249 South Willow Avenue z Rialto, California 92376 z (909) 820-2539 (909) 820-2600 Fax City of Rialto Purchasing Division Addendum Number One Request for Proposal 15-056 February 18, 2015 All prospective proposers are hereby provided the Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Notice of Preparation Initial Study (attached). All other specifications relative to this Request for Proposal shall remain the same. Respectfully, _tâÜt VtÜwxÇtá Laura Cardenas, CPPB Buyer/Accounting Technician City of Rialto, Purchasing Division 909-820-2539 909-820-2600 fax [email protected]
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
249 South Willow Avenue Rialto, California 92376 (909) 820-2539 (909) 820-2600 Fax
City of Rialto Purchasing Division
Addendum Number One Request for Proposal 15-056
February 18, 2015 All prospective proposers are hereby provided the Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Notice of Preparation Initial Study (attached). All other specifications relative to this Request for Proposal shall remain the same. Respectfully,
_tâÜt VtÜwxÇtá Laura Cardenas, CPPB Buyer/Accounting Technician City of Rialto, Purchasing Division 909-820-2539 909-820-2600 fax [email protected]
Figure 3: RSP Plan Area ............................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 4: Amended RSP Plan Area .............................................................................................................. 9
Figure 5: Renaissance Shopping Center Master Site Plan .................................................................... 13
Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study |1
I . I n t r o d u c t i o n & P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n
This Initial Study has been prepared to provide an initial assessment of potential environmental
impacts of the proposed project, as described below. The purpose of this Initial Study is to determine
if further environmental analysis is required before the proposed project is able to be considered for
approval by appropriate decision makers. As identified in this Initial Study, a Subsequent EIR is
required to be prepared for the previous 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan EIR in order to adequately
address the proposed project.
P r o j e c t S i t e L o c a t i o n
The proposed project site is located in the western/central portion of the City of Rialto, California
(Figure 1: Regional Location). The proposed project site is bounded by State Route 210 to the north,
Ayala Drive to the east, Base Line Road to the south, and Alder Avenue to the west (Figure 2: Project
Vicinity).
P r o j e c t H i s t o r y
On November 9, 2010, the City of Rialto approved the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan (RSP)
consisting of approximately 1,445.3 gross acres located within the City of Rialto. The Specific Plan is
planned as an integrated community of varied housing types located near and linked to places of
employment, retail outlets, services and schools. The Specific Plan at the time approval was planned
to accommodate 16.2 million square feet of business and commercial uses (835,200 square feet of
which were existing and would remain), 1,667 residential units, one school, a community park, and
multiple neighborhood parks all located in proximity to one another and organized in a grid pattern;
refer to Table 1: Adopted Specific Plan Land Use Distribution.
Table 1: Adopted Specific Plan Land Use Distribution
Land Use Total
Acres
Future Uses Existing Uses Expected to
Remain
Acres Target
Density/FAR1
Total Sq.
Ft.
Total
Units Jobs Pop. Acres Sq. Ft. Jobs
Residential Uses
Low Density
Residential
(LDR)
61.9 61.9 8 du.ac - 446 - 1,382 - - -
Medium
Density
Residential
(MDR)
25.8 25.8 12.5 du/ac - 290 - 900 - - -
Medium High
Density
Residential
(MHDR)
56.8 56.8 16 du/ac - 818 - 2,536 - - -
High Density
Residential 5.0 5.0 25 du/ac - 113 - 349 - - -
Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study |2
(HDR)
Business Uses
Town Center 56.5 56.5 0.25 FAR 612,285 - 1,231 - - - -
Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study |4
This page intentionally left blank.
Figure 2: Project Vicinity
Renaissance Specific Plan Project Area
Bohnert Ave
Base Line Rd
Foothill Blvd
Ayal
a Dr
Ayal
a Dr
Lind
en A
ve
Map
le A
ve
Locu
st A
ve
Alde
r Ave
210
Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study |6
This page intentionally left blank.
Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study |7
RSP Environmental Impact Report (EIR) & Addendums
To address the potentially significant impacts associated with implementation of the Specific Plan,
the City of Rialto (“City”) prepared the Renaissance Specific Plan Draft and Final EIR in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The Renaissance Specific Plan Draft EIR was
released for public review on May 3, 2010; the Renaissance Specific Plan Final EIR was certified on
November 9, 2010. Since certification of the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan Final EIR, three
Addendums to the EIR have been prepared and undergone respective CEQA review and approval.
The three addendums are: Golden Bear Regional Food Distribution Center Project Addendum (2012),
SR-210 Logistics Center II Project Addendum (2013), and Rialto 42 Distribution Center Project
Addendum (2013).
C u r r e n t A p p l i c a t i o n & P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n
The Project Applicant is requesting an amendment to the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan (“RSP
Amendment” or proposed “Project”); the proposed “Project” as considered by this Initial Study. The
Project site is within the previously approved RSP planning area. The planning areas of the RSP
considered with the Amendment are located generally south of the I-210 Freeway, north of Base Line
Avenue, west of Ayala Drive, and east of Locust Avenue. The proposed Project considered by this
Initial Study is anticipated to include the following actions:
An update of the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan and related texts and figures
throughout the Plan;
Updates to residential development standards to reflect housing trends;
Relocation of all residential land uses to the east of Linden Avenue;
Relocation of Business Center land use to the west of Linden Avenue;
Relocation of school land use to west of Linden Avenue;
Precise Plan of Design for the Renaissance Marketplace retail development;
Change in Land Use in Planning Area 19 from Freeway Commercial to Freeway
Incubator;
Change FAR of Corporate Center Land Use from .75 to .50;
Potential interim storm drain basins;
Maintain Renaissance Parkway in its current alignment;
Revised Sign Standards for freeway pylon signs;
Revised street sections;
Terminate Miro Way east at Linden Avenue;
Increased public park area;
Relocation of public school site to east side of Linden Avenue;
To summarize, the goal of the RSP Amendment is the relocation of business and industrial uses to
the west of Linden Avenue, relocating all residential land uses and the public park to the east of the
Linden Avenue, and implementation of the Renaissance Marketplace retail development. The
existing RSP area land use plan is displayed in Figure 3: RSP Plan Area. The revised land use plan for
the RSP area is displayed in Figure 4: Amended RSP Plan Area.
Related updates to the RSP text and figures are required based upon the revised land use plan. This
amendment relocates the same type of uses as approved in the 2010 RSP but because the
Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study |8
locations of the uses and amount of land designated for such uses are revised, this environmental
review has been conducted to assure that these land use changes result do not result in new or
previously unidentified environmental impacts. The Subsequent EIR will identify that the proposed
land uses represent a re-distribution of previously-identified land uses in the Renaissance Specific
Plan. Additionally, the Subsequent EIR will review the Urban Decay Analysis prepared for the
proposed Project and reflect the findings of this report in the appropriate Subsequent EIR sections.
As a component of the proposed Project, the Renaissance Marketplace would be up to a 589,200
square foot retail center. The retail center would include a 139,896 square foot free-standing
discount super store, plus additional major retail sites, a health club, a movie theater, restaurants, a
gas station, a day care center, a drug store, and additional in-line retail. Access to the Renaissance
Marketplace would be provided from Renaissance Parkway, Ayala Drive, Linden Avenue and a
proposed street that would provide access to the residential planning areas south of the
Renaissance Marketplace. The Renaissance Marketplace would be constructed in two phases. A
preliminary master site plan of the Renaissance Marketplace is provided below in Figure 5:
Renaissance Shopping Center Master Site Plan.
Michael Brandman Associates
01230027 04/2010 | 3-4_conceptual_landuse.ai•
Source: Renaissance Specific Plan (April 2010).
RENAISSANCE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR • CITY OF RIALTO, CA
Exhibit 3-4Conceptual Land Use MapN
OR
TH
Feet1,000 0 1,000500
3
LEGEND
NOTES:
1. The boundaries of the land use designations are approximate and generally follow streets and property lines. Minor changes in boundary alignment and location are permissible as described in Section 7, Implementation.
2. The transfer of residential units is allowed as described in Section 7, Implementation.
3. If the school is relocated or if the school district chooses not to develop a school within Renaissance, then the underlying land use shall revert to the Medium Density Residential (MDR) land use designation and can accept the transfer of residential units from other areas of the Specific Plan, as described in Section 7, Implementation.
4. Planning Area 55 can either develop as residential or general commercial.
5. Parcels within Planning Area 5 may develop under the uses and standards of the Employment land use category.
6. Planning Area 81 is developed as a parking lot for the Jerry Eaves Park.
Figure 3: RSP Plan Area
Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study |10
This page intentionally left blank
120MDR
12.5 ac12.5 du/ac
156 du
116LDR
9.0 ac8 du/ac72 du
2Employment
51.3 ac.4 FAR
Laur
el A
venu
e
11Freeway Commercial
10.4 ac.25 FAR
22bEmployment
6.0 ac .4 FAR
22aEmployment
4.5 ac .4 FAR
124PublicPark
4.6 ac
113LDR
17.3 ac8 du/ac138 du
Lind
en A
venu
e
123School13.0 ac
104Town Center
53.6 ac
10Freeway Commercial
21.6 ac.25 FAR
106Utilities1.8 ac
126Public Park
20.0 Ac
Ayal
a D
rive
Tam
arin
d A
venu
e
Walnut Street
Easton Steet
Miro Way
SR 210
Ald
er A
venu
e Fitz
gera
ld A
venu
e
Casmalia StP
alm
etto
Ave
nue
Locu
st A
venu
e
Lieske Drive
Map
le A
venu
e
Baseline Road
Renaissance Parkway
13Employment
22.8 ac.4 FAR
4Employment
37.7 ac.4 FAR
22cEmploy.8.6 ac.4 FAR
15Employment
17.3 ac.4 FAR
16Employment
8.2 ac.4 FAR
14Employment
27.5 ac.4 FAR
69 & 70Employment
35.2 ac.4 FAR
64Employment3.1 ac/.4 FAR
65Employment
21.9 ac.4 FAR
20Corporate Center
13.4 ac.75 FAR
71Employment
35.2 ac.4 FAR
21Fwy
Comm4.3 ac
.25 FAR
18Fwy
Comm2.3 ac
.25 FAR
3Freeway Incubator
15.4 ac.35 FAR
17Employment
8.0 ac.4 FAR
68Employment
8.6 ac.4 FAR
24Business Center
34.8 ac.5 FAR
59Bus. Ctr.
0.9 ac.5 FAR
23Business Center
39.8 ac.5 FAR
107Business Center
55.2 ac.5 FAR
100Corporate Center
13.3 ac.75 FAR
108Business Center
173.0 ac.5 FAR
101Town Center
6.9 ac
105Business Center
34.6 ac.5 FAR
119Employment
4.2 ac.4 FAR
109Buffer2.0 ac
117REC
1.5 ac
21Fwy
Comm4.3 ac
.25 FAR
102Employment
18.6 ac.4 FAR
118LDR
21.2 ac8 du/ ac170 du
122REC.5 Ac
SR 210
SR 210
Renaissance Parkway
103Town Center
12.6 ac
19Freeway Incubator
9.2 ac.35 FAR
7Freeway Incubator
10.2 ac.35 FAR
5Freeway Incubator
18.3 ac.35 FAR
29Freeway Incubator
8.2 ac.25 AFR
80Employment
4.8 ac.4 FAR
6Employment
18.3 ac.4 FAR
25Util.
1.7 ac
68Employment
36.2 ac.4 FAR67
Util.1.8 ac
114MDR
16.7 ac12.5 du/ac
209 du
115HDR8.0 ac
25 du/ac200 du
110MHDR19.8 ac
16 du/ac317 du
111Slope/Buffer
2.0 ac
12Utilities4.6 ac
75Employment
10.9 ac.4 FAR
78Comm3.4 ac
.25 FAR
79Employ.4.7 ac.4 FAR
76Comm2.8 ac
.25 FAR
125Employment
3.0 ac.4 FAR
127Employment
17.2 ac.4 FAR
54Employment
5.5 ac.4 FAR
58Utilities2.3 ac
8Freeway Incubator
8.5 ac.35 FAR
9Freeway Incubator
8.4 ac.35 FAR
1Freeway Incubator
23.4 ac.35 FAR
112REC.5 ac
121Util.
1.9 ac
2014-10-081"=400'
Note: This exhibit is conceptual in nature and is not intended to show exact locations and alignments of facilities infrastructure may be relocated, resized , and realigned to follow the final roadway system, plotting and design. Final design and location will be determined through the tract map and grading permit processes.
Land USe PLan
2014-10-14
Legend
Low density Residential - 3-8 du/ac (Target 8)
Medium density Residential - 8-14 du/ac (Target 12.5)
Medium High density Residential - 14-20 du/ac (Target 16 )
High density Residential - 20-35 du/ac (Target 25)
Town Center - .25 FaR
General Commercial - .25 FaR
Freeway Commercial - .25 FaR
Freeway Incubator - .25-.35 FaR
Corporate Center - .75 FaR
Business Center - .5 FaR
employment - .4 FaR
Schools
Utilities/Public Facilities
Slope / Buffer
Public Park
Private Rec. Center
Commercial Overlay
employment Overlay
existing Uses to Remain
Figure 4: Amended RSP Plan Area
Project Area
Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study |12
This page intentionally left blank.
Figure 5: Renaissance Marketplace Site Plan
Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study |14
This page intentionally left blank.
Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study |15
The RSP Amendment would also maintain Renaissance Parkway in its current alignment, without
modifying it as proposed by the previous Land Use Plan for the RSP. Existing utilities in Renaissance
Parkway will remain, except those that need to be relocated to within the street right-of-way. The
Project also contemplates revisions to the RSP Sign Standards to allow two (2) additional freeway
pylon signs within the Renaissance Marketplace. Street sections for the project have also been
updated to provide additional width for bike travel lanes, and median widths for turning movements.
The proposed Project is also expected to need interim drainage basins due to downstream facilities
not yet completed by outside agencies. The proposed Project would provide an alternative interim
drainage facility for the Renaissance Marketplace, south of the site Planning Area 110 (as newly-
designed by the RSP Amendment), should downstream facilities be determined to not be eligible for
stormwater flows. In addition, a second alternative interim drainage facility for Business Center
development may be located in specific Planning Areas should downstream facilities be determined
to not be eligible for stormwater flows. Updated exhibits in the RSP Amendment identify these
potential interim basin locations.
The proposed Project may include a Development Agreement that identifies the impact fees to be
paid by the applicant, as well as the timing and funding of improvements that are already identified
as part of the project. The Development Agreement would also identify the legal obligations of both
parties in terms of performance, assignments, liability, etc. A summary of the proposed RSP
Amendment land use changes is provided below in Table 2: Proposed RSP Amendment Land Use
Summary.
Table 2: Proposed RSP Amendment Land Use Summary
Land Use Total
Acres
Future Uses Existing Uses Expected to
Remain
Acres Target
Density/FAR Total Sq. Ft.
Total
Units Jobs Pop. Acres Sq. Ft. Jobs
Residential Uses
Low Density
Residential
(LDR)
47.5 47.5 8 du/ac - 380 - 1,178 - - -
Medium
Density
Residential
(MDR)
29.2 29.2 12.5 du/ac - 365 - 1,131 - - -
Medium High
Density
Residential
(MHDR)
19.8 19.8 16 du/ac - 317 - 983 - - -
High Density
Residential
(HDR)
8.0 8.0 25 du/ac - 200 - 620 - - -
2010
Approved
Subtotal
149.5 149.5 - - 1,667 - 5,167 - - -
RSP
Amendment
Subtotal
104.5 104.5 - - 1,262 - 3,912 - - -
Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study |16
Land Use Total
Acres Future Uses
Existing Uses Expected to
Remain
Acres Target
Density/FAR Total Sq. Ft.
Total
Units
Job
s Pop. Acres Sq. Ft. Jobs
Net Change -45.0 -45.0 - - -405 - -1,255 - - -
Business Uses
Town Center 73.1 73.1 0.25 FAR 796,059 - 1,592 - - - -
Corporate
Center 26.7 26.7 0.50 FAR 581,526 - 1,163 - - - -
Business
Center 338.3 338.3 0.50 FAR 7,368,174 - 2,947 - - - -
The following provides a summary of the Project objectives associated with submittal of the
proposed RSP Amendment:
To implement the approved Renaissance Specific Plan as amended;
To facilitate the redevelopment of the former Rialto Municipal Airport;
To implement and facilitate the development the Renaissance Marketplace retail project;
To facilitate development through efficient land use planning and phased infrastructure
design;
To provide a range of housing options including single-family (detached and attached)
housing and multi-family housing that are financially self-supporting and contribute to the
City’s economic base;
To create public recreational and open spaces;
To create an expanded Business Center capable of accommodating a wide range of land
uses contributing to jobs-housing balance, including commercial, employment, business
center, educational, and corporate center uses;
To create a range of job and economic development opportunities for local individuals and
businesses; and
To develop a master planned community that has a unique character and quality with a
commitment to sustainability, flexible planning, high quality architecture and site design, and
the provision of attractive on-site open space, public spaces, recreational facilities, and
landscape design.
1 The overall project site acreage increased from the acreage identified by the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan, because the 2010 land use data was not based on actual survey data of the entire specific plan area. Since completion of the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan, surveys have been conducted which determined increased actual overall acreage of the project site, as reflected in Table 2, Proposed RSP Amendment Land Use Summary. 2 The proposed amendment to the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan identifies fewer existing uses to remain in the project site area as were identified in the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan, as the revised land use plan of the amendment proposes the removal of some previously identified uses for the project site.
Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study |18
This document has been prepared as an Initial Study to consider potential environmental impacts of
the proposed amendment to the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan as described above. In
accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15051 and 15367, the City of Rialto (City) is identified as
the Lead Agency for the proposed project. The Lead Agency is charged with the responsibility of
deciding whether to approve the proposed Project. As part of its decision-making process, the City is
required to review and consider whether the proposed RSP amendment would create new significant
impacts or impacts that would be substantially more severe than those disclosed in the Renaissance
Specific Plan Final EIR. Additional CEQA review beyond this Initial Study, in the form of a Subsequent
EIR, would be triggered if the proposed Project created new significant impacts or impacts that are
more severe than those disclosed in the EIR used to approve the Renaissance Specific Plan Project
or one of its three Addendums: Golden Bear Regional Food Distribution Center Project Addendum
(2012), SR-210 Logistics Center II Project Addendum (2013), and Rialto 42 Distribution Center
Project Addendum (2013).
According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162:
(a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no
subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the
basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the
previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects:
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration
due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified significant effects: or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have
been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was
certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR
or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown
in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact
be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project,
but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those
analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects
Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study |19
on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure
or alternative.
If none of the above conditions occur, CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 allows the preparation of an EIR
Addendum, rather than a Supplemental EIR or Subsequent EIR. Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines
states, “The Lead Agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified
EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162
calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.” As described in the Initial Study Checklist
below, the City of Rialto finds that major revisions of the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan Final EIR
and/or one of its three Addendums (Golden Bear Regional Food Distribution Center Project
Addendum (2012), SR-210 Logistics Center II Project Addendum (2013), and Rialto 42 Distribution
Center Project Addendum (2013) are necessary and that some of the conditions described in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a Subsequent EIR have occurred. Therefore,
this Initial Study concludes a Subsequent EIR is required to be prepared.
Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study |20
I I . E n v i r o n m e n t a l F a c t o r s P o t e n t i a l l y A f f e c t e d
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 Agricultural and Forestry
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population/Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of
Significance
III. D e t e r m i n a t i o n
On the basis of this evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find 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.
find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find 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.
I find 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, nothing further is required.
I find 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, (b) none of the conditions described
Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study |21
in Guidelines Section 15162 for a Subsequent EIR or Section 15163 for a Supplemental EIR
have occurred and (c) only minor technical changes or additions to the previous environmental
document are necessary. An Addendum to the Renaissance Specific Plan EIR shall be prepared.
I find that the conditions described in Guidelines Section 15162 for a Subsequent EIR have
occurred and therefore an a Subsequent EIR to the Renaissance Specific Plan evaluating the
proposed Amendment to the Renaissance Specific Plan shall be prepared.
Signature
Date
Gina Gibson, Planning Manager
Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study |22
I V . E n v i r o n m e n t a l E v a l u a t i o n
This section provides an initial evaluation of the potential environmental effects of the proposed
Project using the environmental checklist from the CEQA Guidelines as amended. The definitions of
the response column headings include:
A. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect
may be significant after the implementation of feasible mitigation measures. The impact may
warrant additional analysis within the Subsequent EIR as recommended by this Initial Study.
B. “Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measure has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than
Significant Impact.” Mitigation measures from the Renaissance Specific Plan EIR would be
cross-referenced when applicable and/or would be identified as such in the Subsequent EIR as
recommended by this Initial Study.
C. “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where the project creates no significant impacts, only
Less than Significant Impacts. These impacts are within the scope of Less Than Significant
Impacts identified and evaluated within the Renaissance Specific Plan EIR and below
thresholds considered significant and/or would be identified as such in the Subsequent EIR as
recommended by this Initial Study.
D. “No Impact” applies where the project does not create an impact in that category.
E. “Impact Identified in the EIR” indicates the impact created by the proposed Project would be
the same as that identified in the Renaissance Specific Plan EIR for the corresponding
threshold. Where this finding is made, both are so noted herein and the corresponding boxes
are checked in the Environmental Checklist.
1. Aesthetics
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic building along a
State-designated scenic highway?
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Discussion
a. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista. The dominant scenic views from the Project site and the surrounding
Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study |23
area include the San Gabriel Mountains and the San Bernardino Mountains located
approximately 7 miles to the north. Surrounding land uses that could have this scenic view
affected by project implementation are single-family residences located south of the Project
site. These single and two-story residential structures are separated from the Project site by
the Base Line Road right-of-way, and the landscaped parkway and block wall (approximately
five feet high) located along the south side of the road. The landscaping and block wall have
the effect of almost completely eliminating existing distant views of the mountains, especially
for single-story residential structures south of Base Line Road. The proposed Project would not
be expected to be visible to single-story structures in this area. Two-story residential structures
in this area are likely also affected by mature landscaping trees and the proposed Project
would be expected to be visible upon implementation. However, owing to their vantage point
relative to surrounding structures, existing views from two-story residential structures are not
likely to be significantly impacted. The proposed Project is at a similar elevation as the
surrounding area and would be consistent with surrounding development. For these reasons,
the project’s encroachment into distant views would not be significant. This determination is
consistent with the finding of less than significant impact for the 2010 Renaissance Specific
Plan EIR.
Development of the site would convert predominantly vacant land to mixed-use urban
development, substantially changing the aesthetic nature of the Specific Plan area. However,
much of the Specific Plan area is considered to be in a blighted condition, and would not be
considered scenic in nature. Therefore, the change in views of the Project site from the
surrounding area would not cause a significant impact on a scenic vista. As the proposed
Project includes future land use development that is consistent with the Specific Plan, no
further analysis would be included in the Subsequent EIR.
b. No Impact. The Project site and the surrounding area are developed with no natural landforms
or features remaining. The Rialto General Plan does not include any designated scenic
corridors. In addition, there are no designated state or county designated scenic highways in
the vicinity of the Project site.3 There are also no historically significant buildings within the
site that could be affected by the proposed development as discussed in Item 5, Cultural
Resources. No adverse impacts on scenic resources, including resources within a state scenic
highway, would result from the proposed Project’s implementation. The EIR prepared for the
2010 Renaissance Specific Plan also determined that future development that is consistent
with the Specific Plan would not result in any adverse aesthetic impacts.4 As the proposed
Project includes future land use development that is consistent with the Specific Plan, no
further analysis would be included in the Subsequent EIR.
c. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed Project would change the site appearance from an
underdeveloped area with a mix of structures to a variety of land uses. The aesthetic
appearance of the site would be consistent with the overall 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan as
design guidelines are intended to create a uniform and consistent theme within the overall
Specific Plan area. The visual characteristics of the site would change, though changes would
be consistent with existing development regulations. Moreover, much of the Specific Plan area
is considered to be in a blighted condition; therefore, the various changes in visual character
3 California Department of Transportation. Official Designated Scenic Highways. Available at:
www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm. Accessed October 9, 2014. 4 Michael Brandman Associates. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Renaissance Specific Plan, Rialto,
California. May 3, 2010. p. 4.1-12.
Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study |24
which would result from development of land uses as proposed by the Specific Plan would not
significantly impact the site or the surrounding area. Impacts are expected to be less than
significant; however, an urban decay analysis will be prepared for the proposed Project, the
findings and conclusions of which will be analyzed in the Subsequent EIR.
d. Less Than Significant Impact. Residential land uses are considered to be sensitive to excessive
amounts of light and glare because light trespass can interfere with sleep and other night-time
activities. Poorly designed lighting can also affect the night-time vision of drivers due to glare.
Light sensitive land uses in the Project vicinity include the residential neighborhood located
along the south side of Base Line Road. Existing sources of light and glare include street
lighting and lights from residential and commercial uses in the area.
The proposed Project would incorporate safety and security lighting. Lighting levels would not
exceed 1.0 candle/foot measured at ground level throughout the parking area as required per
the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan. New lighting would also be reviewed by the City of Rialto
to ensure conformance with the 2013 California Building Code, Title 24, as well as the 2013
California Green Building Standard Code such that only the minimum amount of lighting is
used and no light trespass occurs. As the proposed Project includes future land use
development that is consistent with the Specific Plan and on-site lighting would be subject to
the 2013 California Building Code and City standards, potential impacts would be less than
significant and no further analysis would be included in the Subsequent EIR.
Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study |25
2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. In determining whether
impacts to forest resources, including timberland,
are significant environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to information compiled 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 forest carbon
measurement methodology provided in 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 pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning
of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources
Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined
by Public Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use
or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Discussion
a. No Impact. The Project site is partially developed with former industrial and commercial land
uses, primarily associated with former airport facilities. No agricultural resources exist within or
adjacent to the Project site. The California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program has designated the site “Other Land” and “Urban and Built-Up Land”,
which include land which does not meet the criteria of any farmland category. Typical uses of
Other Land include vacant and nonagricultural lands and typical uses of Urban and Built-Up
Land include industrial and commercial facilities such as that found on site No Prime
Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study |26
Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide or Local Importance is mapped in the
Project vicinity. No impacts related to the loss of farmland would occur. No significant impacts
to agricultural resources are identified in the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan EIR. As no
impact would result from the proposed Project, no further analysis will be included in the
Subsequent EIR.
b. No Impact. A Williamson Act contract is formed between local governments and private
landowners for the purpose of restricting certain parcels of land to agricultural or related open
space use. The Project site does not contain agricultural resources, is not zoned for agricultural
uses, and is not the subject of a Williamson Act contract. No impacts would occur. This
conclusion is supported by the EIR prepared for the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan. As no
impact would result from the proposed Project, no further analysis will be included in the
Subsequent EIR.
c. No Impact. No forest land occurs within or adjacent to the Project site. The 2010 Renaissance
Specific Plan, the City of Rialto General Plan and the Rialto Zoning Ordinance do not provide for
any forest land preservation within the project site. No impacts to forest land would occur. As
no impact would result from the proposed Project, no further analysis will be included in the
Subsequent EIR.
d. No Impact. No forest land occurs within or adjacent to the Project site. The Project site is
designated for urban development. No loss or conversion of forest land to non-forest use would
occur. As no impact would result from the proposed Project, no further analysis will be included
in the Subsequent EIR.
e. No Impact. No farmland is present in the Project vicinity. No significant impacts to agricultural
and forestry resources are identified in the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan EIR. Therefore, no
Project-related changes to the existing environment would result in the conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural uses or forest land to non-forest uses. As no impact would result from the
proposed Project, no further analysis will be included in the Subsequent EIR.
Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study |27
3. Air Qual ity
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 determinations. Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c. Result in a cumulatively 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)?
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
Discussion
The Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Report prepared for the 2010 Renaissance Specific
Plan EIR will be reviewed to verify the proposed Project would be consistent with previously prepared
analysis for the 2010 RSP. The findings and conclusions of this evaluation will be incorporated into
the proposed Project’s Subsequent EIR. However, general conditions identified in the 2010
Renaissance Specific Plan EIR identified below are applicable to the proposed Project.
a. Potentially Significant Impact. The Project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin
(SCAB). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) manages air quality in the
SCAB. The most recently adopted air quality plan is the 2012 Air Quality Management Plan
(AQMP) developed by the SCAQMD. This plan is the SCAB’s portion of the State Implementation
Plan (SIP). The AQMP accommodates population growth and transportation projections based
on the projections made by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).
Projects that are consistent with employment and population forecasts made by SCAG are
consistent with the emissions budgets contained within the AQMP. Also, projects that are
consistent with the SIP rules (i.e., the federally approved rules and regulations adopted by the
SCAQMD) are consistent with the SIP. Thus projects would be required to conform with
measures adopted in the AQMP, including undergoing New Source Review for sources subject
to permitting with the SCAQMD.
b. The construction and operations phase of the proposed Project must be in compliance with the
strategies in the AQMP for attaining and maintaining air quality standards. The Subsequent EIR
will include analysis of construction and operational emissions resulting from the proposed
Project and will verify if the proposed Project would be consistent with previously prepared
Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study |28
analysis and conclusions for the 2010 RSP. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed
Project would generate emissions of ROG and NOx during construction and operation that
would most likely be above the SCAQMD’s regional thresholds of significance. Mitigation from
the EIR prepared for the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan would be applicable to the proposed
Project as discussed and would reduce the severity of the impact to a less-than-significant
level. As the proposed project includes future land use development that is consistent with the
Specific Plan, no further analysis will be included in the Subsequent EIR.
c. Potentially Significant Impact. According to the EIR prepared for the 2010 Renaissance
Specific Plan, cumulative air quality impacts are assessed on the basis of: 1) consistency with
the regional thresholds for nonattainment pollutants; 2) project consistency with existing air
quality plans; 3) assessment of the cumulative health effects of the pollutants; and 4) climate
change impacts to air quality. The EIR prepared for the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan
identified cumulative impacts as significant and unavoidable. Since the proposed Project
would incorporate mitigation and is not expected to result in a new significant impact not
previously disclosed, the severity of potentially significant impacts would be reduced with
mitigation incorporated and the project’s impacts would be within the scope of impacts
disclosed in the EIR. Therefore, no new impact relative to air quality or a substantial increase in
the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the 2010 Renaissance
Specific Plan EIR is expected to occur. However, the Subsequent EIR will verify if the proposed
Project would be consistent with previously prepared analysis and conclusions for the 2010
RSP.
d. Less Than Significant Impact. The CEQA Guidelines indicate that a potentially significant
impact could occur if the proposed Project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations. The EIR prepared for the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan
determined that exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations was
less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Therefore, air quality impacts related to the
proposed Project are within the limit of impacts identified in the 2010 Renaissance Specific
Plan Final EIR. No new impact relative to air quality or a substantial increase in the severity of a
previously identified significant impact evaluated in the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan EIR is
expected to occur. However, the Subsequent EIR will verify if the proposed Project would be
consistent with previously prepared analysis and conclusions for the 2010 RSP.
e. No Impact. The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD 1993) identifies certain land
uses as sources of odors. These land uses include the following: agriculture, wastewater
treatment plant, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills,
diaries, and fiberglass molding. The proposed Project would not be a source of objectionable
odors, no impact would occur. No further analysis will be included in the Subsequent EIR.
Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study |29
4. Biological Resources
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
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?
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?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Discussion
Potential impacts to biological resources for the proposed Project are based primarily on data
contained within the EIR prepared for the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan and associated technical
studies. Additionally, specific biological investigations will be prepared for the proposed Project and
findings and conclusions will be incorporated into the Subsequent EIR.
a. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed Project is not expected to have an effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate as sensitive,
or as a special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS). The EIR prepared for the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan indicated that potential
impacts could occur with Specific Plan implementation particularly to Coastal California
Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica), San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys merriamii), and
Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study |30
Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia). Potential impacts to these and other species from
the proposed Project will be considered by the Subsequent EIR.
b. No Impact. No impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community would occur.
There is no riparian habitat present on the Project site.5 According to the EIR prepared for the
Renaissance Specific Plan, plant communities onsite are categorized as disturbed/ruderal,
non-native grassland, eucalyptus trees, and Riversidean Sage Scrub.6 A sensitive plant
community is one defined by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife as rare. The plant
communities found on in the Specific Plan area are not classified as sensitive plant
communities.7 Therefore, associated impacts would not occur. As no impact would result from
the proposed Project, no further analysis will be included in the Subsequent EIR.
c. No Impact. The proposed Project would not impact any jurisdictional waters, including federally
protected wetlands such as marsh, vernal pool, or coastal areas, since no channels or other
features that carry water, including blue line features or drainages with ordinary high water
marks (OHWM) are present onsite.8,9 This finding of no significant impact to wetlands is
supported by the EIR prepared for the Renaissance Specific Plan. As no impact would result
from the proposed Project, no further analysis will be included in the Subsequent EIR.
d. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed Project is located within the Renaissance Specific
Plan which abuts urban areas and is not located within a known wildlife corridor.10
Implementation of the proposed Project would not impact a wildlife corridor. As no impact
would result from the proposed Project, no further analysis will be included in the Subsequent
EIR.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) makes it unlawful to pursue, capture, kill, or possess or
attempt to do the same to any migratory bird or part, nest, or egg of any such bird listed in
wildlife protection treaties between the United States, Great Britain, Mexico, Japan, and the
countries of the former Soviet Union. Birds and their nests are protected under the MBTA and
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) codes. The Project site may contain areas
that can be assumed to contain nests. The EIR prepared for the Renaissance Specific Plan
identified mitigation to reduce potentially significant impacts to nesting birds. Therefore, the
mitigation measure from the previously certified Renaissance Specific Plan EIR is applicable to
the proposed Project.
e. No Impact. The proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources. While the proposed Project would remove common shrubs and
mature trees found onsite, these biological elements do not have any legal protection and their
removal would not constitute a significant impact under CEQA. The City of Rialto does not have
a tree protection ordinance. Therefore, no associated impacts would occur. As no impact would
result from the proposed Project, no further analysis will be included in the Subsequent EIR.
5 United State Geological Survey (USGS) National Map Viewer. http://nationalmap.gov/index.html. Accessed October 8,
2014. 6 Michael Brandman Associates. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Renaissance Specific Plan, Rialto,
California. May 3, 2010. Exhibit 4.4-1, Plant Communities Map. 7 Ibid. 8 United State Geological Survey. Rialto 7 ½ Minute Quadrangle. Release Date March 25, 1999. 9 Michael Brandman Associates. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Renaissance Specific Plan, Rialto,
California. May 3, 2010. p. 4.4-10. 10 Michael Brandman Associates. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Renaissance Specific Plan, Rialto,
California. May 3, 2010. p. 4.4-12.
Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study |31
f. No Impact. The Project site is located within the approved Renaissance Specific Plan. The
Specific Plan area is zoned for urban development and is not included in a Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan. No impact relative to conservation plans would occur. As no
impact would result from the proposed Project, no further analysis will be included in the
Subsequent EIR.
Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study |32
5. Cultural Resources
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in §
15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to § 15064.5?
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
d. Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion
Cultural resources, which are protected under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA)
and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, include the non-renewable remains of
past human use of an area. Cultural resources can include both archaeological resources and
ethnographic resources. Archaeological resources consist of architectural remains, isolated features
such as rock piles, hearths (fire pits), or scatters of artifacts (pottery or rock fragments).
Ethnographic resources are often less tangible as they define materials, places, or things used by
living communities.
Historic structures and sites are generally defined by local, State, and Federal criteria. A site or
structure may be historically significant if it is protected through a local general plan or historic
preservation ordinance. In addition, a site or structure may be historically significant if it meets
certain State or Federal criteria even if the locality does not recognize such significance. The State of
California, through the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), also maintains an inventory of those
sites and structures that are considered to be historically significant. Finally, the U. S. Department of
the Interior has established specific guidelines and criteria that indicate the manner in which a site,
structure, or district is to be identified as having historic significance.
Significance may be determined if the property is associated with events, activities, or developments
that were important in the past, with the lives of people who were important in the past, or
represents significant architectural, landscape, or engineering elements. Ordinarily, properties that
have achieved significance within the past 50 years are not considered eligible for the National
Register. Buildings and properties will qualify for a listing on the National Register if they are integral
parts of districts that meet certain criteria or if they fall within the following categories:
● A religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or
historical importance;
● A building or structure removed from its original location but which is primarily significant for
architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a
historic person or event;
Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study |33
● A birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no
appropriate site or building associated with his or her productive life;
● A cemetery that derives its primary importance from graves of persons of transcendent
importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic
events;
● A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented
in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or
structure with the same association has survived;
● A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has
invested it with its own exceptional significance; or,
● A property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance.11
Information in this section was derived from the EIR prepared for the Renaissance Specific Plan. As
part of that EIR, a Cultural Resources Assessment and Paleontological Review was performed by
MBA and encompassed the Project site.
a. Less Than Significant Impact. The approved Renaissance Specific Plan EIR determined that
potential impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant. Moreover, the proposed
Project would not affect any site presently listed on a local, state, or National historical register.
For these reasons, impacts to historical resources resulting from the proposed Project would
be less than significant. As the proposed project includes future land use development that is
consistent with the Specific Plan, no further analysis will be included in the Subsequent EIR.
b. Less Than Significant Impact. Cultural resources that were not identified during the field survey
performed as part of the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan EIR could be inadvertently unearthed
during excavation activities, which could result in damage to potentially significant resources.
However, the potential for significant impacts to buried resources is considered low based on
consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) which indicated that no
sacred sites or Native American resources are located within the 2010 Renaissance Specific
Plan.12 Construction of the proposed Project would entail excavation for building foundations,
installation of infrastructure, and other related improvements. Therefore, although the
probability is low, the project, during construction, may inadvertently impact buried cultural
resources. To reduce this potentially significant impact to a level of less than significant,
mitigation measures from the previously certified 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan EIR will be
applicable to the proposed Project, including Mitigation Measure CR-4, which requires
monitoring of development-related excavation is required during all construction-related
ground disturbances. As the proposed Project would result in no new impacts, no further
analysis will be included in the Subsequent EIR.
c. Less Than Significant Impact. A paleontological records check was requested on October 26,
2006 as part of the preparation of the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan EIR. A response was
received on November 9, 2006 by Mr. Eric Scott of the San Bernardino County Museum
(SBCM) in Redlands. The paleontological review states that the project area is located
11 U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. National Register of Historic Places.
http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov. 2013.
12 Ibid. p. 4.5-11.
Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study |34
primarily upon Quaternary younger alluvial fan deposits of Holocene or historically recent age.
This Holocene alluvium has low potential for significant fossil deposits and is thereby assigned
low paleontological sensitivity. However, these Holocene sediments may overlie earlier
deposits that are also present in portions of the project area near the eastern boundary, in the
vicinity of the proposed Project. These deposits have been mapped alternatively as either
middle to later Pleistocene fan deposits or middle to later Pleistocene aeolian (wind created)
dune sands. The most recent assessment has interpreted these sediments as aeolian in
nature, and has assigned the deposits an undetermined paleontological sensitivity. Thus, it can
be concluded that the project area has both a low and undetermined probability of containing
significant paleontological resources.
According to the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan EIR, implementation of mitigation is required
on portions of the Specific Plan area located between Linden Avenue and the eastern Specific
Plan boundary, including areas considered by the proposed Project for land use re-designation
and for the specific Renaissance Marketplace component of the Project. The proposed
Renaissance Marketplace is located within a Planning Area that falls within the planning areas
designated for paleontological field surveys; therefore a paleontological field survey will be
required specifically for the Renaissance Marketplace component’s potential impact on
paleontological resources. As the proposed project includes future land use development that
is consistent with the Specific Plan, no further mitigation aside from previously identified in the
2010 Renaissance Specific Plan EIR or analysis will be included in the Subsequent EIR.
d. Less Than Significant Impact. According to the EIR prepared for the 2010 Renaissance Specific
Plan, the Project site is not located within a known or suspected cemetery and there are no
known human remains within the Project site.13 State law relating to the discovery of human
remains, specifically, California Health and Safety Codes 7050.S-7055, provide guidance
should human remains be discovered during construction; however, the likelihood of finding
human remains is low and the resulting impact is considered less than significant. This finding
is consistent with the findings made in the EIR prepared for the 2010 Renaissance Specific
Plan. As no impact would result from the proposed Project, no further analysis will be included
in the Subsequent EIR.
13 Ibid. p. 4.5-13.
Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study |35
6. Geology and Soi ls
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on- or