Loading...
2016/07/28 Planning Commission ResolutionPLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016-22 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ADDING A 65 FOOT HIGH TOWER RIDE TO THE SKANDIA AMUSEMENT CENTER LOCATED AT 5301 REDWOOD DRIVE (APN 045-082-058) WHEREAS, the applicant, Rulon K. Cottrell, has submitted a plan for a 65 foot high tower ride at Skandia Amusement Center (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 July 1, 2016 for the 20 day review period to July 20, 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 July 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 July 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 implemented in the preparation of the Negative Declaration. 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 adopting the Negative Declaration 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 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 July, 2016 by the City of Rohnert Park Planning Commission by the following vote: AYES: � NOES: ABSENT: � ABSTAIN: ADAMS&1,04BLANQUIE rBORBA GIUDICE HAYDON Y Jo orba, Chairperson, Rohnert Park Planning Commission Attcst: ,Ouisan Azevedo, cretary 19 aar4NERr Pax ,�RLIF0RNI� 62 INITIAL STUDY & NEGATIVE DECLARATION BACKGROUND 1. Project Title: Addition of a Spring Ride to Skandia Funland. 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rohnert Park Development Services 130 Avram Avenue Rohnert Park, CA 94928 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Norman Weisbrod Technical Advisor City of Rohnert Park 707.588.2219 4. Project Location: 5301 Redwood Drive (APN 045-082-058) on the west side of Redwood Drive between Business Park Drive and Golf Course Drive West. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Rulon Cottrell, 5301 Redwood Drive, Rohnert Park, CA 94928 6. General Plan Designation: Regional Commercial 7. Zoning: C-R Regional Commerical 8. Project Description Summary: Family Fun Center is a five (5) acre site with an amusement center with miniature golf, blaster boats, bumper cars, an arcade, batting cages and a go cart race track. The proposed project would add a Spring Ride consisting of a 65 foot high tower located adjacent to the entrance to the amusement center from the parking lot. It would be located in an area that is presently a paved surface. Up to 12 people sit in seats on the ride platform and are raised to the top and then descend back to grade level. Support equipment is located in a small building and consists of hydraulic equipment, an air compressor and electrical panel. The ride is operated by an attendant at the entrance to the ride. Other new improvements on the site will be additional handicap parking and a refuse enclosure. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources 5 ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture ❑ Air Quality ❑ Greenhouse Gases ❑ Land Use & Planning ❑ Population & Housing ❑ Transportation & Circulation DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial study: ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ 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. C:7 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: 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. July 1, 2016 ignature Date Norman Weisbrod, Technical Advisor For City of Rohnert Pak Printed Name 2 BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION The project site is developed with a Family Fun Center called Skandia Funland. The proposal is to add a ride called Spring Ride Rotating. 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The ride that will be added to this Family Fun Center consists of a 65 foot high tower. Up to 12 riders are lifted to the top of the ride and then it descends rotating on the way down. The ride is supported by equipment located in a small building consisting of hydraulic equipment, an air compressor and electrical panel. In addition to the ride the owner will also be adding additional handicap parking and en refuse enclosure. 7 Wi X Project Site Plan 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 ILLI Ci El x outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? ® El X d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would Ll fJ x Cl adversely affect day or nighttime 9 . Potentially Potentially Significant Less -Than - Significant With Mitigation Significant Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact views in the area? a -d This project consists of a 65 foot high structure that is an amusement ride that would accommodate up to 12 people. Other buildings on the site are single -story and buildings on surrounding properties are predominately single -story. When the amusement ride is in operation there are up to 12 people sitting in a circular structure that is raised to the top of the tower and then descends with the structure rotating as it descends. The ride is a multi -colored structure that would incorporate lights during the evening hours. In the evening hours the lights on the structure and the movement of the portion with people on the ride will attract attention from Redwood Drive and the adjacent Highway 101 freeway. The California Scenic Highway Program, maintained by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), protects scenic State highway corridors from changes that would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to the highways. Caltrans has not designated any state scenic highways that traverse the City, thus no impacts related to State scenic highways would occur from installation of the ride. In addition, the site does not contain any known historic buildings, does not impact any existing significant trees or other geologic features, this this would not have an impact 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ x contract? 10 a -c The subject property is developed with an amusement center consisting of buildings, amusement rides, several buildings and a paved parking lot. The project will have no impact on farmland. 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 Potentially Potentially Significant Less -Than - Significant With Mitigation Significant Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a. Conflict with or obstruct Potentially implementation of the applicable 11 Potentially Significant With Less -Than - air quality plan? Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c. Involve other changes in the existing ❑ ❑ environment which, due to their x location or nature, could individually 1 l or cumulatively result in loss of x Farmland to non-agricultural use? a -c The subject property is developed with an amusement center consisting of buildings, amusement rides, several buildings and a paved parking lot. The project will have no impact on farmland. 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 Potentially Potentially Significant Less -Than - Significant With Mitigation Significant Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable 11 ❑ f 1 x air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an I ❑ ❑ existing or projected air quality x 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 I ❑ x 0 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ x affecting a substantial number of 11 Potentially Potentially Significant Less -Than - Significant With Mitigation Significant Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 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 standards. When the proposed amusement ride goes into operation there may be a slight increase in traffic as a result. However, at other locations where this ride has been installed there is an initial increase in traffic but in a short time traffic reduces to the level prior to installation of the ride. 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. - 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 C1 regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlite Service'? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional ❑ 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 ❑ limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 12 ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ X a. — f.: The subject property does not provide the habitat for any riparian habitat or sensitive natural community. There is existing landscaping on the site including trees that may provide habitat for birds. The proposed project will not impact any of the existing landscaping on the site. 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 d. Interfere substantially with the movement of ❑ ❑ ❑ x any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or ❑ ❑ ❑ x migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the ❑ ❑ ❑ x 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? f Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other ❑ ❑ ❑ x approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? a. — f.: The subject property does not provide the habitat for any riparian habitat or sensitive natural community. There is existing landscaping on the site including trees that may provide habitat for birds. The proposed project will not impact any of the existing landscaping on the site. 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ x geologic features? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal ❑ ❑ ❑ x cemeteries? 13 a. -f.: There are no known cultural resources on the site. The project will take place on a portion of the site that is presently paved with concrete. The primary construction below grade will the foundation necessary to support the tower structure. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: Potentially Potentiall Significant Less - y With Than- Significan Alitigation Significan No Issues t Impact Incorporated 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 issued by the State Geologist for the area based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? e. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1 B of the Uniform Building Code? f Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? ❑ 11 ❑ x 13 ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ x 0 ❑ ❑ x Fl ❑ ❑ X 0 ❑ x ❑ ❑ ❑ x a. i ne project site coma oe suoJect to vioienL ground snaxmg from a mayor seismic event on the Healdsburg-Rodgers Creek fault. However, because the project site 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 14 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. The proposed structure will have engineered footing for support. e.,f. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed and the project would have no impact related to these types of wastewater disposal. 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. sed.). 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 15 Potentially Potentiall Significant Y With Less-Than- Significan 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 ❑ ❑ L7 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. sed.). 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 15 • Energy Efficiency Ordinance 2007-779. This ordinance also established Title 14- Sustainabilty, in the Municipal Code (March 2007) • 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) VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the Potentially upset and accident conditions involving the ❑ Potentiall Significant Less - environment? y With Than- or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or ❑ Significan Mitigation Significan No Issues t Impact Incorporated t Impact Impact a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a ❑ ❑ ❑ x environment through the routine transport, use, ❑ ❑ 11 x or disposal of hazardous materials? plan or, where such a plan has not been b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the ❑ C1 11 x likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or ❑ d 1� waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or x 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ public use airport, would the project result in a x safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety l 1 f7 [ hazard for people residing or working in the x project area? f[91 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 a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 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 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)? 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 manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 17 Potentially Potentially Less - y With Potentiall Significant Less - I Impact Incorporated y With Than- Significan Mitigation Significan No Issues t Impact Incorporated t Impact Impact g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 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 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)? 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 manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 17 Potentially Potentiall Significant Less - y With Than- Significan Mitigation Significan I Impact Incorporated t Impact L_1 ❑ FI ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cl No Impact X X X Issues Potentiall y Significan t Impact Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less - Than- Significan t Impact No Impact 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 ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ D ❑ 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 ❑ 0 Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood X hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100 -year floodplain structures ® which would impede or redirect flood flows? X i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, El ❑ ❑ 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 11 Cl C7 x seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? a. j.: This project will be placed in an area that is presently developed and will have no impact on water quality or drainage. 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: Potentially Polentiall Significant Less - y With Than- Significan Mitigation Significan No Issues t Impact Incorporated 1 Impact Impact a. Physically divide an established community? b. Conflict with any applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not ® ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ x a. -c.: This proposal to add a new ride to the amusement center will not physically divide an established community. 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 Issues t Impact Incorporated t Impact a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the (a CI 0 region and the residents of the State? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site D rl 11 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: No Impact X X Potential Potentially ly Significant Less- Significa With Than- nt Mitigation Signfican No Issues Impact Incorporalecl [Impact Impact a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise ❑ (J X levels in excess of standards established in the 19 Potentially Potentiall Significant Less - y With Than- Significan Mitigation Significan No Issues t Impact Incorporated t Impact Impact limited to the general plan, specific plan, local 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 add a new ride to the amusement center will not physically divide an established community. 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 Issues t Impact Incorporated t Impact a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the (a CI 0 region and the residents of the State? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site D rl 11 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: No Impact X X Potential Potentially ly Significant Less- Significa With Than- nt Mitigation Signfican No Issues Impact Incorporalecl [Impact Impact a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise ❑ (J X levels in excess of standards established in the 19 Potential Potentially ly Significant Less- Significa With Than- nt Mitigation Significan No Issues Impact Incorporated t Impact Impact local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne ❑ ❑ x noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels n n n 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 © D ❑ airport, would the project expose people residing x 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 ❑ C.1 ❑ residing or working in the project area to x excessive noise levels? a. -f.: There will some noise from the equipment operating the proposed ride and noise from people using the ride. However, the site is very close to Highway 101 and the ambient noise level from the freeway will most likely exceed that created from the ride. There are no residential properties near the facility and most surrounding businesses are closed when the facility is at full operation in the evening and on week -ends. The City's noise ordinance will apply. 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 infi•astructure)? 20 Potentially Potential/ Significant Less - y With Than- Significan Mitigation Significan No t Impact Incorporated t Impact Impact 11 ❑ x Issues b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Potentially Potentiall Significant y With Significan Mitigation t Impact Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ Fl Less- Than- Significan No t Impact Impact ❑ x F! x a. -c.: The addition of a new ride to this existing facility will have no impact on population or the demand for housing. 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: Issues Less- Than- Significan No I Impact Impact a. Fire protection? Potentially Potentiall Significant y With Significan Mitigation t Impact Incorporated Less- Than- Significan No I Impact Impact a. Fire protection? ❑ ❑ x ❑ b. Police protection? ❑ ❑ x ❑ c. Schools? ❑ ❑ x ❑ d. Parks? ❑ ❑ x ❑ a. -d.: There is adequate police and fire protection services to serve this site when it is in operation. the facility will have no impact on schools or parks. XV. RECREATION Would the project.- Issues roject: Issues 21 Potentially Potentiall Significant y With Significan Mitigation I Impact Incorporated Less- Than- Significan No I Impact Impact 22 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 ❑ Cl 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 ❑ n ❑ X adverse physical effect on the environment? a.b.: The project will not result in an increase in park use in Rohnert Park. 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 ❑ ❑ x CI substantial increase in either the number of 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 0 ❑ ❑ change in location that results in substantial X safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous U 17 ❑ intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm X equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ i„] x f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? x a. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 11 I.- x alternative transportation (e.g., bus 22 Potentially Potential! Significant Less - y With Than- Significan Mitigation Significan No Issues t Impact Incorporated t Impact Impact turnouts, bicycle racks) a. -f.: The installation of the new ride may result in an increase in traffic when it commences operation. However, on installation in similar amusement centers the traffic increase diminished shortly after the ride commenced operation and returned to that prior to the new ride. Basically, most riders are people who come to the amusement center for all of the facilities offered and not just the new ride. There are Class II bike lanes and sidewalks on Redwood Drive for bicycle transportation to the facility and for pedestrians to reach the facility on foot. XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: Issues Potentially Potentiall Significant y With Significan Mitigation t Impact Incorporated Less - Than- Significan t Impact No Impact a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control ❑ ❑ ❑ X Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction ❑ ❑ 0 X of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of ❑ 0 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 (;I 0 ❑ resources, or are new or expanded entitlements x needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve 0 ❑ 0 x the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted L. ❑ x 23 Potentially Potentiall Significant Less - y With Than- Significan Mitigation Signiftcan No Issues t Impact Incorporated t Impact Impact capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, State, and local statutes ❑ ❑ Ll X and regulations related to solid waste? a. -b: There are adequate utility and service systems in place to accommodate the amusement center. XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Potentiall Significant Less - y With Than- Significan Mitigation Signiftcan 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ x plant or animal community, reduce the number 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ are considerable when viewed in connection X 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 [ 1 ❑ ❑ x human beings, either directly or indirectly? 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