Loading...
2016/04/28 Planning Commission Resolution (3)PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONING AMENDMENT OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 435 SOUTHWEST BOULEVARD (APN 143-370-010) WHEREAS, the applicant, City of Rohnert Park, has submitted a plan for the property located at 435 Southwest Boulevard for rezoning from Public Institutional to R -H Residential High Density (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared for the Project and concluded that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment; therefore a Negative Declaration was prepared; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California State Law, the Negative Declaration were circulated for a period of 20 days and a Notice of Intent was published in the Community Voice on April 8, 2016 for the 20 day review period to April 28, 2016; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California State Law and the City of Rohnert Park Municipal Code (RPMC), a public hearing notice was published in the Community Voice for a minimum of 10 days prior to the first public hearing; and WHEREAS, on April 28, 2016, the Planning Commission held a public meeting at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify regarding the Initial Study and Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, at the April 28, 2016 public meeting, the Planning Commission of the City of Rohnert Park reviewed and considered the information contained in the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the proposal, which is attached to this resolution as Exhibit 1; and WHEREAS, Section 21000, et. seq., of the Public Resources Code and Section 15000, et. seq., of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (the "CEQA Guidelines"), which govern the preparation, content, and processing of Negative Declarations, have been fully met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Rohnert Park makes the following findings, determinations and recommendations with respect to the Negative Declaration for the proposed Project: 1. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration and all written documentation and public comments prior to making recommendations to the City Council on the proposed Project; and 2. An Initial Study was prepared for the project, and on the basis of substantial evidence in the whole record, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment, therefore a Negative Declaration has been prepared which reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis. 3. The Negative Declaration was prepared, publicized, circulated, and reviewed in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and 4. The Negative Declaration constitutes an adequate, accurate, objective, and complete Negative Declaration in compliance with all legal standards; and 5. The documents and other materials, including without limitation staff reports, memoranda, maps, letters and minutes of all relevant meetings, which constitute the administrative record of proceedings upon which the Commission's resolution is based are located at the City of Rohnert Park, City Clerk, 130 Avram Ave., Rohnert Park, CA 94928. The custodian of records is the City Clerk. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Rohnert Park that approval of the Project would not result in any significant effects on the environment and the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that City Council approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and Initial Study set forth in Exhibit 1 and direct the filing of a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk; and DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED on this 28th day of April, 2016 by the City of Rohnert Park Planning Commission by the following vote: AYES: q NOES: ABSENT: () ABSTAIN: 1 ADAMS BLANQUIE 7 BORB �� UDICE _ [ _ HAYDON Haydon, Vice -Chairperson, City of Rohnert Park Planning Commission Attest: ( 0, -qL usan Az o, Recording Secretary Proposed NEGATIVE DECLARATION In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the City of Rohnert Park has prepared an Initial Study to determine whether the following project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. On the basis of that study, the City of Rohnert Park finds that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Thus, the City proposes to adopt this Negative Declaration. PROJECT TITLE: City of Rohnert Park General Plan Amendment and Rezoning for former Public Safety Site LEAD AGENCY: CONTACT: City of Rohnert Park 130 Avram Avenue Rohnert Park, CA 94928-3126 Norman Weisbrod Technical Advisor City of Rohnert Park, (707) 588-2219 nweisbrod@Epcity.org PROJECT LOCATION: 435 Southwest Boulevard (APN143-370-010) Southside of Southwest Boulevard easterly of Boris Court and west of a city park and middle school. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The subject property was formerly a fire station. The fire station was demolished and the property is presently vacant land. The property is surrounded by an apartment building on the west, a church on the south and Technical Middle School, and a city park on the east. The proposal is to rezone the property to R -H High Density Residential. This will require an amendment to the General Plan from Public Institutional to High Density Residential and the rezoning from Public Institutional to High Density Residential. PROJECT TITLE: LEAD AGENCY: CONTACT PERSON: FORMER PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY INITIAL STUDY City of Rohnert Park General Plan Amendment and Rezoning for former Public Safety Site City of Rohnert Park Development Services 130 Avram Avenue Rohnert Park, CA 94928-2486 Norman Weisbrod Technical Advisor (707) 588-2219 PROJECT LOCATION: 435 Southwest Boulevard Rohnert Park, CA Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 143-370-010 PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Rohnert Park 30 Avram Avenue GENERAL PLAN: 70NINC Rohnert Park, CA 94928-2486 Public Institutional Public -Institutional EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant land PROJECT SUMMARY: The subject property was formerly a fire station. The fire station was demolished and the property is presently vacant land. The property is surrounded by an apartment building on the west, a church on the south and Technical Middle School, and a city park on the east. The proposal is to rezone the property to R -H High Density Residential. This will require an amendment to the General Plan from Public Institutional to High Density Residential and the rezoning from Public Institutional to High Density Residential. 2 19 RaNNERT PAR �.LALIF0RN�� 62 INITIAL STUDY & NEGATIVE DECLARATION BACKGROUND 1. Project Title: City of Rohnert Park General Plan Amendment and Rezoning for former Public Safety Site 2 3 0 Lead Agency Name and Address: Contact Person and Phone Number: City of Rohnert Park Development Services 130 Avram Avenue Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Norman Weisbrod Technical Advisor City of Rohnert Park 707.588.2219 Project Location: 435 Southwest Boulevard (APN143-370-010) Southside of Southwest Boulevard easterly of Boris Court and west of Technical Middle School. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Rohnert Park, 130 Avram Avenue, Rohnert Park, CA 94928 6. General Plan Designation: Public/Institutional 7. Zoning: P -I Public Institutional 8. Project Description Summary: The subject property was formerly a fire station. The fire station was demolished and the property is presently vacant land. The property is surrounded by an apartment building on the west, a church on the south and Technical Middle School, and a city park on the east. The proposal is to rezone the property to R - H High Density Residential. This will require an amendment to the General Plan from Public Institutional to High Density Residential and the rezoning from Public Institutional to High Density Residential. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Greenhouse Gases ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality 4 ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture ❑ Air Quality ❑ Land Use & Planning ❑ Population & Housing ❑ Transportation & Circulation DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial study: ❑ Energy & Mineral Resources ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance X I find that the Proposed Project COULD NOT has 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 applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I 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" 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 General Plan EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier General Plan EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(c)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(1), the City of Rohnert Park, as lead agency for the proposed project, has prepared an initial study to make the following findings: 1. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, the proposed activity is adequately described and is within the scope of the General Plan EIR. 2. There is no substantial evidence before the lead agency that the subsequent project may have a significant effect on the environment. 3. The analyses of cumulative impacts, growth inducing impacts, and irreversible significant effects on the environment contained in the General Plan EIR are adequate for this subsequent project. 4. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21157.6(a), having reviewed the General Plan EIR, the City of Rohnert Park finds and determines that: Signature a. no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the General Plan EIR was certified, and b. that there is no new available information which was not and could not have been known at the time the General Plan EIR was certified. April 7, 2016 Date Norman 1Neisbrod Technical Advisor Printed Name For: Citv of Rohnert Park 2 BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION The subject property was formerly used as a City fire station. The fire station was demolished and the property is vacant. The proposal is to rezone the property from P -I Public Institutional to R -H High Density Residential. 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject property was formerly used as a fire station. The fire station was demolished several years ago and the site is vacant. The proposal is to rezone the property to R -H High Density Residential which is the zoning designation of the surrounding properties. The zoning change requires an amendment to the General Plan from Public Institutional designation to High Density Residential and rezoning from P -I Public -Institutional to R -H High Density Residential. C7 Aerial of Subject Property 4 DISCRETIONARY ACTION Implementation of the proposed project would require the following discretionary actions by the City of Rohnert Park Planning Commission: 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The following section adapts and completes the environmental checklist form presented in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The checklist is used to describe the impacts of the proposed project. For this checklist, the following designations are used: Potentially Significant Impact: An impact that could be significant, and for which no mitigation has been identified. If any potentially significant impacts are identified, an EIR must be prepared. Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: An impact that requires mitigation to reduce the impact to a less -than -significant level. Less -Than -Significant Impact: Any impact that would not be considered significant under CEQA relative to existing standards. No Impact: The project would not have any impact. I. AESTHETICS Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Less -Than - Significant With Mitigation Significant Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect ❑ x on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock © x outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? N. d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime ❑ ❑ ❑ X views in the area? a -d. This project does not include a specific building but could result in an apartment building and other land use described in the R -H District.. The project is a change in General Plan designation for the site from Public Institutional to High Density Residential and rezoning from Public Institutional to High Density Residential. The property is surrounded on the west by an apartment building, on the south by a church and on the east by a middle school and a city park. To the north to the north across Southwest Boulevard are the rear yards of single-family homes fronting on Alta Avenue. II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES 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 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project. Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Less -Than - Significant No Impact Impact a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Potentially Significant Less -Than - Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Significant With Mitigation Significant Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact c. Substantially degrade the existing ❑ ❑ E] X visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? ❑ ❑ [f X d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime ❑ ❑ ❑ X views in the area? a -d. This project does not include a specific building but could result in an apartment building and other land use described in the R -H District.. The project is a change in General Plan designation for the site from Public Institutional to High Density Residential and rezoning from Public Institutional to High Density Residential. The property is surrounded on the west by an apartment building, on the south by a church and on the east by a middle school and a city park. To the north to the north across Southwest Boulevard are the rear yards of single-family homes fronting on Alta Avenue. II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES 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 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project. Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less -Than - Significant No Impact Impact a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the ❑ ❑ E] X Farmland Mapping Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act ❑ 0 ❑ X contract? c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their ❑ ® X location or nature, could individually or cumulativelv result in loss of 9 Potentially Potentially Significant With Less -Than - Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Farmland to non-agricultural use? a -c The subject property is an undeveloped parcel surrounded by urban uses with no known agricultural use. III. AIR QUALITY 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: Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less -Than - Significant Impact No Impact a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable ❑ ❑ ❑ x air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an ❑ ❑ ❑ X 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 x ❑ State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑ x concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of El ❑ ❑ x people? a. -e.: During construction of future improvements on the site, the contractor will have to conform to emission control strategies that control dust and exhaust emissions in conformance with the city 10 standards. The change in use of the site from Public Institutional to High Density Residential will result in an increase in traffic generation. High Density Residential use generate substantially more vehicle trips than a public safety facility (fire station). The proposed change in the General Plan designation from Public Institutional to High Density Residential will result in an increase in vehicular trips. As described in Section I.2 of the BAAQMD 2010 CEQA Guidelines, thresholds of Significance, "by its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. A project with emissions that are below the thresholds of significance would not make a considerable contribution to any cumulative impacts. The proposed project would have emissions that are below the applicable thresholds of significant; therefore, the project would make a less than significant contribution to cumulative air quality impacts. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional Li El ❑ x plans, policies, or 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ x limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or L1 ❑ ❑ x migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree x preservation policy or ordinance? 11 Potentially Potentiall Significant Less - y With Than- Significan Mitigation Significan No Issues t Impact Incorporated t Impact Impact 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 C] ❑ ❑ x 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 Li El ❑ x plans, policies, or 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ x limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or L1 ❑ ❑ x migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree x preservation policy or ordinance? 11 a. — f.: The subject property does not provide the habitat for any riparian habitat or sensitive natural community. The property is a previously developed site (former fire station) and is currently undeveloped with no trees or other substantial vegetation. It is a weed free dirt and partially paved surface. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Less -Than - Significant No Impact Impact a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the Potentiall Significant Less - significance of a historical resource as y With Than- defined in Section 15064.5? Significan Mitigation Significan No Issues t Impact Incorporated t Impact Impact f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted ❑ ❑ ❑ x Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other ❑ CI ❑ x approved local, regional, or State habitat ❑ I ❑ x conservation plan? a. — f.: The subject property does not provide the habitat for any riparian habitat or sensitive natural community. The property is a previously developed site (former fire station) and is currently undeveloped with no trees or other substantial vegetation. It is a weed free dirt and partially paved surface. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less -Than - Significant No Impact Impact a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as ❑ 11 ❑ x defined in Section 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological ❑ ❑ ❑ x resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource on site or unique ❑ I ❑ x geologic features? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal ❑ ❑ x cemeteries? a. -f.: There are no known cultural resources on the site and none were recovered when the former fire station was demolished. VL GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: 12 Potentially Polentiall Significant y With Significan Mitigation Issues t Impact Incorporated Less - Than- Significan No t Impact Impact 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ X issued by the State Geologist for the area based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ X iii. Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ❑ X iv. Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ X b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss ❑ 0 ❑ x 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 ❑ Q ❑ x on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? e. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in ❑ ❑ X Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code? f. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems ❑ ❑ ❑ x where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? a. The project site could be subject to violent ground shaking from a major seismic event on the Healdsburg-Rodgers Creek fault. However, because the project sit is not underlain by known traces of any potential active fault, fault -line surface rupture would not be a hazard within the project site. Impacts related to fault rupture potential would be less than significant. There are no slopes steeper than one percent and the impact from landslides would be less than significant. b.,c., d. An acceptable degree of soil stability can be achieved by the required incorporation of soil treatment programs in the excavation and construction plans to address site-specific soil conditions. e. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed and the project would have no impact related to these types of wastewater disposal. 13 VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS' Would the project: a -b. The additional automobile use resulting from development on this site as high density residential may result in a less than significant increase in Green House Gas. Legislative Context California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) In September 2006, the Governor signed AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act (Health and Safety Code Section 38500 et. seq.). The Act codifies the executive order for reduction of statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. This change, which is estimated to be a 25 to 35 percent reduction from current emission levels, will be accomplished through an enforceable statewide cap on GHG emissions that was phased in starting in 2012. SB 375 On September 30, 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Senate Bill (SB) 375 into law. This legislation links transportation and land use planning with the CEQA process to help achieve the GHG emission reduction targets set by AB 32. Even before the passage of AB32 and S13375, the City of Rohnert Park initiated actions to reduce GHG emissions and become more sustainable overall. These actions include: California 2010 Building Code • Energy Efficiency Ordinance 2007-779. This ordinance also established Title 14- Sustainabilty, in the Municipal Code (March 2007) 14 Potentially Potentiall Significant y With Less-Than- Signifccan Mitigation Significant No Issues t Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a ❑ ❑ x ❑ significant impact on the atmosphere? b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of ❑ ❑ ❑ x greenhouse gases? a -b. The additional automobile use resulting from development on this site as high density residential may result in a less than significant increase in Green House Gas. Legislative Context California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) In September 2006, the Governor signed AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act (Health and Safety Code Section 38500 et. seq.). The Act codifies the executive order for reduction of statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. This change, which is estimated to be a 25 to 35 percent reduction from current emission levels, will be accomplished through an enforceable statewide cap on GHG emissions that was phased in starting in 2012. SB 375 On September 30, 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Senate Bill (SB) 375 into law. This legislation links transportation and land use planning with the CEQA process to help achieve the GHG emission reduction targets set by AB 32. Even before the passage of AB32 and S13375, the City of Rohnert Park initiated actions to reduce GHG emissions and become more sustainable overall. These actions include: California 2010 Building Code • Energy Efficiency Ordinance 2007-779. This ordinance also established Title 14- Sustainabilty, in the Municipal Code (March 2007) 14 • City Council adopted resolution 2004-111, which set a goal for GHG reductions of 20 percent by the year 2010 for internal City operations (baseline year 2000) (May 2004) • City Council adopted resolution 2005-233, which sets a goal of green house gas reductions of 25 percent by the year 2015 for community -wide use, private and public (baseline year 1990) (July 2005) • The project would exceed Title 24 energy efficiency requirements by 15 percent, consistent with CALGreen Tier 1 requirements, as required by the City of Rohnert Park. • The project would achieve a 20 percent reduction in indoor water use, consistent with CALGreen Tier 1 requirements. VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project. b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the ❑ ❑ ❑ x likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or ❑ ❑ ❑ X waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a ❑ ❑ ❑ x result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a, plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or ❑ ❑ X public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 15 Potentially Potentiall Significant Less - y With Than- Significan Mitigation Significan No Issues t Impact Incorporated t Impact Impact a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, ❑ ❑ ❑ X or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the ❑ ❑ ❑ x likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or ❑ ❑ ❑ X waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a ❑ ❑ ❑ x result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a, plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or ❑ ❑ X public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 15 h. Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to ❑ ❑ ❑ x urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? a. -h.: The proposed Project would not create hazards to the public regarding hazardous materials, substances or waste. The Project site is not on any list of hazardous material sites and the Project site is not in the vicinity of a public or private airport. There is no potential on the Project site for wildland fires. IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: Issues Potentiall y Significan t Impact Potentially Less - Than- Significan No t Impact Impact a. Violate any water quality standards or waste Potentiall Significant Less - discharge requirements? y With Than- b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or Significan Mitigation Significan No Issues t Impact Incorporated t Impact Impact f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety ❑ hazard for people residing or working in the ❑ ❑ x project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response J j plan or emergency evacuation plan? x h. Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to ❑ ❑ ❑ x urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? a. -h.: The proposed Project would not create hazards to the public regarding hazardous materials, substances or waste. The Project site is not on any list of hazardous material sites and the Project site is not in the vicinity of a public or private airport. There is no potential on the Project site for wildland fires. IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: Issues Potentiall y Significan t Impact Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less - Than- Significan No t Impact Impact a. Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ discharge requirements? x b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production ❑ ❑ i. x rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? IC Issues Potentiall y Significan t Impact Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less - Than- Significan No t Impact Impact c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a ❑ ❑ ❑ x manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or ❑ ❑ D substantially increase the rate or amount of x surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide ❑ ❑ ❑ x substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ x g. Place housing within a 100 -year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or ❑ ❑ ❑ x Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100 -year floodplain structures ❑ ❑ x which would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, ❑ ❑ ❑ including flooding as a result of the failure of a x levee or dam. j. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving inundation by ❑ ❑ ❑ x seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? a. j.: When the subject property develops, there will be adequate capacity for sewage disposal and collection and dispersal of storm water. Development of the site with buildings will reduce groundwater recharge but not to the extent that it would impact any nearby wells. This property is not within the 100 -year floodplain. There is no risk of flooding as a result of a failure of a levee or dam and people or structures on the site will not be subject to inundation by a seiche, tsunami or mudflow. X. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: 17 Issues Potentiall y Significan t Impact Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less - Than- Significan No t Impact Impact a. Physically divide an established community? ❑ Q ❑ x b. Conflict with any applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local ❑ ❑ ❑ x coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating on environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community's ❑ ❑ ❑ conservation plan? x a. -c.; This proposal to change the land use on the project site will not physically divide an established community. Surrounding properties adjacent to the subject site are zoned and developed with high density apartments. The adjacent church and public school are permitted uses in the surrounding residential area. There are no habitat conservations plans or community conservation plans applying to this property. XI. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Potentiall Significant Less - y With Than- Significan Mitigation Significan No Issues t Impact Incorporated t Impact Impact a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the ❑ ❑ ❑ x region and the residents of the State? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site ❑ ❑ ❑ x delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? a. -b.: There are no known mineral resources on the subject property and the site is not delineated on the General Plan as a mineral resource recovery site. XII. NOISE Would the project result in: Issues Potential ly Significa nt Impact Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less- Than- Significan No t Impact Impact a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise y With Than- Significan levels in excess of standards established in the ❑ ❑ ❑ t Impact local general plan or noise ordinance, or ❑ ❑ X applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne ❑ C] ❑ x noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels ❑ ❑ Q x existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above ❑ ❑. ❑ X levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use C ❑ Q X airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people ❑ ❑ residing or working in the project area to X excessive noise levels? a. -f.: There was some noise impact from previous Public Safety vehicles leaving the site in response to an emergency situation. The use of the property for high density residential will result in some noise from traffic but will not increase the ambient noise level. Noise impacts will be less than the noise impacts from a fire station. XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: Issues a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? No Impact X Potentially Potentiall Signifcant Less - y With Than- Significan Mitigation Significan t Impact Incorporated t Impact Q ❑ ❑ 19 No Impact X a. -c.: Rezoning the property to multi -family residential will in itself induce population growth However, the population growth will not be substantial because of the low number of units that can be accommodated on the site. It will also be compatible with the surrounding apartment development. XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Potentially Potentiall Significant Less - Less - y With Than- With Significan Mitigation Significan No Issues t Impact Incorporated t Impact Impact b. Displace substantial numbers of existing t Impact Incorporated t Impact housing, necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑ x replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ b. Police protection? G c. Displace substantial numbers of people, x ❑ c. Schools? necessitating the construction of replacement ❑ ❑ ❑ x housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ x a. -c.: Rezoning the property to multi -family residential will in itself induce population growth However, the population growth will not be substantial because of the low number of units that can be accommodated on the site. It will also be compatible with the surrounding apartment development. XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a. -d.: There is adequate police and fire protection services to serve this site when it is developed with multi -family residential use. There is an adjacent middle school and recreation facilities that can be used on a daily basis by the residents of multi -family development on the site. XV. RECREATION Would the project: 20 Potentially Potentiall Significant Less - y With Than- Significan Mitigation Significan No Issues t Impact Incorporated t Impact Impact a. Fire protection? © ❑ x ❑ b. Police protection? G ❑ x ❑ c. Schools? ❑ ❑ x ❑ d. Parks? ❑ ❑ x ❑ a. -d.: There is adequate police and fire protection services to serve this site when it is developed with multi -family residential use. There is an adjacent middle school and recreation facilities that can be used on a daily basis by the residents of multi -family development on the site. XV. RECREATION Would the project: 20 21 Potentially Potentiall Significant Less - y With Than- Significan Mitigation Significan No Issues t Impact Incorporated t Impact Impact a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial ❑ ❑ x ❑ physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an ❑ ❑ ❑ X adverse physical effect on the environment? a.b.: The project may result in a minor increase in park use in Rohnert Park. Because of the limited number of units that can be developed on the site this will have no impact on existing parks within the city. XVI. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Would the project: Potentially Potentiall Significant Less - y With Than- Significan Mitigation Significan No Issues t Impact Incorporated t Impact Impact a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial increase in either the number of x vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the ❑ 11 ❑ county congestion management agency for X designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a ❑ ❑ Q X change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous ❑ ❑ ❑ intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm X equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ x f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ x 21 Potentially Potentiall Significant Less - y With Than- Significan Mitigation Significan No Issues t Impact Incorporated t Impact Impact a. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks) ❑ ❑ x a. -f.: Changing the General Plan and Zoning Code designation of the site from Public Institutional to High Density Residential will result in an increase in traffic generation. The property could be developed with a maximum of 18 units. A conservative estimate of 7 trips per day per unit would result in 119 trips per day from a multi -family development. The estimate for the previous use as a fire station was 25 trips per day. Southwest Boulevard is a collector street and operates at a Level of Service (LOS) C or better. The city's standard for traffic flow is LOS C or better. With an additional 94 trips per day (119 trips minus previous 25 trips equals 94) Southwest Boulevard will still operate at a LOS C or better and the rezoning will not have a substantial impact on traffic. Apartment development on the site will have to comply with the city's parking requirement for multi -family development. There are bike lanes on Southwest Boulevard for bicycle transportation. XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of ❑ CJ ❑ X existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and El ❑ ❑ X resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 22 Potentially Potentiall Significant Less - y With Than- Significan Mitigation Significan No Issues t Impact Incorporated t Impact Impact a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control ❑ f_! ❑ x Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction ❑ ❑ ❑ x of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of ❑ CJ ❑ X existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and El ❑ ❑ X resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 22 23 Potentially Potentiall Significant Less - y With Than- Significan Mitigation Significan No Issues t Impact Incorporated t Impact Impact e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve D ❑ ❑ x the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid ❑ ❑ ❑ X waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, State, and local statutes ❑ ❑ ❑ and regulations related to solid waste? X a. -b: There are adequate utility and service systems in place to accommodate multi -family development. XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Potentiall Significant Less - y With Than- Significan Mitigation Significan No Issues t Impact Incorporated t Impact Impact a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a ❑ ❑ ❑ plant or animal community, reduce the number X or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, ❑ ® ❑ x environmental goals? c. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project ❑ ❑ ❑ X are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on ❑ ❑ ❑ x human beings, either directly or indirectly? 23 a. -d.: The proposed project will not degrade the quality of the environment, will not impact fish or wildlife and does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 24