ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a " Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
GreenhouseGas Emissions
Land Use/ Planning
Population/Housing
Transportation/Traffic
Agriculture & Forest Resources
Cultural Resources
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Service
Utilities/Service Systems
Air Quality
Geology/Soils
Hydrology/Water Quality
Noise
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION: ( To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation which reflects the independent judgment of the City of Riverside, it is recommended that:
The City of Riverside finds that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
The City of Riverside finds that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
The City of Riverside finds that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
The City of Riverside finds that the proposed project MAY have a " potentially significant impact" or " potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
The City of Riverside finds that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects ( a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and ( b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothingfu er is required.
Signature Date - 761
Printed Name & Title For City of Riverside
rat ~t~ G/~1~'
City Planning Commission: March 18, 2010 32
4- 76
P09- 0550 & P09- 0551
Community
Planning Div sip
Environmental Initial Study
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except " No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parenthesesfollowing each question. A " No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved ( e. g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards ( e. g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project- specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off- site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. " Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more " Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an E1R is required.
4) " Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from " Potentially Significant Impact" to a Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level ( mitigation measures from " Earlier Analyses," as described in ( 5) below, may be cross- referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program E1R, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier E1R or negative declaration. Section 15063( c)(3)( D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were with in the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Mitigation Measures. For effects that are " Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measure which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specificconditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e. g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
City Planning Commission: March 18, 2010 1 P09- 0550 & 1309- 0551 4- 77
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other soruces used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
ISSUES ( AND SUPPORTING Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
1. AESTHETICS.
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? la. Response: ( Source: General Plan 2025 Figure CCM-4 - Master Plan of' Roadways, General Plan 2025 FPEIR FYqure 5. 1-1 - Scenic and Special Boulevards and Parkways, Table 5. 1-A - Scenic and Special Boulevards, and Tahle 5. 1-B - Scenic Parkways)
The subject site is located on the southerly side of Central Avenue, a 120 foot arterial and scenic boulevard. The proposed wine tasting use is considered an infill project within an urbanized area completely surrounded by existing development where there are no scenic vistas. Therefore no impacts would result from this project. b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway`?
lb. Response: ( Source: General Plan 2025 Figure CCM-4 - Master Plan of' RoadwaysGeneral Plan 2025 FPEIR Figure 5. 1-1 - Scenic and Special Boulevards, Parkways, Tahle 5.1 A - Scenic and Special Boulevards, Tahle
5. 1-B - Scenic Parkways, the City's Urhan Forest Tree Policy Manual, Title 20 - Cultural Resources and Title 19 - Article V - Chapter 19. 100 - Residential Zones - RC Zone) There are no state scenic highways in close proximity to the subject site that could potentially be impacted by the proposed use. Although the subject property fronts onto Central Avenue, a scenic boulevard as designated by the City's General Plan 2025, it will not have any effect on any scenic resource within a state scenic roadway. Therefore, no impacts would result from this project.
C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
lc. Response: ( Source: General Plan 2025, General Plan 2025 FPEIR, Zoning Code, Citywide Design and Sign Guidelines, Historic District, and Magnolia Avenue Specific Plan) The proposed minimal exterior alterations related to this project are limited to landscaping the front yard and rear of the property, constructing an outdoor patio, adding a parking lot in the rear of the property, removing the detached garage and installing gates to the front and rear to secure the site. On site improvements to site require an Administrative Certificate of Appropriateness, which is being processed concurrently with this request under Planning Case 1110- 0108, for consistency with the established Cit' iivide Historic District Design Guidelines. Due to all these factors, direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on the visual character and quality of the area are less than significant impacts. d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Id. Response: ( Source: General Plan 2025, General Plan 2025 FPEIR Figure 5. 1-2 - Mount Palomar Lighting Area, Title 19 - Article Fill - Chapter 19. 556 - Lighting, Citywide Design and Sign Guidelines) The project would not result in a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views as the project consists of the establishment of a wine tasting facility within an existing building. Parking lot lighting needed for the subject site will be required to be shielded to minimize off- site glare and to be directed away from adjacent properties and public rights- of-ways. If lights are proposed to be mounted on buildings, down-Lights must be utilized. Light poles must not exceed fourteen ( 14) feet in height, inchiding the height of an concrete or other base material. Thus, less City Planning Commission: March 18, 2010 2 P09- 0550 & 1309- 0551 4- 78
ISSUES ( AND SUPPORTING Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
than significant impacts are expected.
2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES:
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model ( 1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessingimpacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest
resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effect, lead agencies may refer to information complied by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and the forest carbon measurement
methodology provided in the Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance ( Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared piu- suant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non- agriculturaluse?
2a. Response: ( Source: General Plan 2025 - Figure OS-2 - Agricultural Suitability & General Plan 2025 fPEIR - Append& I - Designated I,' armland Table
The project is located within an urbanized area. A review of Figure OS-2 Agricultural Suitability of the General Plan 2025 reveals that the project site is not designated as, and is not adjacent to or in proximity to any land classified as, Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. Therefore, the project will have no impact directly, indirectly or emnulatively to agricultural uses. b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract'?
2b. Response: ( Source: General Plan 2025 - Figure OS-3 - Williamson Act Preserves, General Plan 2025 FPEIR - f figure 5. 2-4 - Proposed Zones Permitting Agricultural Uses, and Title 19) A review of Figure 5. 2-2 Williamson Act Preserves of the General Plan 2025 FPEIR reveals that the project site is not located within an area that is affected by a Williamson Act Preserve or under a Williamson Act Contract. Moreover, the project site is not zoned for agricultural use and is not next to land zoned for agricultural use; therefore the project will have no impact directly, indirectly or ClAmUlatively.
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land ( as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)) or timberland ( as defined in Public Resources Code section 4526)?
2c. Response: ( Source: GIS Map - Forest Data)
The subject site is not surrounded by forest land as it is completely developed with commercial uses and low density residential nor does this project propose to rezone the subject site for the removal of forest land. Therefore, no impacts will occur from this project directly, indirectly or cumulatively.
Staff Report
City Planning Commission March 18, 2010 P09- 0550 & 1309- 0551 4- 79
ISSUES ( AND SUPPORTING Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- forest use?
2d. Response: ( Source: GIS Map - Data)
Please Refer to Response 2c. above.
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agriculturaluse or conversion of forest land to non- forest use?
2e. Response: ( Source: General Plan - Figure OS-2 - Agricultural Suitability, 1, 1gureOS-3 - Williamson Act Preserves, General Plan 2025 FPEIR - Appendix 1- Designated T armland Table, Title 19 - Article V - Chapter
19. 100 - Residential Zones - RC Zone and RA - 5 Zone and GIS Map - forest Data) The site is identified as urban/ built out land and therefore does not support agricultural resources or operations. The project will not result in the conversion of designated farmland to non- agriculturaluses. Also, there are no agricultural resources or operations, including farmlands within proximity of the subject site. Therefore, no impacts will occur from this project directly, indirectly or cumulatively to conversion of Farmland, to non- agriculturaluse or to the loss of forest land.
3. AIR QUALITY.
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
deterininat ions. Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable El El Z Elair quality plan? 3a. Response: ( Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District's 2003 Air Quality Management Plan AQMP))
Projects that are consistent with the projections of employment and population forecasts identified by the Southern California Association of Governments ( SCAG) are considered consistent with the AQMP growth projections, since these forecast numbers were used by SCAG's modeling section to forecast travel demand and air quality for planning activities such as the Regional Transportation Plan ( RTP), the SCAQMD's AQMP, Regional Transportation Improvement Program RTIP), and the Regional Housing Plan. This project is consistent with the projections of employment and population forecasts identified by the Southern California Association of Governments ( SCAG) which are consistent with the General Plan 2025 " Typical Growth Scenario." Since the project is consistent with the General Plan 2025 it is also consistent with the AQMP. The project will have a less than significant impact directly, indirectly and cumulatively to the implementation of an air quality plan.
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or
contribute substantially to an increase in Greenhouse Gas GHG) emissions?
3b. Response: ( Source: General Plan 2025 1,` PE11? Tahle 5. 3-B SCAQMD CEQA Regional Significance Thresholds, South Coast Air Quality Management District's 2003 AQMP, , EMFAC 2007 Model) The project will not result in the violation of any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or cause a significant increase in Green House Gas ( GHG) emissions because the project is proposed on a previously developed site and does not involve major construction, grading or earthmoving activities.
Additionally, the proposal to establish a wine tasting facility is expected generate emissions far lower than the SCAQMD thresholds for significance for air quality and GHG emissions. As such the project will have less than significant impacts. c. Result in a ciunulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard ( including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Staff Report
City Planning Commission March 18, 2010 P09- 0550 & 1309- 0551 4- 80
ISSUES ( AND SUPPORTING Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
3c. Response: ( Source: General Plan 2025 TPEIR Tahle 5. 3-B SCAQMD CEQA Regional Significance Thresholds, South Coast Air Quality Management District's 2003 Air Quality Management Plan, URBEMIS 2007 Model, EMT AC 2007 Model )
Per the GP 2025 FPEIR, AQMP thresholds indicate futUre construction activities under the General Plan are projected to result in significant levels of NOx and ROG, both ozone preCUrsors, PM- 10, PM- 2.5, and CO. Although long- term emissions are expected to decrease by 2025, all criteria pollutants remain above the SCAQMD thresholds.
The portion of the Basin within which the City is located is designated as a non- attainment area for ozone, PM- 10 and PM-
2.5 under State standards, and as a non- attainment area for ozone, carbon monoxide, PM-10, and PM- 2.5 under Federal standards.
Because the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan 2025, cLmiulative impacts related to criteria pollutants as a result of the project were previously evaluated as part of the cumulative analysis of build out anticipated under the General Plan 2025 Program. As a result the proposed project does not result in any new significant impacts that were not previously evaluated and for which a statement of overriding considerations was adopted as part of the General Plan 2025 FPEIR.
Therefore, cumulative air quality emissions impacts are less than significant. d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
3d. Response: ( Source: General Plan 2025 T' PEIR Tahle 5. 3-B SCAQMD CEQA Regional Significance Thresholds, South Coast Air Quality Management District's 2003 Air Quality Management Plan, URBEMIS 2007 Model, EMTAC 2007 Model)
The site is developed with a single family residence and is located in an area developed primarily with commercial uses.
On site improvements related to this project are minor in nature that would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, less than significant impact will occur directly, indirectly or ctunulatively from this project.
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
3e. Response: ( Source: Project description)
The proposed project consists of a wine tasting facility within an existing building. The project would not expose a substantial number of people to objectionable odors because no odors are anticipated to be generated by the proposed use.
Therefore, no impacts will result from this project.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service`?
4a. Response: ( Source: General Plan 2025 - TYgure OS-6 - Stephen's Kangaroo Rat ( SKR) Core Reserve and Other Hahitat Conservation Plans ( HCP), 1, 3gureOS-7 - MSHCP Cores and Linkages, Figure OS-8 - MSHCP Cell Areas, General Plan 2025 T' PEIR Figure 5. 4-2 - MSHCP Area Plans, Tigure 5. 4-4 - MSHCP Criteria Cells and Suhunit Areas, T' igure 5. 4-6 - MSHCP Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area, T' igure5. 4-7 - MSHCP Criteria Area Species Survey Area, Tigure 5. 4-8 - MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area) The project site is located within an urban built-up area and is surrounded by existing development. Thus, there are no opportunities for any Federally endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats to persist in this area. Therefore, no impacts will result from this project.
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communit identified in local or Staff Report
City Planning Commission March 18, 2010 P09- 0550 & 1309- 0551 4- 81
ISSUES ( AND SUPPORTING Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
4b. Response: ( Source: General Plan 2025 - 1, 1gure OS-6 - Stephen's Kangaroo Rat ( SKR) Core Reserve and Other Habitat Conservation Plans ( HCP), 1, 7igureOS-7 - MSHCP Cores and Linkages, figure OS-8 - MSHCP Cell Areas, General Plan 20251, PEIR Tigure 5. 4-2 - MSHCP Area Plans, 1,' igure5. 4-4 - MSHCP Criteria Cells and Suhunit Areas, hYgure 5. 4-6 - MSHCP Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area, 1, 7igure5. 4-7 - MSHCP Criteria Area Species Survey Area, Figure 5. 4-8 - MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area, MSHCP Section 6. 1.2 Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/ Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools) No wetland or riparian vegetation exists on the project site as it is fully developed. Furthermore, the project site is located within an urban built-up area and has been developed with a single family residence. Generally the surrounding area has been developed for many years and a long history of severe disturbance exists in the area, such that there is little chance that any riparian habitat cotdd have persisted. Therefore, no impact to any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service with implementation of the proposed project will occur directly, indirectly and cumulatively. c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
4c. Response: ( Source: City of' RiversideGIS/ CADME USGS Quad Map La( ver) The project site is located within an urban built-up area and has been developed with a single family residence, where a wine tasting facility is proposed to be established. The site also has a long history of severe disturbance such that the project would not have a substantial adverse effect, on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act ( including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Therefore, no impacts will oCCUr directly, indirectly and CLIMUlatively to Federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act ( including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
4d. Response: ( Source: MSHCP, General Plan 2025 - Figure OS-7 - MSHCP Cores and Linkage) The project site is not located within any MSHCP Criteria Cells, Cores, or Linkages. Further the project site is significantly degraded and does not facilitate the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. The project site is not used as a migratory wildlife corridor, nor does it qualify for use as a native wildlife nursery site. The project will result in no impact directly, indirectly and cumulatively to the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
4e. Response: ( Source: MSHCP, Title 16 Section 16. 72.040 - Estahlishing the Western Riverside County MSHCP Mitigation Tee, Title 16 Section 16. 40.040 - Estahlishing a Threatened and Endangered Species fees, City of Riverside Urhan Forest Tree Policy Manual)
The General Plan includes policies to ensure that future development would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, including tree preservation policies. This project has been reviewed against these policies and found to be in compliance with the policies. For these reasons, the project will have no impact directly, indirectly and cumulatively on local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. f Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
Staff Report
City Planning Commission March 18, 2010 6 P09- 0550 & 1309- 0551 4- 82
ISSUES ( AND SUPPORTING Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
conservation plan?
4f. Response: ( Source: MSHCP, General Plan 2025 - Fqure OS-6 - Stephen's Kangaroo Rat ( SKR) Core Reserve and Other Habitat Conservation Plans ( HCP), Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan, Lake Mathews Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan, and El Sohrante Landfill Habitat Conservation Plan)
The project site is located on a previously developed/ improved site within an urbanized area and will not impact an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan directly, indirectly and cumulatively. Therefore, the project will have no impact on the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?
5a. Response: ( Source: GP 2025 hPEIR Table 5. 5-A Historical Districts and Neighborhood Conservation Areas and Appendix D, Title 20 of' the Riverside Municipal Code, and site specific Cultural Resources Survey prepared by Wilkman Historical Services on January 14, 2010)
The proposed project involves establishment of a wine tasting facility within an existing single family residence and the demolition of the existing detached garage in the rear of the property to allow for the construction of a parking lot. The residence is not considered to be an important visual feature of the neighborhood due to the lack of integrity of setting and the absence of important historical associations. However, as an excellent and highly intact example of Spanish Revival Colonial Revival architecture, the subject residence deserves special considerations in the City's Planning process. Thus, exterior improvements proposed to the site will necessitate the granting of an Administrative Certificate of Appropriateness for compliance with the Cit' nvidc Historic District Design Guidelines. A request for an Administrative Certificate of Appropriateness is being processed concurrently with this request under Planning Case 1110- 0108. Thus, less than significant impacts are expected.
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
5h. Response: ( Source: GP 2025 FPEIR F" qure 5. 5-1 - Archaeological Sensitivity and F" qure 5. 5-2 - Prehistoric Cultural Resources Sensitivity, Appendix D - Cultural Resources Study and site specific Cultural Resources Survey prepared by Wilkman Historical Services on Januauy 14, 2010) The Subject site is located within the Magnolia Center, a sub- regionalretail and business center. It has been developed with a single family residence for many years. This proposal will re adapt the existing use to establish a wine tasting facility with minimal improvements to the site. A Cultural Study conducted for this project by Wilkman Historical Services concludes that the subject site has no historical significance and makes no mention of archeological and paleontological resources or human remains being found on site. Therefore, no impacts will result from this project. c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
5c. Response: ( Source: General Plan 2025 Policv HP- 1.3) Please refer to Response 5b. above.
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
5d. Response: ( Source: GP 2025 hPEJR F qure 5. 5-1 - Archaeological Sensitivity and Figure 5. 5-2 - Prehistoric Cultural Resources Sensitivity)
Please refer to Response 5b. above.
Staff Report
City Planning Commission March 18, 2010 P09- 0550 & 1309- 0551 4- 83
ISSUES ( AND SUPPORTING Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.
Would the project:
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication
42. 6i. Response: ( Source: General Plan 2025 figure PS-1 - Regional I, ault Zones & General Plan 2025 FPEIIZ Appendix E - Geotechnical Report)
The proposed project is not located in an area subject to Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. In the City of Riverside and in the Sphere of Influence, there are no known Alquist-Priolo Zones.
Compliance with the California Building Code regulations will ensure that impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking are reduced to less than significant impact levels directly, indirectly and cumulatively. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
6ii. Response: ( Source: General Plan 20251~ PEIR Appendix E - Geotechnical Report) The San Jacinto Fault Zone located in the northeastern portion of the City or the Elsinore Fault Zone, located in the southern portion of the City's Sphere of Influence, have the potential to cause moderate to large earthquakesthat would cause intense ground shaking. Because the proposed project will be required to comply with the California Building Code regulations, impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking are reduced to less than significant impact levels directly, indirectly and cumulatively.
iii. Seismic- related ground failure, including Iiquefication? 6iii. Response: ( Source: General Plan 2025 figure PS-1 - Regional I cult Zones, Figure PS-2 - Liquefaction Zones, General Plan 2025 T PEIR 1~ 7igurePS-3 - Soils with High Shrink- Swell Potential, and Appendix E - Geotechnical Report)
The project site is located in an area with low potential for liquefaction. Compliance with the California Building Code regulations will ensure that impacts related to seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction, are reduced to less than significant impact levels directly, indirectly and cumulatively. iv. Landslides'?
6iv. Response: ( Source: General Plan 20251, PEIR 1,' igure5. 6-1 - Areas Underlain by Steep Slope, Appendix E Geotechnical Report, Title IS - Suhdivision Code, Title 17 - Grading Code) The project site and its surroundings have generally flat topography and are not located in an area prone to landslides per Figure 5. 6-1 of the General Plan 2025 Program Final PEIR. Therefore, there will be no impact related to landslides directly, indirectly and cumulatively.
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 6b. Response: ( Source: General Plan 2025 1,' PEIR 1,' igure5. 6-1 - Areas Underlain by Steep Slope, 1, 4gure5. 6-4 - Soils, Tahle 5. 6-B - Soil Types, Title 18 - Suhdivision Code, Title 17 - Grading Code) Erosion and loss of topsoil could occur as a result of the project. State and Federal requirements call for the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) establishing erosion and sediment controls for construction activities. The City is not responsible for approving the SWPPP or ensuring that it is implemented. Rather, the Regional Water Quality Control Board ( RWQCB) is responsible for enforcing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations. In addition the Subdivision Code ( Title 18) sets forth erosion control standards for which all development activity must comply and the Grading Code ( Title 17) also requires the implementation of measures designed to minimize soil erosion. Compliance with State and Federal requirements as well as with Titles 18 and 17 will ensure that soil erosion or loss of topsoil will be less than significant impact directly, indirectly and cumulatively.
Staff Report
City Planning Commission March 18, 2010 P09- 0550 & 1309- 0551 4- 84
ISSUES ( AND SUPPORTING Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
c. Be located on a geologic Omit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off- site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse`?
6c. Response: ( Source: General Plan 2025 figure PS-1 - Regional I, ault Zones, figure PS-2 - Liquefaction Zones, General Plan 2025 f' PEIR figure PS-3 - Soils with High Shrink- Swell Potential, figure 5. 6-1 - Areas Underlain by Steep Slope, figure 5. 6-4 - Soils, Tahle 5. 6-B - Soil Types, and Appendix E - Geotechnical Report) The general topography of the subject site is flat. Compliance with the City's existing codes and the policies contained in the General Plan 2025 help to ensure that impacts related to geologic conditions are reduced to less than significant impact Levels directly, indirectly and cLnnulatively.
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code ( 1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
6d. Response: ( Source: General Plan 2025 fPEIR figure 5. 6-4 - Soils, figure 5. 6-4 - Soils, Table 5. 6-B - Soil Types, Figure 5. 6-5 - Soils with High Shrink- Swell Potential, Appendix E - Geotechnical Report, and California Building Code as adopted by the City of' Riversideand set out in Title 16 of the Riverside Municipal Code) The soil type of the subject site is " Arlington" ( See Figure 5. 6-4 Soils of the General Plan 2025 Program Final PEIR. The preliminary soils report prepared for this project indicates that the soil is an expansive soil. Compliance with the recommendations of the soils report and applicable provisions of the City's Subdivision Code Title 18 and the California Building Code with regard to soil hazards related to the expansive soils will be reduced to a less than significant impact level for this project directly, indirectly and cumulatively. e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
6e. Response: ( Source: General Plan 2025 FPEIR Figure 5. 6-4 - Soils, Table 5. 6-B - Soil Types) The proposed project will be served by existing sewer infrastructure. Therefore the project will have no impact related to soils incapable of supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative water disposal systems either directly, indirectly or cumulatively.
Staff Report
City Planning Commission March 18, 2010 P09- 0550 & 1309- 0551 4- 85