA960 scenario) would generally be incrementally small; an increase of roughly 4% in most cases (3% for fire protection demands). In nearly all cases, however, these small, incremental increases would nevertheless be cumulatively considerable due mainly to the constraints upon the County of Riverside’s ability to mitigate demands. See impacts, below, for more details. The 1% incremental increase associated with the project projected for solid waste disposal needs is not cumulatively significant.

For the cumulative projects (CULM) scenario, similar trends are seen, with most services seeing an incremental increase of around 7%. The exception is for fire services, which show only a 3% increase, as this scenario focuses much more of its development within areas of existing and emerging urbanization. For this alternative, all of the projected cumulative impacts would be significant, including the increase in demand for solid waste disposal (projected at 6% due to the increased amount of commercial land uses proposed).

c. Impacts

Future development will contribute incrementally to cumulative impacts to public services and facilities as Riverside County builds out over time pursuant to the Riverside County General Plan (regardless of scenario). Specific impacts of the severities indicated will include the following:

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-155

(1) Fire Protection Services

 Future development would introduce additional people and property requiring fire protection and emergency response services. This would result in additional fire and emergency responses from existing facilities, increasing wear and tear on equipment and necessitating additional facilities and staff. Where the incremental increase in demand exceeds available services, this impact would be cumulatively significant for any of the build out scenarios.

 When new development is located outside the normal radius for acceptable response times, in particular in the urban fringe and wildland areas, additional wildland fire hazards would be created or exacerbated, with people and property at increased risk due to delayed response. In areas without adequate services nearby, this could result in the exposure of people and property to high fire hazard conditions without adequate fire protection.

 Fire and emergency vehicles and equipment responding would experience increased wear and tear due to additional distances traveled. Increased travel times would also decrease the number of calls that could be responded to during a shift. When demand is great enough in a given region, additional fire facilities would be built. However, the provision of additional services would also require financial resources to support additional manpower, equipment and fire stations or other facilities.

 Existing fire facilities may be expanded or new facilities constructed to ensure adequate levels of service and response times. In particular, new fire stations would be needed to serve outlying wildland and urban fringes as growth expands into these areas. In areas where development remains sparse and new facilities are not added, response times may drop below acceptable levels. This impact would be cumulatively significant.

 The construction of new fire stations has the potential to cause adverse environmental impacts in their own right. They will, however, be subject to a number of regulatory measures, Riverside County building codes, CEQA mitigation measures, etc., which should be sufficient to ensure no significant environmental impacts occur. See discussion for Impact 4.17-A in Section 4.17.2.

 Overall, future growth within unincorporated Riverside County, including as a result of GPA No. 960, will substantially contribute to a significant cumulative impact on fire protection personnel, equipment and facilities.

(2) Law Enforcement Services

 New development would introduce additional people and property requiring law enforcement services, including emergency response. This would result in additional routine and emergency responses from existing facilities and create demand for additional facilities and staff. Where the incremental increase in demand exceeds available services, this impact would be cumulatively significant for any of the build out scenarios.

 When new development is located outside the normal radius for acceptable response times, in particular in the urban fringe and wildland areas, hazards related to personal safety and crime would be created or exacerbated, and people and property would be at increased risk due to delayed response. In areas without adequate services nearby, this could result in the exposure of people and property to higher safety hazards and security risks.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-156 Public Review Draft . March 2014

 Law enforcement (e.g., County Sheriff Department) vehicles and equipment responding to calls would experience increased wear and tear due to additional distances traveled. Increased travel times would also decrease the number of calls that could be responded to during a shift. When demand is great enough in a given region, additional facilities (i.e., Sheriff Dept. substations) would be built. However, the provision of additional services would also require financial resources to support additional manpower, equipment, substations, correctional facilities, legal/judicial services, etc.

 Existing law enforcement facilities may be expanded and/or new facilities constructed to ensure adequate levels of service and response times throughout Riverside County. In particular, new substations would be needed to serve outlying wildland and urban fringes as growth expands into these areas. In areas where development remains sparse and new facilities are not added, however, response times may drop below acceptable levels. This impact would be cumulatively significant, regardless of build out scenario.

 The construction of new substations has the potential to cause adverse environmental impacts in their own right. They will, however, be subject to a number of regulatory measures, Riverside County building codes, CEQA mitigation measures, etc., which should be sufficient to ensure no significant environmental impacts occur. See discussion for Impact 4.17-B in Section 4.17.3.

 Overall, future growth within unincorporated Riverside County, including as a result of GPA No. 960, will substantially contribute to a significant cumulative impact on law enforcement (e.g., County Sheriff Department) personnel, equipment and facilities.

(3) Solid Waste Management

 The growth population from new residential uses and jobs and economic activity from new commercial, industrial and institutional uses occurring as Riverside County builds out over time would result in a corresponding increase the amount of solid waste generated by these various uses. The disposal of this additional waste would incrementally increase the wastes going into existing landfills, potentially hastening the end of their usable lives, and contribute to the need for new or expanded sanitary landfill facilities.

 Continued growth within Riverside County will incrementally increase the amount of refuse and other solid waste generated, also causing a corresponding increase in the need for disposal services, including hauling, sorting, recycling, ABOP and hazardous materials disposal, as well as an increased need for landfill space. It would also incrementally increase the number (and/or duration) of truck trips occurring within Riverside County for the collection of said wastes.

 The increase in disposal need may hasten existing landfills in reaching their permitted capacity, decreasing their expected lifespan. This incremental contribution of growth, as projected for the proposed project, GPA No. 960, or any of the other General Plan build out scenarios, will result in incremental, but non- substantial, cumulative impacts to existing landfills.

 Continued long-range planning by the Riverside County Waste Management Department will ensure that new disposal facilities (landfills) are developed to meet increasing needs and, in particular, to accommodate the loss of existing landfills as they reach permitted capacity and lifespan. The construction of additional landfills will result in additional incremental environmental impacts in their own right that would be addressed through both existing mitigation (e.g., from this EIR as well as EIR No. 441) and additional mitigation as deemed necessary based on project-specific analyses.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-157

 All future development will be required to comply with all applicable state, federal and county requirements for solid waste disposal, including the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP). Accordingly, such development should not interfere with the implementation, attainment or compliance with any of these statutes or regulations. Nor will it cause inconsistencies with applicable statutes and regulations related to solid waste, including the CIWMP.

(4) Schools

 New development will incrementally introduce additional people, particularly schoolchildren, requiring school services within Riverside County. This would result in the need for additional classroom space, as well as teaching and support staff at levels exceeding current capacity. Where increased demand (increased student populations) exceeds available school services and space, impacts will be cumulatively substantial, for any of the General Plan build out scenarios, including that associated with GPA No. 960. Mitigation for such impacts will be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinance No. 575 and state law pursuant to the Leroy F. Green School Facilities Act (aka Senate Bill 50), which prohibits local agencies from imposing school impact mitigation fees, dedications or other requirements in excess of those provided by statute. However, to the extent the financial resources generated pursuant to statute are not sufficient to satisfy demand, cumulatively significant school impacts would result.

 Where increases trigger new school facilities or expansion of existing facilities, environmental impacts may occur in association with their construction and/or operation. Adverse environmental impacts would be associated with construction of new school sites/ facilities to the extent their location, construction methods or operations affect the surrounding area. The construction of additional school facilities, particularly large campuses associated with high schools, have the potential to result in additional cumulatively significant environmental impacts in their own right.

(5) Library Services

 New development will incrementally introduce additional people utilizing library services within Riverside County. This would result in the need for additional library space, reading material and media, as well as librarians and support staff. Where increased demand exceeds available library services, impacts will be cumulatively substantial for any of the General Plan build out scenarios, including that associated with GPA No. 960, if not met with additional services and facilities.

 Mitigation of cumulative impacts to library services will be contingent upon the ability of Riverside County to provide adequate funding and the availability of suitable library sites. Where such financial resources are not sufficient to meet increased need, or where increased service provision lags behind the incremental increase in demand, cumulatively significant impacts to library services will result.

 Where increases trigger the need for new libraries or the expansion of existing facilities, environmental impacts may occur in association with their construction and/or operation. However, due to the relatively small footprints typically associated with libraries, their typically centralized, urban locations, as well as the potential for existing buildings to be retrofitted as libraries, environmental impacts associated with the construction of new facilities can feasibly be limited to less than significant levels.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-158 Public Review Draft . March 2014

(6) Medical Facilities and Services

 New development will incrementally introduce additional people within Riverside County needing a wide range of health and medical services. This would result in a corresponding increase in the need for additional medical facilities, including community clinics, hospitals, mental health services, specialty services, skilled nursing facilities, rehabilitation units, pharmacies, imaging and diagnostic laboratories and services, public health services, etc., as well as the skilled staff needed to operate them. Where increased demand exceeds available services, impacts would be cumulatively substantial for any of the General Plan build out scenarios, including that associated with GPA No. 960, if not met with additional services and facilities.

 Mitigation of cumulative impacts to Riverside County medical services will be contingent upon the ability of Riverside County to provide adequate funding and the availability of suitable sites. Where such financial resources are not sufficient to meet increased need, or where increased service provision lags behind the incremental increase in demand, cumulatively significant impacts will result. This may be particularly true for remote, rural or other underserved areas distant from existing major medical centers.

 Where increases trigger the need for new or expanded medical facilities, environmental impacts may occur in association with their construction and/or operation. For community clinics and other smaller scale facilities, the relatively small typical footprints and their typically centralized, urban locations, as well as the potential for retrofitting of existing buildings, environmental impacts associated with the construction of new medical or health facilities can feasibly be limited to less than significant levels.

 For major medical centers that will be needed to serve growing regions, however, adverse environmental impacts would be associated with construction of new facilities to the extent their location, construction methods and operations affect the surrounding area. Thus, the large campuses typically associated with major medical centers have the potential to result in additional significant environmental impacts in their own right.

d. Mitigation

As described in detail in Section 4.17, a variety of measures would be implemented to avoid, reduce and minimize adverse cumulative impacts to public services and facilities. These include the following:

(1) Regulatory Compliance

Key Regulations and Programs: See Section 4.17.3 for details on each regulation.

 California Government Code (Section 51178): Fire safety standards

 California Building Code (PRC Sections 4290-4299): Addressing fire safety

 California Integrated Waste Management Act: Solid waste diversion regulations

 Assembly Bill 341 (Chesboro, 2011): Solid waste diversion regulations

 Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act (SB 50): School development fee requirements and limits on CEQA mitigation (CGC Section 65995, in particular)

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-159

 County Integrated Waste Management Plan

 Riverside County Fire Protection Master Plan

 Riverside County Ordinance No. 659 (Development Impact Fees Program)

 Riverside County Ordinance No. 787 (Fire Code Standards)

 Riverside County Conditions of Approval (developed and issued on a project-by-project basis to address the specific project’s effects)

Key General Plan Policies: See Section 4.17 for the text of each policy.

 Land Use Element Policies: LU 5.1, 5.2, 7.8, 10.1 and 31.2

 Safety Element Policies: S 5.1-5.9, 5.11, 5.12 and 5.14-5.21

(2) CEQA Mitigation

Existing Mitigation Measures: EIR No. 441, which was prepared and certified for the 2003 RCIP General Plan, contains a number of mitigation measures (MMs) imposed to reduce, avoid or minimize significant impacts related to various public facilities. Since these MMs were programmatic in nature, they remain applicable to this project (GPA No. 960) as well as potentially to any other future development occurring in Riverside County over time.

 Existing MM 4.15.2A: The County [of Riverside] 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 to provide onsite security.

 Existing MM 4.15.2B: The TLMA [County Transportation and Land Management Agency] 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.

 Existing MM 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.

 Existing MM 4.15.2D: The County [of Riverside] 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.

 Existing MM 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.

 Existing MM 4.15.3B: Riverside County shall follow State [of California] regulations in implementing the goals, policies and programs identified in the Riverside County[wide] Integrated Waste Management Plan in order to achieve and maintain a 50% reduction in solid waste disposal through source reduction, reuse, recycling and composting.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-160 Public Review Draft . March 2014

 Existing MM 4.15.3.C: In accordance with State [of California] regulations, Riverside County shall prepare an annual report of progress for the CIWMB to determine [Riverside] County’s progress toward meeting its diversion goals and objectives, to project [Riverside] 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.

 Existing MM 4.15.3D: In accordance with CCR Section 18788, Riverside County shall review the Riverside CIWMP every five years to determine if [Riverside] County’s waste management practices remain consistent with waste diversion goals and objectives and to assess if revision is required.

 Existing MM 4.15.3E: The County [of Riverside] 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.

 Existing MM 4.15.3F: The County [of Riverside] shall require all development projects to coordinate with appropriate [Riverside] 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 [of Riverside] shall recommend that all development projects incorporate measures to promote waste reduction, reuse, recycling and composting.

 Existing MM 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.

 Existing MM 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.

 Existing MM 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 would be based on and determined by the outcome of the periodic medical needs assessments.

e. Significance

Implementation of all of the above regulations, General Plan policies and mitigation measures, would help reduce, avoid or minimize the various cumulative impacts to public services and facilities. However, while public service impacts associated with the project, GPA No. 960, are individually less than significant, for some public services, incremental impacts will remain cumulatively substantial, even with the implementation of all feasible mitigation. Specifically, incremental increases in demand for fire protection and law enforcement services, schools, libraries and medical services will be cumulatively significant under any of the build out scenarios examined herein, including the project (GPA No. 960). Due to the continued implementation of waste diversion and other measures, as well as effective long-range planning and the stable funding of its programs, the incremental contribution of future development arising from the project’s General Plan changes would not result in cumulatively significant impacts on existing or future landfills.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-161

17. Cumulative Effects on Transportation and Circulation

Section 4.18 (Transportation and Circulation) evaluates the potential for the project, GPA No. 960, to affect or be affected by the circulation network and transportation within unincorporated Riverside County, as well as its municipal areas (cities) and adjoining jurisdictions (Orange County, San Bernardino County, etc.). This analysis includes assessment of the functionality of both the existing and proposed circulation networks (freeways, expressways, highways and the arterial roadways) within Riverside County. For procedural reasons related to the standard methodology used for traffic studies, the section also addresses cumulative traffic impacts, both directly and tangentially (as traffic is an inherently cumulative problem). It also analyzes the mitigation (both through regulatory compliance and EIR mitigation) necessary to ensure impacts are less than significant or mitigated to the extent feasible. Areas already covered in Section 4.18 are not repeated here; see section directly for additional resource details.

Section 4.18 of this EIR provides a description of the existing circulation (roadway) network within Riverside County, as well as modeling existing and future circulation (traffic) impacts projected to occur as Riverside County builds out over time. In total, the circulation networks for both freeways and expressways (generally divided roads with controlled entries and exits) and for arterial roadways (generally county, city and private roads, though not exclusively), five scenarios were modeled and mapped, as per below. Modeling performed for these analyses by the Riverside County Transportation Department used the Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model (RIVTAM). See Appendix EIR-4, section D, for RIVTAM validation report (correlating actual traffic counts to RIVTAM model output).

 Baseline: Traffic counts and volumes for base year 2007 as modeled by the Riverside County Transportation Department in RIVTAM and validated with actual roadway counts for the arterial network and uses Caltrans “Traffic Volumes on California State Highways, 2009” for freeways and expressways. See Tables 4.18-D and 4.18-E in Section 4.18, plus Figures 4.18.1(1-21) through 4.18.5(1- 21) in Appendix EIR-4, Section E, for data. Note: This scenario is equivalent to the “Existing Conditions” scenario used throughout the rest of this cumulative analysis section.

 Baseline Plus Project: Per Section 4.18, this scenario is the “existing land use and roadway network for all locations outside of Riverside County boundaries (e.g., within cities) and build out of GPA No. 960 land use and roadway network for all County of Riverside facilities.” When the 2003 General Plan build out results are added to it, it is roughly equivalent to the “GPU/GP960” scenario. See Figures 4.18.11 through 4.18.14, plus volume and LOS data for Baseline versus Baseline Plus Project in Figures 4.18.15 (1-21) and 4.18.16 (1-21), respectively.

 2003 General Plan: This scenario depicts traffic conditions expected upon build out of the existing (defined as 2003 in section 4.18) General Plan and build out of the cities’ as well, that is, essentially the without-project (or “status quo”) scenario. For data for this scenario, see Figures 4.18.17(1-21) through 4.18.21(1-21). [Note: This scenario is roughly equivalent to the “Current General Plan” build out scenario used elsewhere in this cumulative analysis section.]

 GPA No. 960 Build Out: The General Plan circulation network as updated pursuant to the changes proposed under GPA No. 960 at build out. Per Section 4.18, this scenario “represents build out of GPA No. 960 plus build out of all cities land use and roadway network.” Thus, it is roughly equal to the project “delta,” that is difference between existing and with-project build out conditions. See Figures 4.18.22 (1-21) through 4.18.27 (1-21), in particular Figure 4.18.23 (1-21) which shows the proposed network changes by Area Plan.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-162 Public Review Draft . March 2014

 Cumulative Growth: This scenario depicts the cumulative General Plan as outlined at the beginning of Section 5.5. That is, it encompasses the additional proposed GPAs as well as the project and is consistent with the “CULM” scenario used throughout this section. See Figures 4.18.28(1-21) through 4.18.31(1-21).

Each of the above figures consists of a set of 21 individual maps depicting the modeling results indicated by Area Plan. For each scenario data included directional daily volumes for freeways and expressways, as well as for the arterial network. Level of service results were also mapped similarly for both types of network. Due to their voluminous nature, all of the exhibits for Section 4.18 are included in the accompanying technical appendix (specifically, Section E of Appendix EIR-4). Additional figures accompanying Section 4.18 (also in Appendix EIR-4.E) include: Figure 4.18.6 (Western Riverside County Park-And-Ride Locations), Figure 4.18.7(1) (Riverside Transit Agency System Map), Figure 4.18.7(2) (SunBus System Map), Figure 4.18.8 (Metrolink Routes Map), Figure 4.18.9 (Riverside County Trails and Bikeway System) and Figure 4.18.10 (Public Airports in Riverside County). Lastly, Figure 4.18.32 (1-21) shows Metrolink service by Area Plan, and Figure 4.18.33 (1-21) does the same for bus rapid transit and express bus routes. All of the above figures are encompassed in technical appendix EIR-4, Section E. A general, countywide overview map of the circulation network can be found in the General Plan, Figure C-1, with detailed maps presented in the Area Plans.

In addition to spatial data, the section includes a number of tables as well: Table 4.18-A (Uninterrupted Traffic Flow Facilities Level of Service), Table 4.18-B (Interrupted Traffic Flow Facilities Level of Service), Table 4.18-C (Segment Volume Capacities/Level of Service for Riverside County Roadways), Table 4.18-D (Baseline Roadway Levels of Service for Freeways and State Routes), Table 4.18-E (Baseline Roadway Levels of Service for Roadway Segments One-mile or Greater (Arterial Road Network)), Table 4.18-F (Daily Truck Volumes on Freeways in Riverside County (Bi-Directional)), Table 4.18-G (Population, Household, Employment and Trip Generation Comparison), Table 4.18-H (Vehicle Miles Traveled [VMT] Summary), Table 4.18-I (Vehicle Hours Traveled [VHT] and Average Travel Speed Summary), Table 4.18-J (Baseline and Baseline Plus Project (County Growth) Freeway and State Route Segment Levels of Service [LOS]), Table 4.18K (Baseline and Baseline Plus Project Roadway Comparison for Segments One Mile or Greater (Arterial Road Network)), Table 4.18-L (Baseline to GPA No. 960 Freeway and Expressway Comparison), Table 4.18-M (Baseline to GPA No. 960 Comparison for Segments One Mile or Greater (Arterial Road Network)), Table 4.18-N (Summary of Operating Characteristics – Miles of Roadways, Arterial Road Network), Table 4.18-O (Summary of Operating Characteristics – Lane Miles of Roadway, Arterial Road Network), Table 4.18-P (Matrix for Comparing Scenarios and Impacts (County Roads)), Table 4.18-Q (Matrix for Comparing Scenarios and Impacts (City Roads)) and Table 4.18-R (Mitigation Recommendations for GPA No. 960 (Build out)).

a. Existing Conditions

Vehicular Circulation and Roadway Network: 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. Mass transit travel currently represents less than 2% of all trips made in Riverside 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. Riverside County’s industrial and agricultural economies depend on safe and efficient goods movement. Thus, the County of Riverside maintains an extensive network of low volume rural roads in sparsely settled areas to service goods movement and the agricultural industry across the nearly 200-mile expanse of Riverside County. Large trucks are the primary means of transporting such goods, with freight rail forming the critical backbone of the goods movement industry in Riverside County.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-163

Riverside County is linked to Los Angeles and Orange counties principally by State Route (SR) 60 (Pomona freeway), Interstate 10 (I-10) (San Bernardino freeway), SR-91 (Riverside freeway) and SR-74 (Ortega highway). Interstate 15 (I-15) plus minor conventional highways (SR-79, etc.) provide southern links to San Diego County. To the north, links to San Bernardino County in the west are provided by I-15 and I-215, as well as by other major and minor local roadways. To the east, the I-10 freeway provides a connection to destinations in Arizona; I- 15 and I-215 provide access through San Bernardino County to Nevada, including its primary recreation areas associated with Las Vegas and Lake Mead. In addition, the I-15 also provides access south to San Diego and its many tourist and recreational amenities, and to Mexico via I-5 and I-805.

The internal highway system includes numerous county roadways, as well as roadways within each of the 29 cities in Riverside County. These major roadways include Alessandro Boulevard, Cajalco Road, Center Street, Domenigoni Parkway, Grand Avenue, La Sierra Avenue, Magnolia Avenue, Monterey Avenue, Murrieta Hot Springs Road, Palm Drive, Ramon Road, Ramona Expressway, Rancho California Road, Temescal Canyon Road, Van Buren Boulevard, Washington Street and others.

To gauge the effectiveness of a given roadway within Riverside County’s network, several metrics are used including “Level of Service” (LOS), a key measure of facility capacity. The 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (5th Edition) defines the term Level of Service (LOS) as “a quantified stratification of a performance measure or measures that represent quality of service, measured on an A - F scale, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions from the traveler’s perspective and LOS F the worst.” Tables 4.18-A and 4.18-B provide lists descriptions of the quality of traffic flow for each LOS for uninterrupted and interrupted traffic flow, respectively.

Accordingly, Riverside County has established daily traffic volume range breaks for Circulation Element roadways to correspond to the various levels of service (A-F) for each facility type, consistent with the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual. See Table 4.18-C of Section 4.18 for this table. The ranges of average daily traffic (ADT) volume described for each roadway facility (collector, arterial, secondary, etc.) at each LOS are intended to provide quantifiable ranges to achieve the qualitative performance outlined in the two tables mentioned above.

Thus, performance of the existing roadway system in Riverside County was analyzed by evaluating key roadway segments in terms of daily traffic volumes (either through direct roadway counts or modeled data), facility characteristics and levels of service. Figures 4.18.1 through 4.18.5 (including subfigures 1 through 21 for each representing each of the Area Plans within Riverside County), located in Appendix EIR-4, Section E, provide specific information related to existing roadway network, traffic flow, traffic volumes and level of service.

According to the analysis presented by the Riverside County Transportation Department in Section 4.18, they determined that the majority of Riverside County’s roadway and highway system operate at LOS D or better. This means that motorists on most roadways do not experience substantial delays, even during peak travel hours, and roadway segments are generally operating under capacity. Some roadway and highway segments within Riverside County, however, are heavily congested. Table 4.18-D of Section 4.18 identifies segments of interstate and state routes identified by Riverside County Transportation where the daily traffic volumes indicate LOS E or F conditions. In addition, as indicated in Table 4.18-C, the Transportation Department also notes that under existing conditions, there are a number of interstate and state route segments in Riverside County that operate at or over capacity (e.g., LOS E or LOS F).

Using the Transportation Department’s proposed levels of service (i.e., Table 4.18-B), Section 4.18 finds that the only major freeway operating at or below capacity along its entire length through Riverside County is the I-10. The other major freeways (I-15, I-215 and SR-60) only operate at or above capacity on certain segments in Riverside County (others operate within acceptable ranges). For example, SR-91 operates at LOS F between the

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-164 Public Review Draft . March 2014

Orange County line and its junction with SR-60/I-215 in the City of Riverside. Non-freeway state routes that also operate at or over capacity include: SR-62 between Indian Avenue and the San Bernardino County line (LOS F), SR-74 through Lake Elsinore (LOS F) and west of Hemet (LOS E) and SR-111, which hits LOS E on several segments in the Indian Wells/Palm Desert area. All other freeways and State routes have daily traffic volumes that indicate LOS D or better.

Park-and-Ride Facilities: Park-and-ride facilities provide resources that encourage increased vehicle occupancy, which reduces the number of vehicles using roadways and highways in Riverside County. In western Riverside County, nine park-and-ride facilities are operated by Caltrans (with a total of 1,024 parking spaces). The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) also provides twelve park-and-ride facilities providing 859 spaces, and four private commercial developments provide privately operated park-and-ride facilities providing 320 spaces total. There are no park-and-ride facilities located in eastern Riverside County. See Figure 4.18.6 in Appendix EIR-4, Section E, for location maps.

Public Transit Systems: Fixed-route transit services and demand response (dial-a-ride) transit services are provided by the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) in the western portion of Riverside County and by the SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) in the Coachella Valley. According to Section 4.18, RTA operates 36 fixed bus routes, eight commuter 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 and to make commuter connections with transit services in neighboring counties, including OmniTrans in San Bernardino County, OCTA in Orange County and Metrolink (passenger rail) as well. At the end of 2010, RTA operated 97 full-size compressed natural gas buses, 97 dial-a-ride vans, 74 fixed-route vans and ten trolleys. In FY 2010, approximately 7.9 million passengers boarded vehicles operated by RTA, with an average of 26,500 passengers on weekdays and nearly 10,800 on weekend days. All RTA vehicles are wheelchair-accessible, and all full-size buses are equipped with bike racks.

SunLine provides public transit services for the Coachella Valley area, covering approximately 1,120 square miles and homes for about 435,000 residents. As of September 2010, SunLine operated 13 fixed routes with 524 stop locations and served roughly 3.6 million passengers annually. SunLine also operates the SunDial System, providing curb-to-curb demand responsive (dial-a-ride) service. At the end of 2010, SunLine operated a fleet of 125 vehicles, including buses and SunDial vans. In addition to the above, specialized public transportation services are also available through four municipal operators: the cities of Riverside, Corona, Banning and Beaumont. Additionally, the 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. The Greyhound Bus Line also provides private transportation services linking the principal population centers of the county with other regions. Existing bus routes are shown in Figure 4.18.7 of Appendix EIR-4.

Waterways and Waterborne Travel: Unlike other parts of the United States, Riverside County does not have navigable waterways providing for significant transport of people and goods between destinations. Water travel is limited to recreational uses in designated regional and local recreational areas.

Passenger / Commuter Rail: Two types of rail passenger services are available in Riverside County: Intercity service provided by AMTRAK and commuter rail service operated by Metrolink. Along rail routes between the West Coast and points east, AMTRAK serves Riverside County at two train stations plus several locations where AMTRAK provides bus links to train stations. In the Coachella Valley, the Palm Springs AMTRAK station provides access to AMTRAK’s Texas Eagle and Sunset Limited Services, which provide connections to points west including Los Angeles and to points east including Tucson, Arizona and El Paso, Texas. The downtown Riverside Metrolink/AMTRAK station serves the western portion of Riverside County as a stop along

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-165

AMTRAK’s Southwest Chief Service. The Southwest Chief connects Los Angeles to 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. These three lines are: the Riverside and 91 Lines, which connect downtown Riverside and Union Station in Los Angeles via northern (Ontario) and southern (Orange County) routes, respectively; and, the Inland Empire Line which runs through Riverside as it links San Bernardino to Oceanside in San Diego County. As of December 2010 (most recent data at the time of EIR preparation), five commuter rail stations serve Riverside County: Riverside-Downtown, Pedley, Riverside-La Sierra, Corona-North Main and West Corona. Existing passenger rail routes are presented on Figure 4.18.8 in the Appendix EIR-4.E. Planned commuter rail service (Metrolink) is shown in Figure 4.18.32 (1-21).

Airports and Aviation Services: Palm Springs International Airport, located within the City of Palm Springs, is the only airport within Riverside County providing passenger air service; however, Ontario International Airport in San Bernardino County is located close to the northwestern boundary of Riverside County and provides a convenient travel option for residents of western Riverside County. The County of Riverside owns and operates five public use general aviation airports: French Valley, Hemet-Ryan, Jacqueline Cochran Regional, Chiriaco Summit and Blythe. All but one (Hemet-Ryan) are located within unincorporated territory. As shown in Figure 4.18.10 (in Appendix EIR-4, Section E), a number of other public use general aviation airports are located throughout Riverside County, mainly within cities. A joint use (civilian/military) facility, March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport, is located in Riverside County along Interstate 215 north of the City of Perris. In addition to its military functions, the facility is permitted to accommodate up to 21,000 civilian air flights a year and is expected to expand such operations in the future. The Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range (CMAGR) east of the Salton Sea is an extremely active military training facility for fighter jets and other operations, though no formal airport exists on the site. (See Section 4.13 for additional details on military uses.) Existing airport locations are presented on Figure 4.18.10 in the Appendix EIR-4.E.

The Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (RCALUC) adopts and implements Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans (ALUCPs) establishing criteria for acceptable land uses in the vicinity of airports (known as Airport Influence Areas) to protect and promote the safety and welfare of the residents of the airport vicinity and users of the airports while ensuring the airports’ continued operation. Per state law (Public Utilities Code), General Plans must be consistent with ALUCPs unless certain key findings are made by the jurisdiction’s decision-makers. A determination of consistency may be subject to conditions of approval recommended by RCALUC for application to the project by the local agency.

Truck Travel and Goods Movement: The primary generators of truck traffic in Riverside County are agricultural and industrial uses. Since agriculture is transitioning to an urban land use pattern in many portions of Riverside County, overall truck traffic volume generated by agricultural uses is expected to decline 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 Riverside County. As healthy industrial growth is expected within Riverside County, industrial truck traffic will continue to increase. Overall, truck trips are expected to increase as Riverside County approaches build out. Currently, trucks comprise at least 15% 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 the 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

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-166 Public Review Draft . March 2014

engineers describe the effect of trucks in terms of passenger car equivalents or PCEs. Thus, a roadway with 15% truck traffic could be regarded as having lost 30-45% of its capacity to trucks in terms of PCEs. Typically during peak commuting periods, however, the proportion of trucks in traffic is much lower; usually no more than 4-6%. Table 4.18-E in Section 4.18 lists daily truck volumes for selected facilities and locations in Riverside County and Appendix EIR-4, Section C, presents truck traffic volumes on all State of California facilities in Riverside County.

b. Future Conditions

As automotive travel vastly overshadows the other forms of transportation outlined above, the modeling and analyses performed for future conditions focuses on the roadway networks used by motor vehicles in and through Riverside County.

As detailed in Section 4.18, in order to forecast future traffic conditions at the theoretical build out of Riverside County, as well as estimate cumulative build out conditions for the cities within the county, socioeconomic data (SED) was developed by the Riverside County Center for Demographic Research (RCCDR). This data was used to represent the land use build out plans of both Riverside County and its cities. Land use plans were converted to SED using the methodology outlined in General Plan Appendix E-1 (Socioeconomic Build Out Projections, Assumptions and Methodology). This SED development process was used for each of the above scenarios, which were then modeled by the Riverside County Transportation Department via RIVTAM to forecast traffic volumes and other conditions for the various roadway segments studied. The results of these studies are included in Appendix EIR-4.

Table 5.5-AD (Cumulative Traffic Impacts), below, summarizes the cumulative conditions for the three General Plan build out scenarios examined in this section: Existing General Plan (CURR GP), which is the “2003 General Plan” scenario described above; the Updated General Plan as per GPA No. 960 (GP/ GPA960), which is roughly equivalent to the “Baseline Plus Project” scenario above, with the “2003 General Plan” results added to it; and, lastly, the cumulative General Plan as per the additional proposed GPAs through 2009 (CULM GP), the “cumulative” scenario is presented. Existing conditions (i.e., “Baseline” per above) are also addressed. See Section 5.1 for full details on the specifics for each scenario and Section 4.18 for specifics on the traffic modeling scenarios. It should be noted that the same modeling procedures were used to model each of the build out scenarios.

As noted in Section 4.18, “Figures 4.18.1 [through] 4.18.31 [1-21, respectively] contained in Appendix EIR-4, [Section E] present information related to the analysis scenarios described above, including roadway network assumptions, Metrolink and BRT [bus rapid transit]/ express bus assumptions, traffic flow and levels of service.”

As shown in the table below, build out of any of the analyzed General Plan scenarios (including the General Plan as amended per GPA No. 960, i.e., the “GPU/GPA960 scenario”) would increase traffic levels as a result of growth and increased development, both in Riverside County and in the cities. These impacts would incrementally contribute to cumulatively considerable traffic volumes and result in significant traffic impacts at affected segments and intersections serving both existing and future uses. As discussed in greater detail in Section 4.18, future development will contribute incrementally to cumulative transportation and circulation impacts as Riverside County builds out (develops) over time pursuant to the Riverside County General Plan.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-167

Table 5.5-AD: Cumulative Traffic Impacts SCENARIO: EXIST CURR GP Build Out GPU/GPA960 Build Out CULM Build Out Existing Current Gen. Plan DELTA: DELTA: Gen. Plan plus DELTA: DELTA: STATISTIC Conditions1 Gen. Plan2 Build CURR GP Updated per GPA 960 - CULM - CULM TOTAL Addn’l GPAs5 (Baseline) Out minus EXIST GPA 960 4 CURR GP CURR GP minus EXIST Population5 2,030,649 4,795,157 +2,764,508 4,775,846 -19,311 4,920,961 +125,804 +2,890,312 (persons) Households5 653,858 1,489,444 +835,586 1,483,735 -5,709 1,524,740 +35,296 +870,882 (households) Employment6 731,232 2,114,052 +1,382,820 2,055,489 -58,563 2,077,997 -36,055 +1,346,765 (jobs) Trip Generation6 8,180,157 17,918,938 +9,738,781 17,669,642 -249,296 17,951,189 +32,251 +9,771,032 (trips) Vehicle Miles 54,527,493 155,196,166 +100,668,673 146,483,727 -871,244 148,156,298 -7,039,868 -94,371,195 Traveled7(miles) VMT Per-Capita7 26.85 32.37 +5.50 30.67 -1.7 30.11 -2.26 +3.26 (V/C) Vehicle Hours 1,957,669 8,161,713 +6,204,044 7,064,338 -1,097,375 7,135,247 -1,026,466 +5,177,578 Traveled8 (hrs) Average Speed8 25.00 23.25 -1.75 23.93 +0.68 20.76 -2.49 -4.24 (mph) Footnotes: A. All values over 100 rounded to nearest 10 after calculation except for those with decimals, which are not rounded. 1. Referred to as “Baseline” in Section 4.18 and Appendix EIR-4. 2. Referred to as “2003 General Plan” or “Existing General Plan” scenario in Section 4.18 and Appendix EIR-4. 3. Referred to as “Baseline-Plus Project” scenario in Section 4.18 and Appendix EIR-4. 4. Referred to as “General Plan with GPA No. 960” scenario in Section 4.18 and Appendix EIR-4. 5. Referred to as “Cumulative Growth” scenario in Section 4.18 and Appendix EIR-4. 6. Data from Table 4.18-F (Population, Housing, Employment and Trip Generation Comparison) in Section 4.18. 7. Data from Table 4.18-G (Vehicle Miles Traveled Summary) in Section 4.18. 8. Data from Table 4.18-G (Vehicle Miles Traveled Summary) in Section 4.18. 9. Data from Table 4.18-H (Vehicle Hours Traveled and Average Travel Speed Summary) in Section 4.18. Source: Riverside County Transportation Department, Section 4.18 (Transportation and Circulation), Tables 4.18-F, 4.18-G and 4.18-H, 2012, and cumulative data from Appendix EIR-4, 2012.

As shown in the table above, each of the General Plan build out scenarios will generate additional population and employment sources, and therefore, additional vehicle trips compared to existing conditions (i.e., the Baseline scenario). According to the analysis presented in Section 4.18 and summarized above, growth resulting from the General Plan changes proposed by GPA No. would increase vehicle trips in Riverside County by 29% over baseline conditions. With no project, continued growth in Riverside County merely according to the existing General Plan (plus build out of the cities) would increase total number of vehicle trips within Riverside County by 119% over baseline conditions. Thus, even though the amount of growth accommodated by the project itself is decreased by 3%, overall countywide trip generation would still increase by a cumulatively considerable amount. When the additional growth proposed under the added GPAs of the cumulative (CULM) scenario is taken into account, future traffic levels increase even further. Thus, traffic impacts under any of the build out scenarios analyzed in this EIR would be cumulatively significant.

In addition to Table 5.5-AD, above, per the County Transportation Department, Tables 4.18-K and 4.18-L in Section 4.18 show some of the “numerous facilities” expected to operate at unacceptable levels of service under the updated (with-project) General Plan (i.e., GPU/GPA960 scenario), “even with the updated policies identified in GPA No. 960,” such as the revised LOS ranges. The analysis also finds that the “Baseline Plus Project” build out scenario would “more than double” the miles of roadway that would operate at LOS E or LOS F.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-168 Public Review Draft . March 2014

c. Impacts

Future development will contribute incrementally to cumulative traffic, transportation and circulation impacts as Riverside County builds out over time pursuant to the Riverside County General Plan (regardless of scenario). Specific impacts of the severities indicated will include the following:

(1) Cumulatively Considerable Impacts

 Future implementation of the Riverside County roadway network as proposed under GPA No. 960 (GPU/GPA960 scenario) is designed to generally improve traffic conditions throughout Riverside County compared to that projected under build out of the Existing General Plan (CURR GP scenario). This is due to the refined roadway network design (i.e., revisions to better suit developing land use and circulation patterns) proposed under GPA No. 960. However, build out of Riverside County pursuant to the proposed project changes would still result in incremental traffic increases over time that will cumulatively contribute to deficient operations within Riverside County’s circulation network, as well as adversely affect certain roadways within the cities of Riverside County, as well as areas outside the county (adjacent cities, counties, etc.). The proposed Circulation and Land Use Element policy changes incorporated into GPA No. 960 will partially address and improve these deficient conditions. However, a number of deficiencies will remain and additional implementation actions (i.e., the specific mitigation measures listed below) are necessary for some facilities to reduce cumulative traffic impacts to less than significant levels. For other transportation facilities, even with additional improvements, not all will be able to be mitigated to less than significant levels (i.e., due to physical, jurisdictional or environmental constraints for example) and will be subject to cumulatively significant unavoidable impacts.

 Future development would incrementally increase rural, suburban and urban uses in Riverside County resulting in new vehicle trips by travelers and commuters in previously little-traveled areas, areas of existing traffic congestion (i.e., currently unacceptable LOS), existing roadways of insufficient size or capacity to accommodate the resultant traffic increases and also new roadways. Incremental effects to these various roadway types, including those within the unincorporated county, its cities, state and federal highways, and adjoining roadways outside Riverside County, regardless of build out scenario, would result in cumulatively considerable impacts where LOS or other applicable metric is or becomes unacceptable. According to the traffic analysis performed by the Riverside County Transportation Department, Section 4.18 (Transportation and Circulation) notes that, “Of the 153 identified roadways in Table 4.18-L, 99 roadways have mitigation designations recommended for adoption. The remaining 54 roadways require coordination with other jurisdictions and/or are constrained by existing development or environmental considerations.” Thus, in locations constrained by existing development, geology, biology or other limiting factors or hazards, Riverside County’s ability to fully mitigate such impacts through road widening, signalization and other improvements would be impaired resulting in cumulatively considerable impacts that cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels. Lacking jurisdiction over territory outside Riverside County’s boundaries, the County of Riverside would similarly be constrained from fully mitigating to less than significant levels some of the cumulatively significant impacts occurring on roadways outside Riverside County.

 For roadway facilities, existing or future (build out) conditions are defined to have a significant adverse effect on traffic conditions if the roadway segment’s Level of Service (LOS) shows operations falling to an unacceptable LOS (typically LOS E or F) as per the applicable adopted LOS targets (e.g., General Plan Figure C-3). As indicated in Section 4.18 (for example, in Tables 4.18-D and 4.18-E), since some roadway segments already operate at unacceptable LOS, additional traffic generated as Riverside County grows over time would further add to congestion, regardless of build out scenario. Tables 4.18-K and

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-169

4.18-L in Section 4.18 indicate the roadway segments expected to operate at unacceptable levels of service under the updated General Plan (with-project, i.e., GPU/ GPA960 scenario), “even with the updated policies identified in GPA No. 960,” such as the revised LOS ranges.

 As growth occurs within Riverside County and its cities (pursuant to any of the build out scenarios), the increased population and employment sources will result in cumulatively considerable increases in both the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and the VMT per-capita value (see Table 4.18-G or 5.5-AE). This VMT increase would lead incrementally to additional time spent in traffic by commuters, increased wear and tear on vehicles negotiating the traffic, increased noise and increased emission of air pollutants and greenhouse gases. Because not all roadways operating at (or forecast to operate in the future at) unacceptable standards can be mitigated, the growth associated with this project will incrementally contribute to cumulatively significant impacts on vehicle miles traveled.

 The VMT increases described above would in part be offset over time as new commercial and employment destinations are developed in local proximities for today’s more isolated and under-served communities and also would be additional network (roadway) improvements expanding existing capacity and/or providing alternate routes to desired destinations. In these cases, congestion impacts would be temporary, that is limited to the period of use before planned improvements are implemented. Where the LOS change proposed under GPA No. 960 delays the implementation of improvements, growth in Riverside County will incrementally contribute to significant, but short-term, impacts. In most cases, provision of the roadway improvements called for in the proposed Circulation Element roadway networks will be sufficient to bring roadway operations to within acceptable limits. However, where improvements are not possible (i.e., for the reasons outlined in Table 4.18-R), impacts would be long- term rather than short-term, and cumulatively significant and unavoidable, as previously described, for any of the build out scenarios examined.

 Regardless of build out scenario, growth within Riverside County (and even just accounting for the growth that will occur within the cities of Riverside County) will incrementally increase the number of facilities and the total roadway lane-miles within the network over time compared to baseline conditions. The increases will, however, be slightly less for both the GPU/GPA960 and the CULM build out scenarios compared to build out of the Existing General Plan (CURR GP scenario) due to the network refinements previously noted. Nevertheless, this incremental increase in lane-miles traveled will result in cumulatively considerable impacts for any of the build out scenarios based on the criteria described in Section 4.18.

 Table 5.5-AD indicates that total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and also VMT per capita will be improved (i.e., decreased) for both the project (GPU/GPA960) and cumulative (CULM) build out scenarios. However, all of the General Plan build out scenarios will result in cumulatively considerable increases in both metrics as compared to existing conditions (EXIST scenario).

 Growth in Riverside County and its cities over time (pursuant to any of the build out scenarios) will also incrementally increase the vehicle hours traveled (VHT) as additional travelers seek to use roads without enough existing and/or future capacity to efficiently carry the new demand. (See Table 4.18-H in Section 4.18 or Table 5.5-AD, above.) The result is an increase in congestion, meaning slower travel times with trips taking longer to cover the same distance. This VHT increase would lead incrementally to additional time spent in traffic by commuters, increased wear and tear on vehicles negotiating the traffic, increased noise and increased emission of air pollutants and greenhouse gases. Per Section 4.18, several factors can influence this measure, such as the presence or absence of alternative travel routes, trip distributions over the course of a day or the way trips balance destinations and direction of travel during a given period of

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-170 Public Review Draft . March 2014

the day (for example, traveling off-peak instead of peak). The project’s proposed change in LOS standards would further exacerbate this impact by delaying the point at which mitigation may be triggered (warranted) for new development contributions to additional traffic. For example, VHT values (and the associated cumulative impacts) will remain high if it takes longer to trigger a road’s necessary congestion- alleviating improvements scheduled under the General Plan.

 Not all roadways will achieve acceptable levels of service as called for by the RCTC Congestion Management Plan (CMP) for Riverside County. As noted in Table 4.18-R, even with mitigation (including planned improvements), not all roadway segments can achieve acceptable levels of service. Where roadways addressed under the CMP cannot be brought up to operating within the standards deemed acceptable by the CMP, said roadways will conflict with the achievement of the CMP’s objectives. This inconsistency will be cumulatively considerable for the circulation facilities at issue for any of the build out scenarios addressed.

(2) Non-Substantial Incremental Impacts

 Future growth within Riverside County as a result of any of the General Plan build out scenarios will contribute incrementally to changes in air traffic patterns, including increases in air traffic at some airport locations and expansion of air services or facilities at some airports. The increase or expansion of air operations will incrementally increase the areas potentially at risk from air-related safety hazards. Such incremental increases, however, would be non-substantial and would not be cumulatively significant. Further, no new airports or expansions are included in GPA No. 960.

 Future growth within Riverside County as a result of any of the General Plan build out scenarios will contribute incrementally, but non-substantially, to increased demand for rail and air travel and increased use of these systems. Waterborne travel effects will be minimal (and not individually or cumulatively significant) as recreational water uses are the only type occurring in Riverside County; there are no navigable waterways used in Riverside County. Any incremental increases in usage that would occur in association with GPA No. 960 would be non-substantial and not cumulatively significant. Further, no new air, rail or water facilities are included in GPA No. 960.

 Future growth within Riverside County as a result of any of the General Plan build out scenarios will also contribute incrementally to increases in road hazards due to design issues or incompatible uses. These incremental hazards, however, will be avoided, reduced or minimized to cumulatively less-than-significant levels through adherence to Riverside County Transportation design, engineering, construction, operation and maintenance standards.

 Future development would introduce new uses that require both new roads and, in some locations, improvements to existing roads. The construction of such roads would result in temporary traffic impacts to existing roads due to lane closures or narrowing, equipment encroachments, delays, detours, increased traffic on alternate routes and other effects. Due to their temporary nature, however, these construction impacts are generally do not rise to the level of cumulatively considerable.

 Roadway improvements to existing roads plus the addition of new roads will incrementally increase the need for and demand upon roadway maintenance. Such increases will not be cumulatively significant, however, according to Section 4.18. As indicated under Impact 4.18.F, a process exists that will ensure that proper road maintenance is supported by the demand levels which contribute to maintenance revenue, making the impact less than significant for GPA No. 960.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-171

 Future growth within Riverside County (pursuant to any of the build out scenarios, including the with- project GPU/GPA960 scenario) will trigger roadway improvements and new road construction that will have short-term, non-substantial cumulative impacts on portions of the roadway network and the travelers that use it. Section 4.18.5 notes that since GPA No. 960 includes adequate policies to ensure construction-related-impacts are reduced, “traffic circulation [will be] maintained and impacts... maintained at less-than-significant levels.” Use of the Riverside County Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP), in particular, to establish and prioritize the timing and construction of Riverside County roadway projects will ensure such cumulative impacts are less than significant.

 Where incremental traffic increases cause roadway segments to operate below applicable standards, the resultant congestion could indirectly affect the safety and well-being of residents and visitors to Riverside County by delaying response times for emergency services, such as ambulances, fire trucks and law enforcement. Similarly, delays to trucks and other goods movement could slow delivery schedules and increase the cost of shipping through greater fuel consumption. These delays, however, are not expected to be cumulatively considerable overall for GPA No. 960.

 Similarly, increased traffic congestion, reduced operating levels and construction impacts would also incrementally contribute to inadequate emergency access at times for any of the build out scenarios. Such incremental increases will be non-substantial and not cumulatively significant however, as GPA No. 960 incorporates policies to ensure adequate emergency vehicle access according to Impact 4.18.H in Section 4.18.5.

 Where incremental traffic increases cause roadway segments to operate below applicable standards, the resultant congestion could result in delays to mass transit services (namely, buses), which would delay commuters’ transit times and possibly cause fare increases to cover increased fuel costs (if passed on to customers). These delays, however, are not expected to be cumulatively considerable overall for GPA No. 960.

 Future growth within Riverside County as a result of any of the build out scenarios, including the with- project GPU/GPA960 scenario, will incrementally increase the demand for and use of public transit, bikeways and pedestrian facilities. These increases will not be cumulatively considerable, however, because, as pointed out in Impact 4.18.I in Section 4.18.5, GPA No. 960 incorporates policies to ensure adequate transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. These policies will also ensure that the performance and safety of such facilities are likewise maintained. Therefore this cumulative impact is considered less than significant.

d. Mitigation

In general, the revisions to the Riverside County roadway network are designed specifically to alleviate unacceptable operating levels. Thus, the principle form of “mitigation” for many of the roadway traffic impacts discussed above and in Section 4.18 is to construct new roads and improve existing roads to achieve the build out conditions (i.e., number of lanes, signals, locations, etc.) shown in the General Plan Circulation Element network maps, as proposed pursuant to the project, GPA No. 960. However, in addition, as described in Section 4.18.5, a variety of other measures would be implemented to avoid, reduce and minimize adverse cumulative traffic, transportation and circulation impacts. These include the following:

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-172 Public Review Draft . March 2014

(1) Regulatory Compliance

Key Regulations and Programs: See Section 4.18.3 for details on each regulation.

 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)

 California Complete Streets Act (AB 1358, 2008)

 California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32, 2006d

 California Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375, 2008)

 SCAG 2012 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS)

 RCTC Riverside County Congestion Management Program (CMP)

 Riverside County CETAP Program (Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process)

 County Ordinance No. 413 (Regulating Parking on County Roadways)

 County Ordinance No. 452 (Regulating Speed Limits on County Roadways)

 County Ordinance No. 460 (Subdivision of Land)

 County Ordinance No. 461 (Roadway Improvement Standards and Specifications)

 County Ordinance No. 499 (Encroachment on County Roadways)

 County Ordinance No. 659 (Development Impact Fee [DIF] for Residential Projects)

 County Ordinance No. 671 (Establishing Consolidated Fee Program for Land Use)

 County Ordinance No. 673 (Establishing a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee [TUMF] Program for the Coachella Valley)

 County Ordinance No. 748 (Mitigating Traffic Congestion Through Signalization)

 County Ordinance No. 824 (Establishing a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee [TUMF] Program for Western Riverside County)

 County Ordinance No. 859 (Establishing Water-Efficient Landscape Requirements)

Key General Plan Policies: See Section 4.18.2 for the text of each policy.

 Circulation Element Policies: C 1.2, 1.3, 1.7, 1.8, 2.1-2.7, 3.1-3.4, 3.6-3.8, 3.14- 3.17, 3.23, 3.24, 4.1-4.3, 4.6-4.9, 6.3, 6.5, 6.6, 7.1-7.4, 7.7, 7.8, 8.3, 8.4, 8.7, 8.8, 9.1, 9.2, 11.1, 11.6, 12.2, 13.1, 13.3-13.5, 13.7, 14.1, 14.2, 15.1-15.6, 16.1-16.8, 17.1, 17.3, 17.4, 18.1-18.3, 20.1, 20.3-20.16, 21.1-21.7, 23.4-23.9, 25.1 and 25.2

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-173

 Land Use Element Policies: LU 14.6

(2) CEQA Mitigation

Existing Mitigation Measures: In EIR No. 441, a number of mitigation measures were imposed to reduce impacts from existing and future traffic increases. According to Section 4.18.5, these measures remain applicable to this project and would also apply to future development.

 Existing MM 4.16.1A: As part of its review of land development proposals, the County [of Riverside] 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.

 Existing MM 4.16.1B: As part of its review of land development proposals, the County [of Riverside] 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.

New Mitigation Measures: Section 4.18 proposes the following new mitigation measures to help minimize the effect of growth on existing and future roadways. Compliance with these measures would help mitigate significant transportation and circulation impacts.

 New MM 4.18.1A-N1: As part of its review of land development proposals, the County of Riverside 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 or better). The fair share contribution shall be based on the percentage of project-related traffic to the total future traffic.

 New MM 4.18.1B-N1: As part of its review of land development proposals, the County of Riverside 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.

 New MM 4.18.1C-N1: Where needed and where appropriate, the County of Riverside shall seek ways and means to increase the capacity of Circulation Element roadways by such measures as adding through- travel lanes or additional turning lanes without increasing the right-of-way width requirement for the classification of the facility.

 New MM 4.18.1D-N1: Where needed and where appropriate, the County of Riverside shall collaborate with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and other appropriate agencies to add auxiliary and mainline lanes on the freeway system within available rights-of-way.

 New MM 4.18.1E-N1: The County of Riverside shall collaborate with Caltrans and other appropriate agencies to develop direct connections between the HOV/HOT lanes at the following freeway

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-174 Public Review Draft . March 2014

interchanges: I-15 at SR-91, SR-60 at SR-91/I-215 West junction, SR-60 at I-215 East junction, and at other locations as needed. To the extent that such improvements may be possible within existing rights- of-way, environmental impacts would be less than significant.

 New MM 4.18.1F-N1: Where appropriate the County of Riverside shall collaborate with Caltrans and other appropriate agencies to develop HOV lanes along the entire length of I-215 within Riverside County and along I-10 between the San Bernardino County line and Indio.

e. Significance

The Circulation Element policies provide a framework for development and implementation of the multi-modal transportation system envisioned by the General Plan, as proposed by the project, GPA No. 960. However, even with the identified policies, numerous faculties will operate at unacceptable levels of service. As outlined above, future development accommodated by any of the General Plan build out scenarios, including that with the project (GPA No. 960), would result in cumulatively considerable increases in traffic levels with related decreases in roadway segments operating at acceptable standards at various locations throughout Riverside County based on both existing and projected traffic volumes and roadway configurations.

As a result, some roadways within Riverside County would also conflict with applicable congestion management plan standards or policies, such as level of service standards and travel demand measures. Implementation of the various regulatory programs and mitigation measures listed above would help reduce the above cumulative impacts, but according to Section 4.18.5, would not be fully sufficient to ensure that all cumulative impacts are reduced to less-than-significant levels. The changes proposed under GPA No. 960 (and included in the GPU/GP960 scenario) serve to reduce the predicted traffic generated and raise the LOS improvement trigger ranges, resulting in a forecast of lower traffic impacts when compared to the existing General Plan (i.e., CURR GP scenario). When compared against the existing environmental conditions (the EXIST scenario), however, the project will still result in cumulatively considerable traffic impacts as a result of General Plan implementation.

For the impacts listed as not considerable, implementation of the regulatory programs, policies and mitigation measures listed above would be sufficient to ensure that incremental impacts are not cumulatively significant. This includes incremental airport, water and rail impacts, road hazards, emergency access deficiencies and effects to non-motorized travel, such as mass transit, bikeways and pedestrian trails.

18. Cumulative Effects on Water Resources

Section 4.19 (Water Resources) discusses existing water resources, including hydrology, groundwater, imported water and infrastructure for both water and sewer. It analyzes demand on existing water supplies, as well as the need for additional supplies to serve future development accommodated by the changes proposed by the project, GPA No. 960, as well as the mitigation (both through regulatory compliance and EIR mitigation) necessary to ensure individual project impacts are less than significant or at least reduced where feasible. As a result, areas already covered in Section 4.19 are not repeated here; see Section 4.19 directly for additional resource details.

As part of its data and analysis, Section 4.19 provides a number of related figures and tables, including: maps of the water districts, watersheds and hydrological regions of Riverside County (Figures 4.19.1 through 4.19.5), areas covered by MS4 permits (Figures 4.19.6 through 4.19.8), master drainage plans (Figure 4.19.9) and groundwater basins (Figure 4.19.14), information and diagrams related to imported water supplies (Figures 4.19.10 through 4.19.13, plus Figure 4.19.25), county water supplies (Figures 4.19.15 through 4.19.17) and wastewater/sewer

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-175

providers (Figure 4.19.32), as well as service area boundary maps for the water districts serving Riverside County (Figures 4.19.18 through 4.19.24 and Figures 4.19.26 through 4.19.31).

The numerous tables in Section 4.19 include: Table 4.19-A (Summary of Water and Sewer Providers), Tables 4.19-B through 4.19-D on water quality issues, Table 4.19-E (County Master Drainage Plans and Area Drainage Plans), Tables 4.19-F through 4.19-J and 4.19-AT on imported water issues, Table 4.19-K (Adjudicated Waters), Table 4.19-L (Groundwater Basins), Tables 4.19-M and 4.19-N on well data and Tables 4.19-O through 4.19-AA on a variety of data on Metropolitan Water District (MWD), as well as other water districts serving Riverside County: Tables 4.19-AB through 4.19.AD on Eastern Municipal Water District (WD), Tables 4.19-AE through 4.19-AG on Western Municipal WD, Tables 4.19-AH through 4.19-AJ on San Bernardino Valley Municipal WD, Tables 4.19-AK through 4.19-AM on Jurupa Community Services District, Tables 4.19-AN through 4.19-AP on Rubidoux Community Services District, Tables 4.19-AQ through 4.19-AW on Coachella Valley Water District, Tables 4.19-AX through 4.19-AZ on Desert Water Agency, Tables 4.19-BA through 4.19-BB on San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency, Tables 4.19-BC through 4.19-BE on San Jacinto Mountain Area, Table 4.19-BF (Groundwater Basins Underlying Non-Served Areas), Table 4.19-BG (Sewer and Wastewater Treatment Providers) and Table 4.19-BH (Wastewater Treatment Facilities). In addition, Tables 4.19-BI through 4.19-BN address various calculations and comparisons for theoretical water supplies and wastewater generation for the project and other scenarios. Lastly, Tables 4.19-BO through 4.19-BQ address spatial effects to hydrology, groundwater basins and master drainage plans within Riverside County.

a. Existing Conditions

Historically, water supply issues have been of critical import to California, in general, and interior counties like Riverside County, in particular. Factors, such as hydrology, distribution system capacities, competing demands and regulatory constraints, all present enormous challenges. Capturing and storing water in above-normal years for use in below-normal years remains critical to water supply sufficiency, as does ensuring adequate infrastructure, storage and conveyance facilities.

As set forth in Sections 4.19.3 and 4.19.4, the State of California (via the State Water Project), as well as wholesale and retail water agencies throughout Riverside County, maintain and carefully manage diversified water supply portfolios of imported supplies, local surface water supplies, groundwater, recycled water, desalinated supplies, etc. As detailed in Section 4.19.4, the water demands associated with Riverside County (regardless of the General Plan build out scenario proposed) are ultimately part of demands that are forecast and accounted for by the relevant wholesale and retail agencies. As EIR No. 521 is a programmatic document covering a number of countywide issues, and not does not propose or implement any specific development, only a “first tier” water supply analysis is presented in Section 4.19. Future development will still be required to prepare/obtain any water supply analyses required by law when specific proposals are made.

Hydrology: For planning, analytical and other specified purposes, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) organizes the state into ten major surface water drainage regions, two of which (the South Coast Region and the Colorado River Region) include portions of Riverside County. Detailed information and analyses have been prepared for these regions by DWR and that information is updated on an ongoing basis as part of the California Water Plan update process. Generally, the western one-third of Riverside County lies within the South Coast Region, west of the San Jacinto Mountains, and the eastern two-thirds of Riverside County lie within the Colorado River Region. Designated watershed areas are included within each region, several of which partially lie within Riverside County. Figure 4.19.3 shows the major watersheds as they fall within Riverside County. Additional information about the conditions existing in these watersheds is provided in Section 4.19.2.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-176 Public Review Draft . March 2014

Topographically, most of the South Coast Region is composed of several large, undulating coastal and interior plains. The coastal and interior valleys of the South Coast Hydrologic Region feature Mediterranean climates characterized by mild, wet winters and warm, dry summers. Roughly 40% of the South Coast Region is developed with urban or suburban uses. Although agricultural land uses remain important in the region, such uses are increasingly giving way to urbanization. Of the total water supply to the region, more than half is used by native vegetation, evaporates to the atmosphere, is used for agricultural crops and managed wetlands, or flows to other states, the Pacific Ocean and salt sinks, like saline groundwater aquifers. The remaining portion, identified as consumptive use of applied water, is distributed among urban and agricultural uses, or diverted to managed wetlands. Figure 4.19.4 shows the South Coast Hydrologic Region.

The major water course in the American Southwest, the Colorado River spans six states and stretches into Mexico. It is controlled by a number of dams along its length, including Parker Dam, which is the origin point for the Colorado River Aqueduct, which runs west and south to its terminus at Lake Mathews in western Riverside County. Once water enters the lower Colorado River mainstream, its use is subject to the “Law of the River,” a collection of laws, regulations and agreements that dictate how and where Colorado River water is distributed (see Appendix EIR-8 for more information). The Colorado River also forms the eastern-most boundary of the County of Riverside. Within the county, the Colorado River basin extends from the eastern slopes of the San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains east to the state border. California’s largest inland body of water, the Salton Sea, lies within this region. Figure 4.19.5 shows the Colorado River Hydrologic Region.

Water Quality: Water quality is an ongoing core issue for nearly all the watersheds and groundwater basins in Riverside County. Non-point source pollution control, salinity management and emerging contaminants are all key water quality issues. In urban areas, population and economic growth not only affect water demand, but add contamination challenges from increases in wastewater and industrial discharges and urban runoff. In rural areas, failing septic systems, agricultural chemical usage and livestock operations contribute to local surface water sediment and contamination from disturbed areas. In the South Coast Region, surface and groundwater salinity (i.e., total dissolved solids, TDS) are an ongoing challenges, particularly as reclaimed water and groundwater recharge become increasingly important for urban water supplies. Groundwater contamination from industrial uses and other sites (such as the infamous Stringfellow Acid Pits) in the form of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and heavy metals, in particular, is another water quality concern in the region. In the Colorado River Region, the highest priority water quality issues include: the need for surface water quality monitoring, the quality of imported water, the need for onsite treatment systems, high nitrate levels, leaking underground storage tanks and impacts from animal feed lots and dairy operations. The Salton Sea remains a particular challenge for the region due to its extremely high TDS concentration (about 40% saltier than ocean water).

Statewide (Imported) Water Supplies: Like more than two-thirds of California’s residents, much of the drinking water used by Riverside County residents is supplied by the State Water Project (SWP), which delivers water originating from the San Francisco-San Joaquin Bay-Delta (the Delta) and is operated by the California DWR. See Figure 4.19.10. The SWP's water supply capability depends on rainfall, snowpack, runoff, reservoir storage, pumping capacity from the Delta and legal environmental constraints on project operations. Its water supply comes primarily from storage at Lake Oroville (fed from the Sierra Nevada Mountains) and high runoff flows in the Delta, with water deliveries that have ranged from 1.4 million acre-feet (AF) in dry years to roughly 3.7 million AF in wet years.

On an annual basis, the DWR establishes SWP water allocations to State Water Contractors (SWCs) according to a variety of factors, including watershed status (i.e., the amount of rain and snow water expected), environmental needs, contractual water rights and other factors which are discussed in detail in Section 4.19.3. The end result is the release of a delivery reliability report that forecasts SWP water yields. It is important to note that even with water contracts outlining how much water a SWC is “entitled” to each year, these “entitlements” only quantify the

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-177

maximum SWP water each contractor can expect. They do not guarantee water delivery. This variability and year- to-year uncertainty lies at the heart of many of Southern California’s ongoing water supply issues. Tables 4.19-G and 4.19-H in Section 4.19.3 outline the contractual water delivery amounts associated with the State Water Contractors that serve Riverside County. Table 4.19-J details regional water balance data and Section 4.19.3.D details factors affecting water delivery reliability according to the 2011 State Water Plan Final Delivery Reliability Report. Issues affecting reliability include water availability at the source (including droughts), water rights and priorities, regulatory restrictions on SWP Delta exports (delta smelt protections, adaptive management needs, etc.), climate change effects and infrastructure limitations (levee failures, etc.).

Water imported from the Colorado River is regulated pursuant to a complicated mixture of statutes, contracts and regulations that date back over 100 years. Chief among these is the 2003 Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) executed by Imperial Irrigation District (IID), CVWD and MWD. The QSA establishes the baseline Colorado River water use for each of the agencies and facilitates the transfer of water from agricultural agencies to urban uses.

Local Water Supplies: While imported water makes up a large portion of the region’s supply of drinking water, local sources are an important part of the overall water resources for Riverside County. The chief source of local water supplies is groundwater, which is discussed in detail in Section 4.17.4.B for groundwater basins in Riverside County. Other local sources of water include surface water (rivers, streams, etc.) and recycled water (such as that reclaimed from wastewater treatment plants, among others), as well as desalination, graywater and other less- prominent sources.

Section 4.17.4 also includes detailed descriptions of the water supplies, services and resources associated with each of the water agencies that serve Riverside County. A particular emphasis is given to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), since it is the major water importer and wholesale supplier serving most of Southern California, including most of western Riverside County. Following MWD, descriptions are provided for the other large wholesale water agencies serving Riverside County, first for western Riverside County and then for eastern. Accompanying these are brief descriptions of the individual retail water providers that rely on these wholesalers. Details on the wholesale water districts include topics such as each district’s water supply sources (imported, groundwater, recycled, etc.), amounts, reliability, infrastructure and contingency plans. Forecasts for water supply and demand (typically from 2010 to 2035 as per Urban Water Management Plan requirements) and various water-year budgets (average year, single dry year, multiple dry years) are also included. Lastly, the sufficiency of planned supplies are summarized. For agencies that have (retail) subagencies and/or provide wastewater (sewer) treatment services, these are also briefly detailed. Areas that lie outside of the service areas of existing water agencies are also detailed in Subsection 4.19.4.I according to the underlying groundwater basin that would by necessity would be used.

Wastewater and Sewer: As noted above, a number of water districts also provide sanitary sewer and wastewater treatment services. For the rest of Riverside County, individual properties rely on individual septic systems for sewage disposal where sanitary sewer connections to a wastewater treatment provider are not available. Wastewater, sewer and septic system issues are discussed in detail in Section 4.19.4.J.

b. Future Conditions

Over time, ongoing growth will increase the amount of people, property, structures and new uses in Riverside County, which will generate additional demand for water supplies, sewer disposal and wastewater treatment. New development, particularly in previously undeveloped, vacant areas, such as wildlands and fringe areas, will also affect existing hydrology and require additional water services, such as treatment, pumping and conveyance facilities for potable water and wastewater, as well as storm drainage, etc. The tables below indicate the relative

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-178 Public Review Draft . March 2014

scope of cumulative impacts to supplies, demand and infrastructure for both water and sewer (wastewater) expected in Riverside County. Cumulative impacts to other water resources issues, such as water quality and hydrology, are addressed qualitatively in the subsequent section.

Table 5.5-AE (Cumulative Effect on Theoretical Potable Water Demand) provides a summary of demand for potable water within the County according to theoretical estimates associated with existing land uses, as well as for each of the General Plan build out scenarios listed. Table 5.5-AG (Cumulative Effect on Theoretical water Supply and Suppliers) examines theoretical water supply needs according to major water district. Table 5.5-AF (Cumulative Effect on Theoretical Wastewater Treatment Demand) summarizes theoretical demand for wastewater treatment facilities (as indicated by wastewater generation). For ensuring worst-case effects are shown, the calculations assume 100% of the wastewater generated is collected by sanitary sewer systems and processed at wastewater treatment facilities. In reality, a certain amount of the wastewater generated would be disposed of via onsite waste treatment systems (particularly individual septic systems). For water demand, all values are assumed to be for potable water; no use of recycled, reclaimed or graywater, which would reduce demand, is assumed. Also, no SBX-7x7 (Water Conservation Act of 2009) required water conservation reductions were included in any of these calculations, even though in reality reductions of up to 20% by 2020 are to be pursued per this law. These assumptions ensure the scenarios model “worst case” conditions.

As shown in tables below, build out of each of the various General Plan scenarios shown will contribute incrementally to utilization of existing water and sewer infrastructure, as well as increase demand for water from both local and imported sources. In addition to introducing additional demand for water and sewer, future development will alter existing hydrology, increase urban runoff while decreasing groundwater recharge and affect water quality.

For potable water, Table 5.5-AE indicates existing General Plan build out will nearly double demand by roughly 236,000 acre-feet per year. Meeting this demand will require additional water supplies from a combination of imported (i.e., state), local (groundwater) and recycled/ reclaimed water sources. All of these supply sources are extremely limited in their capacities to provide additional water. Increased reliance on local groundwater sources would further increase the rate of basin drawdown and the cumulative effects, such as poor water quality and harm to biota, that result. Although there is room for increased utilization of recycled and reclaimed water sources, and indeed most water districts are aggressively pursuing improved efficiencies for these sources, such programs remain relatively costly using current technologies.

Table 5.5-AE: Cumulative Effect on Theoretical Potable Water Demand General Plan Build Out Scenarios WATER DEMAND1 Existing2 GPU/ (in acre-feet per year) Conditions % CURR GP3 % GPA9603 % CULM GP3 % Residential, Urban/Sub. 137,800 52% 306,900 62% 327,200 63% 337,800 61% Residential, Rural/Agri. 3,400 1% 63,100 13% 63,500 12% 65,800 12% Residential, Interf./Wild. 7,600 3% 78,300 16% 77,100 15% 77,700 14% RESIDENTIAL - subtotal 145,800 56% 448,300 91% 467,700 91% 481,200 87% Commercial4 97,300 38% 27,500 6% 28,700 6% 50,900 9% Industrial4 15,800 6% 19,100 4% 19,200 4% 19,500 4% ECONOMIC - subtotal 113,100 44% 46,600 9% 47,900 9% 70,400 13% Total 258,900 494,900 515,600 551,600 Difference (from EXIST) ------+236,000 +91% +256,700 +99% +292,700 +113% Difference (from CURR) ------+20,700 +4% +56,600 +11%

Footnotes: 1. Based on standards from EIR No. 441: residential (1.01 AFY/du), commercial (3.50 AFY/sf) and industrial (0.97 AFY/sf). All values rounded to nearest 100 after calculations. AFY = acre-feet per year. 2. “Existing” values per theoretical baseline calculations, see Section 4.19.5 for actual values.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-179

3. CURR GP = General Plan as of end of 2008. See Section 5.5.1 for descriptions of each GP scenario. 4. Commercial includes CR, CO and CT. Industrial includes HI, LI and BP. Uses too variable for factors omitted. Source: Riverside County Planning Dept., Project Application Data, 2013. Factors from EIR No. 441, 2003.

Table 5.5-AF: Cumulative Effect on Theoretical Wastewater Treatment Demand WASTEWATER GENERATED1 Existing2 General Plan Build Out Scenarios (in million gallons/year) Conditions % CURR GP3 % GPU/ GPA9603 % CULM GP3 % Residential, Urban/Sub. 11,200 34% 25,500 48% 27,200 50% 28,100 48% Residential, Rural/Agri. 300 1% 5,300 10% 5,300 10% 5,500 9% Residential, Interf./Wild. 600 2% 6,500 12% 6,400 12% 6,500 11% RESIDENTIAL - subtotal 12,100 36% 37,300 70% 38,900 71% 40,000 68% Commercial4 12,200 37% 4,900 9% 5,100 9% 8,000 13% Industrial4 8,900 27% 10,800 20% 10,900 20% 11,000 19% ECONOMIC - subtotal 21,100 34% 15,700 30% 15,900 29% 19,000 32% Total 33,200 53,000 54,800 59,000 Difference (from EXIST) ------+19,800 +60% +21,600 +65% +25,800 +78% Difference (from CURR) ------+1,800 +3% +6,000 +11% Footnotes: 1. Factors used: residential (230 gpd/du), commercial (1,200 gpd/ac) and industrial (1,500 gpd/ac). gpd = gallons per day. du = dwelling unit. ac = acre. All values rounded to nearest 100 after calculations. 2. “Existing” values per theoretical baseline calculations, see Section 4.19.5 for actual values. 3. CURR GP = General Plan as of end of 2008. See Section 5.5.1 for descriptions of each GP scenario. 4. Commercial includes CR, CO and CT. Industrial includes HI, LI and BP. Uses too variable for factors omitted. Source: Riverside County Planning Dept., Project Application Data, 2013. Residential factor from EIR No. 441, 2003; rest from Vallecitos Water District, 2008.

Table 5.5-AG: Cumulative Effect on Theoretical Water Supply and Suppliers Major Water Agency1 Urban/ Rural/ Interface/ Public Open Space/ (in acre-feet/year)2 Suburban Agriculture Wildlands Facilities Vacant Total Eastern Municipal Water District Existing3 14,480 47,600 26,350 3,550 100,390 192,370 CURR GP4 34,420 48,870 80,310 5,290 168,890 337,780 GPU W/960 Change5 +1,380 -1,370 -1,910 +510 +1,380 -10 CULM GP Change5 +2,090 +6,190 -8,250 +20 -40 +10 Western Municipal Water District Existing3 32,370 28,470 25,320 6,430 92,590 185,180 CURR GP4 34,400 35,430 80,530 6,210 156,570 313,140 GPU W/960 Change5 +1,950 -2,180 +100 +100 0 -30 CULM GP Change5 +760 +470 -1,480 -20 +260 -10 San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency Existing3 5,690 4,720 3,990 2,430 16,830 33,6600 CURR GP4 2,350 8,430 50,510 0 61,290 122,580 GPU W/960 Change5 -240 +3,230 -4,070 0 +1,150 +70 CULM GP Change5 +270 +370 -640 0 0 0 WESTERN REGION – SUBTOTAL Existing3 52,540 80,790 55,660 12,410 209,810 411,210 CURR GP4 71,170 92,730 211,350 11,500 386,750 773,500 GPU W/960 Change5 +3,090 -320 -5,880 +610 +2,530 +30 CULM GP Change5 +3,120 +7,030 -10,370 0 +220 0 CULM B/O Total 74,290 99,760 200,980 11,500 386,530 773,060 Change from EXIST +21,750 +18,970 +145,320 -910 +176,720 +361,850 Coachella Valley Water District Existing3 10,930 57,850 18,080 7,670 94,530 189,060 CURR GP4 23,960 59,580 110,660 3,330 197,530 395,060 GPU W/960 Change5 +180 +7,030 -10,370 0 +220 -2,940 CULM GP Change5 +3,900 +18,970 +145,320 -910 -199,840 -32,560 Desert Water Agency Existing3 1,700 700 1,830 3,020 7,250 14,500

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-180 Public Review Draft . March 2014

Major Water Agency1 Urban/ Rural/ Interface/ Public Open Space/ (in acre-feet/year)2 Suburban Agriculture Wildlands Facilities Vacant Total CURR GP4 5,520 3,740 38,740 760 48,760 97,520 GPU W/960 Change5 0 0 -150 +150 -10 -10 CULM GP Change5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Palo Verde Irrigation District6 Existing3 1,080 84,670 410 1,350 87,510 175,020 CURR GP4 1,420 96,440 3,690 10 101,560 203,120 GPU W/960 Change5 -20 -360 +360 +20 +650 +650 CULM GP Change5 0 0 0 0 0 0 EASTERN REGION - SUBTOTAL Existing3 13,710 143,220 20,320 12,040 189,290 378,580 CURR GP4 30,900 159,760 153,090 4,100 347,850 695,700 GPU W/960 Change5 +160 +6,670 -10,160 +170 +860 -2,300 CULM GP Change5 +3,900 +18,970 +145,320 -910 -199,840 -32,560 CULM B/O Total 34,800 157,020 153,290 4,050 349,160 698,320 Change from EXIST +21,090 +13,800 +132,970 -7,990 +159,870 +319,740 REST (NOT IN WATER DISTRICTS) - SUBTOTAL Existing3 13,040 141,280 672,820 7,920 835,060 1,670,120 CURR GP4 3,410 45,650 1,941,810 14,550 2,005,420 4,010,840 GPU W/960 Change5 -210 -200 -7,900 +130 +6,790 -1,390 CULM GP Change5 +5,940 +4,630 +40 -540 -1,340 +8,730 CULM B/O Total +5,370 +45,660 +1,939,160 +14,930 +2,005,120 +4,010,240 Change from EXIST -7,670 -95,620 +1,266,340 +7,010 +1,170,060 +2,340,120 GRAND TOTAL (ALL DEVELOPMENT CATEGORIES) Existing3 79,290 365,290 748,800 32,370 1,234,160 2,459,910 CURR GP4 105,480 298,140 2,306,250 30,150 2,740,020 5,480,040 GPU W/960 Change5 +3,040 +6,150 -23,940 +910 +10,180 -3,660 CULM GP Change5 -650 -69,620 +1,401,290 +6,100 +970,440 +2,340,560 CULM B/O Total 114,460 302,440 2,293,430 30,480 2,740,810 5,481,620 Change from EXIST +35,170 -62,850 +1,544,630 -1,890 +1,506,650 +3,021,710 Footnotes: 1. All calculations use the same theoretical water factors, not those of each agency to permit comparison across districts and due to the infeasibility of calculating each district individually. 2. Factors used: residential (1.01 AFY/du), commercial (3.50 AFY/sf) and industrial (0.97 AFY/sf). All values rounded to nearest 10 after calculations. AFY = acre- feet per year. 3. “Existing” values per theoretical baseline calculations, see Section 4.19.5 for actual values. 4. CURR GP = General Plan as of end of 2008. GPU W/960 = General Plan as amended per GPA No. 960. CULM GP/GPAS = General Plan amended per list of proposed GPAs. See Section 5.5.1 for full descriptions. 5. Change from current General Plan (CURR scenario). 6. Only supplies non-potable irrigation water. All other districts supply potable (drinking) water only or both. Source: Riverside County GIS, RCLIS layer (water districts); project application data, 2013; water factors from EIR No. 441, 2003.

Table 5.5-AH: Cumulative Effect on Groundwater Basins Groundwater Basin Areas Affected1 Urban/ Rural/ Interface/ Public Open Space/ (in acres)2 Suburban Agriculture Wildlands Facilities Vacant Total Western Region Existing 32,150 57,740 23,620 9,910 158,010 281,430 CURR GP3 52,630 57,180 102,460 7,530 51,250 271,050 GPU W/960 Change4 +760 -470 -3,470 +490 +2,740 +50 CULM GP Change4 +1,260 +3,130 -4,440 -20 +80 +10 Coachella Valley Region Existing 14,700 109,820 21,720 11,980 382,350 540,570 CURR GP3 31,130 64,510 257,960 4,500 165,570 523,670 GPU W/960 Change4 +180 +580 +1,150 +110 -1,290 +730 CULM GP Change4 +5,740 -2,740 -2,390 +360 +490 +1,460

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-181

Groundwater Basin Areas Affected1 Urban/ Rural/ Interface/ Public Open Space/ (in acres)2 Suburban Agriculture Wildlands Facilities Vacant Total URBANIZING AREAS – SUBTOTAL Existing 46,850 167,560 45,340 21,890 540,360 822,000 CURR GP3 83,760 121,690 360,420 12,030 216,820 764,720 GPU W/960 Change4 +940 +110 -2,320 +600 +1,450 +780 CULM GP Change4 +7,000 +390 -6,830 +340 +570 +1,470 CULM B/O Total 90,760 122,080 353,590 12,370 217,390 796,190 Change from EXIST +43,910 -45,480 +308,250 -9,520 -322,970 -25,810 Far East Region Existing 3,730 109,010 236,270 4,110 991,890 1,341,010 CURR GP3 2,630 118,420 1,024,860 8,060 195,910 1,349,880 GPU W/960 Change4 -230 -530 +610 +140 +620 +610 CULM GP Change4 0 0 0 0 0 0 None Existing 28,720 88,740 467,190 6,380 1,261,200 1,852,230 CURR GP3 19,090 58,050 920,970 10,060 866,470 1,874,640 GPU W/960 Change4 +2,340 +80 -11,130 +130 +7,190 -1,390 CULM GP Change4 +1,970 +3,910 -6,000 0 -1,350 -1,470 PREDOMINANTLY RURAL AREAS - SUBTOTAL Existing 32,450 197,750 703,460 10,490 2,253,090 3,197,240 CURR GP3 21,720 176,470 1,945,830 18,120 1,062,380 3,224,520 GPU W/960 Change4 +2,110 -450 -10,520 +270 +7,810 -780 CULM GP Change4 +1,970 +3,910 -6,000 0 -1,350 -1,470 CULM B/O Total 23,690 180,380 1,939,830 18,120 1,061,030 3,223,050 Change from EXIST -8,760 -17,370 +1,236,370 +7630 -1,192,060 +25,810 GRAND TOTAL (ALL CATEGORIES) Existing 79,300 365,310 748,800 32,380 2,793,450 4,019,240 CURR GP3 105,480 298,160 2,306,250 30,150 1,279,200 4,019,240 GPU W/960 Change4,5 +3,050 -340 -12,840 +870 +9,260 0 CULM GP Change4,5 +8,970 4,300 -12,830 +340 -780 0 CULM B/O Total 114,450 302,460 2,293,420 30,490 1,278,420 4,019,240 Change from EXIST5 +35,150 -62,850 +1,544,620 -1,890 -1,515,030 0 Footnotes: 1. Groundwater basins encompassed by the regions listed: Western Region (from Orange County to the San Jacinto Mountains): Buck Ridge Fault Valley Cahuilla Valley Collins Valley Coastal Plain of Orange County Elsinore Hemet Lake Valley Ocotillo-Clark Valley San Jacinto Temecula Valley Terwilliger Valley Upper Santa Ana Valley Vanderventer Flat Coachella Valley Region (east of the San Jacinto Mountains): Chocolate Valley Coachella Valley East Salton Sea Orocopia Valley Far Eastern Region (east of Coachella Valley to Arizona border at the Colorado River): Arroyo Seco Valley Cadiz Valley Calzona Valley Chuckwalla Valley Dale Valley Hexie Mountain Area Joshua Tree Lost Horse Valley Palo Verde Mesa Palo Verde Valley Pinto Valley Pleasant Valley Quien Sabe Point Valley Rice Valley Vidal Valley Ward Valley Warren Valley None (areas with no groundwater basin underlying) 2. All areas in acres, reflecting development of land overlying the groundwater basins. 3. CURR GP = General Plan as of end of 2008. GPU W/960 = General Plan as amended per GPA No. 960. CULM GP/GPAS = General Plan amended per list of proposed GPAs. See Section 5.5.1 for full descriptions. 4. Change from current General Plan (CURR scenario). 5. Net totals always equal zero since all lands are 100% accounted for by the development categories shown. Source: Riverside County GIS, RCLIS layer (water districts); project application data, 2013; water factors from EIR No. 441, 2003.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-182 Public Review Draft . March 2014

As a result, even though build out of the General Plan with the project added (GPU/GPA960 scenario) would incrementally increase cumulative potable water demand only slightly, the project’s contribution is still cumulatively considerable on a countywide basis. The cumulative GPAs build out (CULM) scenario, with an 11% increase in demand over the existing General Plan, would have an even greater cumulatively significant impact on water supply. Thus, based on the present level of water planning and supply allocation for the state in general, and the water agencies serving Riverside County in particular, build out of any of the General Plan scenarios would cumulatively result in an “insufficient water supply” within Riverside County.

Table 5.5-AG shows a theoretical projection of how the increased demand for water supplies within Riverside County might affect the various major (wholesale) water suppliers located in Riverside County. In particular, the subtotal for “Rest (Not in Water Districts)” indicates that areas not served by existing water agencies would see large cumulative increases, roughly doubling the amount of groundwater that would be pumped by individual landowners, assuming such water is available and of sufficient quality for residential use. Where demand exceeds recharge rates, such levels of groundwater drawdown are not sustainable, particularly in dry years or during prolonged drought conditions.

In regards to effects on local, groundwater supplies, Table 5.5-AH shows the amount of land within the various regions’ basins affected by the various development categories. (Basins are grouped by region because they are too numerous to depict individually; see Appendix EIR-11 for full details and data.) In the urbanizing regions (western Riverside County and the Coachella Valley), the table shows the general trend of lands going from less intense interface/wildland uses vacant/open space uses to more intense urban/suburban uses. The mostly rural areas (far east region and areas not underlain by any groundwater basin) show a similar shift from rural to urban as well. In terms of build out, the with-project (GPU/GPA960) scenario shows changes ranging mostly between 1% and 3%. The most notable exception is the 12% increase in urban/suburban land uses that would occur outside of known groundwater basins; an increase that would be cumulatively considerable if imported water supplies are limited or unavailable in these areas. For the cumulative GPAs (CULM) scenario, build out would yield similar trends, but with greater cumulative contributions. Unmitigated impacts would be cumulatively considerable as well.

Lastly, Table 5.5-AF shows that the cumulative effects of increased generation of wastewater (sewage) would have a similar pattern of impact on wastewater treatment plants. Under the existing General Plan (CURR scenario), demand would increase roughly 60%, a cumulatively significant increase. The with-project (GPU/GPA960) scenario would incrementally increase this demand by roughly 3% and the CULM scenario would increase it by roughly 11%. Unlike water supplies, which are extremely limited, there no restraints to the ability to increase wastewater treatment capacity. Careful planning and implementation by the responsible agencies would be sufficient to ensure the timely provision of needed wastewater treatment capacity through expansion of existing or construction of new facilities. Thus, the incremental increases associated with the GPU and CULM scenarios would not be cumulatively substantial if managed appropriately.

c. Impacts

Future development will contribute incrementally to cumulative impacts on water resources as the county builds out over time pursuant to the County General Plan (regardless of scenario). Specific impacts of the severities indicated will include the following:

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-183

(1) Cumulatively Considerable Impacts

 Future development (pursuant to any of the build out scenarios discussed, including the with-project scenario) will incrementally increase demand for water supplies in areas where such supplies are insufficient or unavailable to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources. This will necessitate new or expanded water supplies (entitlements) in order to adequately serve future development. In some areas, the adequacy of water supplies is already known to be insufficient or supplies are already utilized at their maximum sustainable level. In both cases, water supplies would be insufficient to meet incremental increases in demand using existing technologies.

 Due to the variability and unpredictability of water supplies from year to year, in some cases, the adequacy of future water supplies cannot be ascertained at this time at the programmatic level of this EIR. Thus, in light of future growth, as well as environmental and regulatory constraints, adequate water supplies for all forecast future development cannot be assured. As a result, in areas of Riverside County where sufficient water supply is not available or cannot be assured into the future, cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

 Unavailability or unpredictability of imported water supplies, overdraft of groundwater basins, increasing demand due to growth in Riverside County, as well as environmental factors, such as climate change effects and drought, all play roles in limiting the availability of water within Riverside County. In some remote locations, particularly in the far eastern desert beyond the Coachella Valley and the region south of the San Jacinto Mountains between Anza and Coachella Valley, lack of groundwater and lack of delivery infrastructure also are limiting factors. For all of these reasons, the cumulative effects on water supply would be significant and unavoidable at this time.

 In attempting to meet the increased demand for water outlined above, future development from any General Plan build out scenario would incrementally increase use of local groundwater supplies, both by water districts and individual landowners through private pumps. This is particularly likely in areas of Riverside County without municipal water service or other access to imported water supplies or where new development would rely solely on groundwater for supply. Increased development will incrementally increase the impermeable surfaces in Riverside County, interfering with groundwater recharge. Where increased groundwater pumping exceeds the rate of basin recharge, it would cumulatively result in the substantial depletion of groundwater in Riverside County.

 Incremental increases in the use of groundwater may also conflict with groundwater management plans, monitoring programs or lead to groundwater extractions that individually or cumulatively exceed the groundwater basins’ safe yields or cause a net deficit in the aquifer volume or reduction in the local water table level.

 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 demands and costs, as well as unpredictability in the availability of imported water, would make it more attractive for water suppliers to exploit the local groundwater supplies, including at times those of marginal water quality. Where groundwater is extracted at a faster rate than it is replenished, problems associated with overdraft and lowering groundwater tables would occur or continue.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-184 Public Review Draft . March 2014

 A number of factors will result in or contribute incrementally to substantially decreasing groundwater supplies: increased demand for water associated with the growth envisioned by the General Plan, supply and cost unpredictability, variability in long-term supply scenarios in non-adjudicated basins, exploitation of new groundwater sources and the continuing pattern of basin overdraft.

 In addition, an assessment of future water supply adequacy beyond the year 2035 (including groundwater) is speculative. Since at present roughly one-third of Riverside County’s water demand is met by groundwater, this unpredictability and variability mean that significant cumulative impacts associated with build out over the next 50-plus years cannot be ruled out.

 Future development per build out of any of the General Plan scenarios would incrementally increase water erosion, sedimentation and siltation of surface water. These include short-term construction impacts, as well as long-term operational impacts. Future development will also incrementally damage or change hydrologic baseline conditions throughout Riverside County over time. Compliance with existing laws, General Plan policies and existing EIR No. 441 mitigation measures, would ensure that such impacts are cumulatively less than significant in areas in which development occurs pursuant to a Master Drainage Plan or per a drainage plan required as part of tract or parcel development. However, where such plans do not exist or are not required, for example, for individual homes in wildlands and on expanding urban fringes, new development could contribute incrementally to cumulatively considerable hydrological impacts.

 Increased development resulting from General Plan implementation would also incrementally reduce the distribution and extent of permeable surfaces suitable for recharge. It may also increase runoff and subsequent flow in streams, and increase the amount of non-point source pollutants that enter watercourses and recharge areas. Development activities may also result in the incremental alteration or elimination of features essential to local or regional hydrologic systems, or the interruption of hydrologic processes leading to cumulatively considerable impacts.

 Build out of any of the General Plan scenarios would result in the incremental development of vacant lands within Riverside County. The addition of impervious surfaces from such development would incrementally increase stormwater runoff within the affected watersheds. In some areas, existing drainage facilities may not be adequate to accommodate the increase, leading to cumulatively significant impacts to existing stormwater drainage facilities or triggering the need for new facilities.

 New land uses would incrementally increase the amount of stormwater runoff due to the increase in impermeable surfaces. This would also increase the amount of pollutants conveyed to groundwater basins and surface waters in creeks and rivers. The extensive stormwater management measures required by the County of Riverside would reduce urban runoff impacts from new development. However, where existing storm drainage facilities are inadequate or, in particular, where no regional stormdrain infrastructure exists (e.g., in wildland and fringe areas), incremental increases in runoff would result in cumulatively significant impacts.

(2) Non-Substantial Incremental Impacts

 Future development per build out of any of the General Plan scenarios will incrementally increase water demands, thus increasing reliance on lower-quality water either from the Colorado River or marginal groundwater sources. It would also contribute to increased levels of pollutants in local/regional groundwater reserves and local/regional surface waters. These conditions would contribute incrementally to the deterioration of drinking water quality in Riverside County. However, as all potable

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-185

water must meet the state’s minimum standards of purity for water quality, adherence to such standards would ensure that cumulative impacts are not significant.

 Future development will incrementally increase Riverside County’s population, increasing the amount of wastewater generated, increasing the need for effluent disposal. When discharged into a stream or other surface water, effluents can degrade water quality. Additionally, stormwater runoff from urban areas contains a variety of organic and inorganic substances that would also reduce the quality of groundwater when introduced into their aquifers. Adherence to strict state water quality standards would ensure such impacts are not cumulatively considerable.

 Future development will result in incremental changes to existing hydrology, increased impervious surfaces and increased urban runoff. Such changes would increase the discharge of pollutants into receiving waters, if not properly managed and controlled. Compliance with the state’s extensive water quality regulations, including MS4 permits (for municipal separate storm sewer systems) and the NPDES program of the federal Clean Water Act, would ensure that no significant violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur individually or cumulatively.

 Future development pursuant to any of the General Plan build out scenarios will incrementally increase the amount of wastewater (sewage) generated in Riverside County. All such wastewater must be disposed of pursuant to a variety of state and federal water quality laws (see list below). Accordingly, compliance with extensive regulations would ensure that future development does not individually or cumulatively exceed any wastewater treatment requirements. Similar compliance requirements that strictly regulate the construction and maintenance of septic tanks will ensure that incremental increases in use of septic systems do not result in cumulative exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements.

 Future development will incrementally increase wastewater generation, increasing the need for its treatment and potentially exceeding the capacities of existing treatment facilities, necessitating the construction of additional facilities. In addition, where sanitary sewer connection and treatment are not available, septic systems would be necessary. 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. However, compliance with existing laws, regulatory programs, ordinances, General Plan policies and existing mitigation measures from EIR No. 441 would be sufficient to ensure that cumulative impacts associated with wastewater treatment capacities are less than significant.

 Future development would incrementally increase demand for water supply, wastewater treatment and infrastructure to supply these services. These increases would contribute incrementally to the need for new or expanded water and wastewater treatment facilities. Since future development would be implemented on a case-by-case basis across many individual sites spread across Riverside County over roughly 50 years, however, it would not result in significant impacts tied to specific, inalterable areas. Rather, the future locations of such facilities can be established (located) so as to minimize potential environmental effects. Thus, cumulative impacts due to the need for new or expanded water and wastewater facilities would not be significant.

 Future growth per any of the General Plan build out scenarios would result in the development of vacant lands and infill of existing land uses within Riverside County. This would introduce additional impervious surfaces, incrementally increasing stormwater runoff throughout Riverside County. Existing drainage facilities may not be adequate to accommodate future increases in stormwater runoff. As a result, additional storm drain capacity and facilities will be necessary. It is feasible, however, for such

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-186 Public Review Draft . March 2014

future facilities to be planned, sited and constructed in a manner that minimizes potential environmental effects. Thus, these impacts would not be cumulatively significant.

d. Mitigation

As described in detail in Section 4.19.5, a variety of measures would be implemented to avoid, reduce and minimize adverse cumulative water resource impacts. These include the following:

(1) Regulatory Compliance

Key Regulations and Program: See Section 4.19.6 for details on each regulation.

 Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (aka the Clean Water Act)

 Federal Safe Drinking Water Act

 CWA Section 402 - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

 California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970

 California Safe Drinking Water Act

 CCR Title 22 - Recycled Water

 Water Conservation Act (SBX 7-7)

 Senate Bill 610 – re Water Supply Assessment Requirements

 Senate Bill 221 – re Water Supplies for Subdivisions

 Ordinance No. 427 (Regulating the Land Application of Manure)

 Ordinance No. 457 (Building Codes and Fees)

 Ordinance No. 458 (Regulating Flood Hazard Areas and Implementing the National Flood Insurance Program)

 Ordinance No. 461 (Road Improvement Standards)

 Ordinance No. 592 (Regulating Sewer Use, Sewer Construction and Industrial Wastewater Discharges in County Service Areas)

 Ordinance No. 617 (Hazardous Substances and Underground Storage Tanks)

 Ordinance No. 629 (Prohibiting Bathing, Swimming, Boating or Entering Irrigation Canals, Ditches or Drains in Unincorporated Areas of Palo Verde Valley)

 Ordinance No. 650 (Sewer Discharge in Unincorporated Territory)

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-187

 Ordinance No. 659 (Development Mitigation Fee for Residential Development (DIF))

 Ordinance No. 682 (Construction, Reconstruction, Abandonment and Destruction of Wells)

 Ordinance No. 754 (Stormwater/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls)

 Ordinance No. 830 (Regulating the Land Application of Class A Sewage Sludge for Agricultural Activities)

 Ordinance No. 843 (Regulating the Discharge of Wastes into the Public Sewer System for the Highgrove Community)

 Ordinance No. 856 (Establishing a Septic Tank Prohibition for Specified Areas of Quail Valley and Requiring the Connection of Existing Septic Systems to Sewer)

 Ordinance No. 859 (Water-Efficient Landscape Requirements)

 Ordinance No. 871 (Prohibiting the Installation of Specified Septic Tank Systems in Cherry Valley)

Program Funding: The County of Riverside and cities collect taxes, fees and other revenue that is used to fund MS4 permit compliance program activities, as well as other water quality protection programs. These include assessment areas, such as the Whitewater River Watershed Benefit Assessment Area, which were established as funding sources for MS4 permit (and individual NPDES) compliance. For Whitewater, assessments are calculated on the basis of proportional stormwater runoff and are enrolled on the property tax bills generated by the County Tax Assessor’s office. Some County Service Areas (CSAs), for example CSA 152, also collect funds similarly or use general (“ad valorem”) tax revenues to finance stormwater management programs.

Key General Plan Policies: Although the General Plan does not include a Public Services or Utilities Element, it does include a number of policies that address water resources and related facilities. These policies help ensure that cumulative environmental effects are avoided, reduced or minimized through their application on a case-by- case basis. The County of Riverside has existing programs in place that ensure applicable policies are imposed once a development proposal triggers a specific policy or policies. The need for specific policies is determined through subsequent site-specific CEQA analysis performed at the time of implementing project review. These measures are implemented, enforced and verified through their inclusion into project conditions of approval. See Section 4.19.3.c for full text of each policy.

 Land Use Element Policies: LU 5.3, 9.1, 9.2-9.4, 21.2, 22.2, 28.3, 29.7, 30.7, 31.4 and 32.6

 Open Space Element Policies: OS 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 2.1-2.5, 3.1-3.7, 4.1-4.6, 4.8, 6.1, 6.3 and 18.1-18.6

(2) CEQA Mitigation

Existing Mitigation Measures: These specific mitigation measures from EIR No. 441 address the various water resource and related impacts directly to reduce, avoid or minimize the applicable impacts and will also apply to future development:

 Existing MM 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

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-188 Public Review Draft . March 2014

velocities, erosion backwater effects, concentration of flows, and adverse impacts to water quality from point and nonpoint sources of pollution.

 Existing MM 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.

 Existing MM 4.10.9B: Prior to any development within the County [of Riverside], 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 [of Riverside], 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.

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 through placement of interceptor trenches or other erosion control devices.

g. Erosion and sediment control plans shall be submitted to the County [of Riverside] for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits.

 Existing MM 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.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-189

c. Runoff generated on paved or covered areas shall be conveyed via swales and drains to natural drainage courses.

d. Disturbed areas 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.

 Existing MM 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.

 Existing MM 4.17.1C: Development within unincorporated areas of the County [of Riverside] shall not use water of any source of quality suitable for potable domestic use for non-potable 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 [California] Water Code and/or Sections 65591-65600 and 65601-65607 of the Public Resource Code. Prior to the issuance of any land use permit, the County [of Riverside] 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 in accordance with the recycled water measures mandated by the County [of Riverside].

 Existing MM 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 [of Riverside], the applicant shall submit evidence to Riverside County that all applicable water conservation measures have been met.

 Existing MM 4.17.1E: For any development within the [DWR-designated] Palo Verde Planning Area supplied with water from the Colorado River, the project applicant shall enter into a contract with the City of Needles [the LCWSP water contractor], pursuant to the Lower Colorado Water Supply Project program. Evidence of such a contractual agreement shall be submitted to the County [of Riverside] prior to the approval of any development entitlement for the project.

 Existing MM 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.

 Existing MM 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 onsite

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-190 Public Review Draft . March 2014

infiltration of precipitation and/or runoff into groundwater basins. Such features shall include (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.

 Existing MM 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 [now California Department of Fish and Wildlife], 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 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 [of Riverside], 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 [of Riverside] 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.

 Existing MM 4.17.4B: The project applicant shall submit to the County [of Riverside] 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.

 Existing MM 4.17.4C: Where determined feasible by the County [of Riverside] or responsible entity, bioengineering measures shall be incorporated into any project that may alter the hydrologic process.

 Existing MM 4.17.5A: The development of septic systems shall be in accordance with applicable standards established by Riverside County and other responsible authorities.

 Existing MM 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.

 Existing MM 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 existing water quality; an assessment of how the proposed

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-191

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 [of Riverside] 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 [of Riverside] and the RWCQB for review and shall be approved prior to the issuance of any entitlement that would result in the physical modification of the project site.

 Existing MM 4.17.5D: The project applicant shall submit to the County [of Riverside] 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 and approved prior to the issuance of any entitlement that would result in the physical modification of the project site.

 Existing MM 4.17.5E: For each new development project, the following principles and policies shall be considered and implemented:

a. 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.

b. 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).

c. Small drainages shall be preserved and incorporated into new development, along with adequate buffer zones of native vegetation, to the maximum extent practicable.

d. 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 [now California Department of Fish and Wildlife].

e. The County [of Riverside] 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.

f. The County [of Riverside] 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

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-192 Public Review Draft . March 2014

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.

g. The County [of Riverside] 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.

h. The County [of Riverside] 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 waterbodies) 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.

i. The County [of Riverside] shall ensure that in new development, post-development stormwater runoff flow rates do not differ from the pre-development stormwater runoff flow rates.

j. All construction projects should be designed and implemented to protect, and if at all possible, to improve the quality of the underlying groundwater.

k. The County [of Riverside] 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.

l. The County [of Riverside] 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.

m. The County [of Riverside] 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.

New Mitigation Measures: EIR No. 521 also includes the following measure to ensure that cumulative impacts associated with wastewater treatment are reduced to less than significant.

 New MM 4.19.E-N1: 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 more restrictive standard shall apply.

e. Significance

Implementation of all of the above regulations, General Plan policies and mitigation measures, would help reduce, avoid or minimize various cumulative impacts to water resources, including supplies, infrastructure, water quality, hydrology and storm drainage. However, while many of these impacts will be individually less than significant, for some water impacts incremental impacts will be cumulatively substantial, even with the implementation of all feasible mitigation. Specifically, impacts that would be cumulatively significant under any of the build out

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-193

scenarios examined herein, including the project (GPA No. 960), include: incremental increases in the demand for water supply; incremental increases in groundwater usage and its recharge; incremental changes to existing drainage patterns, erosion, sedimentation and siltation; and, incremental increases in runoff due to development of additional impervious surfaces. For these areas, cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

D. Cumulative Analysis - Conclusions

In total, the above analyses indicate that the project, GPA No. 960, would have a number of cumulatively significant incremental impacts as a result of future development implementing the updated Riverside County General Plan. These cumulative impacts are summarized in Table 5.5-AI (Project Cumulative Impacts Summary), below. In many cases, the reduced development footprint, updated circulation network and enhanced environmental policies put forth by GPA No. 960 will result in reduced cumulative impacts compared to those originally forecast for the 2003 RCIP General Plan (as per its accompanying EIR No. 441).

However, given that GPA No. 960’s changes will affect numerous, perhaps even thousands, of future individual General Plan-implementing projects over time, when compared against the environmental baseline (existing conditions), the project will still result in cumulatively significant environmental impacts. As outlined above in the various subsections of this analysis, in some cases the project’s cumulative impacts would also be less than those forecast for the cumulative General Plan (CULM) scenario, that is the General Plan as it would be should all the GPAs listed in Table 5.5-A were adopted.

Table 5.5-AI: Project Cumulative Impacts Summary

Substantial - 1 stantial/ Impact

Impact # Cumulative Impact Title / Description

No Incremental, Non Cumulatively Sub Significant 4.2 – Land Use 4.2.A Physically divide an established community. • 4.2.B Conflict with land use policies to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect. • 4.2.C Conflict with any habitat conservation or natural community conservation plan. • 4.3 – Population and Housing 4.3.A Induce direct or indirect population growth. • 4.3.B Displace residential units. • 4.3.C Displace people. • 4.4 – Aesthetic and Visual Resources 4.4.A Adversely affect scenic vistas. • 4.4.B Adversely affect scenic resources within State Scenic Highways. • 4.4.C Adversely affect existing visual character. • 4.4.D Cause adverse light and glare effects. • 4.4.E Interfere with nighttime use of the Palomar Astronomical Observatory. • 4.5 – Agricultural and Forestry Resources 4.5.A Cause the conversion of designated Farmlands. • 4.5.B Encroach on or conflict with existing agricultural uses. • 4.5.C Adversely affect forest lands and forestry uses. • 4.6 – Air Quality 4.6.A Conflict with air quality plans. •

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-194 Public Review Draft . March 2014

Substantial - 1 stantial/ Impact

Impact # Cumulative Impact Title / Description

No Incremental, Non Cumulatively Sub Significant 4.6.B (1) Cause significant construction (short-term) air emissions. • 4.6.B (2) Cause significant operational (long-term) air emissions. • 4.6.C Cause cumulatively significant project air quality impacts. • 4.6.D Expose sensitive receptors to air pollutants. • 4.6.E Expose substantial numbers of people to objectionable odors. • 4.7 – Greenhouse Gases 4.7.A Generate substantial greenhouse gas emissions. • 4.7.B Conflict with greenhouse gas reduction plans, policies or regulations. • 4.8 – Biological Resources 4.8.A Adversely affect riparian and other sensitive habitats. • 4.8.B Cause direct and indirect impacts to protected species or their habitats. • 4.8.C Adversely affect wetlands. • 4.8.D Impede species movement, migration, wildlife corridors or use of wildlife nursery sites. • 4.8.E Conflict with adopted habitat conservation plans. • 4.8.F Conflict with local biological resource protection policies or ordinances. • 4.9 – Cultural and Paleontological Resources 4.9.A Adversely change the significance of historical resources. • 4.9.B Cause the destruction of known archeological resources. • 4.9.C Cause the destruction of unique paleontological resources or sites. • 4.9.D Result in the disturbance of human remains. • 4.10 – Energy Resources 4.10.A Increase demand for electricity. • 4.10.B Increase demand for natural gas. • 4.10.C Cause the inefficient use of energy. • 4.11 – Flood and Dam Inundation Hazards 4.11.A Result in housing within flood hazard areas. • 4.11.B Cause impediment of flows. • 4.11.C Expose people or structures to flooding hazards, including flooding due to dam or levee failure. • 4.11.D Cause the adverse alteration of drainage patterns or substantially increase surface runoff. • 4.11.E Cause inundation risks due to seiche, tsunami or mudflow. • 4.12 – Geology and Soils 4.12.A Expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects due to rupture of a known earthquake fault. • 4.12.B Expose people or structures to substantial strong seismic groundshaking. • Expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects due to seismic-related ground failure, 4.12.C including liquefaction. • 4.12.D Expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects due to landslide. • 4.12.E Result in substantial soil erosion or topsoil loss. • 4.12.F Result in development on unstable geological units or soils. • 4.12.G Result in development on expansive soils. • Result in development on soils incapable of supporting septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal 4.12.H systems. •

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-195

Substantial - 1 stantial/ Impact

Impact # Cumulative Impact Title / Description

No Incremental, Non Cumulatively Sub Significant 4.13 – Hazardous Materials and Safety 4.13.A Create a significant hazard through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. • 4.13.B Cause a significant hazard through the accidental release of hazardous materials. • 4.13.C Result in hazardous emissions or related hazards within ¼-mile of a school. • 4.13.D Result in a significant hazard due to development on a Cortese List hazardous materials site. • 4.13.E Result in a safety hazard for people within a two-mile radius of a public or public use airport. • 4.13.F Result in a safety hazard in the vicinity of a private airstrip or heliport. • 4.13.G Impair or interfere with adopted emergency response or evacuation plans. • 4.13.H Expose people or structures to significant risk due to wildland fires. • 4.14 – Mineral Resources 4.14.A Result in the loss of availability of delineated locally important minerals. • 4.14.B Result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources. • 4.15 – Noise 4.15.A Generate noise or cause noise exposure in excess of standards. • 4.15.B Generate or cause exposure to excessive groundborne vibration. • 4.15.C Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. • 4.15.D Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise. • 4.15.E Expose people to excessive airport-related noise levels. • 4.16 – Parks and Recreation Increase the use of existing parks or recreational facilities resulting in their substantial physical 4.16.A deterioration. • 4.16.B Trigger growth effects resulting in the need for additional parks or recreational facilities. • 4.16.C Result in significant adverse effects due to the need for additional parks or recreational facilities. • 4.17 – Public Facilities 4.17.A Cause adverse environmental effects due to the need for fire protection services. • 4.17.B Cause adverse environmental effects due to the need for law enforcement services. • 4.17.C(1) Adversely affect or exceed the permitted capacity of a landfill. • Cause inconsistencies with applicable statutes and regulations related to solid waste, including the 4.17.C(2) Riverside County Integrated Waste Management Plan. • 4.17.D Cause adverse environmental effects due to the need for schools. • 4.17.E Cause adverse environmental effects due to the need for library services. • 4.17.F Cause adverse environmental effects due to the need for medical facilities. • 4.18 – Transportation and Traffic Conflict with circulation system effectiveness regulations for any mode of transportation, including 4.18.A vehicular, mass transit and non-motorized travel. • Conflict with a congestion management program, including level of service (LOS) standards and travel 4.18.B demand measures, or other standards, established by the county congestion management agency for • designated roads. 4.18.C Cause substantial safety risks as a result of a change in air traffic patterns. • 4.18.D Cause substantial alterations in waterborne, rail or air traffic. • Substantially increase road hazards due to design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous 4.18.E intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). • 4.18.F Cause an adverse effect on or need for new or altered road maintenance. • 4.18.G Cause an adverse effect on circulation during construction. •

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-196 Public Review Draft . March 2014

Substantial - 1 stantial/ Impact

Impact # Cumulative Impact Title / Description

No Incremental, Non Cumulatively Sub Significant 4.18.H Result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses. • Conflict with policies for public transit or non-motorized travel (bikeways, pedestrian facilities, etc.), or 4.18.I substantially decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. • 4.19 – Water Resources 4.19.A Result in insufficient water supply. • 4.19.B Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or substantially interfere with groundwater recharge. • 4.19.C Substantially degrade water quality. • 4.19.D Violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. • 4.19.E Exceed wastewater treatment requirements. • 4.19.F Exceed wastewater treatment capacity. • Result in significant adverse effects due to the construction of new or expanded water or wastewater 4.19.G facilities. • 4.19.H Substantially alter existing drainage patterns resulting in substantial erosion or siltation. • 4.19.I Cause runoff exceeding stormwater drainage system capacities or cause substantial water pollution. • 4.19.J Cause significant adverse effects due to the need for new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities. • 5.2 – Significant Irreversible Changes Result in a large commitment of non-renewable resources that make later removal or non-use 5.2.A unlikely. • 5.2.B Result in the unjustified commitment of irretrievable resources. • 5.2.C Result in primary or secondary impacts that generally commit future generations to similar uses. • 5.2.D Result in an environmental accident that could cause irreversible damage. • 5.4 – Significant Growth-Inducing Effects 5.4.A Foster direct or indirect economic growth. • 5.4.B Foster direct or indirect population growth. • 5.4.C Result in construction of additional housing. • 5.4.D Remove obstacles to population growth. • Facilitate other activities leading to significant environmental effects; e.g., encroach into isolated or 5.4.E remote areas. • 5.4.F Result in population increase that may strain community services or facilities. • Footnotes: 1. Impacts are based on a comparison of the cumulative effects of build out of the General Plan as amended pursuant to the project, GPA No. 960, compared to environmental baseline. Unless noted otherwise in the text, the environmental baseline is assumed to be the same as or substantially similar to that described for the proposed project in Sections 4.0 through 5.0 of the EIR. Source: Riverside County Planning Dept., new analysis and results from EIR Sections 4.2 - 4.19 and 5.1-5.5, 2012.

In summary, the analysis herein finds that for the project impacts marked as “Cumulatively Substantial/ Signifi- cant” in the table above, the incremental impacts from the project, GPA No. 960, when added to other closely related past, present and reasonably foreseeable or probable future developments which would occur in implementing and building out the Riverside County General Plan, will be cumulatively considerable and unavoidable.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-197

Section 5.6 Consistency with Regional Plans

A. Introduction

Section 15125(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires discussion of any inconsistencies between a regionally significant project and regional plans. Within the greater metropolitan region of Southern California, regional planning is carried out principally by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG is the state-recognized “Municipal Planning Organization” (MPO) that covers Riverside County and five other counties in Southern California (Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, San Bernardino and Imperial). The following discussion outlines quantitatively and qualitatively how the General Plan change proposed by the project, General Plan Amendment No. 960 (GPA No. 960), would affect consistency with SCAG’s regional plans.

In addition to the SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan (SCAG Regional Plan) and Compass Blueprint discussed below, the State CEQA Guidelines notes a number of other types of regional plans must also be discussed. For this EIR, these include applicable air quality attainment plans, water quality control plans and others. As noted below, the following regional documents are discussed in the EIR section indicated. Where a document is discussed or analyzed in relation to a specific impact, this is also noted. In accordance with the directives of Section 15126(d), the following regional plans are discussed in this EIR in the following locations:

 Section 4.3 (Population and Housing): Regional housing needs allocations.

 Section 4.6 (Air Quality): Applicable air quality attainment plans and State Implementation Plans, in particular the discussion for Impact 4.6.A in Section 4.6.6.

 Section 4.7 (Greenhouse Gases): Plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, in particular the discussion for Impact 4.7.B in Section 4.7.6.

 Section 4.8 (Biological Resources): Habitat conservation plans and natural community conservation plans, in particular the discussion for Impact 4.8.E in Section 4.8.6.

 Section 4.17 (Public Facilities): Area-wide waste treatment plans (see specifically, Section 4.17.4, Solid Waste Management) in particular the discussion for Impact 4.17.C-2 in Section 4.17.4 E.

 Section 4.18 (Transportation and Traffic): Regional transportation planning is addressed in Section 4.18.5.

 Section 4.19 (Water Resources): Water quality control plans, in particular the discussion for Impact 4.19.D in Section 4.19.8.

B. Regional and Countywide Projections

The most important consistency question at the General Plan level is whether or not the projected demographics of the county (e.g., population, housing and employment figures) are consistent with those used by SCAG. Consistency (or inconsistency) at this fundamental level dictates how the General Plan and the county’s long- range planning efforts will dovetail (or clash) with a host of regional SCAG plans, as well as with those of surrounding cities and counties.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-198 Public Review Draft . March 2014

When examining regional demographic consistency, two main projections of population, housing and employment are involved: The first is SCAG’s 2008 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP-08) that formulates projections up to year 2035. On Riverside County’s side is the 2010 Riverside County Projection (RCP-10), which involves data developed by Riverside County Center for Demographics and Research (RCCDR) and approved by the Board of Supervisors. It also projects socioeconomic data for Riverside County’s various city and county boundaries to the year 2035.

In addition to Riverside County’s primary socioeconomic projections (RCP-10), a second set of projects were developed for the General Plan predicting how Riverside County would look at “full build out” of the county. For this scenario, “full build out” is defined as the point at which all developable land within unincorporated Riverside County has been built upon and all attendant infrastructure, parks, roads, trails, conservation lands, etc., assembled as planned. The year 2060 is the hypothetical end point set for this analysis, hypothetical because the myriad of forces involved in the growth and evolution of human habitation over time mean that a truly “built out” county is exceedingly rare – particularly for one as large as Riverside County (approximately the size of New Jersey). The General Plan’s “build out scenario” was developed by the RCCDR and Riverside County Planning Department using the land uses mapped in the existing (2008) General Plan, as reflected by the county’s “Riverside County Informational System” (RCLIS) GIS system. The General Plan also includes a variety of policies, policy areas, overlays and other factors affecting the development capacity of Riverside County. Appendix E-1 of the General Plan addresses the methods and assumptions used in developing the build out scenario.

As part of GPA No. 960, a second General Plan build out scenario was created to reflect how Riverside County would look if it developed according to the updated General Plan, that is, including the proposed changes of GPA No. 960. This second set of build out projections represents the “with-project” scenario, while the existing General Plan build out projections represent the “status quo” scenario. For certain demographically driven environmental effects (such as future traffic volumes and numbers of elementary school student, for example), comparisons between these two build out scenarios allows for a clear depiction of how the proposed project would affect the future of Riverside County. This scenario is denoted as the “GPU/GPA960” scenario in Section 5.5 (Cumulative Impacts) and also forms the “No Project/Status Quo” Alternative that was analyzed in Section 6.4.B (Alternatives Analysis).

Lastly, because the General Plan build out scenario projects all the way out to the year 2060, it was necessary for the RCCDR to also create an additional set of projections that took the General Plan (i.e., growth within the county) out just to the year 2035, in order to allow comparison of Riverside County’s projections with those of SCAG in the aforementioned RTP-08.

Table 5.6-A, below, encompasses all of these scenarios and shows both the current and proposed updated General Plan build out (2060) scenarios as well as SCAG’s RTP-08 projections for Riverside County. By comparing the land use capacity projected for the amended General Plan to SCAG’s regional projections, the project can be evaluated on its regional consistency and whether or not the amended General Plan would adequately provide for Riverside County’s envisioned future. In reviewing this table, it should be noted that the General Plan build out scenarios represent Riverside County’s projected “capacity” for various types of land development – not the literal amount of development expected to occur in the county. It must be remembered that in most cases, such as on private property, for example, the General Plan can only plan and provide for orderly growth within Riverside County – it cannot cause this growth to occur. The overall growth occurring in Riverside County is driven by a combination of many competing factors, including land availability, environmental opportunities and constraints, demographic pressures and a host of economic forces.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-199

Table 5.6-A: Comparison of Various Regional and County Projections Year 2035 Projections Build Out (2060) Projections 1 STATISTICS Riverside County SCAG Updated Gen. Current Gen. Plan Updated Gen. RCP 2010 2 RTP 20083 Plan Capacity4,5,7 Capacity7 Plan Capacity4,5,7 Population Total 3,396,300 3,596,700 n/a n/a n/a Unincorporated6 909,100 1,243,600 969,100 1,727,400 1,702,700 Incorporated 2,487,200 2,353,000 n/a n/a n/a Residences Total 1,250,500 1,334,800 n/a n/a n/a Unincorporated6 324,600 444,000 331,100 531,500 520,900 Incorporated 926,000 890,800 n/a n/a n/a Employment Total 1,285,300 1,413,500 n/a n/a n/a Unincorporated6 283,200 338,000 286,000 595,200 561,800 Incorporated 1,002,100 1,075,600 n/a n/a n/a Footnotes: 1. All demographic values rounded to the nearest 100. 2. Riverside County Center for Demographic Research, Riverside County Projections 2010 (RCP-10). 3. SCAG, Regional Transportation Plan, 2008. 4. That is, the current General Plan as amended pursuant to the changes proposed by the project, GPA No. 960. 5. The growth rate for the updated General Plan is calculated as an average of the targeted years (2035 and 2060). As a result, the rate does not represent a compounding annual growth rate formula. 6. Values vary due to the effects of new city incorporations. The RCP-10 data set excludes the new cities of Wildomar and Menifee from the “unincorporated” data, the SCAG 2008 RTP does not. 7. Estimates not available because the Riverside County General Plan does not include incorporated areas. Source: Riverside County Planning Dept., project application materials, 2010. Riverside County Center for Demographic Research, Riverside County Projections 2010 (RCP-10), 2010.

Additionally, comparing and analyzing data that utilize different assumptions is difficult. For instance, since the development of SCAG RTP-08, two new cities (Wildomar and Menifee) have been incorporated in Riverside County, a fact that is reflected in Riverside County’s RCP-10 but not in SCAG’s earlier RTP-08. A county like Riverside where economic tides directly affect the growth, it needs its socioeconomic data and land use plans adjusted regularly to efficiently manage both the growth pressure and the undulating economic conditions. This makes comparing regional data and assessing regional consistency even more difficult, as the official projection data from the regional entities become outdated. SCAG’s official regional projection data for Riverside County at this point in time is the RTP-08. Therefore, having to compare RCP-10 data rather than the RTP-08 data with the General Plan land use remedies the issue of data inconsistency.

The usual approach for local jurisdictions in Riverside County is to compare SCAG’s RTP-08 projections with the full build out of their general plans’ land use plans. However, a quantitative comparison between the proposed updated General Plan and RCP-10, rather than SCAG’s RTP-08, was determined to be more current and appropriate for assessing regional consistency, because the RTP-08 used pre-recession projections which have seen been revised downward to reflect the current economy. As an example from Table 5.6-A, the SCAG RTP- 08 population projection for 2035 was 3.6 million while the RCP-10 population projection was only 3.4 million. The difference mainly comes from different base year conditions. SCAG’s RTP-08 projections used 2006 Riverside County data (pre-recession), while RCP-10 used 2010 Riverside County data, which captures the economic downturn. Another consideration was the fact that the next set of SCAG projections would be released under the 2012 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP-12). The RTP-12 scenario developed by SCAG will use the most recent projections of its member counties; in this case, Riverside County submitted its RCP-10 projections to SCAG for their use. For these reasons, the updated General Plan build out scenario, as per GPA No. 960 proposed changes, was assessed for regional socioeconomic consistency using RCP-10 as the regional projections model rather than SCAG’s 2008 RTP.

The other technical difficulty that arises in socioeconomic consistency assessments is the issue of comparing data with different projection years (that is, covering differing time spans). While the regional data projections avail-

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-200 Public Review Draft . March 2014

able go to year 2035, the General Plan land use has an estimated build out year of 2060. This inconsistency was addressed in two ways: Since the numbers do not exactly cover the same timeframe, the first solution is to instead compare the overall capacity supply and demand trends for Riverside County’s unincorporated areas. The second is to examine the respective jobs-to-housing unit ratios.

First, the purpose of the projection data is to analyze Riverside County’s growth trends and factors for development into the future. In the case of RCP-10 and RTP-08, the forecasts project to the year 2035. Since this data predicts how Riverside County is going to grow in terms of population, dwelling units and employment, it can be equated to the demand factors for growth. Conversely, the General Plan’s land use assumptions provide a geographical basis and association for Riverside County’s forecast demographic values. The challenge of the General Plan then, is to ensure that this growth is managed and directed in a coordinated and appropriate manner for orderly development within Riverside County. For this reason, the land use assumptions of the General Plan can be considered as the supply factors that dictate where and how the County of Riverside would accommodate its portion of the forecasted regional growth. Since the proposed update for the General Plan integrated regional projection data into its land use planning assumptions, both supply and demand factors can be adequately addressed through a checks and balance system.

As shown in Table 5.6-A, at anticipated build out in 2060, the General Plan, as updated by GPA No. 960, would have the land use capacity to accommodate a population of roughly 1,702,700 residents, 520,900 housing units and 561,800 jobs. In order to compare the two numbers consistently at a given year of 2035, these General Plan build out numbers were interpolated (back-projected) to year 2035 by applying a steady annual growth rate. The resultant projections for year 2035 yielded a population of 969,100 with a corresponding 3% growth rate, 331,100 dwelling units with a 2.3-2.6% growth rate and 286,000 jobs value with a 4-5% growth rate. When compared to the same socioeconomic projections for RCP-10, the population, dwelling units and employment results only slightly exceed its 2035 projections: 6.6% higher for population, 2.0% higher for dwelling units and 1.0% higher for employment. Such close numbers demonstrates that the project-updated General Plan would be generally consistent with regional projections.

The other method for regional consistency comparisons mentioned above involves a comparison of the job-to- housing unit ratios. This ratio measures the extent to which job opportunities in a given geographic area match the available housing in the same area. This ratio highlights the basic planning premise that a “balanced” community provides a reasonable amount of both housing and jobs in close proximity, so that residents can both live and work in their local community – avoiding long commutes that trigger higher traffic, increase air pollution and noise, and generally decrease the overall standard of living. Accordingly, a commonly accepted “optimal balance” for a jobs-to-housing ratio is in the range of 1.3 or 1.4 jobs-to-housing units. That is, the number of employed persons (jobs) divided by the number of housing units available. A ratio in the 1.3 to 1.4 range would mean that there is a net surplus of jobs available, which would draw job-seekers into the community, rather than necessitate workers’ exodus outward for employment. According to Ewing (1996), Cervero (1991) and others, a ratio in this range implies balance in the community.

The jobs-housing ratio of the updated General Plan at build out (2060) was calculated at 1.08 and at 0.86 for year 2035. This is nearly the same as that for RCP-10 (0.87), although the updated General Plan does provide a higher gross employment level (286,000 jobs) than RCP-10 (283,200 jobs). In addition, it is important to note that as growth in Riverside County proceeds from 2035 to 2060, the balance in the jobs-to-housing ratio for unincorporated Riverside County improves (from 0.86 in 2035 to 1.08 at 2060 build out). This is an indication that the proposed updated General Plan is improving Riverside County’s jobs-housing balance over time. This is important as, historically, Riverside County has been a housing-rich region in need of additional local jobs to ensure proper balance. In particular, these ratios demonstrate that further increases in housing without corresponding increases in employment opportunities would only worsen Riverside County’s balance and negatively affect the

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-201

traffic patterns in Riverside County. As demonstrated in Table 5.6-A, the revisions to the General Plan proposed by GPA No. 960 help decrease the gap between housing and employment over time. The updated General Plan provides a blueprint for achieving an improved job-to-housing ratio over time, while at the same time maintaining consistency with SCAG regional plan for 2035.

For all of these reasons, the proposed project, as it affects Riverside County’s General Plan, is considered regionally consistent at the demographic and socioeconomic level with both the RCP-10 and, since the RCP-10 will be used by SCAG in the preparation of its RTP-12, with future Regional Transportation Plans.

C. SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan

As described by SCAG, its 2008 Regional Comprehensive Plan is a “major advisory plan” that addresses “important regional issues like housing, traffic / transportation, water and air quality.” SCAG further states that:

“The Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) serves as an advisory document to local agencies in the Southern California region for their information and voluntary use for preparing local plans and handling local issues of regional significance. The RCP presents a vision of how Southern California can balance resource conservation, economic vitality and quality of life. The RCP identifies voluntary best practices to approach growth and infrastructure challenges in an integrated and comprehensive way. It also includes goals and outcomes to measure our progress toward a more sustainable region.”

Along with the quantitative regional analyses provided above, the 2008 SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan also contains a number of policies that were analyzed qualitatively for regional consistency. In this subsection, the various applicable portions of the SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan are listed and the consistency of the proposed updated General Plan relative to these policies is discussed.

The SCAG RCP features nine chapters, each of which include an “Action Plan” of numbered policies, called “SCAG Best Practices,” to address specific areas of planning or resource management. Since many of the chapters in the RCP address SCAG operations or directives from the federal or state government, only those SCAG policies relevant to local governments, i.e., the County of Riverside, are addressed here. For each of the SCAG “Action Plans” addressed below, the relevant SCAG policies (i.e., “SCAG Best Practices”) are first listed in italics, with a discussion of the project’s consistency following.

1. Land Use and Housing Action Plan

LU-4: Local governments should provide for new housing, consistent with State Housing Element law, to accommodate their share of forecast regional growth.

LU-4.1: Local governments should adopt and implement General Plan Housing Elements that accommodate housing needs identified through the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process. Affordable housing should be provided consistent with RHNA income category distributions adopted for each jurisdiction. To provide housing, especially affordable housing, jurisdictions should leverage existing State programs such as HCD’s Workforce Incentive Program and density bonus law and create local incentives (e.g., housing trust funds, inclusionary zoning, tax-increment-financing districts in redevelopment areas and transit villages) and partnerships with non-governmental stakeholders.

Discussion: The recently amended Housing Element of the General Plan identifies and establishes Riverside County’s policies with respect to meeting the needs of existing and future residents in Riverside County. It establishes policies that guide County decision-making and it sets forth an action plan to implement housing goals

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-202 Public Review Draft . March 2014

as required for the SCAG region and to meet Riverside County’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment share. The changes proposed by the project do not alter this outcome. According to the above discussion, the project- updated General Plan would be consistent with the land use and housing policies of the SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan. GPA No. 960 does not propose any changes to General Plan policies that would contradict the SCAG Regional Plan or impede implementation of its policies.

LU-5: Local governments should leverage federal and state and local funds to implement the Compass Blueprint.

LU-5.1: All stakeholders should leverage state infrastructure bond financing, including the Department of Housing and Community Development’s Transit Oriented Development program and should support legislation that will target infrastructure bond funds for regions with adopted growth visions such as the Compass Blueprint and for projects consistent with these visions.

LU-5.2: Subregional organizations should leverage the federal transportation planning funds available at the subregional level, to complete projects that integrate land use and transportation planning and implement Compass Blueprint principles.

Discussion: GPA No. 960 does not directly discuss the funding and financing of development projects. It does, however, provide for a uniquely integrated planning process that balances the needs of development with the infrastructure, particularly roadways, needed to serve the new uses through CETAP. The TUMF (Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee) program further ensures this integration by requiring new development pay its fair share of funds needed to provide roadway and related infrastructure improvements when needed. GPA No. 960 would further contribute to this coordination by providing updates to the Circulation Element of the General Plan, including the Countywide Circulation Network. For these reasons, the updated General Plan, as amended pursuant to GPA No. 960, would be consistent with the land use and housing policies of the SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan. GPA No. 960 does not propose any changes to General Plan policies that would contradict the SCAG Regional Plan or impede implementation of its policies.

LU-6: Local governments should consider shared regional priorities, as outlined in the Compass Blueprint, Regional Transportation Plan and this Regional Comprehensive Plan, in determining their own development goals and drafting local plans.

LU-6.1: Local governments should take a comprehensive approach to updating their General Plans, keeping General Plans up-to- date and providing progress reports on updates and implementation, as required by law.

Discussion: GPA No. 960 includes countywide and Area Plan-wide updates to policies and maps in the required and optional elements, as well as in the various appendices, to provide up-to-date data supporting the changes. For example, the Land Use Element contains policy areas and overlays with alternate land use assumptions that accurately calculate the density yields of the targeted areas, such as the Good Hope and Meadowbrook communities, to determine the maximum impact of the alternate land use designation. The Circulation Element contains updates to the roadway networks to reflect the latest traffic study results based on the future General Plan land uses. It also includes an updated comprehensive countywide trails network system. The Air Quality Element contains new policies to provide guidance on how to analyze Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions in Riverside County to be compliant with the AB 32 and SB 375 legislation targets through implementation of screening tables in the review process. The impacts of the each GPA No. 960 policy and map changes are discussed further in various relevant EIR sections.

LU-6.2: Developers and local governments should integrate green building measures into project design and zoning such as those identified in the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, Energy Star Homes, Green Point Rated Homes and the California Green Builder Program.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-203

LU-6.3: Local governments and subregional organizations should develop ordinances and other programs, particularly in the older, more urbanized parts of the region, which will enable and assist in the cleanup and redevelopment of brownfield sites.

Discussion: GPA No. 960 includes new GHG reduction measures that would substantially lessen the GHG emissions and cumulative impacts. Many of the reduction strategies that are applicable to the new development projects in Riverside County are consistent with U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, Energy Star Homes, Green Point Rated Homes and the California Green Builder Program. The screening tables for GHG implementation measures in the proposed Climate Action Plan (CAP) include reduction guidelines for new residential developments and deals with various topics from insulations and appliances to renewable energies and water efficiency.

The above analysis indicates that implementation of GPA No. 960, would be consistent with the land use and housing policies of the SCAG Regional Plan. The proposed project and updated General Plan does not contain any policies that would contradict the SCAG Regional Plan or impede implementation of its policies.

2. Open Space and Habitat – Natural Lands Action Plan

OSN-12: Local governments should track and monitor open space conservation by:

 Considering the most recent annual report on open space conservation in planning and evaluating projects and programs in areas with regionally significant open space resources.

 Ensuring consistency with the open space conservation policies and goals of the Regional Comprehensive Plan.

OSN-13: Local governments should develop and implement mitigation for open space impacts by:

 Promoting coordinated mitigation programs for regional projects and establish the basis for inter-regional conservation strategies.

 Planning development in locations least likely to cause environmental impact.

OSN-14: Developers and local governments should implement mitigation for open space impacts through the following activities:

 Individual projects should either avoid significant impacts to regionally significant open space resources or mitigate the significant impacts through measures consistent with regional open space policies for conserving natural lands, community open space and farmlands. All projects should demonstrate consideration of alternatives that would avoid or reduce impacts to open space.

 Individual projects should include into project design, to the maximum extent practicable, mitigation measures and recommended best practices aimed at minimizing or avoiding impacts to natural lands, including, but not limited to FHWA’s Critter Crossings and Ventura County Mitigation Guidelines.

 Project-level mitigation for RTP’s significant cumulative and growth-inducing impacts on open space resources will include but not be limited to the conservation of natural lands, community open space and important farmland through existing programs in the region or through multi-party conservation compacts facilitated by SCAG.

 Project sponsors should ensure that transportation systems proposed in the RTP avoid or mitigate significant impacts to natural lands, community open space and important farmland, including cumulative impacts and open space impacts from the growth associated with transportation projects and improvements.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-204 Public Review Draft . March 2014

 Project sponsors should fully mitigate direct and indirect impacts to open space resulting from implementation of regionally significant projects.

Discussion: The current General Plan Multipurpose Open Space Element Chapter contains policies and plans to ensure conservation of regionally significant open space resources and contains policies to fully mitigate impacts to open space resulting from regionally significant projects. Since the adoption of the Riverside County General Plan in 2003, the County of Riverside has been vigorously implementing the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (WRC-MSHCP) which focuses on protecting 146 native species of plants and animals with their habitats while balancing growth and new development pressures. Riverside County, through the Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), is actively acquiring and preserving habitats for preservation. In 2007, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) adopted a similar conservation plan for the Coachella Valley Region of Eastern Riverside County named, the “Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan” (CV-MSHCP). The two MSHCPs are comprehensive and multi-jurisdictional. They focus on the conservation of species, associated habitats and linkages to provide mitigation for the impacts of development in Riverside County. Together, the MSHCPs afford the County of Riverside the ability to manage local land use decisions and maintain economic development flexibility, while providing a coordinated conservation system and reserve implementation program.

As part of GPA No. 960, lands acquired by RCA in recent years are all changed to the General Plan land use designation of Open Space-Conservation Habitat (OS-CH). This designation aids in ensuring these lands are appropriately conserved for their biological functions and values. To the extent the project would have adverse effects on open space, these are discussed in Section 5.2.B (Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes) and, in particular, summarized in Table 5.2-A (Open Space Areas Proposed for Future Development Uses). Sections 4.8 (Biological Resources) and 4.16 (Parks and Recreation) in this EIR also discuss open space. Between the policies of the General Plan, particularly in the Multipurpose Open Space and Conservation Element, and the open space conservation achieved through implementation of the WR- and CV-MSHCPs, Riverside County’s operations are consistent with the SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan. Further, GPA No. 960 does not propose policies contradicting the SCAG Regional Plan nor would any of its proposals impede implementation of these SCAG open space policies.

3. Open Space and Habitat – Community Open Space Action Plan

OSC-7: Local governments should prepare a Needs Assessment to determine the adequate community open space level for their areas.

OSC-8: Local governments should encourage patterns of urban development and land use, which reduce costs on infrastructure and make better use of existing facilities.

OSC-9: Developers and local governments should increase the accessibility to natural areas lands for outdoor recreation.

OSC-10: Developers and local governments should promote infill development and redevelopment to revitalize existing communities.

OSC-11: Developers should incorporate and local governments should include land use principles, such as green building, that use resources efficiently, eliminate pollution and significantly reduce waste into their projects, zoning codes and other implementation mechanisms.

OSC-12: Developers and local governments should promote water-efficient land use and development.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-205

OSC-13: Developers and local governments should encourage multiple use spaces and encourage redevelopment in areas where it will provide more opportunities for recreational uses and access to natural areas close to the urban core.

Discussion: The proposed Multipurpose Open Space Element Chapter of the General Plan includes new policies and plans to ensure accessibility to natural areas. GPA No. 960 proposes new trail network plans and policies to provide for an improved quality of life and access to natural open spaces for Riverside County residents. For instance in Lakeview/Nuevo and Reche Canyon/Badlands Area Plans, the new trail network provides access points and routes within the Lake Perris State Recreation Area which does not exist in the existing General Plan. GPA No. 960 also includes proposed polices in water-efficient landscaping and development to bridge the gap between water supply and demand. For example, the proposed Open Space Element Policy 2.1 includes, “Implement a water-efficient landscape ordinance and corresponding policies that promote the use of water-efficient plants and irrigation technologies, minimizes the use of turf and reduces water- waste without sacrificing landscape quality”. The policy also is accompanied by several implementation measures as outlined in the Appendix K-1 of the General Plan (AI 3, 57, 57B, 58, 62). Water efficient landscaping policies are included in both Land Use and Multipurpose Open Space Elements. These policies serve to reduce water- waste. The impact of GPA No. 960 is discussed further in EIR Section 4.14 (Mineral Resources). Riverside County will continue to implement and monitor existing ordinances and General Plan policies to reduce impacts from future development proposals.

The above analysis indicates that implementation of GPA No. 960 would be consistent with the open space and habitat policies of the SCAG Regional Plan. GPA No. 960 does not propose any General Plan policies or changes that would contradict the SCAG Regional Plan or impede implementation of its policies.

4. Open Space and Habitat – Agricultural Lands Action Plan

OSA-5: Promote the availability of locally grown and organic food in the region.

 Local governments should establish transfer of development rights (TDR) programs to direct growth to less agriculturally valuable lands (while considering the potential effects at the sites receiving the transfer) and ensure the continued protection of the most agriculturally valuable land within each county through the purchase of the development rights for these lands.

 Local governments should consider other tools for the preservation of agricultural lands such as eliminating estates and ranchettes and clustering to retain productive agricultural land.

 Local governments should ease restrictions on farmer’s markets and encourage cooperative farming initiatives to increase the availability of locally grown food.

 Local governments should consider partnering with school districts to develop farm-to-school programs.

OSA-7: Local governments should avoid the premature conversion of farmlands by promoting infill development and the continuation of agricultural uses until urban development is imminent; if development of agricultural lands is necessary, growth should be directed to those lands on which the continued viability of agricultural production has been compromised by surrounding urban development or the loss of local markets.

Discussion: The Land Use, Administration and Healthy Communities Elements of the Riverside County General Plan include policies and plans to protect viable farmlands, manage agricultural lands in a growth pressured areas and encourage farmers markets. The impacts of GPA No. 960 on agricultural resources are discussed further in Section 4.5 (Agricultural and Forestry Resources) of this EIR. Despite programs that address the premature conversion of agricultural lands to urbanizing uses, Section 4.5 concludes that future developments

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-206 Public Review Draft . March 2014

accommodated by the land use and policies of the proposed General Plan Amendment could indirectly lead to the conversion of designated farmlands thus the impact of the project was found to be significant and unavoidable. Loss of agricultural lands to non-agricultural land uses designation is an indirect contributing factor of farmland conversion thus affecting the region as a whole and making the impact significant and unavoidable. Nonetheless, GPA No. 960 is consistent with the open space and habitat policies of the SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and does not contain policies that would contradict the Regional Plan or impede implementation of its policies.

5. Water Action Plan

WA-9: Developers and local governments should consider potential climate change hydrology and resultant impacts on available water supplies and reliability in the process of creating or modifying systems to manage water resources for both year-round use and ecosystem health.

WA-10: Developers and local governments should include conjunctive use as a water management strategy when feasible.

WA-11: Developers and local governments should encourage urban development and land uses to make greater use of existing and upgraded facilities prior to incurring new infrastructure costs.

WA-12: Developers and local governments should reduce exterior uses of water in public areas and should promote reduced use in private homes and businesses, by shifting to drought-tolerant native landscape plants (xeriscaping), using weather-based irrigation systems, educating other public agencies about water use and installing related water pricing incentives.

WA-13: Developers and local governments should protect and preserve vital land resources – wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, woodlands, riparian corridors and production lands. The federal government’s “no net loss” wetlands policy should be applied to all of these land resources.

WA-14: Local governments should amend building codes to require dual plumbing in new construction and provide incentives for plumbing retrofits in existing development, to enable the safe and easy use of recycled water in toilets and for landscaping.

WA-15: Local governments should amend ordinances as necessary to allow municipal and private outdoor use of recycled water for all parks, golf courses and outdoor construction needs.

WA-18: Local governments should create stable sources of funding for water and environmental stewardship and related infrastructure sustainability, including purchase and implementation of green infrastructure.

WA-20: Local governments should use both market and regulatory incentive mechanisms to encourage “water wise” planning and development, including streamlining and prioritizing projects that minimize water demand and improve water use efficiencies.

WA-21: Local governments should develop comprehensive partnership approaches to remove and prevent water impairments, replacing the existing regulatory command and control approach that has created delays and distrust.

WA-22: Local governments should create opportunities for pollution reduction marketing and other market-incentive water quality programs.

WA-23: Local governments should encourage Low Impact Development and natural spaces that reduce, treat, infiltrate and manage runoff flows caused by storms and impervious surfaces.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-207

WA-24: Local governments should prevent development in flood hazard areas lacking appropriate protections, especially in alluvial fan areas.

WA-25: Local governments should implement green infrastructure and water-related green building practices through incentives and ordinances.

Discussion: The proposed Land Use, Administration, Safety and Multipurpose Open space Elements of the General Plan include policies and plans to ensure protection of viable water sources and wetlands, availability of water and its infrastructures, and reduction of water related hazards. GPA No. 960 adds stronger water-efficient landscape polices to ensure implementation of water-efficient plants and irrigation technologies to minimize water waste. Other policies regarding water quality and groundwater recharge have also been modified in the General Plan to include strategies incorporating “Low Impact Development” and other Best Management Practices. The new Water Resources section of the Land Use Element includes policies that address the issues between the water supply and demand in Riverside County while protecting natural resources of wetlands, arroyos and riparian corridors. In addition, GPA No. 960 includes most up-to-date countywide 100-year flood hazard zone maps and policies to limit potentially hazardous development and to require appropriate protections for such developments.

In addition, the current development review process adheres to the existing regulations at both the state and federal level. The California Water Code establishes the control of almost every aspect of water resource management within the state as a response to federal laws mandating state involvement. Counties must operate within the regulations established in the California Water Code in addition to other regulations such as the Clean Water Act, Federal Water Pollution Act, Water Conservation in Landscaping Act, and Urban Water Management Planning Act. With the existing federal, state and county regulations, as well as existing and proposed General Plan policies that will help ensure resources are appropriately identified and protected, GPA No. 960 is consistent with SCAG’s Regional Water Action Plan policies. See EIR Sections 4.11, 4.17 and 4.19 for further discussion on project impacts in these areas.

The above analysis indicates that implementation of GPA No. 960 would be consistent with the water policies of the SCAG Regional Plan. Further, GPA No. 960 does not contain policies that would contradict the Regional Plan or impede implementation of its policies.

6. Energy Action Plan

EN-8: Developers should incorporate and local governments should include the following land use principles that use resources efficiently, eliminate pollution and significantly reduce waste into their projects, zoning codes and other implementation mechanisms:

 Mixed-use residential and commercial development that is connected with public transportation and utilizes existing infrastructure.

 Land use and planning strategies to increase biking and walking trips.

EN-9: Local governments should include energy analyses in environmental documentation and general plans with the goal of conserving energy through the wise and efficient use of energy. For any identified energy impacts, appropriate mitigation measures should be developed and monitored. SCAG recommends the use of Appendix F, Energy Conservation, of the California Environmental Quality Act.

EN-10: Developers and local governments should integrate green building measures into project design and zoning such as those identified in the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, Energy Star Homes, Green Point

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-208 Public Review Draft . March 2014

Rated Homes and the California Green Builder Program. Energy saving measures that should be explored for new and remodeled buildings include:

 Using energy efficient materials in building design, construction, rehabilitation and retrofit.

 Encouraging new development to exceed Title 24 energy efficiency requirements.

 Developing Cool Communities measures including tree planting and light-colored roofs. These measures focus on reducing ambient heat, which reduces energy consumption related to air conditioning and other cooling equipment.

 Utilizing efficient commercial/residential space and water heaters: This could include the advertisement of existing and/or development of additional incentives for energy efficient appliance purchases to reduce excess energy use and save money. Federal tax incentives are provided online at http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=Products.pr_tax_credits.

 Encouraging landscaping that requires no additional irrigation: utilizing native, drought tolerant plants can reduce water usage up to 60% compared to traditional lawns.

 Encouraging combined heating and cooling (CHP), also known as cogeneration, in all buildings.

 Encouraging neighborhood energy systems, which allow communities to generate their own electricity.

 Orienting streets and buildings for best solar access.

 Encouraging buildings to obtain at least 20% of their electric load from renewable energy.

EN-11: Developers and local governments should submit projected electricity and natural gas demand calculations to the local electricity or natural gas provider, for any project anticipated to require substantial utility consumption. Any infrastructure improvements necessary for project construction should be completed according to the specifications of the energy provider.

EN-12: Developers and local governments should encourage that new buildings are able to incorporate solar panels in roofing and tap other renewable energy sources to offset new demand on conventional power sources.

EN-13: Local governments should support only the use of the best available technology including monitoring, air and water impacts for locating any nuclear waste facility.

EN-14: Developers and local governments should explore programs to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips such as telecommuting, ridesharing, alternative work schedules and parking cash-outs.

EN-15: Utilities and local governments should consider the most cost-effective alternative and renewable energy generation facilities.

EN-16: Local governments and project implementation agencies should consider various best practices and technological improvements that can reduce the consumption of fossil fuels such as:

 Encouraging investment in transit, including electrified light rail.

 Expanding light-duty vehicle retirement programs.

 Increasing commercial vehicle fleet modernization.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-209

 Implementing driver training module on fuel consumption.

 Replacing gasoline powered mowers with electric mowers.

 Reducing idling from construction equipment.

 Incentivizing alternative fuel vehicles and equipment.

 Developing infrastructure for alternative fueled vehicles.

 Increasing use and mileage of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV), High Occupancy Toll (HOT) and dedicated Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lanes.

 Implementing truck idling rule, devices and truck-stop electrification.

 Requiring electric truck refrigerator units.

 Reducing locomotives fuel use.

 Modernizing older off-road engines and equipment.

 Implementing cold ironing at ports.

 Encouraging freight mode shift.

 Limit use and develop fleet rules for construction equipment.

 Requiring zero-emission forklifts.

 Developing landside port strategy: alternative fuels, clean engines, electrification

EN-19: Subregional and local governments should explore participation in energy efficiency programs provided by their local utility such as the Ventura Regional Energy Office, South Bay Energy Savings Center and the San Gabriel Valley Energy Wise program. These programs can offer customized incentives and public awareness campaigns to reduce energy consumption.

EN-20: Local governments should employ land use planning measures, such as zoning, to improve jobs/housing balance and creating communities where people live closer to work, bike, walk and take transit as a substitute for personal auto travel.

Discussion: The proposed updates to the General Plan’s Land Use, Circulation and Air Quality Elements include policies and plans to reduce pollution and fossil fuel consumption through innovative measures designed to improve energy efficiency and energy conservation. There are also planning policies and strategies in the General Plan to integrate green building measures, encourage Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and achieve an appropriate balance between jobs and housing. For example, the updated comprehensive trails maps for Riverside County provide a network of connectivity that would increase the use of non-motorized transportation system. Additions to the Air Quality Element address greenhouse gases, but in doing so also provide strategies, regulations and policies applicable to all public and private residential, commercial, industrial and institutional developments.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-210 Public Review Draft . March 2014

The above analysis indicates that implementation of GPA No. 960 would be consistent with the energy policies of the SCAG Regional Plan. Further, GPA No. 960 does not propose any General Plan policies or changes that would contradict the SCAG Regional Plan or impede implementation of its policies. For additional details on the environmental impacts of the project in regards to energy, see Section 4.18 (Transportation and Circulation). The topic is also addressed in Section 4.7 (Greenhouse Gases), particularly as it relates to the energy conservation measures that would aid in achieving county greenhouse gas reduction goals.

7. Air Quality Action Plan

AQ-5: Local governments should implement control measures from local Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) such as accelerating the turnover of older, more polluting mobile and stationary source equipment using AB 2766 funding per the State Implementation Plan (SIP).

AQ-6: Local governments should support and pursue environmentally sustainable strategies that implement and complement climate change goals and outcomes such as updating their General Plans to help address the State’s AB 32 mandate. This should be consistent with state guidelines and requirements.

AQ-7: Local governments should develop policies that discourage the location of sensitive receptors that expose humans to adverse air quality impacts such as amending General Plans, zoning ordinances, business licensing and related land use permitting processes to minimize human health impacts from exposure of sensitive receptors to local sources of air pollution. Jurisdictions should consider applicable guidance documents, such as ARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective and the South Coast AQMD’s Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues.

AQ-8: Local governments should practice and promote sustainable building practices by:

AQ-8.1: Updating their General Plans and/or zoning ordinances to promote the use of green building practices, which include incorporating LEED design standards and utilizing energy efficient, recycled-content and locally harvested or procured materials.

AQ-8.2: Developing incentive programs (e.g., density bonuses) to encourage green building and resource and energy conservation in development practices.

AQ-8.3: Adopting policies that strive for carbon neutrality for their own facilities and operations.

Discussion: GPA No. 960 proposes changes to the Land Use, Circulation and Air Quality Elements of the Riverside County General Plan that include policies and plans to pursue environmentally sustainable strategies in achieving AB 32 goals and to promote sustainable building practices such as encouraging green building practices. Further, GPA No. 960 includes a technical study with GHG Emission inventories and emission reduction target plans as mandated by AB 32. This is the first step toward implementing workable policies that would achieve AB 32 visions and goals. The implementation measures with detailed screening tables of the aforementioned technical study will guide Riverside County’s development review process in obtaining reduction targets.

The above analysis indicates that implementation of GPA No. 960, would be consistent with the air quality policies of the SCAG Regional Plan. Further, GPA No. 960 does not propose any General Plan policies or changes that would contradict the SCAG Regional Plan or impede implementation of its policies. For additional details on the environmental impacts of the project in regards to air quality, see Section 4.6 (Air Quality).

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-211

8. Solid Waste - Action Plan

SW-9: Local governments should update general plans to reflect solid waste sustainability issues such as waste reduction goals and programs.

SW-10: Local governments should discourage the siting of new landfills unless all other waste reduction and prevention actions have been fully explored. If landfill siting or expansion is necessary, landfills should be sited with an adequate landfill-owned, undeveloped land buffer to minimize the potential adverse impacts of the landfill in neighboring communities.

SW-11: Local governments should discourage exporting of locally generated municipal solid waste (destined for landfills) outside of the SCAG region. Disposal within the county where the waste originates should be encouraged as much as possible, when appropriate. Green technologies for long-distance transport of waste (e.g., clean engines, clean locomotives or electric rail for waste-by-rail disposal systems) and consistency with AQMP and RTP policies should be required.

SW-12: Local governments should maximize waste diversion goals and practices and look for opportunities for voluntary actions to exceed the 50% waste diversion target.

SW-13: Local governments should build local markets for waste prevention, reduction and recycling practices.

SW-14: Developers and local governments should integrate green building measures into project design and zoning including, but not limited to, those identified in the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, Energy Star Homes, Green Point Rated Homes and the California Green Builder Program. Construction reduction measures to be explored for new and remodeled buildings include:

 Reuse and minimization of construction and demolition (C&D) debris and diversion of C&D waste from landfills to recycling facilities.

 An ordinance that requires the inclusion of a waste management plan that promotes maximum C&D diversion.

 Source reduction through (1) use of building materials that are more durable and easier to repair and maintain, (2) design to generate less scrap material through dimensional planning, (3) increased recycled content, (4) use of reclaimed building materials, and (5) use of structural materials in a dual role as finish material (e.g., stained concrete flooring, unfinished ceilings, etc.).

 Reuse of existing building structure and shell in renovation projects. Building lifetime waste reduction measures that should be explored for new and remodeled buildings include:

 Development of indoor recycling program and space.

 Design for deconstruction.

 Design for flexibility through use of moveable walls, raised floors, modular furniture, moveable task lighting and other reusable components.

SW-15: Local governments should develop ordinances that promote waste prevention and recycling such as: requiring waste prevention and recycling efforts at all large events and venues; implementing recycled content procurement programs; and instituting ordinances to divert food waste away from landfills and toward food banks and composting facilities.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-212 Public Review Draft . March 2014

SW-16: Local governments should support environmentally friendly alternative waste management strategies such as composting, recycling and conversion technologies.

SW-17: Developers and local governments should develop and site composting, recycling and conversion technology facilities that are environmentally friendly and have minimum environmental and health impacts.

SW-18: Developers and local governments should coordinate regional approaches and strategic siting of waste management facilities.

SW-19: Developers and local governments should facilitate the creation of synergistic linkages between community businesses and the development of eco-industrial parks and materials exchange centers where one entity’s waste stream becomes another entity’s raw material by making priority funding available for projects that involve co-location of facilities.

SW-20: Developers and local governments should prioritize siting of new solid waste management facilities including recycling, composting and conversion technology facilities near existing waste management or material recovery facilities.

SW-21: Local governments should increase education programs to increase public awareness of reuse, recycling, composting and green building benefits and raise consumer education issues at the county and city level and if appropriate, at local school districts and education facilities.

Discussion: GPA No. 960 does not include new land use policies or plans that are directly related to SCAG’s Solid Waste Action Plan. Indirectly, however, GPA No. 960 does include a screening table for GHG reduction target implementation strategies which promote diversion of solid waste through recycling and site composting. The current policies in place with the Riverside County Solid Waste Management Plan will ensure that the solid waste sustainability issues are addressed appropriately. The full impact of the proposed General Plan in relation to solid waste management is discussed further in Section 4.15.3 (Solid Waste Management) of this EIR.

Overall, the above analysis indicates that implementation of GPA No. 960 would be consistent with the solid waste policies of the SCAG Regional Plan. Further, GPA No. 960 does not propose any General Plan policies or changes that would contradict the SCAG Regional Plan or impede implementation of its policies.

9. Other Action Plans in the SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan

Transportation Action Plan, Security and Emergency Preparedness Action Plan and the Economy Action Plan in the Regional Comprehensive Plan contain only policies that affect SCAG directly. As none are applicable to the proposed project or updated General Plan, they are not further discussed here. For a discussion of the project’s relationship to the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan (a separate plan from the RCP), see Section 4.18 (Transportation and Circulation). Emergency preparedness at the General Plan level is discussed in Section 4.13 (Hazardous Materials and Safety).

10. Regional Consistency Conclusions

GPA No. 960 includes ample policies that are consistent in achieving the goal outlined by SCAG’s Regional Plan, which is to “foster a Southern California region that addresses future needs while recognizing the interrelationship between economic prosperity, natural resource sustainability and quality of life.” A number of policies existing in the General Plan or proposed as part of GPA No. 960 are either identical or supplemental to the action plans items in the SCAG Regional Plan. Taken together, the above analyses indicate that implementation of GPA No. 960 would be consistent with the applicable policies of the SCAG Regional Plan. Further, GPA No. 960 does not

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-213

contain policies that would contradict the SCAG Regional Plan or that would impede implementation of its policies.

D. SCAG Compass Southern California

In June 2004, SCAG issued a Growth Vision Report for its “Compass Southern California,” to encapsulate its “growth visioning” efforts throughout the region. The underlying goal of this effort is to “make the SCAG region a better place to live, work and play for all residents regardless of race, ethnicity or income.” Towards this end, four “growth visioning principles” were developed to “promote and maximize regional mobility, livability, prosperity and sustainability.” These are outlined, below.

1. SCAG Compass Principles

As a constituent member of SCAG, the County of Riverside is also working toward furthering these same quality of life goals for its residents and visitors. The General Plan is Riverside County’s chief tool in guiding the region’s growth in achieving these goals. For each of these SCAG principles and associated policies, a discussion is provided on how the proposed project relates to both Riverside County’s General Plan and its use as a tool in accomplishing these universal principles.

Principle 1: Improve mobility for all residents.

 Encourage transportation investments and land use decisions that are mutually supportive.

 Locate new housing near existing jobs and new jobs near existing housing.

 Encourage transit-oriented development.

 Promote a variety of travel choices.

Discussion: The existing Riverside County General Plan contains numerous policies and directives that focus on improving mobility. In particular, the Circulation Element contains circulation plans and policies aimed at ensuring an efficient transportation system is developed and maintained within Riverside County. It also coordinates with the Land Use Element in addressing, and encouraging, transit-oriented development, trails networks, pedestrian connectivity and walkability in communities. Changes included in GPA No. 960 would further this effort by refining and improving circulation network plans, as well as by revamping the trails network map and standards. As such, GPA No. 960 is consistent with Compass Principle #1 and does not conflict with the policies stated above.

Principle 2: Foster livability in all communities.

 Promote infill development and redevelopment.

 Promote developments that provide a mix of uses.

 Promote “people-scaled,” pedestrian-friendly communities.

 Support the preservation of stable, single-family neighborhoods.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-214 Public Review Draft . March 2014

Discussion: The Land Use Element of the existing Riverside County General Plan contains numerous policies and directives for promoting mixed use, infill development and pedestrian-friendly communities. The new Rural Village Overlays for Meadowbrook and Good Hope, as well as the Lakeland Village plans, would further improve the plans for future development in these urbanizing areas, including infill amongst existing uses. Similarly, removing study areas from rural communities not fully ripe for urbanization would further ensure infill and urban development continues to be concentrated in the more developed portions of Riverside County. GPA No. 960 also includes a new Lakeview Mountains Policy Area that would further emphasize the development of a pedestrian-friendly community through the principles of “new urbanism” and incorporate a trails network that would connect urban uses within the community to public open space areas. GPA No. 960 is consistent with Compass Principle #2 and does not conflict with the policies stated above.

Principle 3: Enable prosperity for all people.

 Provide a variety of housing types in each community to meet the housing needs of all income levels.

 Support educational opportunities that promote balanced growth.

 Ensure environmental justice regardless of race, ethnicity or income class.

 Support local and state fiscal policies that encourage balanced growth.

 Encourage civic engagement.

Discussion: The existing Riverside County General Plan contains numerous policies and directives aimed at ensuring an appropriate mix of housing, including housing for all income levels, is provided within Riverside County. The General Plan Housing Element addresses this issue in detail. Policies throughout the General Plan, and particularly in the Land Use Element, address the need for providing balanced growth. GPA No. 960 would ensure this continues to be the case. As such, GPA No. 960 is consistent with Compass Principle #3 and does not conflict with the policies stated above.

Principle 4: Promote sustainability for future generations.

 Preserve rural, agricultural, recreational and environmentally sensitive areas.

 Focus development in urban centers and existing cities.

 Develop strategies to accommodate growth that use resources efficiently, eliminate pollution and significantly reduce waste.

 Utilize “green” development techniques.

Discussion: The Multipurpose Open Space Element of the existing Riverside County General Plan contains numerous policies and directives designed to ensure that Riverside County’s natural and open space resources are preserved and protected. It also addresses the conservation of energy, water and other resources. The Land Use Element contains policies to focus development in urban centers, community centers and other appropriate areas. As part of GPA No. 960, the General Plan’s Air Quality Element would be revised to address the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through energy conservation, alternative energy use, and a variety of “green”

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft . March 2014 5-215

development techniques. As such, GPA No. 960 is consistent with Compass Principle #4 and does not conflict with the policies stated above.

2. SCAG Regional Consistency Conclusion

Overall, the above analysis indicates that implementation of the updated General Plan, as amended pursuant to GPA No. 960, would be consistent with the policies of the SCAG Compass Southern California program, including its “Growth Visioning” principles. The proposed project and updated General Plan does not contain any policies contradict these principles nor any that would impede implementation of its policies or attainment of its goals.

County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521 5-216 Public Review Draft . March 2014