SECTION 7.0 Other CEQA Considerations

SECTION 7.0 Other CEQA Considerations

7.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT If the proposed Perris DTSP is approved and constructed, a variety of short-term and long-term impacts would occur on a local level. During project grading and construction, portions of surrounding uses may be temporarily impacted by dust and noise. Short-term soil erosion may also occur during grading. There may also be an increase in vehicle pollutant emissions caused by grading and construction activities. However, these disruptions would be temporary and may be avoided or lessened to a large degree through mitigation cited in this EIR and through compliance with the Perris Municipal Code; refer to Section 5.0, Environmental Analysis. Ultimate development of the project area would create long-term environmental consequences associated with a transition in land use. Development of the proposed Perris DTSP and the subsequent long-term effects may impact the physical, aesthetic and human environments. Long-term physical consequences of development include increased traffic volumes, increased noise from project-related mobile (traffic) and stationary (mechanical and landscaping) sources, incremental increased demands for public services and utilities, and increased energy and natural resource consumption. Long-term visual impacts would occur with the alteration of views within the area. Incremental degradation of local and regional air quality would also occur as a result of mobile source emissions generated from project-related traffic and stationary source emissions generated from the consumption of propane and electricity. 7.2 IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED WITH THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED Approval of the proposed Perris DTSP would cause irreversible environmental changes, resulting in the following: Commitment of land, which would be physically altered; Soil erosion due to grading and construction activities; Vegetation removal for grading and construction activities; Alteration of the human environment as a consequence of the development process and the project s commitment to new development of residential, retail, office, and public facilities, which intensifies land uses in the project area; Utilization of various new raw materials, such as lumber, sand and gravel for construction; June 2011 7-1

Consumption of energy to develop and maintain the project, which may be considered a permanent investment; and Incremental increases in vehicular activity in the surrounding circulation system, due to the nature of the development, resulting in associated increases in air pollutant emissions and noise levels. 7.3 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS As required by the CEQA Guidelines, an (EIR) must include a discussion of the ways in which a project could directly or indirectly foster economic development or population growth, or the construction of additional housing and how that growth would, in turn, affect the surrounding environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d)). Growth can be induced in a number of ways, including the elimination of obstacles to growth, or through the stimulation of economic activity within the region. The discussion of removal of obstacles to growth relates directly to the removal of infrastructure limitations or regulatory constraints that could result in growth unforeseen at the time of project approval. Under CEQA, induced growth is not considered necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. In general, a project may foster spatial, economic, or population growth in a geographic area if it results in any of the following: Removal of an impediment to growth (e.g., establishment of an essential public service and provision of new access to an area); Fostering of economic expansion or growth (e.g., changes in revenue base and employment expansion); Fostering of population growth (e.g., construction of additional housing), either directly or indirectly; Establishment of a precedent-setting action (e.g., an innovation, a change in zoning and general plan amendment approval); or Development of or encroachment on an isolated or adjacent area of open space (being distinct from an infill project). If a project meets any one of these criteria, it may be considered growth inducing. Generally, growth-inducing projects are either located in isolated, undeveloped, or underdeveloped areas, necessitating the extension of major infrastructure such as sewer and water facilities or roadways, or encourage premature or unplanned growth. IMPEDIMENT TO GROWTH Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would not remove an existing impediment to growth. Regional access to the Perris Downtown is provided via Interstate 215 and the recently June 2011 7-2

completed Perris MetroLink Station, which is located at the Old Perris Depot, approximately one quarter-mile from the Perris Civic Center in Downtown Perris. Local access is generally provided by an existing network of roadways, and more specifically provided by 4 th Street (State Route 74 (SR-74)) and D Street. Nearly three-fourths of the Downtown is built-out and consists of urbanized areas, which are already served by an extensive network of electricity, water, wastewater, storm drains, communications, roadways, and other infrastructure necessary to accommodate or allow the existing conditions and planned growth. The existing facilities can be readily upgraded and/or extended onto the future development sites. The increased demands for utility and service systems would not reduce or impair any existing or future levels of utility services, either locally or regionally, as costs for increases in utility and service systems would be provided through cooperative agreements between future developments and servicing agencies. The Specific Plan s proposed mobility network for Downtown Perris would consist of a combination of highways, streets, transit, bicycle, and the pedestrian realm, in order to promote a variety of travel choices. The Specific Plan s proposed Circulation Plan provides the extension of the Main Street environment along D Street. Specific traffic improvements are proposed at roadways and intersections, in order to achieve acceptable levels of service; refer to Section 5.2, Traffic and Circulation. Additionally, the Specific Plan includes a Water and Sewer Systems Plan, based on a Water and Sewer Utilities Study that identifies the upgrades necessary to meet the future demands of the Specific Plan area; refer also to Section 5.13, Water, and Section 5.14, Wastewater. Furthermore, future development would be reviewed a project-by-project basis, at the time of proposed construction, in order to determine the utility systems necessary to serve the proposed land uses. Buildout of the proposed Specific Plan would not require substantial development of unplanned or unforeseen support uses and services. Therefore, the proposed project would not remove an impediment to growth and is not considered growth-inducing in this regard. ECONOMIC GROWTH As indicated in Table 7-1, Proposed Specific Plan Downtown Housing and Population Projections, the proposed Specific Plan would increase the Downtown s existing housing stock and population by approximately 213 percent (3,364 du and 12,924 persons). Table 7-1 Proposed Specific Plan Downtown Housing and Population Projections Year Dwelling Units Population 1 Existing Downtown 2010 1,582 6,078 Specific Plan Buildout 2035 5 4,946 19,003 2010 2035 Change +3,364 +12,924 2010 2035 % Change +213% +213% 1. Population projections are based on 3.842 persons per household. State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2001-2010, With 2000 Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2010. June 2011 7-3

The Downtown s projected population growth is anticipated to increase sales, with resultant increases in the City s revenue base. Additionally, buildout of the proposed Specific Plan would increase the Downtown s existing non-residential uses by approximately 1,836,066 sf and employment by approximately 4,163 jobs; refer to Table 7-2, Proposed Specific Plan Employment Projections. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would foster economic expansion through changes in the revenue base and employment expansion. Therefore, the proposed project is considered growth inducing with respect to economic expansion. Land Use Category Table 7-2 Proposed Specific Plan Employment Projections Square Feet Employees Per Square Foot 1 Projected Employment EXISTING CONDITIONS DOWNTOWN Commercial Retail 550,146 629 2 875 Commercial Office 0 481 3 0 Industrial 344,485 1,548 4 223 Public Facilities 450,725 208 5 2,167 Total 1,345,356 3,264 BUILDOUT OF PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN Commercial Retail 852,056 629 2 1,355 Commercial Office 1,878,642 481 3 3,906 Industrial 0 1,548 4 0 Public Facilities 0 208 5 2,167 Total 1,836,068 7,427 CHANGE Commercial Retail +301,910 +480 Commercial Office +1,878,642 +3,906 Industrial -344,485-223 Public Facilities 0 0 Total +1,836,067 +4,163 1. The Natelson Company, Inc., Employment Density Study Summary Report Table II-B, Derivation of Square Feet Per Employee Based on Average Employees Per Acre and Average FAR (County of Riverside), October 31, 2001, available at http://www.scag.ca.gov/forecast/downloads/employ_den.pdf, Accessed June 22, 2010. 2. Based on the Other Retail/Service land use category. 3. Based on the Low-Rise Office land use category. 4. Based on the Light Manufacturing land use category. POPULATION GROWTH As indicated in Table 7-3, Proposed Specific Plan Housing and Population Projections, the City s existing housing stock involves an estimated 15,625 du, with a resultant population of approximately 55,133 persons. 1 1 State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2001-2010, With 2000 Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2010. June 2011 7-4

Table 7-3 Proposed Specific Plan Housing and Population Projections Year Dwelling Units Population Existing City 2010 1 15,625 55,133 Proposed Specific Plan Increment 2 3,364 12,924 Total 18,989 68,057 % Change +122% +123% 1. State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2001-2010, With 2000 Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2010. 2. Population projection is based on 3.842 persons per household (State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2001-2010, With 2000 Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2010). A project could induce population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). Although existing roads and infrastructure would be improved/modified, the proposed Specific Plan does not involve the extension of roads or other infrastructure into undeveloped areas; refer to the Impediment to Growth discussion above. The residential development anticipated by the proposed Specific Plan would induce direct growth in the City s population. As indicated in Table 7-3, the population growth associated with the new residential development (3,364 du) would be approximately 12,924 persons, representing an increase of approximately 123 percent over the City s existing 2010 population of approximately 55,133 persons. Therefore, the residential development anticipated by the proposed Specific Plan would induce direct growth in the City s population. Additionally, the Specific Plan would increase the City s employment by approximately 4,163 jobs. Employment growth could result in direct growth in the City s population, because future employees (and their families) may relocate to the City. Estimating the number of these future employees who would relocate to the City would be highly speculative, because many factors influence personal housing location decisions (i.e., family income levels and the cost and availability of suitable housing in the local area). Thus, the number of new employees who may relocate to the City to fill the newly created positions is unknown. Overall, the Project is considered growth inducing inasmuch as it would foster population growth in the City through development of both new housing and employment-generating land uses. Potential growth inducing impacts are also assessed based on a project's consistency with adopted plans that have addressed growth management from a local and regional standpoint. Table 7-4, Specific Plan Buildout Projections Compared to SCAG, analyzes the Specific Plan s anticipated growth, as compared to SCAG s 2035 growth projections for the City. As indicated in Table 7-4, SCAG forecasts the City s total housing stock in 2035 would be 26,050 du, with a resultant population of approximately 90,951 persons. With implementation of the proposed Specific Plan, the City s housing stock would total 18,989 du, with a resultant population of approximately 68,057 persons. Comparatively, the City anticipates approximately 37 percent less residential development (7,061 fewer du) than SCAG S 2035 housing growth projections for June 2011 7-5

the City. Similarly, the City anticipates approximately 34 percent less population growth (22,894 fewer persons) than SCAG S 2035 population growth projections for the City. Therefore, the City would not exceed SCAG s housing and population growth forecasts and a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Table 7-4 Proposed Specific Plan Buildout Projections Compared to SCAG Year Dwelling Units Population 1 City 2035 (incl. proposed Specific Plan) 1 18,989 68,057 SCAG 2035 City Projections 2 26,050 90,951 City & Specific Plan : 2035 SCAG Difference -7,061-22,894 City & Specific Plan : 2035 SCAG % Difference -37.18% -33.64% 1. Refer to Table 7-3, Proposed Specific Plan Housing and Population Projections, above. 2. Dwelling unit forecast is based on 23,825 households and 8.54% vacancy rate (State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2001-2010, With 2000 Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2010). At the regional level, the emphasis regarding growth has been placed primarily on achieving a balance of employment and housing opportunities within the subregions. This regional concept, referred to as jobs/housing balance, encourages the designation and zoning of sufficient vacant land for residential uses with appropriate standards to ensure adequate housing is available to serve the needs derived from the local employment base. The jobs/housing ratio can be used as the general measure of balance between a community s employment opportunities and the housing needs of its residents. A rate of 1.0 or greater generally indicates that a City provides adequate employment opportunities, potentially allowing its residents to work within the City. A desirable jobs/housing balance improves regional mobility (traffic), reduces vehicle miles traveled, and improves air quality. Conversely, imbalance between a City s jobs and housing increases commutes, with resultant increases in traffic volumes and air emissions, and overall reduces the quality of life. Under existing conditions, the Downtown s jobs/housing ratio is approximately 2.06, which indicates that the City is currently providing adequate employment opportunities for its Downtown residents. With implementation of the proposed Specific Plan, the Downtown s jobs/housing ratio would be approximately 1.50, which indicates that the City would continue to provide adequate employment opportunities for its Downtown residents. The Downtown s job/housing ratio at buildout of the proposed Specific Plan is considered an improvement over existing conditions, given that the Specific Plan would provide greater balance between the Downtown s employment opportunities and the housing needs of its residents. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard. PRECEDENT-SETTING ACTION The proposed project would not result in the establishment of a precedent-setting action; thus, would not be considered growth inducing in this regard. The new development facilitated by the June 2011 7-6

proposed Specific Plan would be compatible, as to location and scale. Additionally, the new development would be considered an extension of the existing land use pattern. DEVELOPMENT OR ENCROACHMENT OF OPEN SPACE The proposed project would not be growth-inducing with respect to development or encroachment into an isolated or adjacent area of open space. The Specific Plan would involve urban infill development, since the Downtown is approximately three-fourths built-out. Additionally, the Cities of Moreno Valley, Menifee, and Canyon Lake, which are similarly urbanized, border Perris. The Specific Plan would focus on preserving residential neighborhoods, guiding the remaining development and redevelopment opportunities, and revitalizing the Downtown. SUMMARY Overall, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would foster economic expansion and population growth. However, it would not be growth inducing, inasmuch as it would not remove an impediment to growth, would not establish a precedent-setting action, and would not develop or encroach into an isolated or adjacent area of open space. The residential, population, and employment growth projected at buildout of the proposed Specific Plan would not exceed SCAG s projections for the City. Thus, development within the Downtown would be responding to growth that was previously planned, rather than creating growth that would require substantial development of unplanned and unforeseen support uses and services. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan would result in less than significant growth inducing impacts. 7.4 ENERGY CONSERVATION Public Resources Code Section 21100(b)(3) and Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines requires a description (where relevant) of the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy caused by a project. In 1975, the California State Legislature adopted Assembly Bill 1575 (AB 1575) in response to the oil crisis of the 1970s. PROJECT ENERGY CONSUMPTION Short-Term Construction In 1994, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted the first set of emission standards (Tier 1) for all new off-road diesel engines greater than 37 kilowatts (kw). The Tier 1 standards were phased in for different engine sizes between 1996 and 2000, reducing NO X emissions from these engines by 30 percent. The EPA Tier 2 and Tier 3 standards for off-road diesel engines are projected to further reduce emissions by 60 percent for NO X and 40 percent for particulate matter from Tier 1 emission levels. In 2004, the EPA issued the Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule. This rule will cut emissions from off-road diesel engines by more than 90 percent, and will be fully phased in by 2014. June 2011 7-7

The proposed project would not directly result in the construction of any new development projects. However, implementation of the Perris DTSP could facilitate development of various commercial, retail, office, residential, public, and open space uses. There are no unusual project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or State. Therefore, it is expected that construction fuel consumption associated with the proposed project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than other similar development projects of this nature. Long-Term Operations TRANSPORTATION ENERGY DEMAND Pursuant to the Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NTSA) is responsible for establishing additional vehicle standards and for revising existing standards. Since 1990, the fuel economy standard for new passenger cars has been 27.5 miles per gallon (mpg). Since 1996, the fuel economy standard for new light trucks (gross vehicle weight of 8,500 pounds or less) has been 20.7 mpg. Heavyduty vehicles (i.e., vehicles and trucks over 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight) are not currently subject to fuel economy standards. Compliance with Federal fuel economy standards is not determined for each individual vehicle model. Rather, compliance is determined based on each manufacturer s average fuel economy for the portion of their vehicles produced for sale in the United States. Based on the City of Perris Downtown Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by RBF Consulting (June 2010), the proposed project would generate 35,079 net daily trips above existing conditions. The Perris DTSP would create a pedestrian-friendly downtown that includes transit-oriented development and mixed use and is intended to reduce daily vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The Perris DTSP is not anticipated to result in any unusual characteristics that would result in excessive long-term operational fuel consumption. The Perris DTSP involves typical downtown commercial and mixed-use use type trips which would include internal trip capture rates. The Perris DTSP includes standards for the roadway network to address a more pedestrianfriendly environment and enhanced opportunities to linkages with the Metrolink Station, the proposed park within the Mercado, and the civic center community park. Funding sources to provide incentives for infill and transit-oriented development are also identified in the Perris DTSP. For example, the Infill Infrastructure Grant Program (IIF) assists in the construction and rehabilitation of infrastructure that supports higher-density affordable and mixed-income housing. Also, the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Housing Program is intended to stimulate the production of housing developments near transit stations. The Perris DTSP provides a Park Once Strategy that promote shared parking arrangements at existing private lots, including the future Metrolink Perris Valley Line parking facilities. These standards and incentives for mixed-use, infill, and TOD projects in Downtown Perris would encourage alternate forms of transportation and reduce transportation energy demand. Fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by future development within the Perris DTSP would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other resort type uses in the region. June 2011 7-8

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) provides fixed-route bus service along 4 th Street (SR-74), A Street, D Street, Perris Boulevard, San Jacinto Avenue, Wilkerson Avenue, 11 th Street, and Goetz Road. Additionally, the DTSP provides strategies to improve transit service and overall mobility within Downtown Perris that would result in a decrease in auto dependency. The Perris DTSP would also take advantage of the development of the Metrolink Station through expanding retail opportunities and allowing for more mixed use and housing opportunities. The development in Downtown Perris would increase density and promote a jobs/housing balance, which would increase public transportation patronage. Additionally, the incorporation the Metrolink station provides regional access to and from Downtown Perris. The availability of public transit for the project s residents and visitors would ensure that the project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of transportation energy. BUILDING ENERGY DEMAND The project would not result in any unusual characteristics that would result in excessive longterm operational building energy demand. The project would require electricity and natural gas for typical lighting, climate control, and day-to-day activities. The Perris DTSP provides design standards and guidelines that would ensure energy and water efficiency throughout Downtown Perris. The Perris DTSP also provides an Implementation Matrix that includes actions to provide incentives for incorporating Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards for new construction and building renovations. Mitigation Measure GHG-1 includes renewable energy measures, such as the installation of solar panels on carports and over parking areas, and the use of combined heat and power. Therefore, the project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region. ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6, is California s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non-residential Buildings. Title 24 was established by the California Energy Commission (CEC) in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to create uniform building codes to reduce California s energy consumption, and provide energy efficiency standards for residential and non-residential buildings. In 2010, the CEC updated Title 24 standards with more stringent requirements. The 2010 Standards are expected to substantially reduce the growth in electricity and natural gas use. Additional savings result from the application of the Standards on building alterations, such as those within Section V (Site Lighting) including Subpart E (Windows), F (Roofs), and S (Mechanical Equipment). These savings are cumulative, increasing as years go by. The project would adhere to, and exceed, all Federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including Title 24 standards. The proposed project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of building energy. The Perris DTSP promotes energy conservation with requirements for energy-efficient, Energy Star-certified lamps for all pedestrian realm lighting, and with limitation of the hours of operation. Additionally, Mitigation Measure GHG-1 requires the following energy efficiency measures to be incorporated into the proposed project: June 2011 7-9

Design buildings to be energy efficient, above Title 24 requirements. Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems. Site and design building to take advantage of daylight. Use trees, landscaping, and sun screens on west and south exterior building walls to reduce energy use. Install light colored cool roofs and cool pavements. Provide information on energy management services for large energy users. Install energy efficient heating and cooling systems, appliances, and equipment, and control systems. Install light emitting diodes for traffic, street, and other outdoor lighting. Limit the hours of operation of outdoor lighting. As discussed above, project implementation would result in less than significant impacts on energy resources. There would not be any inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary energy usage in comparison to similar development projects of this nature regarding construction-related fuel consumption. The availability of public transit (RTA bus lines and Metrolink rail lines) would ensure that the project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of transportation energy. The project would adhere to, and exceed, all Federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations regarding building energy efficiency standards. The proposed project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of building energy. Therefore, the project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region. June 2011 7-10