Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0003_10_PA 2019-07 - Exhibit I - Response to CommentsCOMMENTS RESPONSES RTC-1 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-1 The City appreciates the Riverside Transit Agency providing the Bus Stop Guidelines and will consult this resource during design and construction of the project’s proposed bus turnout. A-2 In the current condition, the intersection of Macy Street and Grand Avenue includes cross-street (Macy Street) stop traffic control. As part of the proposed project, a new traffic signal would be installed at this intersection to provide traffic control. A-3 The northern side of Grand Avenue, including the location of the bus stop mentioned in this comment, would not be improved as part of the proposed project. The applicant is responsible for improvements along the project site’s frontages, which include the eastern side of Macy Street, the southern side of Grand Avenue, and the western side of Ortega Highway. While no pathway would be provided on the northern side of Grand Avenue as part of this project, crosswalks would be provided across Macy Street and Grand Avenue as part of the project’s improvements at this intersection, which would allow for safe crossing of the roadways to access the bus stop. COMMENTS RESPONSES RTC-2 B-1 B-1 Project construction would occur over a portion of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District’s (District’s) Ortega Channel that traverses the site in an existing underground conduit, and therefore an encroachment permit will be obtained. This permit requirement will be a condition of project approval and has been incorporated into the Final IS/MND. Revisions to the Draft IS/MND are provided in strike-out/underline format to signify deletions and insertions in the Final IS/MND text. Project construction would not result in physical adverse impacts to the facility. In addition, a new easement would be established that would include provisions for reciprocal access during the District’s periodic maintenance operations for the Ortega Channel. COMMENTS RESPONSES RTC-3 B-1 cont. B-2 B-3 B-4 B-2 As indicated on page 12 of the IS/MND, the project would obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction of Land Disturbance Activities prior to the start of construction at the site. The information included in this comment is consistent with that provided in the Draft IS/MND. B-3 As stated on page 60 of the IS/MND, the project site is not located within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) special flood hazard area and therefore does not require flood-related studies, a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR), or a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). B-4 There are no natural watercourses on the project site and no direct impacts to an off-site watercourse would occur from project implementation. Potential indirect impacts to off-site watercourses would be avoided through implementation of mitigation measure MM BIO-3. COMMENTS RESPONSES RTC-4 C-1 C-1 The IS/MND has not been issued for public review in violation of state law. Assembly Bill (AB) 52 requires that the Lead Agency begin the consultation process prior to the release of an IS/MND. As detailed in this comment, the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians (Tribe) and City had an initial consultation on February 21, 2020. The public review period for the IS/MND began on Friday, December 17, 2021, which is after the commencement of the initial consultation between the Tribe and City. As such, the City’s tribal process is not in violation of AB 52. In addition, the City has attempted to proceed with the consultation process and has provided the Tribe the Cultural Resources Survey Report prepared for the project and other project-related materials on January 30, 2020 to which the City has not received any comment or response. The IS/MND includes analysis specific to potential impacts to tribal cultural resources (TCRs) from the project on pages 73 and 74. As discussed therein, a records search conducted at the Eastern Information Center indicated that 28 cultural resources have been identified within a one-mile radius of the project site, which include prehistoric lithic artifact scatters and prehistoric isolates that may be considered potentially significant TCRs. None of the resources are located within the project site, and no new resources were identified during the field survey conducted at the project site. In addition, as discussed on page 73 of the IS/MND, to identify the potential presence of TCRs at the project site, a Sacred Lands File Search was conducted with the Native American Heritage Commission. The results of Sacred Lands File Search were negative and no resources have been previously identified in the immediate project area. It is noted in the IS/MND, however, that cultural resources and TCRs may still be present at the project site, especially based on the project site’s proximity to Lake Elsinore, which is associated with past human occupation. To ensure that potential impacts to TCRs from project implementation are less than significant, the IS/MND includes mitigation measures MM CUL-1 through MM CUL 7. COMMENTS RESPONSES RTC-5 C-1 cont. C-2 C-3 C-1 cont. Further, as described on page 74 of the IS/MND, AB 52 consultation with the Tribe is ongoing through the IS/MND public review period. Comments related to revisions to the mitigation measures have not yet been received by the Tribe through either AB 52 consultation or comments to the public review IS/MND. Overall, the IS/MND evaluation related to tribal cultural resources is compliant with AB 52 and CEQA. C-2 As discussed in response C-1, the IS/MND includes analysis specific to potential impacts to TCRs, which encompass Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs). No TCRs were identified at the site during the records search, pedestrian survey, or Sacred Lands File Search with the Native American Heritage Commission; however, it was determined in the IS/MND that TCRs could be present at the project site. Thus, the IS/MND identifies the potential impact to be mitigated and, in response, the MND includes mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. C-3 As discussed in response C-1, the City has attempted to proceed with the consultation process and has provided the Tribe the Cultural Resources Survey Report prepared for the project and other project-related materials on January 30, 2020 to which the City has not received any comment or response. AB 52 requires that the Lead Agency begin the consultation process prior to the release of an IS/MND, which was done for the proposed project. Therefore, the environmental process is in compliance with the requirements of AB 52.