ISSUES ( AND SUPPORTING Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
through traffic from one street to another. However, conditions requiring "Left TUrn Only" for vehicles exiting the site off of Laura Lane has been required to preclude traffic from cutting through the residential neighborhood to the south of the subject site. Additionally, the applicant has indicated their intent to hold private tasting events and receptions at the subject site will be for no more than 20 people. Thus, existing roadway capacity is adequate to accommodate the projected traffic volumes, of the proposed project. After implementation of the project, the area will continue to operate at LOS D or better according to Figure 5. 15-4, Volume to Capacity ( V/ C) Ratio and Level of Service ( LOS) ( Typical 2025). Thus, the proposal will not substantially increase the existing traffic load and capacity of the surrounding street system. Thus, less than significant impacts are expected.
b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management
program, including but not limited to level of service
standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency
for designated roads or highways?
16b. Response: ( Source: General Plan 2025 1, 7igureCCM-4 - Master Plan of' Roadways, FPEIR Figure 5. 15-4 - Volume to Capacity ( VIC) Ratio and Level of Service ( LOS) ( Typical 2025), Table 5. 15-D - Existing and Future Trip Generation Estimates, Table 5. 15-11 - Existing and Typical Density Scenario Intersection Levels of Service, Tahle 5. 15-1- Conceptual General Plan Intersection Improvement Recommendations, Table 5. 154 Current Status of' RoadwaysProiected to Operate at LOS E or F in 2025, Tahle 5. 15.-K - T reeway Analysis Proposed General Plan, Appendix H - Circulation Element Traffic Study and Traffic Study Appendix,
SCAGN RTP)
The roadway capacity of Central Ave and Laura Lane are adequate to accommodate the projected traffic volumes, of the proposed project. Therefore, increase in traffic in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system is less than significant.
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
16c. Response: ( Source: General Plan 2025 1,' igurePS-6 - Airport Safety Zones and Influence Areas, RCALUCP, March Air Reserve Base/ March Inland Port Comprehensive Land Use Plan ( 1999)and Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Study for March Air Reserve Base ( August 2005) The project site will not change air traffic patterns and is not located within an airport influence area. Therefore, no impacts are expected.
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature ( e. g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses ( e. g., farm equipment)?
16d. Response: ( Source: Project Site Plans, Lane Striping and Signing Plans) The proposed project has been designed in conformance with Policies CCM 1. 1-1. 4, and 7.1 of the Circulation Element of the General Plan 2025 which provide for maintaining and enhancing existing roadways, increasing safety of roadways, and balancing safety, quality of life and efficiency in the design of circulation and access. These policies of the proposed General Plan will help reduce hazards due to design features. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. e. Result in inadequate emergency access`?
16e. Response: ( Source: California Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual, Municipal Code, and Tire Code)
The project has been developed in compliance with Title 18, Section 18. 210.030 and the City's Fire Code Section 503 California Fire Code 2007). Therefore, no impact will result from this project. f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs
supporting alternative transportation ( e. g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
16f. Response: ( Source: IPEIR, General Plan 2025 Land Use and Urban Design, Circulation and Community Mobility and Education Elements, Bicycle Master Plan, School Safety Program - Walk Safe! - Drive Safe!) The project site is located on a site which is Currently developed, with all site improvements in lace, and where no site Staff Report
City Planning Commission March 18, 2010 19 P09- 0550 & 1309- 0551 4- 95
ISSUES ( AND SUPPORTING Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
modifications will occur, that would result in conflicts with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation ( e. g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks). Therefore, no impact will result from this project.
17. UTILITIES AND SYSTEM SERVICES.
Would the project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
17a. Response: ( Source: General Plan 2025 Figure PF-2 - Sewer Facilities Map, FPEIR Figure 5. 16-5 - Sewer Service Areas, Tahle 5. 16-K - Estimated Future Wastewater Generation for the City of' Riverside'.s Sewer Service Area, and Figure 5. 8-1- Watersheds)
All new development is required to comply with all provisions of the NPDES program and the City's Municipal Separate Sewer Permit ( MS4), as enforced by the RWQCB. Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed applicable wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB with respect to discharges to the sewer system or stormwater system within the City.
The General Plan 2025 specifies minimal adverse effects to water quality from sanitary sewer outflows as a policy ( PF- 3.4).
Because the proposed project is required to adhere to the above regulations and is consistent with applicable General Plan policies related to wastewater treatment, less than significant impacts are anticipated. b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
17b. Response: ( Source: General Plan 2025 Tahle PF-1 - RPU PROJECTED DOMESTIC WATER Supply ( AC- FT/YR), Table PF-2 - RPU Projected Water Demand, RPU, TPEIR Tahle 5. 16-G - General Plan ProjectedWater Demand for RPU Including Water Reliahility for 2025, Table 5. 16-K - Estimated Future Wastewater Generation for the City of Riverside's Sewer Service Area, figure 5. 16-4 - Water Facilities and figure 5. 16-6 - Sewer Infrastructure.)
The project will not result in the construction of new or expanded water or wastewater treatment facilities. The project is consistent with the General Plan 2025 where future water and wastewater generation was determined to be adequate (see Tables 5. 16-E, 5. 16-F, 5. 16-G, 5. 16-H, 5. 16-1, 5. 16-J and 5. 16-K of the General Plan 2025 Final PEIR). As part of the General Plan 2025 Program, to mitigate potential impacts related to the need for expanded entitlements for water and wastewater treatment plant capacity if population growth exceeds the Typical Project level, the City will review population and development trends with respect to water sources and supply and wastewater treatment plant capacity in 2015 and 2020 to assure growth is occurring as expected under the Typical Project development scenario. c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects'?
17c. Response: ( Source: f PEIR 1, 7iqure5. 16-2 - Drainage Facilities) The proposed project will result in an increase of impervious slu- face areas. Increased impervious surface area will generate increased storm water flows with potential to impact drainage facilities and require the provision of additional facilities.
However, the Subdivision Code ( Title 18, Section 18. 48.020) requires drainage fees to be paid to the City for new construction. Fees are transferred into a drainage facilities fund which is maintained by Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. This Section also complies with the California Government Code ( section 66483), which provides for the payment of fees for construction of drainage facilities.
General Plan 2025 Policies PF 4.1 and PF 4.3 require the City to continue to routinely monitor its storm drain system and to fund and improve those systems as identified in the City's Capital Improvement Plan. Implementation of these policies will ensure that the City is adequately served by drainage systems. The General Plan 2025 also includes policies and programs that will minimize the environmental effects of the development of such facilities. Therefore, impacts related to construction are considered less than significant.
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or Staff Report
City Planning Commission March 18, 2010 20 P09- 0550 & 1309- 0551 4- 96
ISSUES ( AND SUPPORTING Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
expanded entitlements needed?
17d. Response: ( Source: ], PEIR Figure 5. 16-3 - Water Service Areas, 1, 7igure5. 16-4 - Water facilities, Table 5. 16- E - RPU Projected Domestic Water Supply ( AC- FT11R, Table 5. 16-F - Projected Water Demand, Tahle 5. 16-G General Plan Projected Water Demand for RPU including Water Reliability for 2025, RPU Master Plan) The project will not exceed expected water supplies. The project is consistent with the General Plan 2025 where futtu-e water supplies were determined to be adequate (see Tables 5. 16-E, 5. 16-F, 5. 16-G, 5. 16-H, 5. 16-1 and 5. 16-J of the General Plan 2025 Final PEIR). As part of the General Plan 2025 Program, to mitigate potential impacts related to the need for expanded entitlements for water if population growth exceeds the Typical Project level, the City will review population and development trends with respect to water sources and supply in 2015 and 2020 to assure growth is occurring as expected tinder the Typical Project development scenario. Thus, less than significant impact will occur as a result of this project. e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
17e. Response: ( Source: TPEIR 1, 7igure5. 16-5 - Sewer Service Areas, Figure 5. 16-6 - Sewer Infrastructure, Tahle
5. 16-K - Estimated Future Wastewater Generation for the City of' Riverside's Sewer Service Area, Tahle 5. 16-L - Estimated Future Wastewater Generation for the Planning Area Served by W11 WD) The project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of ( RWQCB). The project is consistent with the General Plan 2025 where future wastewater generation was determined to be adequate (see Table 5. 16-K of the General Plan 2025 Final PEIR). As well see Response Section VII A.
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to acconunodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
17f. Response: ( Source: FPEIR Table 5. 16-A - Existing Landfills and Tahle 5. 16-M - Estimated 1' 11tureSolid Waste Generation from the Planning Area)
The project will not exceed the landfill capacity. The project is consistent with the General Plan 2025 Typical Build- out Project level where future landfill capacity was determined to be adequate (see Tables 5. 16-A and 5. 16-M of the General Plan 2025 Final PHR). Thus, no impact will result from this project. g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and F 1 F 1 F 1 z regulations related to solid waste?
17g. Response: ( Source: California Integrated Waste Management Board 2002 Landfill Facility Compliance Study) The California Integrated Waste Management Act under the Public Resource Code requires that local jUrisdictions divert at least 50% of all solid waste generatedby January 1, 2000. The City is currently achieving a 60`Yo diversion rate, well above state requirements ( Based on GP 2025 FPEIR at the time of its adoption). The City remains connnitted to contintung its existing waste reduction and minimization efforts with the programs that are available through the City. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with any Federal, State, or local regulations related to solid waste as the project is consistent with the General Plan 2025. Thus, no impact will result from this project.
18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of z 1:1 the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaininglevels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or an endangered plant or aniinal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
18a. Response: ( Source: General Plan 2025 - higure OS-6 - Stephen's Kangaroo Rat ( SKR) Core Reserve and Other Habitat Conservation Plans ( HCP), figure OS-7 - MSHCP Cores and Linkages, 1, 7igureOS-8 - MSHCP Cell Areas, General Plan 2025 TPEIR 1,' igure5. 4-2 - MSHCP Area Plans, higure 5. 4-4 - MSHCP Criteria Cells and Subunit Areas, higure 5. 4-6 - MSHCP Narrow Endemic Plant S )ecies Survey Area, T' i;ure 5. 4-7 - MSHCP Staff Report
City Planning Commission March 18, 2010 21 P09- 0550 & 1309- 0551 4- 97
ISSUES ( AND SUPPORTING Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Criteria Area Species Survey Area, Fqure 5. 4-8 - MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area, MSHCP Section 6. 1.2 Protection of' SpeciesAssociated with Riparian/ Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools, FPEIR Tahle 5. 5-A Historical Districts and Neighhorhood Conservation Areas, Figure 5. 5-1 - Archaeological Sensitivity, Figure 5. 5-2 - Prehistoric Cultural Resources Sensitivity, Appendix D, Title 20 of the Riverside Municipal Code) Potential impacts related to habitat of fish or wildlife species were discussed in the Biological Resources Section of this Initial Study, and were all found to have no impact. Additionally, potential impacts to cultural, archaeological and paleontological resources related to major periods of California and the City of Riverside's history or prehistory were discussed in the Cultural Resources Section of this Initial Study, and were found to be less than significant. b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (" Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? 18b. Response: ( Source: FPEIR Section 6 - Long- Term Effects/ Cumulative Impacts for the General Plan 2025 Program)
No adverse cumulative impacts were identified in the Initial Study analysis. c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly`?
18c. Response: ( Source: 1, PEIR Section 5 - Environmental Impact Arnaltisis for the General Plan 2025 Program) Effects on human beings were evaluated as part of the aesthetics, air quality, hydrology & water quality, noise, population and housing, hazards and hazardous materials, and traffic sections of this initial study and found to be less than significant for each of the above sections. Based on the analysis and conclusions in this initial study, the project will not cause substantial adverse effects, directly or indirectly to human beings. Therefore potential direct and indirect impacts on human beings that result from the proposed project are less than significant.
Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21080(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082. 1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 21094, 21151, Public Resources Codc; Sandstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App.3d 296 ( 1988); Leonoff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App.3d 1337 ( 1990).
Staff Report
City Planning Commission March 18, 2010 22 P09- 0550 & 1309- 0551 4- 98
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES - MARCH 18, 2010
9 A. M.--PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. PLANNING CASES P09- 0550 & P09- 0551: Proposal by Hardie D. Lewis on behalf of Mohammad A. R. and Hoda Dahdul to consider amending the Municipal Code ( Title 19) to rezone approximately 0. 44 acres developed with a single family residence from the R- 1-7000 - Single Family Residential Zone to the CR- Commercial Retail Zone and to consider a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the on and off- sale of beer and wine ( Type 42 license) in conjunction with the establishment of a Wine Bar, located at 3524 Central Avenue, situated on the southerly side of Central Avenue, westerly of Riverside Avenue, easterly of San Diego Avenue in the R- 1-7000 - Single Family Residential Zone, in Ward 3. Contact Planner: Kyle Smith ( 951) 826- 5220 kismith( a-)riversideca. gov Commissioner Maloney was disqualified from participating in this hearing due to a potential financial conflict of interest.
Commissioner Lock- Dawson, the Commission's Vice- Chair, served as Chair Pro Tem.
Kyle Smith, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Mohammad Dahdul, the applicant, 3512 Central Avenue Riverside, stated that he agrees with the staff report and conditions of approval.
Harrison Heublein, 3269 High Cliff Road, Riverside, spoke in support of the proposal. He noted that he lives adjacent to Riverside Plaza and is the current President of the Magnolia Center Area Business Council of the Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce. He informed the Commission that last year Mr. Dahdul delivered a presentation of the La Bodega Wine Tasting Room to members of the Board of the Area Business Council. He stated that the Board had the opportunity to look at the proposed layout and ask the applicant questions about the property; within their Board meeting, the members of the Area Business Council voted in support of the proposal.
Bob Faucett of Community Works Design Group, 4649 Brockton Avenue, representing the applicant, noted that their civil engineer is also present. He asked that the hours of operation be modified in Condition 24 from 9: 00 a. m. to 11: 00 p. m., which coincide with the hours of La Bodega Wine and Sprits.
Dwight Tatem, long time resident of the Palm Heights Historic District, spoke in support of the proposal. He noted that he is also a member of the Magnolia Center Area Business Council. He pointed out that the owners of La Bodega are model citizens and support many of the community activities in the City. He commented that he has no doubt that they will be very good stewards of this property.
David Boshen, 6308 Glen Aire Avenue, spoke in favor of the proposal. He stated that as an individual who enjoys wine, he feels this is the type of establishment that Riverside could really use to bring a more upscale tenor to certain parts of the locale. He noted that to find this type of an establishment, one has to go to Orange County. He feels this establishment will also help the business environment in the area. He commented that the owners of La Bodega have been excellent citizens in the community and have done very much for the City.
Richard Wozner, 3539 Laurel Lane, Riverside, noted that establishment. He stated that he thinks he's in favor it of as Mr as though it is going to improve the area a lot.
C'it.v Planning (' 0171177iSSiO17Draft_ Vinutes Harch 18, 2010 he lives two doors down from the proposed
Dahdul has done nice work and the plan looks
P09- 0550-0551
ATTACHMENT 3
4- 99
Sharon Duffy, 20500 Yates Circle, spoke in support of the proposal. She noted that she concurs with everything that has been said. She noted that she has the greatest respect for Mr. Dahdul and his business and she looks forward to the opening of the business as she feels it will draw in the right kind of people.
Cindy Roth, President of the Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce, 3985 University Avenue, spoke in support of the proposal.
Doug Dunlap, 6348 Coby Court, Riverside, spoke in opposition to the proposal. He stated that La Bodega has been a very good neighbor, but he does not support anymore alcohol related uses in the area.
The public hearing was officially closed.
Commissioner W. B. Allen asked if the two properties will be merged as one. He also asked if there will be ingress and egress from the inside of the liquor establishment to the wine tasting establishment.
Mr. Smith explained that the parcels will be separate with separate ingress and egress.
Commissioner W. B. Allen inquired as to the request for the hours of operation.
Mr. Smith explained that the information staff was given from the applicant, which was analyzed in the staff report, was that the project would be open from 11: 00 a. m. to 9: 00 p. m.
Steve Hayes, Principal Planner, stated that Mr. Smith is right in that staff based their analysis on the 11: 00 a. m. to 9: 00 p. m. hours of operation that were requested in the initial application materials. He stated in terms of staff's analysis that is what the recommendation is based on; however, if the Commissioner feels so compelled today after hearing all testimony, there would be some alternatives the Commission could consider.
He explained that one example of that may be that the Commission could consider not changing the hours at this time, but giving staff the ability to make adjustments to the hours of operation after they have proven after a six month period ( for instance) that they can operate well without any incompatibility issues with the neighborhood. He stated at that time maybe the Commission would feel inclined to give staff the ability to modify the hours of operation if they have proven to be a good neighbor. He stated that if there are problems then the Commission may also want to give staff the ability to change the hours of operation to reduce the hours if any problems occur from any operations that occur.
Commissioner L. E. Allen expressed his support for the applicant's request for the change in hours of operation.
He commented that having the same hours as their store next door would be a lot easier for the payroll element.
Commissioner Brown inquired as to why staff would prefer the hours remain as stated in the staff report Mr. Smith explained that it is a potential neighborhood compatibility issue. He stated that staff does agree with the applicant that the project should not remain open when La Bodega is not. He noted that the City's Noise Ordinance does technically define night time in terms of residential exterior noises as beginning at 10: 00 p. m.
Commissioner Tavaglione asked how the applicant feels regarding maintaining the hours of operation as per the staff report for a period of time before their being changed.
Commissioner Lock- Dawson, Chair Pro Tem, asked the applicant to come forward and respond.
Mr. Dahdul stated that this project is going to work in conjunction with their retail store and one key part of the operation would be when customers come into the store and want to sample a wine before they purchase it.
C'it.v Planning C 01I? 1l7iSSiOnDraft_ Vinutes Harch 18, 2010 P09- 0550-0551 ATTACHMENT 3
4- 100
He also explained that maintaining the same hours of operation is important for upcoming wine seminars and dinners for small groups of people. He commented that ending the functions at 9: 00 p. m. is not enough time since these functions usually begin at 6: 00 p. m. He commented that this facility will not be like a bar, but would be a quieter atmosphere. He does not feel there would be any noise issues at all.
Commissioner Tavaglione expressed his support for the applicant's request. He explained that he does not see holding this business back especially since this applicant does an excellent job with his current business.
Commissioner W. B. Allen inquired as to the Police Department's response to the applicant's request for the extended hours of operation.
Ken Gutierrez, Planning Director, stated that he had a moment to speak with Lieutenant Manning of the Riverside Police Department who has no objection to the 11: 00 p. m. closing time. He stated that it is important for staff to clarify that their recommendation is based upon the information that was given to staff in the submittal. He stated that based on the police department's non- oppositionand the Commission's testimony today staff does not object to the 11: 00 p. m. closing time with the understanding that any noise complaints may result in the reduction of hours.
MOTION MADE by Commissioner W. B. Allen, SECONDED by Commissioner Brown, TO DETERMINE that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment, TO RECOMMEND ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration, and TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL of Planning Cases P09- 0550 and P09- 0551, subject to the findings and recommendations of staff, WITH MODIFICATION to Condition 24 as follows: " The hours are limited to the hours of 11- 00 9: 00 a. m. to 0:- 00 11: 00 p. m., seven days a week. Any proposed modification to these hours will require a modification to this Conditional Use Permit. This condition applies to special events as well as regular operations."
MOTION CARRIED unanimously
AYES: L. E. Allen, W. B. Allen,
NOES: None
DISQUALIFIED: Maloney
ABSTAINED: None
ABSENT: Kain, Riggle
Brown, Lock- Dawson, Tavaglione, Wade
Commissioner Lock- Dawson, Chair Pro Tem, advised of the appeal procedure.
C'it.v Planning (' 0171177iSSiO17Draft_ Vinutes Harch 18, 2010 P09- 0550-0551 ATTACHMENT 3
4- 101
CITY OF RIVERSIDE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
YOU ARE INVITED TO ATTEND a Public Hearing before the City Council of the City of Riverside regarding the following item:
CASE NUMBERS: P09- 0550 and P09- 0551
APPLICANT: Hardie D. Lewis on behalf of
Mohammad A. R. and Hoda Dahdul
LOCATION: 3524 Central Avenue.
PROPOSAL: Planning Commission recommends
amendment to Title 19 of the Riverside Municipal
Code to rezone approximately.44 acre developed with
a single-family residence from R- 1-7000- SP-Single
Family Residential and Specific Plan ( Magnolia
Avenue) Overlay Zones to CR- SP-Commercial Retail
and Specific Plan ( Magnolia Avenue) Overlay Zones
and conditional use permit to allow on- and off- sale of beer and wine in conjunction with establishment of a
Wine Tasting Facility. Related variances may also be
considered.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The Planning
Commission has determined that the proposed project
will not have a significant effect on the environment
and is recommending that a Negative Declaration be
adopted.
Mail written statements to City Clerk, City Hall,
3900 Main Street, Riverside, CA 92522.
If you challenge the above proposed action in court,
you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing described in
this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to
the City Clerk of the City of Riverside at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Dated and Mailed: April 02, 2010
Publish: April 02, 2010
SUNNYSIDE DR
CENTRALAV
Q
W
0 V/ I
w
a LAURA LN LAURALN
W
o U
Z
a
U
Y
m
0 U
NORTH
WANDA Y
CITY COUNCIL HEARING
Art Pick Council Chamber, City Hall
3900 Main Street
Riverside, CA 92522
MEETING DATE: April 13, 2010
MEETING TIME: 3 p. m.
CONTACT PLANNER: Kyle Smith
PHONE: ( 951) 826- 5220
E- MAIL: [email protected]
COLLE N J. ICOL, MMC
City CI k "e City of Riverside
GAHEARINGS\ 03-09- 10 - P08- 0470
THE PRESS- ENTERPRISE
3450 Fourteenth Street
Riverside CA 92501- 3878
951- 684-1200
951- 368-9018 FAX
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
2010, 2015.5 C. C.P.)
Press- Enterprise
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF
Ad Desc.: P09- 0550 and P09- 0551
I am a citizen of the United States. I am over the age
of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in
the abcve entitled matter. I am an authorized repre-
sentative of THE PRESS- ENTERPRISE, a newspa-
per of general circulation, printed and published daily in the County of Riverside, and which newspaper has
been adjudicated a newspaper of general circulation
by the Superior Court of the County of Riverside,
State of California, under date of April 25, 1952, Case Number 54446, under date of March 29, 1957, Case
Number 65673 and under date of August 25, 1995,
Case Number 267864; that the notice, of which the
annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said
newspaper in accordance with the instructions of the
person(s) requesting publication, and not in any sup-
plement thereof on the following dates, to wit:
04- 02-10
I Certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: Apr. 2, 2010
At: Riverside, California
RIVERSIDE CITY CLERK
3900 MAIN ST
RIVERSIDE CA 92522
Ad 10217494
PO
Agency
Ad Copy:
CITY OF RIVERSIDE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
YOU ARE INVITED TO ATTEND a Public Hearing
before the City Council of The City of Riverside regarding the following item:
CASE NUMBERS: P09- 0550 and P09- 0551
APPLICANT: Hardie D. Lewis on behalf
ofMohammad A. R. and
Hoda Dahdul
LOCATION: 3524 Central Avenue.
PROPOSAL: Planning Commission recommends
amendment to Title 19 of the Riverside Municipal Code
to rezone approximately.44 acre developed with a single- family residence from R- 1-7000- SP-Single Famdy Resi-
dential and SpPecific Plan ( Magnolia Avenue) Overlay
Zones to CR- SP-Commercial Retail and Specific Plan
Magnolia Avenue) Overlay Zones and conditional use
permit to allow on- and off- sale of beer and wine in
conjunction with establishment of a Wine Tasting Facil- ity. Related variances may also be considered.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The Plan-
ning Commission has determined that the proposed
project will not have a significant effect on the environ- ment and is recommending that a Negative Declaration
be adopted.
Mail written statements to City Clerk, City Hall, 3900
Main Street, Riverside, CA 92522.
If you challenge the above proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or some- one else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk of the City of Riverside at, or prior to, the public hearing.
City Clerk of the City of Riverside
Dated and Mailed: April 02, 2010
Publish: April 02, 2010 4/2
C RN EM
APR 12 2010
CITY COUNCIL HEARING
Art Pick Council Chamber, City Hall
3900 Main Street
Riverside, CA 92522
MEETING DATE: April 13, 2010
MEETING TIME:3 p. m.
CONTACT PLANNER: Kyle Smith
PHONE: ( 951) 826- 5220
E- MAIL, [email protected]