2003/05/13 City Council Resolution (18)RESOLUTION NO. 2003-96
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, CALIFORNIA,
DETERMINING THAT THE UPDATE
OF THE ROHNERT PARK ZONING ORDINANCE
IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT APPROVED FOR THE
ROHNERT PARK GENERAL PLAN 2000
WHEREAS, on July 25, 2000 the City Council approved Resolution No. 2000 -152
adopting a comprehensive update of the City's General Plan and certifying the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Rohnert General Plan 2000.
WHEREAS, in January of 2001 the City of Rohnert Park began an update of its Zoning
Ordinance to bring it into conformity with the Rohnert Park General Plan 2000.
WHEREAS, the update of the Zoning Ordinance and the associated Zoning Map
conforms to the land use designations and policies of the Rohnert Park General Plan 2000.
WHEREAS, on February 28 and March 28, 2002 and April 10, 2003, the Planning
Commission upon hearing and considering all oral and written testimony and arguments of all
persons desiring to be heard, including Staff's report that the project is within the scope of the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Rohnert Park General Plan 2000 and that the EIR
adequately describes the activity for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, the
Commission considered all the facts relating to Preliminary Draft Zoning Ordinance and
recommended approval of the Preliminary Draft Zoning Ordinance.
WHEREAS, on February 27, 2003, the Planning Commission upon hearing and
considering all oral and written testimony and arguments of all persons desiring to be heard,
including Staff's report that the project is within the scope of the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) for the Rohnert Park General Plan 2000 and that the EIR adequately describes the activity
for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Commission considered all the
facts relating to Draft Zoning Map and recommended approval of the Draft Zoning Map.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park has reviewed and considered
all oral and written comments raised during the public hearings and the information contained in
the Rohnert Park General Plan 2000 Environmental Impact Report and related staff reports for
the Preliminary Draft Zoning Ordinance and related Draft Zoning Map.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT
PARK DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. Findings. The City Council, in approving the Preliminary Draft Zoning
Ordinance and related Draft Zoning Map, makes the following finding, to wit:
Resolution No. 2003 -96
(Page 2 of 3)
The Preliminary Draft Zoning Ordinance and related Draft Zoning Map is
consistent with the elements of the Rohnert Park General Plan 2000.
Specifically, the Ordinance is consistent with: (1) the Land Use and Growth
Management Element including the General Plan Diagram (Figure 2.2 -1), the
density /intensity standards and classification system, the Land Use Policies LU -1,
LU -2, LU -9, and LU -10, and the overall Growth Management Program; (2) the
Community Design Element Policies CD -19, CD -20, CD -21, CD -23, CD -29, CD-
53, CD -55, and CD -56; (3) the Transportation Element policy TR -43; (4)
Environmental Conservation policies EC -12 and EC -13; (5) the Noise Element
policies NS -1, NS -2, and NS -3; and (6) Housing Element programs 4.2, 5.1 thru
5.7, 5.9, 5.10, 5.12, 15, 1, and 16.1.
2. That a duly noticed public hearing has been held to receive and consider public
testimony regarding the Preliminary Draft Zoning Ordinance, related Draft
Zoning Map, and that the project is within the scope of the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) for the Rohnert Park General Plan 2000 and that the EIR adequately
describes the activity for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Section 3. That said City Council pursuant to Section 15090 of the State CEQA
Guidelines hereby certifies that, as stated in Exhibit "A" (attached hereto and incorporated herein
by this reference), that (a) it has reviewed and considered the information contained in the
pertinent Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) described above prior to reaching a
decision on the update of the Zoning Ordinance; (b) said FEIR has been completed in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended, and the State CEQA
Guidelines; and (c) the FEIR reflects the City Council's independent judgement and analysis.
That said City Council hereby finds, pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public
Resources Code of the State of California and Sections 15091 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, that changes or alterations have been required in, or can be incorporated
into, the update of the Zoning Ordinance which will mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR for the reasons stated in Exhibit
"A;" and that certain significant effects have been or can be reduced to an acceptable
level when specific projects are proposed.
2. That said City Council hereby makes a statement of overriding considerations,
pursuant to Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, in its decision to adopt said
comprehensive update of the Rohnert Park General Plan which allows the potential
occurrence of significant effects identified in the Final EIR; this statement is
presented in Exhibit "A."
3. That said City Council hereby approves and adopts the Mitigation Program as
described in Exhibit "A."
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Rohnert
Park directs that the City Clerk keep on file a copy of said documents and that the
Planning Department maintain a copy of said document for public inspection.
Resolution No. 2003 -96
(Page 3 of 3)
DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED on this 13th day of May 2003 by the City
Council of the City of Rohnert Park.
Attest:
D-�`. City
rk
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
`l' r
MACKENZIE: AYE NORDIN: AYE SPRADLIN: AYE VIDAK- MARTINEZ: AYE FLORES: AYE
AYES: (5) NOES: (0) ABSENT: (0) ABSTAIN: (0)
RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -96
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT "A"
ROHNERT PARK ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS DOCUMENT
1. EIR CERTIFICATION
A. On July 25, 2000, the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park certified the Final
Environmental Impact Report (also referred to as the Program or Final EIR) on
the Rohnert Park General Plan as being in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA Guidelines
and found that it provides the necessary environmental documentation for
governmental decisions pertaining to the proposed General Plan, Housing
Element, and Urban Growth Boundary. On May 13, 2003, the City Council also
found that it provides the necessary environmental documentation for the
adoption of the City's updated Zoning Ordinance, which has been updated to
bring it into conformity with the Rohnert Park General Plan 2000.
B. The Final EIR was prepared for the City of Rohnert Park by Dyett & Bhatia and
consists of two separately bound reports bearing the following titles and dates:
1. Rohnert Park General Plan Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report,
May 2000.
2. Rohnert Park General Plan Response to Comments, Final Environmental
Impact Report, July 2000.
These documents and related files and information are on file in the Rohnert Park
Planning Department, City Hall, 6750 Commerce Blvd., Rohnert Park, California
94928.
C. The City Council of the City of Rohnert Park, pursuant to Section 15090 of the
State CEQA Guidelines, certifies that it has reviewed and considered the
information contained in the Final EIR described above prior to reaching a
decision on the update of the Rohnert Park Zoning Ordinance.
II. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
The City Council of the City of Rohnert Park hereby approves and adopts the update of
the Rohnert Park Zoning Ordinance as a self - monitoring document as described for the
Rohnert Park General Plan in Chapter 7 of the Revised Draft Environmental Impact
Report. All mitigation measures that can be implemented by the City of Rohnert Park
were incorporated into the updated General Plan (the "Project "). The monitoring of the
Rohnert Park General Plan 2000 and the updated Zoning Ordinance will continue to
occur during the review of discretionary actions, public projects, and periodic updates,
i
RESOLUTION NO. 2003 9 6
EXHIBIT A
reviews, and amendments. Implementation of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance,
and hence the monitoring, is the responsibility of the City of Rohnert Park and its
Departments and Divisions.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines specifies that no approval shall be made of
a project for which an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more significant
effects of the project unless certain written findings are made for each of the significant
effects. These findings shall be accompanied by a statement of the facts supporting such
findings.
The City Council of the City of Rohnert Park in approving the update of the Zoning
Ordinance, and in adopting the findings outlined below, recognizes that the CEQA
review at the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance stage is meant to focus on the potential
environmental consequences of the broad policy decisions, not to specify the mitigation
measures for every project which will follow or to rule out any environmental impact
from future projects. No matter what broad policies and/or regulations are adopted in the
General Plan or Zoning Ordinance, it is foreseeable that some individual projects will be
proposed which involve some environmental impact, which cannot be mitigated. CEQA
does not require that the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance prohibit all future
development in the City that has any significant impact.
Specific development projects that have a potential significant impact would be subject to
separate CEQA review, including consideration of project - specific mitigation measures
and the requirement of a statement of overriding considerations if impacts cannot be
mitigated to a level of insignificance. The update of the Rohnert Park Zoning Ordinance
includes regulations for the reduction of impacts appropriate to a Zoning Ordinance.
Further, the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park recognizes that the zoning
ordinance, capital improvement program, specific plans, and redevelopment plans are
implementation tools that must be consistent with the General Plan.
Outlined below under each of the three required findings are statements the City Council
makes as their written findings in its decision to approve the update of the Rohnert Park
Zoning Ordinance. The areas of potential significant impact identified in the Final EIR
for the General Plan and, subsequently, for this Zoning Ordinance update are land use,
community character, transportation, air quality, noise, geology and seismicity, biological
resources, hydrology, flooding and water quality, agricultural resources, water resources,
wastewater, solid waste and hazardous materials, public safety and emergency
preparedness, schools, parks and community facilities, cultural resources, and telephone,
cable, and energy.. Some of these significant or potentially significant effects can be
significantly reduced by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures and/or policies.
Others cannot be avoided by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures, and they are
outweighed by overriding considerations discussed in Section IV below.
2
RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -9 6
EXHIBIT A
This section presents in greater detail the City's findings with respect to the
environmental effects of the project. It also summarizes the evidence relied upon by the
City in making these findings. This evidence is drawn from the Final EIR, other
evidence presented to the City, including but not limited to the testimony and exhibits
presented to the City Council at the May 13, 2003 hearing on this matter, and all other
information in the administrative record.
Environmental Finding 1.
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the
Final EIR.
Statement. The Summary Table of Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Table 1.2 -1)
from the Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report, July 2000, is
incorporated herein by this reference. The Table outlines the environmental impacts
identified in the Final EIR, the significance of the impact before mitigation, mitigation
measures, and the significance after mitigation. The significant or potentially significant
impacts are listed below by impact number and a short description (Beneficial impacts do
not require any findings and have not been listed below). A Finding relative to each
impact is provided.
A. LAND USE
Impact 4.1a.- Reduction in Open Space:
Finding: The update of the Zoning Ordinance, which applies only to lands within the
City limits, does not apply to these areas which are currently outside the City limits. New
development within these areas will be regulated by specific plans, which will be subject
to subsequent environmental review.
Impact 4.1 -b- Development within the Community Separator;
4.1- c- Incompatibility of Adjacent Uses;
4.1- e- Jobs/Housing Imbalance;
4.1- f- Conflicts with Sonoma County General Plan; and
4.1- g- Displacement of Businesses by Redevelopment of the Southwest Shopping
Center.
Finding: As outlined in the Summary Table, these impacts were mitigated to a less than
significant impact by the adoption of policies in the Rohnert Park General Plan 2000. The
adoption of the update of the Rohnert Park Zoning Ordinance does not change this
finding.
3
RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -96
EXHIBIT A
B. COMMUNITY CHARACTER
Impact 4.2 -c -View Blockage from Points along the Western Edge of Rohnert Park;
4.2 -d- Alteration of the Visual Character of the Urban Edge; and
4.2 -e- Increase in Housing Density in New Developments Incongruous with Existing
Areas.
Finding: The update of the Zoning Ordinance, which applies only lands within the City
limits, does not apply to these areas, which are currently outside the City limits. New
development within these areas will be regulated by specific plans, which will be subject
to subsequent environmental review.
C. TRANSPORTATION
Impact 4.3- a- Exceedance of Maximum Level of Service Standards on 14 Roadway
Segments.
Finding: In addition to the policies outlined in the Summary Table for this impact, the
following mitigation measures were included in the General Plan:
1. Add 2 lanes to Stony Point, north of Milbrae.
2. Improve Millbrae and Wilfred Avenues to Stony Point Drive.
3. Policy addition: "Monitor the roadway system to identify roadway segments
that fall below established LOS standards and identify and implement the
necessary roadway improvements that result in improved traffic flow."
The impact from development that will occur under the updated Zoning Ordinance will
contribute to the potential impact at the 11 locations and this impact remains significant
after mitigation. The above policies and mitigation measures reduce, but not avoid, this
impact. No additional mitigation is available to further lessen this impact. Accordingly,
this impact remains significant and unavoidable (see Section IV, Statement of Overriding
Considerations, below).
Impact 4.3- b- Exceedance of Maximum Level of Service Standards for 10
Intersections.
Finding: In addition to the policies outlined in the Summary Table for this impact, the
following mitigation measures were included in the General Plan:
1. Modify Policy TR -11 to incorporate additional improvements listed in Table
4.3 -6.
2. Modify Policy TR -1 to allow LOS D for intersections near US 101.
The impact from development that will occur under the updated Zoning Ordinance will
contribute to the potential impact at 4 locations and the impact remain significant after
mitigation. The above policies and mitigation measures will reduce, but not avoid, this
impact. No additional mitigation is available to further lessen this impact. Accordingly,
4
RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 9 6
EXHIBIT A
this impact remains significant and unavoidable (see Section IV, Statement of Overriding
Considerations, below).
Impact 4.3 -c- Increased Need for Transit;
4.3 -d- Increased Demand for Additional Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation; and
4.3 -e- Increased Traffic Congestion at the Vicinity of the School Site;
Finding: In addition to the policies outlined in the Summary Table for this impact, the
following mitigation measures were included in the General Plan:
1. Adjust signal timing at the Synder Lane intersections with Rohnert Park
Expressway, Southwest Boulevard, East Cotati Avenue, and at Creekside
Middle School to accommodate traffic flow during school peak traffic periods
2. Identify traffic congestion problems that occur during pick -up and drop -off
periods for each school site in Rohnert Park, and implement appropriate
measures to improve traffic circulation.
In addition, bicycle parking standards and requirements for pedestrian connections
between parcels have been included in the update of the Zoning Ordinance. As mitigated
by the policies outlined in the Summary Table for each impact and the above listed
mitigation measures, the project's impact in these areas will be less than significant.
D. AIR QUALITY
Impact 4.4 -a: General Plan Inconsistent with the 1997 Clean Air Plan; and
4.4- b- Potential Increase in Carbon Monoxide, Ozone Precursors and Particulate
Matter.
Finding: The project's potential impact on air quality remains significant after mitigation.
The outline in the Summary Table will reduce, but not avoid, this impact. In addition,
standards regarding odor, particulate matter, and air containments have been included in
the update of the Zoning Ordinance. No additional mitigation is available to further
lessen this impact. Accordingly, this impact remains significant and unavoidable. (see
Section IV, Statement of Overriding Considerations, below).
Impact 4.4 -c: Construction of New Development Could Generate Dust.
Finding: As mitigated by the policy outlined in the Summary Table for this impact and
the odor, particulate matter and air containment standard included in the update of the
Zoning Ordinance, the project's impact in these areas will be less than significant.
E. NOISE
Impact 4.5 -a: Increases in Traffic will result in Increased Noise Levels for Noise
Sensitive Receptors;
RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 9 6
EXHIBIT A
4.5 -b: New Roads will result in Noise Levels in Excess of 60 dB Ldn;
4.5 -c: Development of Noise Sensitive Uses within Areas Subject to 60 dB Ldn from
Roads and Railroads; and
4.5 -d: Potential Exposure of Noise Sensitive Uses to Construction - Related Noise.
Finding: As mitigated by the policies outlined in the Summary Table for these impacts
and by the noise standards included in the updated of the Zoning Ordinance, the project's
impact in these areas will be less than significant.
F. GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY
Impact 4.6 -a: New Development may be subject to Ground Shaking and
Liquefaction; and
4.6 -b: New Development may be subject to Effects of Expansive Soils.
Finding: As mitigated by the policies outlined in the Summary Table for these impacts,
the project's impact in these areas will be less than significant.
G. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact 4.7 -a- Potential Elimination or Disruption of Special Status Species and
Habitats;
4.7- b- Potential Elimination or Degradation of Areas with Potential to Support
Wetlands andWildlife;
4.7- c- Potential Introduction and Spread of Non - native Invasive Plan Species; and
4.7 -d- Potential Reduction or Degradation of Common Habitats and Common
Wildlife Species.
Finding: As mitigated by the policies outlined in the Summary Table for these impacts,
the project's impact in these areas will be less than significant. In addition, creek
protection standards have been included in the updated of the Zoning Ordinance.
H. HYDROLOGY, FLOODING, AND WATER QUALITY
Impact 4.8 -a- Potential Increase in Nonpoint- Source Pollutant Levels;
4.8 -b- Potential Interference with Groundwater Recharge;
4.8 -c- Increases in Stormwater Runoff could Increase Flooding Potential;
4.8 -d -New Development could be subject to 100 -year Floods; and
4.8 -e -New Development could Induce Construction- Related Erosion and
Sedimentation.
Finding: As mitigated by the policies outlined in the Summary Table for these impacts,
the project's impact in these areas will be less than significant.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 9 6
EXHIBIT A
I. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact 4.9 -a- Potential Land Use Incompatibilities with Adjacent Uses; and
4: 9 -b- Potential Removal of Existing Agricultural and Rural Residential Uses
Outside Existing Sphere of Influence.
Finding: As mitigated by the policies outlined in the Summary Table for these impacts,
the project's impact in these areas will be less than significant.
J. WATER RESOURCES
Impact 4.10 -a- Increased Demand for Water Increasing Pumping from
Groundwater Aquifer.
Finding: In addition to the policies outlined in the Summary Table for this impact, the
following mitigation measures are included in the General Plan:
1. Commit to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) of water
conservation. Such measures include:
• Requiring meters for all new connections and billing by volume.
• Establishing a program for retrofitting existing un- metered connections
and billing by volume.
• Identifying intra- and inter - agency disincentives or barriers to retrofitting
mixed -use commercial accounts with dedicated landscape meters: and
• Conducting a feasibility study to assess the merits of a program to provide
incentives to switch mixed -use accounts to dedicated landscape meters.
2. Implement applicable large landscape conservation programs and incentives,
as identified in the proposed MOU Regarding Water Transmission System
Capacity Allocation During Temporary Impairment (4/24/00).
3. Adopt a water conservation rate schedule that: increases as the quantity of
water used increases (i.e., a tiered rate schedule): and/or provides seasonal rate
or excess -use surcharges to reduce peak demands during summer months.
As mitigated by the policies outlined in the Summary Table for each impact and the
above listed mitigation measures, the project's impact in this area will be less than
significant.
K. WASTEWATER
Impact 4.11 -a- Increased Generation of Wastewater Flows Exceeding City's
Capacity Allocation.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 96
EXHIBIT A
Finding: As mitigated by the policies outlined in the Summary Table for these impacts,
the project's impact in these areas will be less than significant.
L. SOLID WASTE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact 4.12 -a- Generation of Additional Amounts of Solid Waste; and
4.12 -b- Potential Increase in Exposure to Hazardous Waste.
Finding: As mitigated by the policies outlined in the Summary Table for these impacts,
the project's impact in these areas will be less than significant.
M. PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Impact 4.13 -a- Requirements for Police and Fire Protection that Exceed Availability;
4.13 -b -New Development Exposed to Risk of Wildland Fire Hazards; and
4.13 -c- Requirements for Emergency Preparedness that Exceeds Current
Capabilities.
Finding: As mitigated by the policies outlined in the Summary Table for these impacts,
the project's impact in these areas will be less than significant.
N. SCHOOLS
Impact 4.14 -a- Generation of Additional High School Student Enrollment Beyond
Current Capacity; and
4.14 -b- Generation of Additional Student Enrollment that May Impact other School
Districts.
Finding: In addition to the policies outlined in the Summary Table for this impact, the
following mitigation measure are included in the General Plan:
1. Work with the Bellevue Union School District (BUSD) and the Santa
Rosa High School District (SRHSD) to provide adequate school sites and
facilities.
As mitigated by the policies outlined in the Summary Table for each impact and the
above listed mitigation measure, the project's impact in these areas will be less than
significant.
O. PARKS AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Impact 4.15 -b- Reduced Visual and Physical Access to Surrounding Open Space.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 96
EXHIBIT A
Finding: As mitigated by the policies outlined in the Summary Table for these impacts,
the project's impact in these areas will be less than significant.
P. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact 4.16 -a- Potential Impacts on Identified Historic or Cultural Resources; and
4.16 -b- Potential Impacts on Unidentified Cultural Resources.
Finding: In addition to the policies outlined in the Summary Table for this impact, the
following mitigation measures are included in the General Plan:
1. Require construction activities and development adjacent to sites of
historic or archaeological resources to avoid degradation by:
• Studying the potential effects of development and construction on
the resources; and 1
• Implementing appropriate measures to avoid the identified
impacts.
2. Require setbacks and buffers for development adjacent to sites with
historic and archaeological resources, as needed, in order to limit
impacts to the site.
3. Require pre - construction surveys and monitoring during any ground
disturbance for all development in areas of historical and
archaeological sensitivity.
As mitigated by the policies outlined in the Summary Table for each impact and the
above listed mitigation measures, the project's impact in these areas will be less than
significant.
Q. TELEPHONE, CABLE AND ENERGY
Impact 4.17 -a- Potential Exceedance of Utility Service Capabilities.
Finding: As mitigated by the policies outlined in the Summary Table for these impacts,
the project's impact in these areas will be less than significant.
In summary as stated in Chapter 5 of the Draft EIR (May 2000) and as indicated in the
Summary Table (Exhibit A -1), all but three potential adverse impacts (i.e., open space,
transportation and air quality impacts) would be subject to the policies, standards, and/or
mitigation measures that would minimize or eliminate the impacts associated with
development in accordance with the Rohnert Park General Plan 2000 and the update of
the Zoning Ordinance. Many of the General Plan's policies and the Zoning Ordinance
standards are specifically designed to avoid or minimize impacts, thereby self - mitigating
most of the potentially significant impacts.
Z
RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 96
EXHIBIT A
The City is surrounded by open space, agricultural,' and rural residential uses, and the
growth pressures are strong. The Rohnert Park General Plan 2000 and the City's Growth
Management Program regulate the amount and timing of annual residential development,
requires concurrent construction and availability of public facilities, and requirements
that new development be contiguous with existing areas of development. These
provisions together with the policies identified in the Community Design, Transportation,
Open Space, Parks and Public Facilities, Environmental Conservation, Health and Safety,
and Noise Elements of the General Plan serve to avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR relative to land use,
community character, noise, geology and seismicity, biological resources, hydrology,
flooding and water quality, agricultural resources, water resources, wastewater, solid
waste and hazardous materials, public safety and emergency preparedness, schools, parks
and community facilities, cultural resources, and telephone, cable, and energy. The
cumulative impacts on the loss of open space, transportation, and air quality cannot be
mitigated to a level of insignificance (see Section IV, Statement of Overriding
Considerations, below).
Environmental Finding 2.
Such changes or alterations are, within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted
by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
Statement. The Final EIR prepared- for the updated Rohnert Park General Plan is a
Program EIR which provides the necessary environmental documentation for the update
of the Zoning Ordinance. The only mitigation measures in the Program EIR that are
within the jurisdiction of another agency are measures that require roadway
improvements outside the City's jurisdiction (e.g., Add two lanes to Stony Point, north of
Milbrae and Improve Millbrae and Wilfred Avenues to Stony Point Drive). Policy TR -2
states "Require mitigation measures, as needed for new development that increases traffic
such that LOS levels fall below the established minimum standard. Ensure that
mitigation measures are coordinated with roadway improvements programmed for
funding through transportation- related impact fees." The explanatory statement for this
policy makes it clear that the developer will be responsible for project related
improvements both within and outside the city limits. Hence, the responsibility for the
improvements will be that of the developer and the measures will require the developer to
work with other jurisdictions /agencies to implement improvements; however, the
measures do not specifically require another agency to adopt the measures.
In addition, the policies of the General Plan identify a number of areas where other
jurisdictions will have some responsibility or jurisdiction. It includes policies that are to
be implemented as development occurs under the guidelines and regulatory mechanisms
of the General Plan. Examples of policies that involve other agencies include GM -17
thru GM -23, TR -14 thru TR -21B, TR -26 thru TR -30, TR -32 thru TR -33, TR -35 and TR-
36, OS -1, PF -1 thru PF -6, PF -7 and PF -8, PF -12 and PF -18, EC -4, EC -15, EC -22, HS-
3A, HS -11, HS -18, NS -5, and NS -8.
10
RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 9 6
EXHIBIT A
Of particular importance are Policies TR -21A and 21B which establish a framework for
addressing the regional traffic congestion problems surrounding the City of Rohnert Park.
With or without adoption of the Draft General Plan, long -term solutions to traffic
congestion on Petaluma Hill Road and East Cotati Avenue (within the City of Cotati)
require a cooperative, regional approach for Petaluma Hill Road by Sonoma County, the
Penngrove area, Sonoma State University, and the cities of Cotati, Petaluma, Santa Rosa,
and Rohnert Park, and for East Cotati Avenue by Sonoma State University and the cities
of Cotati and Rohnert Park. Policies TR21A and 2 1 B commit the City of Rohnert Park to
being a responsible participant in formulating measures to minimize traffic congestion on
Petaluma Hill Road and East Cotati Avenue (within the City of Cotati), and to payment
or other contribution to its fair share of the ultimate solution.
In development of the General Plan, the City of Rohnert Park initiated a working group
of the affected jurisdictions to identify potential improvements to mitigate the regional
traffic impacts. The City of Rohnert Park encourages the cities of Cotati, Petaluma, and
Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, and SSU to adopt policies demonstrating their commitment
to participating in long -term solutions to these problems. Such cooperation, and adoption
of these policies, can and should be adopted by each of these affected jurisdictions.
As noted, many of the policies within the General Plan encourage cooperation with other
agencies to resolve cumulative impacts in the areas of transportation, open space,
schools, water, wastewater, wildlife habitat, drainage, solid waste, hazardous materials,
and noise. Until development occurs, however, it is not known when or precisely in what
manner other public agencies will have responsibility or jurisdiction relative to changes
or alterations.
Environmental Finding 3.
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
Statement. MITIGATION MEASURES. Only one of the mitigation measures
identified in the Draft EIR is considered to be infeasible and that is the proposed
mitigation measure in Table 4.3 -6 that recommends adding an additional left turn lane to
the intersection of East Cotati Avenue and Snyder Lane. This mitigation measure is
infeasible due to existing developments at the intersection. None of the other mitigation
measures identified in the Final EIR are considered to be infeasible.
ALTERNATIVES.
The update of the Zoning Ordinance does not affect the following statements that were
approved as part of the approval of the Rohnert Park General Plan 2000.
Alternatives Considered: 1997 -1998. These eight alternatives, described on pages 6 -1
through 6 -4 of the Revised Draft EIR, were considered in light of information that
11
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-9 6
EXHIBIT A
emerged from the General Plan Summit of October 1997 and community concerns
expressed at that time. The City concluded that these alternatives did not meet the
community's needs for protection of the community separator north of the City and did
not address key issues of community character, consumption of open space and prime
farmland, housing needs, and economic development.
No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative represents the case where the
proposed General Plan is not adopted or implemented. In absence of the proposed
"project," the 1995 General Plan would continue to guide the City's development and
sites within the City limits would be developed in accordance with that 1995 Plan. The
No Project Alternative is identified in the Final EIR as the environmentally superior
alternative, because it would avoid most of the adverse impacts created by the proposed
project.
The No Project Alternative would mak6 it infeasible for the �City to meet its regional
housing need goals for very -low, low, and moderate income housing as established by the
Association of Bay Area Governments and adopted by the State Department of Housing
and Community Development. As of June 1, 2000, the preliminary allocation for
Rohnert Park's Regional Housing Needs, 1999 -2006, as established by ABAG is 401
units for very -low, 270 units for low, 597 units for moderate, and 856 for above -
moderate, for a total of 2,124 unit. Under the No Project Alternative no new sites for
housing development would be provided. Furthermore, by eliminating opportunities for
the construction of additional housing, housing costs within the City would likely
increase further limiting the availability of affordable housing.
The No Project Alternative also would not provide a mechanism for the establishment of
permanent open space as provided for by the proposed General Plan Policies OS -4, OS-
4A, OS -413, OS -4C, and OS -4D. Nor , would the No Project Alternative provide a
mechanism or program for addressing the existing regional traffic problems along
Petaluma Hill Road and East Cotati Avenue. (See discussions of open space and traffic in
the Section IV, Statement of Overriding Considerations, below.)
Existing General Plan and Canon Manor Alternative. This alternative is identical to the
No Project Alternative, plus full buildout of Canon Manor. It is considered the next
environmentally superior alternative since it would avoid most of the adverse impacts
created by the proposed project except those that would occur in and around Canon
Manor. Canon Manor, however, is already partially developed so the project increase in
housing units at 2.0 unit per acre would be only 514 units. This alternative would also
make it infeasible for the City to meet its regional housing need goals.
This alternative also would not provide a mechanism for the establishment of permanent
open space as provided for by the proposed General Plan Policies OS -4, OS -4A, OS -413,
OS -4C, and OS -4D. Nor, would it provide a mechanism or program for addressing the
existing regional traffic problems along Petaluma Hill Road and East Cotati Avenue. (See
discussions of open space and traffic in the Section IV, Statement of Overriding
Considerations, below.)
12
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-9 6
EXHIBIT A
Reduced Growth Alternative. This alternative resembles the proposed General Plan but
calls for less overall development on the east and west sides, as well as reduced
population growth (47,400 for the Reduced Growth Alternative vs. 50,400 for the
Proposed Project) and job growth (30,500 vs. 31,600). As would be expected, the
Reduced Growth Alternative would have fewer impacts than the proposed project. It
would, however, still not come close to providing enough developable land for the City to
meet its regional housing need goals.Also, the job/housing ratio would be greater than the
Proposed Project (1:21 vs. 1:24) further exacerbating the need for housing.
In summary, there are not sufficient vacant sites identified in the alternatives to meet the
projected need for very -low, low, and moderate income housing. Further, due to these
housing shortages, housing costs would likely increase within the City making housing
even less affordable than it is today. In addition; the No Project and the Existing General
Plan Plus Canon Manor Alternatives would limit the potential growth of employment
opportunities for highly trained workers; and, the projected job/housing ratio for each of
the three alternatives would be higher than the proposed Plan. Hence, all three of the
alternatives, the No Project, the Existing General Plan Plus Canon Manor, and the
Reduced Growth Alternative, are considered by the City Council as infeasible. Refer to
Section IV, Statement of Overriding Considerations.
IV. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines specifies that where the decision of the
public agency allows the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the
Final EIR but are not at least substantially mitigated, the agency shall state in writing the
specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in
the record. The Final EIR identifies three areas of significant unavoidable environmental
impacts that would occur with the proposed Plan, and subsequently with the
implementation of the Zoning Ordinance: open space, transportation, and air quality.
Buildout of the General Plan would result in: (1) the conversion of approximately 1,055
acres of open space to developed area, (2) worsening levels of service for several
roadway segments (Commerce Blvd, from the US 101 onramps to State Farm Drive,
Petulama Hill Road, Old Redwood Highway, and East Cotati Avenue) and intersections
within the City and Planning Area (Old Redwood Highway /Adobe Road and Adobe
Road/Petaluma Hill Road), and (3) additional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) contributing
to the relative degradation of the air quality in the immediate Rohnert Park area. The
General Plan may also result in significant irreversible environmental changes, in
addition to reductions in open space and degradation of air quality; these changes include
commitment of additional water resources and energy sources to serve new residents.
The General Plan may also result in significant irreversible changes during the course of
constructing development allowed by the Plan, and as implemented with the Zoning
Ordinance, including the consumption of building materials and energy.
13
RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 9 6
EXHIBIT A
In relation to Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council of the City
of Rohnert Park hereby makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations in
its decision to adopt the update of the Zoning Ordinance which implements the Rohnert
Park General Plan 2000 and allows the occurrence of potentially significant impacts.
In making their decision, the City Council finds it necessary to balance both
environmental and economic considerations; more specifically they found:
(1) The General Plan policies reduce the impact on open space by: (1) requiring the
permanent preservation of about 180 acres of open space land outside the City in
exchange for the conversion of community separator lands to urban uses (i.e., the
proposed General Plan's policies establish a requirement that permanent open
space be provided in exchange for the development of lands within the
community separator; it also identifies those lands, by priority that are
geographically suited for community separator mitigation (see policies OS -4, OS-
4A, OS -4B, OS -4C and OS -4D); (2) establishment of an open space buffer along
portions of Petaluma Hill Road and Railroad Avenue; (3) establishment of
additional park space along the City's eastern edge; and (4) open space buffers
along the City's creeks.
(2) The General Plan establishes level of service standards for roadways within the
City's limit and the framework for the cooperation of jurisdictions which are
currently impacted by the overall cumulative regional traffic impacts. With or
without adoption of the Draft General Plan, long -term solutions to traffic
congestion on Petaluma Hill Road and East Cotati Avenue (within the City of
Cotati) require a cooperative, regional approach for Petaluma Hill Road by
Sonoma County, the Penngrove area, Sonoma State University, and the cities of
Cotati, Petaluma, Santa Rosa, and Rohnert Park, and for East Cotati Avenue by
Sonoma State University and the cities of Cotati and Rohnert Park. Policies
TR21A and 21B commit the City of - Rohnert Park to being a responsible
participant in formulating measures to minimize traffic congestion on Petaluma
Hill Road and East Cotati Avenue (within the City of Cotati), and to payment or
other contribution to its fair share of the ultimate solution. In development of the
General Plan, the City of Rohnert Park initiated a working group of the affected
jurisdictions to identify potential improvements to mitigate the regional traffic
impacts. The City of Rohnert Park encourages the cities of Cotati, Petaluma, and
Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, and SSU to adopt policies demonstrating their
commitment to participating in long -term solutions to these problems.
(3) Expansion of the current city limit and sphere -of- influence boundaries is
necessary in order to provide for growth of the current population, housing for the
projected job growth, and affordable housing for all income levels. The
jobs/housing balance under the proposed Plan would be 1.21 at buildout
compared to 1.23 for the Existing General Plan Plus Canon Manor to 1.27 for the
No Project alternative. To not adopt the proposed Plan would be to allow for a
14
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-96
EXHIBIT A
greater imbalance in the jobs/housing ratio resulting in further redistribution of
the regional housing needs and indirectly impacting surrounding jurisdictions and
counties (which would have to provide additional housing to meet the need)
and/or overcrowding within the existing housing market.
The City is also obligated by the State to provide for its share of the Regional
Housing Need. The need could not be met at all under either the No Project or
Existing General Plan Plus Canon Manor. The General Plan goes the furthest
toward addressing the housing needs and the jobs/housing balance than any of the
three alternatives. In addition, the update of the Zoning Ordinance includes
inclusionary housing provisions consistent with the Housing Element.
The pressure to allow more development is clearly evident based on the escalating
cost of housing over the last quarter and the past interest in Sonoma County from
high -tech businesses. The Rohnert Park General Plan 2000, and the
implementing update of the Zoning Ordinance, provides for orderly, planned
development that can be managed over the twenty -year period of the Plan to
minimize overall impacts.
(4) The Land Use and Growth Management Element establishes goals and policies to
guide the phasing and pace of development including a method to help ensure a
predictable growth rate, provisions for ensuring adequate public facilities (i.e.,
streets, water, wastewater, solid waste, and parks), and programs to ensure a
balance of land uses within future specific plan areas.
(5) The Housing, Community Design, Environmental Conservation, Health and
Safety, and Noise Elements provide an updated set of policies directed toward the
preservation of the environment and the quality of life in the City of Rohnert
Park, and addressing the issues faced today by the City and anticipated in the
future. For example, these elements address the current and projected concerns
relating to water, solid waste disposal, wastewater,.. noise, emergency
management, and the handling of hazardous waste.
All of the adopted goals, policies, standards and implementation programs of the General
Plan and updated Zoning Ordinance reflect years of accumulated public input and
community consensus building compiled into a comprehensively updated General Plan
and Zoning Ordinance that are user friendly, addresses current issues, consistent with
State Planning Law, and responds to the projected changes in the community and the
region in the next 20 years.
The City Council finds that the Rohnert Park General Plan 2000 and the update of the
Zoning Ordinance attempt to guide and manage growth in a way that is more beneficial
than the existing 1995 General Plan or the alternatives. The City Council further finds
that these benefits outweigh the potential significant impacts, even if the impacts may be
greater in some areas.
15