1990/05/08 City Council ResolutionRESOLUTION NO. 90 -100
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK ACCEPTING THE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE ROHNERT PARK PLANNING COMMISSION TO CERTIFY
THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF ROHNERT
PARK GENERAL PLAN AS THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR
THE ROHNERT PARK GENERAL PLAN, MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS,
CERTIFYING THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AS THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ROHNERT PARK GENERAL PLAN AND
DIRECTING THE ROHNERT PARK CITY MANAGER TO FILE A NOTICE OF
DETERMINATION WITH THE SONOMA COUNTY CLERK.
WHEREAS the Sierra Club and Harvey Bell have filed two (2)
actions against the City of Rohnert Park wherein the adequacy of
the Rohnert Park General Plan was challenged, and;
WHEREAS, on or about September 8, 1989, the Superior Court
granted a Preliminary Injunction restricting the issuance of
permits or approvals in the northwest Rohnert Park area in Sonoma
County Superior Court Civil Action No. 175957 entitled Sierra
Club and Harvey Bell, Petitioners vs. Nansay Corporation, et al.
hereinafter referred to as "THE FIRST ACTION," and;
WHEREAS on or about September 28, 1989 the adequacy of the
former Rohnert Park General Plan was challenged by the Sierra
Club and Harvey Bell in Civil Action No. 176934, entitled Sierra
Club and Harvey Bell vs. Price Company, et al. hereinafter
referred to as "THE SECOND ACTION, and;
WHEREAS THE FIRST ACTION AND THE SECOND ACTION were set for
hearing on the merits on the same date which was November 1,
1989, and;
WHEREAS the Court issued an Order Granting Preliminary
Injunction in THE SECOND ACTION on November 14, 1989 which
enjoined and restrained the defendants "....from engaging in or
performing, directly or indirectly, any act physically disturbing
the 27.5 acres known as The Price Club Project, except for
roadwork on Rohnert Park Expressway." and;
1
WHEREAS the Court further found that the Rohnert Park
General Plan did not appear to comply with state law, and;
WHEREAS, on February 8, 1990, the Court issued an Order
Granting Petition for Writ of Mandamus in THE ACTIONS, and;
WHEREAS, the Order found the environmental impact reports
prepared for the projects challenged in THE ACTIONS to be
inadequate and the Rohnert Park General Plan lacking in
compliance with state law, and;
WHEREAS, on or about April 2, 1990, Judgment was entered in
THE ACTIONS, nunc pro tunc, as of February 8, 1990, and;
WHEREAS the City did commence efforts to revise and update
its General Plan as of September, 1989, and;
WHEREAS Government Code Section 65754 (b) requires a city to
bring its General Plan into compliance with Government Code
Section 65300 within 120 days of the date of final judgment
determining the General Plan to be inadequate, and;
WHEREAS the City of Rohnert Park has been gathering
information, conducting surveys, soliciting opinions and
responses from the public and holding public meetings in an
effort to secure public participation and opinion, and;
WHEREAS the Rohnert Park Planning Commission held a public
hearing on the proposed draft Environmental Impact Report on May
3, 1990, and;
WHEREAS the Rohnert Park Planning Commission did adopt
Resolution No. 90 -05, a copy of which is attached to this
Resolution and is incorporated herein by this reference, and
WHEREAS the City Council adopts the findings, mitigation
measures and recommendations for monitoring and reporting set
forth in Resolution No. 90 -05 and, in addition thereto makes the
following findings and determinations.
A
The Project
1. The Project is the Rohnert Park General Plan. The draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated March 1990 has been
2
prepared for the project by Earth Metrics, Incorporated, San
Mateo, California.
2. In accordance with Public Resources Code §21002.1 the
draft EIR does identify the significant effects of the project.
Those items discussed include land use, traffic and
transportation, population and housing, hydrology., biology,
design and aesthetics, public services and utilities, noise, air
quality, cultural resources and geology and are set forth under
Section 3 of the draft EIR.
3. The project is the General Plan for the City of Rohnert
Park and not the development that will occur under the General
Plan. Because the actual development will occur at a later date
neither the draft EIR nor the final EIR requires the degree of
specificity of an EIR for a development project.
Since development projects with significant environmental
impacts will require additional environmental analysis and since
a General Plan is subject to amendment and revision which can
result in development different than that shown on the General
Plan, the law does not require the degree of specificity for a
General Plan that might occur in a specific development plan.
4. The City of Rohnert Park did give notice that it was
preparing an EIR on October 27, 1989. Notice was given by
posting the notice, by mailing the notice to all agencies and
individuals to which notice is required to be given by law or who
had requested notice.
5. The period for public review of the draft EIR commenced
on November 17, 1989 and ended on March 20, 1990
6. In addition to the foregoing notice the City held a
series of public meetings before the Planning Commission and the
City Council plus two (2) general public "Town Hall" type
meetings at which the public was invited to attend.
7. The results of a survey conducted by the City of Rohnert
Park in October and November, 1989 has also been considered in
preparing and formulating the General Plan and the draft EIR.
3
8. The comments of the public have been considered and, as
applicable, have been integrated into and made a part of the
draft EIR or responded to by the preparer of the EIR.
9. As to those comments received within the review period
the preparer of the EIR has responded in writing. As to those
comments made orally at the Planning Commission or the City
Council hearing conducted May 8, 1990 the preparer has made an
oral response.
10. The City Council did conduct a noticed public hearing
on May 8, 1990 at which public comments were received on the
draft EIR.
1
FINDINGS AS TO SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
As previously indicated in this Resolution the draft EIR has
identified a number of significant effects upon the environment
which will result from the project. With regard to the
significant effects the City adopts the specific mitigation
measures set forth in the draft EIR, the comments either written
or oral, made by city staff or the preparer of the EIR and those
mitigation measures mentioned in Planning Commission Resolution
No. 90 -05 which has been incorporated herein by this reference.
The City Council also makes these specific findings:
1. Land use projects resulting from development of property
subject to the General Plan will require additional environmental
review at the time a specific development proposal is made.
2. The Goals, Objectives, Principles and Proposals set
forth in each element of the General Plan should be implemented
as applicable to mitigate the impacts of a proposed development
project.
3. Appendix D of the Draft EIR contains a list of General
Plan Goals, Objectives, Principles, Policies, Standards,
Proposals, Implementation Measures and Actions to be used as
guidelines in implementing the various General Plan elements.
These criteria shall be used by the city in mitigating and
4
lessening the impact of the development and growth on the various
General Plan elements.
4. Traffic and circulation problems will be addressed by
implementing the traffic - control measures mentioned in the draft
EIR and by improving access routes and encouraging alternate
forms of transportation whenever possible that will lessen
traffic impacts.
5. The city is mandated to provide a certain number of
housing units, including low and moderate housing.
In order to meet that goal, it will be necessary to make the
most efficient use of land by accepting high- density developments
where possible, by approving single - family residential projects
that make efficient use of land and available utilities.
6. Water and waste water disposal are areas that will
require close cooperation with the Sonoma County Water Agency and
the utilization of Sonoma County Aqueduct water wherever
possible. Waste conservation will have to be stressed. As to
waste water disposal, the City is a user of the Llano wastewater
treatment plant. Those facilities are presently being improved
and enlarged to accept larger volumes of wastewater. Not only
will the city seek its share of the increased capacity, but it
will also encourage and participate in programs to utilize the
effluent in the city so as to aid in the disposal of the water
and lessen the demand on the drinking water supply for
irrigation.
7. Noise and air quality will be addressed, in part, by
attempting to limit or control the emitters.
Measuring devices to meter noise levels and air quality are
available to assist in meeting the levels recommended by law and
in the draft EIR.
8. Open space can be protected by preserving and protecting
existing corridors of US Highway 101 and the Rohnert Park
Expressway. Proposals have been made for open space at or near
city boundaries which include reserving open space in annexations
5
or working with other public agencies to protect and preserve
open space.
Open space and some visual opportunity in the downtown area
of Rohnert Park will help preserve and identify that sector of
the city. Protective planting along creek beds and innovative
use of setback areas will assist in the preservation of corridors
of open space.
9. The City Council finds that the General Plan must
respond to economic, social, and other considerations so that the
effects of the project cannot be fully mitigated. Project
alternatives cannot be utilized for the reasons below and for the
reasons in Section D of this Resolution. Specifically:
a. The General Plan requires that the city provide for the
seven (7) elements of the Plan. Open space cannot be preserved
when it is necessary to provide for housing, roads and
transportation facilities.
b. In order to provide water for its residents, the city
must develop some of its ground water resources.
C. While noise levels as required by law must be observed
there are certain tolerances that must be allowed and observed in
order for a modern city to function. The city must continue to
insure the movement traffic and encourage commerce and industry.
d. It is the responsibility of the city to assist in the
disposal of its wastewater. In order to dispose to the volume of
wastewater produced, the city must assist in the acquisition and
development of facilities able to discharge that responsibility
whenever possible or feasible.
10. Whenever possible or feasible, changes or alterations
have been required or incorporated into -the project to assist in
the mitigation of the impacts. The implementation of those
changes will help mitigate the impact of the project.
C
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAMS
The preparer of the draft EIR has made proposals for a
monitoring and reporting program to assist in mitigating and
avoiding significant effects on the environment. That program
has been prepared as comments have been received on the draft EIR
and has been reduced to writing. The City Council adopts the
program for reporting and monitoring as proposed by the preparer
of the draft EIR and incorporates such program into this
Resolution by reference.
D
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The City Council has considered the four (4) alternatives to
the proposed project which is proposed for a ten (10) year time
span. The City has a legal responsibility to prepare a General
Plan. The no- project and no- growth alternatives do not satisfy
the mandate of state law. No growth with an expanded General
Plan completion in two (2) years would not comply with the law
and the city's obligation to promptly prepare a General Plan.
Slow growth does not appear to meet the city's obligations for
housing.
The best alternative to the project (ten (10) year time
span) is a review in five (5) years to determine whether the
General Plan should be revised and updated. Therefore the City
Council adopts the ten (10) year program with the proposed review
in five (5) years as the project to be approved.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Rohnert Park City
Council that the draft EIR with the comments received during the
review process, the comments received during the hearings, both
public hearings and meetings, and with the responses thereto be
certified as the FINAL EIR for the City of Rohnert Park, 1990
which the City Council certifies as having been completed in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
and which has been presented to the City Council.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council has reviewed and
considered the information contained in the FINAL EIR prior to
approving the project and the City Manager is authorized to file
a Notice of Determination together with a copy of this Resolution
in the office of the Sonoma County Clerkâ
7
DULY AND REGULARLY PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE ROHNERT PARK
CITY COUNCIL THIS 8th clay of May, 1990.
AYES: (4) Council Members Cochran, Eck, Hopkins, and Spiro
NOES: (0) CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
ABSENT: (1) Mayor Hollingsworth
ATTEST
Dept
8
r
Mayor Pro- Tempore