Loading...
1991/08/27 City Council ResolutionRESOLUTION NO. 91 -184 A RESOLUTION OF THE ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL CERTIFYING THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE UNIVERSITY CENTER PROJECT AS THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE UNIVERSITY CENTER PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE ROHNERT PARK CITY MANAGER TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION IN THE OFFICE OF THE SONOMA COUNTY CLERK WHEREAS on December 4, 1990, the ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL, authorized the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for a project known as the UNIVERSITY CENTER PROJECT, hereinafter referred as the DEIRUCP; and WHEREAS on May 24, 1991, notice was given and published that the DEIRUCP had been prepared and was available for public comment; and WHEREAS the DEIRUCP was made available for public comment for a period of forty -five (45) days from May 27, 1991, to July 11, 1991; and WHEREAS written public comments were received by the City of Rohnert Park during that time; and WHEREAS the Rohnert Park Planning Commission, hereinafter referred to as the "PLANNING COMMISSION," did notice and hold a public hearing on Thursday, July 11, 1991, to receive comments from the public; and WHEREAS representative from Sonoma State University and a resident of the City of Rohnert Park did appear at the public hearing and did comment on the DEIRUCP; and WHEREAS at the conclusion of the public hearing the PLANNING COMMISSION did continue the matter to its meeting of August 8, 1991, to receive and consider the comments of the preparer of the DEIRUCP, and WHEREAS at its meeting of August 8, 1991, the PLANNING COMMISSION did approve the DEIRUCP and did recommend that the CITY COUNCIL certify the DEIRUCP as the FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT UNIVERSITY CENTER PROJECT, hereinafter referred to as the FEIRUCP, and did adopt Resolution No. 91 -12 recommending that the CITY COUNCIL certify the DEIRUCP as the FEIRUCP and that the City Manager be authorized and directed to file a notice of determination in the Office of the Sonoma County Clerk; and WHEREAS the Rohnert Park CITY COUNCIL did notice a public hearing for August 13, 1991; and WHEREAS the CITY COUNCIL does hereby make the following findings and determinations: The Project The Project, as originally proposed, consists of a single - story shopping center complex on a 11.80 -acre site in the southwest portion of the City of Rohnert Park. The Project site is located at the southeast corner of East Cotati Avenue and the future extension of Bodway Parkway. Sonoma State University lies north of the Project. Canon Manor Subdivision is located to the east. West and south of the project is property within the City of Rohnert Park which is zoned residential. The shopping center consists of nine structures as follows: 1. 50,000 square feet proposed for future supermarket. 2. 15,000 square feet proposed for future drug store. 3. Two structures consisting of a total of 18,600 square feet which are potential future smaller retail shops. 4. Two free - standing 3000 - square -foot fast -food restaurants. 5. Two free - standing 3,000- square -foot buildings for financial, restaurant, or other related use. 6. One 7,600- square -foot day -care center. Total area under roof will be 103,200 square feet, all of which is commercial except for the day -care center. The Project will have five points of entry as follows: two curb cuts on East Cotati Avenue, two curb cuts along the future Bodway Parkway (when extended and completed), and one main entry along future Bodway Parkway. 2 II Significant Environmental Impacts of the Project as Proposed The DEIRUCP at table 2.31 at pages 2 -4 to 2 -10 identifies the following as significant Project impacts: 1. Impacts during the construction phase such as noise, dirt, traffic and related results from construction activity will have an impact. 2. Traffic along East Cotati Avenue and Maurice Avenue could become congested during peak afternoon hours. The intersections at East Cotati Avenue and Petaluma Hill Road and at East Cotati Avenue and Sonoma State University could be reduced to a lower level of service. 3. Because of the increase in traffic, pedestrians crossing East Cotati Avenue and walking from the university to the Project could be in jeopardy without the mitigation measures recommended. 4. The design of the two driveways at the north and of the site fronting on East Cotati Avenue could affect the free flow of traffic on East Cotati Avenue unless mitigation measures are adopted. 5. Traffic during peak hours and traffic going to the Project will increase. 6. Control of landscaping and vegetation on the Project could result in the introduction of pesticides and fertilizers being used on the shrubbery which, if not monitored and controlled, could impact the drainage system and water quality in streams that receive Project runoff. 7. The Project will generate additional waste water for processing at the Laguna Sewage Treatment Plant. 8. Noise levels will increase during construction. 9. Erosion could occur during Project construction. 10. Clear Lake clay, which is prevalent in the area, has a capacity to shrink and swell, and could impact building 97 construction, foundations, paving, sidewalks, etc., in the Project. 11. If leakage or spillage of petroleum products is not controlled, this could result in a significant impact. III Mitigation Measures Proposed to Mitigate Significant Environmental Impacts The CITY COUNCIL is aware of the significant impacts addressed by the preparer of the DEIRUCP. With regard to those impacts listed above, the CITY COUNCIL finds that the impacts can be mitigated, either completely or partially, by the following mitigation measures. As to each mitigation measure, the mitigation proposed corresponds numerically with the significant impact mentioned in Section II of this Resolution. 1. With regard to the impacts during construction, which are set forth in paragraphs 1 and 8 of Section II of this Resolution, the CITY COUNCIL encourages and expects the following mitigation measures, among others, to be taken during construction. Those measures are as follows: a. Regular watering down of the dirt and dust during construction so as to minimize Project - generated dirt. This is an accepted and proven method of dust control and if done correctly will result in a substantial reduction of Project - generated dust. It is the responsibility of the contractor and City forces to see that this mitigation measure is utilized and continued. b. Construction hours can be limited if necessary. Normally construction commences at 7 a.m. and ends at 6 p.m. This schedule should be observed unless extraordinary measures are necessary to correct Project problems such as emergency accelerated work schedules in advance of an impending storm, acts of God, and other occurrences of unusual nature which were unanticipated. C. Construction vehicles should be maintained, i.e., cleaned before leaving the Project if mud is on the tires; streets should be washed and cleaned and construction traffic should be monitored and controlled 4 so as to integrate with local traffic and minimally impact traffic flow and traffic circulation. d. Project noise can be mitigated by insuring that noisy equipment is muffled. In addition, consideration can be given to limiting noisy operations to daylight hours. Truck operations can be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. if necessary. 2. With regard to the traffic generated by the Project or increased traffic as mentioned in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Section II of this Resolution, the following mitigation measures should be considered: a. Traffic signals and crosswalks should be installed at the intersection of Bodway Parkway and East Cotati Avenue. b. To avoid traffic congestion at the north end of the project site consideration should be given to limiting the proposed access along East Cotati Avenue to eastbound traffic only for any driveway within 300 feet of Bodway Parkway. c. To help alleviate heavy traffic flow and congestion the city should encourage the use of public transit at or near the University Center. 3. To prevent the run -off of pesticides, herbicides, and petroleum products into the natural drainage systems in the area, or the storm drainage as set forth in paragraphs 6 and 11 of Section II of this Resolution, consideration should be given to the use of biodegradable products whenever possible, natural means of weed control or suppression should be considered, and the parking areas should be swept and cleaned regularly with street - cleaning equipment to collect, disperse and dilute pollutants. 4. With regard to the waste water levels generated by the Project as mentioned in paragraph 7, Section II of this Resolution, the Project Proponent should be required to install toilets, showers and other water - saving facilities that use low flow or that monitor water usage. k, Water conservation instructions should be made available to the Project users. The water usage and sewage demand of the Project are within the City projections and capacity. The City is continuing to work to expand capacity at the Laguna Sewage Treatment Plant. 5. With regard to the concerns about erosion and the expansion factors of Clear Lake soils mentioned in paragraphs 8 and 9, Section II of this Resolution, the CITY COUNCIL believes that close supervision and monitoring by engineers familiar with the problems can eliminate or substantially minimize those concerns. Specifically, construction can be timed and planned so as to avoid erosion. Measures can be taken to prevent soil loss by seeding, property drainage and engineering plans. As to the expansion factor of Clear Lake soil, technology and techniques exist to reduce the complications to construction materials caused by expansive soils. Those techniques should be utilized. IV Alternatives to the Proposed Project Paragraph 21 at pages 2 -1 and 2 -3 of the DEIRUCP addresses the Project alternatives. They are as follows: 1. No Project 2. Neighborhood Commercial Scale Alternative 3. Multi- family residential 4. Alternative Site 5. University Square Shopping Center While the no- Project alternative appeals to those who believe the environment should remain in its present state, such an alternative ignores reality and the fact that the project is planned and designed to serve a current and existing demand. In addition, it is or will be, the eastern -most commercial Project of any magnitude on the eastern edge of the City. For those residents in the area it contributes a source of goods and n services presently not available to them in such close proximity. The property is in the City limits and is zoned for this use. While it can be argued that the property could be rezoned for another use, such an argument ignores the fact that services should be located near the people who use them and that if open space is to be preserved in the rural areas, then the urban areas must yield to decisions that allow those services to be installed, both for the urbanites and for those rural residents in the area who will travel to the city for the services. The neighborhood- commercial alternative would reduce the commercial size of the Project by approximately fifty (50 %) percent, resulting in a commercial area of approximately six acres. The southern half of the Project would be utilized for residences. The structures would be reduced from nine to five. Project square footage would be reduced to approximately 50,000 square feet. The market would be reduced to 27,000 square feet, and the drug store would be eliminated. The center would become a neighborhood commercial development. One hundred thirty multi - family residential units would be erected on the southern half of the Project area. Another alternative considered was a project consisting of all multi - family residential units. This would develop approximately 260 multi - family residential units under R -M: P -D zoning. Under the Goleta decision alternative sites were considered. The most feasible alternative site is the University Square Shopping Center. University Square is located approximately 2,000 feet northwest of the site. It is a commercial shopping center and is 50% developed. It has facilities for a supermarket and drug store. After considering the alternatives, the CITY COUNCIL finds that the neighborhood- commercial, which will result in a 50% reduction of the commercial portion of the Project, is the most feasible alternative. Both commercial and residential uses are needed on the eastern side of the City and the mixed -use alternative best serves those needs. The residential portion of 7 the Project would respond in part to Sonoma State University's need for more student housing. The commercial part of the Project would help serve those residential needs as well as needs of the residents in the area. The CITY COUNCIL finds that the neighborhood-commercial - scale alternative is the most feasible use of the property and the best alternative. V Growth - Inducing Impacts of the Project and the Relationships Between Local Short -Term Uses of Man's Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long -Term Productivity Page 5 -1 of the DEIRUCP addresses the growth- inducing impacts of the Project. Because the Project extends urban services into a previously unserviced area, it is considered growth inducing. The DEIRUCP also finds that the growth- inducing effects of the Project are not significant. The Project responds, in part at least, to the demands of the area. Sonoma State University continues to grow and expand. Demand for housing and services in the area continues to grow. Provisions must be made to respond to those demands. The City is the logical and primary source of the response. With regard to the relationship between short -term use of the environment and long -term productivity, the balancing of these interests involves a balancing of demands on the one side and concerns on the other. On the demand side is a growing and continuing request for services whether it be housing, services, or commercial. On the concern side are the environmental concerns which arise together with growth and infrastructure issues. In balancing these competing interests the CITY COUNCIL cannot ignore that fact that the area is subject to a General Plan, that the area is within an urban boundary, that cities are prepared to respond to the needs of many, that the property is zoned for the use proposed, and that private parties as well as 0 public agencies have participated in the decisions that developed the proposal for use of the property over some period of time and that those proposals have been supported by the expenditure of time and money, both public and private, to consummate the proposals. The CITY COUNCIL finds that the Project will result in an improved response to social and political demands which are also rooted in environmental concerns, especially the urban environment. VI Monitoring Proposals Adopted for the Project In addition to the mitigation measures approved by the CITY COUNCIL the following monitoring measures should be implemented. 1. During construction the mitigation measures suggested should be monitored by City staff and City departments. Specifically the City Engineer's office can inspect construction and can insure that construction schedules, times and methods are utilized as directed by the CITY COUNCIL. 2. Post - Project measures such as periodic evaluation of landscape treatment and center maintenance so as to maintain oversight and control over fertilizers, herbicides and pollutant emissions can and should be continued. %It is also possible to require state -of- the -art materials in landscape treatment so that new methods which address lowered pollution levels or no pollution are utilized. 3. The City has adopted and endorsed monitoring measures in other environmental impact reports such as measurements of effluent and discharge, monitoring water usage and related review methods. The CITY COUNCIL intends to continue the use of those measures as they relate to the Project. VII Statement of Overriding Considerations As the CITY COUNCIL has indicated earlier in this Resolution, the approval of nearly any Project has some E environmental implication. The dilemma faced by any public agency in California is to balance environmental concerns against the necessity for and the benefits of developments such as the University Center. The CITY COUNCIL has accepted the neighborhood-commercial- scale alternative which combines residential and commercial uses. The east side of the City is the area most lacking in retail commercial services. It is reasonable and appropriate to place them there. For the reasons above expressed, the CITY COUNCIL has approved the Project in the alternative selected. VIII Conclusion For the reasons herein expressed and based on the contents of the DEIRUCP, the CITY COUNCIL finds that the DEIRUCP should be certified as the FEIRUCP and the City Manager should be authorized to file Notice of Determination in the Office of the Sonoma County Clerk as authorized by law. In Council duly passed this 27th day of August, 1991. AYES: (4) Councilmembers Hollingsworth, Hopkins, Reilly and Eck NOES: ( 0 ) None ABSENT: (1 ) Counci lmember Spiro ABSTAIN: ( 0 ) None Dated: Auaust 27. 1991 Attes CITY OF ROHNERT PARK 10