The URL can be used to link to this page

2014/11/13 Planning Commission ResolutionPLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2014-50 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PRESS DEMOCRAT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONING AMENDMENT, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP WHEREAS, the applicant, Sonoma Media Investments, has submitted a plan for the Press Democrat General Plan Amendment, Zoning Amendment, and Tentative Parcel Map (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 with implementation of mitigation measures; therefore a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California State Law, the Mitigated Negative Declaration were circulated for a period of 20 days and a Notice of Intent was published in the Community Voice on October 3, 2014 for the 20 day review period to October 24, 2014; 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 November 13, 2014, the Planning Commission held a public meeting at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify regarding the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, at the November 13, 2014 public meeting, the Planning Commission of the City of Rohnert Park reviewed and considered the information contained in the Initial Study and Mitigated 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 Mitigated 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Project: 1. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared which reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis. 3. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared, publicized, circulated, and reviewed in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and 4. The Mitigated Negative Declaration constitutes an adequate, accurate, objective, and complete Mitigated 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 with implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that City Council approve and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study set forth in Exhibit 1 and direct the filing of a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Rohnert Park that Exhibit 2 (CEQA Findings) and (Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program) of this Resolution provide findings required under Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines for significant effects of the Project; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Rohnert Park that it does hereby recommend City Council adopt the CEQA Findings of Fact and mitigation measures set forth in Exhibit 2; and DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED on this 13th day of November, 2014 by the City of Rohnert Park Planning Commission by the following vote: AYES: h NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:. ADAMS U/B N UI BORBA ✓GIUDICE ',/HAYDON� Chairperson, City of Rohnert Park Planning Commission Attest: Susan Azevedo, RLbrding Secretary Exhibit 1 Proposed MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Rohnert Park (City) has prepared an Initial Study (IS) to determine whether the Press Democrat Production Facility project (proposed project) may have a significant adverse effect on the environment. On the basis of the IS, the City finds that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment with implementation of mitigation measures. Thus, the City proposes to adopt this Mitigated Negative Declaration. PROTECT TITLE: Press Democrat GPA and Rezone Project LEAD AGENCY: CONTACT: City of Rohnert Park Marilyn Ponton, AICP 130 Avram Avenue Interim Development Services Director Rohnert Park, CA 94928-3126 City of Rohnert Park, (707) 588-2231 mponton@rpcity.org PROJECT LOCATION: The project site is located on a 12.7 -acre parcel in the northwest area of the City at 5505 Redwood Drive. The project is located on the northwest parcel of the intersection of Redwood Drive and Business Park Drive approximately 400 feet east of the future Dowdell Avenue extension. Please refer to Figures 1, 2, and 3. PROTECT SETTING: The project site is currently a single parcel (APN 143-040-112) developed with a ± 73,000 square foot (sf) industrial building that contains the printing and production facility for the Press Democrat newspaper including parking and landscaping. The project site is essentially flat with no significant natural features or changes in topography. Surrounding land uses include a regional commercial center and vacant land to the north; industrial uses with limited retail located to the south; Redwood Drive frontage road and Highway 101 to the east; and undeveloped land designated for industrial uses to the west. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Press Democrat production facility is located just southerly of Business Park Drive at 5505 Redwood Drive. The 12.7 acre site is developed with a 73,000 square foot industrial building containing the printing and production facility and related offices for the Press Democrat. They propose subdividing the property into two parcels. The larger 12.7 acre parcel would contain the existing building. The smaller 3.8 acre parcel consisting of the sites landscape front setback and south side parking area would be rezoned to C-R Regional Commercial zoning. This requires a General Plan Amendment from Industrial to Regional Commercial, a rezoning from I -L Industrial to C-R Regional Commercial and a Tentative parcel Map to create the two parcels. Press Democrat GPA and Rezone Project September 2014 PRESS DEMOCRAT GPA AND REZONE INITIAL STUDY PROJECT TITLE: PRESS DEMOCRAT GPA AND REZONE PROJECT LEAD AGENCY: City of Rohnert Park Development Services 130 Avram Avenue Rohnert Park, CA 94928-2486 CONTACT PERSON: Marilyn Ponton, AICP Interim Development Services Director (707) 588-2231 PROJECT LOCATION: 5505 Redwood Drive Rohnert Park, CA Assessor's Parcel Number: 143-040-112 See Figures 1, 2, and 3 PROJECT APPLICANT: Sonoma Media Investments 427 Mendocino Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 95404 GENERAL PLAN: Industrial ZONING: Industrial (I -L) EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant land and the existing Press Democrat Production Facility and associated surface parking. The project is requesting a minor subdivision to subdivide the single PROJECT SUMMARY 12.7 acre parcel into two lots; a GPA to change the ±3.8 acre portion of the site from Industrial to Commercial - R (Regional), and to rezone the ±3.8 acre parcel from Industrial (I -L) to Regional Commercial (C- R). See Figures 4 and 5. PROJECT LOCATION The project site is located at 5505 Redwood Drive, on the northwest parcel of the intersection of Redwood Drive and Business Park Drive, approximately 400 feet east of the future Dowdell Avenue extension, in the City of Rohnert Park, Sonoma County, California. Please refer to Figures 1, 2, and 3. PROJECT SITE CHARACTERISTICS The project site is essentially flat with no significant natural features or changes in topography. Trees are present along Business Park Drive frontage, and around the Press Democrat building and in their parking lot. Press Democrat GPA and Rezone Project September 2014 Initial Study Page 1 SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING Surrounding land uses include a regional commercial center (Schwab Tire Center and Scandia Family Fun Center) to the north; industrial uses with limited retail (Rohnert Park Animal Shelter, St. Vincent De Paul's Thrift store) located to the south; Redwood Drive frontage road and Highway 101 to the east; and undeveloped land designated for industrial uses to the west. ENTITLEMENTS AND REQUIRED APPROVALS The project would require the following City approvals: • Minor subdivision • General Plan Amendment • Rezone • Adoption of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Press Democrat GPA and Rezone Project September 2014 Initial Study Page 2 Figure 1 Regional Map Press Democrat GPA and Rezone Project September 2014 Initial Study Page 3 n � ifGt$ 1"rl9a 06*1 Ira �..... 3iiRiYl � ColXCounnlyLW �Y0 L� a 4ti Fhdden 5'nnnnur l.'dniry army Lexe LaB e(;ounY Napa coy 101 „ngwm near xR� , Park urp 41e" Ma Project Site R $0 nw s��,., Salta laosa hn7h �� x l� Aal ATP+ COLONY SAWj)c&,Wy pa n Wit r„ra. r NO LucaS Lagudlabarasl a Pop Knells nd P a c i f i c Ia4raa 4ravx *slay pnnQa Mull Ocean carr,ti , Tovm San N Franrx5c0 Sen F 1 a !Y FrodscoCaurty n Castro sn Cure Farna�v e Q 5 10 15 Sq W+ n 'Miles sa, FIGURE 1 Regional Map 7390 PRESS DEMOCRAT GPA AND REZONE INITIAL STUDY Figure 2 Vicinity Map Press Democrat GPA and Rezone Project September 2014 Initial Study Page 4 10 '• • +, i • Y • I,� 1 ti + V 100. 11 troy ,-C Crli� l 910 = . AW `^ 1•! ,r 1 Project Site Fi — � 1 1 101 jA L @gou 9t TA law • 42 90 92 • , d5 :�' "''•ref f • �i lr� �',,�� f •: s �+lyr�. ...fit Park p v•� �C p � 1foh++rrl Her •�� p ' • � . • •fig... --.�'�eh• lW • e e 0 1,000 2,000" iib ,� =s - am • Feet +_ �• ,o v �—`- �4 riO D U D E K SOURCE: USGS 7 5 Minute Series Cotafi Quadrangle FIGURE 2 Vicinity Map 7390 PRESS DEMOCRAT GPA AND REZONE INITIAL STUDY Figure 3 Aerial Map Press Democrat GPA and Rezone Project September 2014 Initial Study Page 5 '1►` � a � ,�'"'" til � �� ,tq�ry' �,!7"'� y Lr i i► • Y iii=� : � �yr - Y I 1 All b A r—i - •r _ JL P l .A x r l rr s e o zso soo Q 'Feel Project Boundary - ,� 0 U D �, K SOURCE Bing 2014 FIGURE 3 Aerial Map 7390 PRESS DEMOCRAT GPA AND REZONE INITIAL STUDY Figure 4 Proposed Minor Subdivision/ Rezone Press Democrat GPA and Rezone Project September 2014 Initial Study Page 6 [AW /r PARR IMOrIr/rS II,! -610-W7 AY Ial-N!]G [Or J DUDEK 7]00 POWl ►or sur / ra[ dOWK nlor 111-11. r0 C -sl (a.r ACRS) AV M. BB 9SV ANP9 I6-17 �lSM/RS CMI�aOal [iIN SOURCE: CMI Design G..wil nls, Inc 2014 1 1 I PRESS DEMOCRAT GPA AND REZONE INITIAL STUDY I I II I I II 0 2w Soo FIGURE 4 Proposed Minor Subdivision/Rezone a— -- r #0.YN Ar 8WINCW YAA+C- StIDBlV�DN � J1�5 AWS 10-11 (<) [AIwDJ O' iwu P60� it 40/J ff [ PAW ismer &"m JAW l t70S &:,OA illuy 0- cuwl 1 1 6a 10-10,0010-10,010-10,00-d"u AV Iml r -OW -111 9w r low# 0 Ac 7' s NK II 1 I + Ill PAOM MICA - 116 Acw z,\l AV M. BB 9SV ANP9 I6-17 �lSM/RS CMI�aOal [iIN SOURCE: CMI Design G..wil nls, Inc 2014 1 1 I PRESS DEMOCRAT GPA AND REZONE INITIAL STUDY I I II I I II 0 2w Soo FIGURE 4 Proposed Minor Subdivision/Rezone Figure 5 Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations Press Democrat GPA and Rezone Project September 2014 Initial Study Page 7 Existing General Plan kkuh ..I— \FUK Ir rnccin Proposed General Plan wow ro551 l r -r Low Dwutr Rru&aual V dv m Dmutr &u&a W m& D..r, Lm6im" - Comawtrtd - N C'iktataer.w - a _ Col9a KcW • R. Fid Dmu r Rrudenual D U D E K I SOURCE: CIIy of Rohned Paih 2014 a4, w+ Xrowd use Me* FghLc in-apr uzoaal kv,Patio opea Spice • 1'avm*vXwAtalCOR%eCrX a Opa Spice - AgnoJolue u d P&wtuce lbazgenamt ccu m mw S►puaiar 7390 E PRESS DEMOCRAT GPAAND REZONE INITIAL STUDY •`r""' Spherr<att�tNtxe `_U You Utbm Gsowth $onndarr Car I -mm �.Ifa9l�n��f@p@etd �P tri • .ww�ot Aimul (44 ianer) ..•••. MmmAzeoud.2laaesf WcK CoBac Ot (4 lal ) .MMOL C01j .04 2 Lkuo,i FIGURE 5 Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated", as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture and [] Air Quality Forestry Resources ® Biological Resources ® Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Greenhouse Gas ❑ Hazards& Hazardous ® Hydrology/ Water Emissions Materials Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population / Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/ Traffic ❑ Utilities / Service ❑ Mandatory Findings Systems of Significance ❑ None with Mitigation DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have 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 envirorunent, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. 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" impact 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 EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are i In osekl upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature: Date: �+ Printed Marilyn Poiiton, AICP For: City of Rohnert Park Name: Interim Development Services Director Press Democrat GPA and Rezone Project Initial Study September 2014 Page 8 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The following analysis addresses the project as currently proposed and only evaluates potential impacts associated with future development of the t 3.8 acres proposed to be designated and zoned for Regional Commercial uses. It is assumed that future development of Regional Commercial uses would not result in greater impacts than those associated with the existing Industrial land use. General mitigation measures are included that address potential impacts associated with development activities. It is assumed when the City receives a development application for this parcel an environmental document will be prepared to evaluate impacts, if a discretionary approval is required. a - d. The project applicant is requesting a minor subdivision to create two lots, a GPA to change the 3.8 acre parcel from Industrial to Commercial -R (Regional), and a rezone of this parcel from Industrial to Regional Commercial (R -C). No development is proposed at this time. Commercial development would reduce the allowable FAR from 0.5 under industrial to 0.4 for commercial development. This change would slightly reduce the development intensity to 66,748 sf compared to the current Industrial designation that would allow development of up to 83,435 sf. The project site currently contains the Press Democrat production facility and adjacent surface parking lot. The remainder of the site is undeveloped and does not contain any scenic resources. It is assumed future development of the site would be required to comply with the City's design standards, General Plan policies, and lighting and glare standards included in the City's Municipal Code (Chapter 17.12.050). Compliance with these requirements would ensure all impacts would be less than significant. The project does not include any development and the proposed subdivision, GPA, and rezone would not have an effect on a scenic vista, damage any scenic resources, degrade the existing visual character or create a new source of light or glare. Therefore, there would be no impact to visual resources. Press Democrat GPA and Rezone Project September 2014 Initial Study Page 9 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than I. AESTHETICS Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, ❑ ❑ 7 but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character ❑ ❑ j] or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare ❑ ❑ ❑ which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? a - d. The project applicant is requesting a minor subdivision to create two lots, a GPA to change the 3.8 acre parcel from Industrial to Commercial -R (Regional), and a rezone of this parcel from Industrial to Regional Commercial (R -C). No development is proposed at this time. Commercial development would reduce the allowable FAR from 0.5 under industrial to 0.4 for commercial development. This change would slightly reduce the development intensity to 66,748 sf compared to the current Industrial designation that would allow development of up to 83,435 sf. The project site currently contains the Press Democrat production facility and adjacent surface parking lot. The remainder of the site is undeveloped and does not contain any scenic resources. It is assumed future development of the site would be required to comply with the City's design standards, General Plan policies, and lighting and glare standards included in the City's Municipal Code (Chapter 17.12.050). Compliance with these requirements would ensure all impacts would be less than significant. The project does not include any development and the proposed subdivision, GPA, and rezone would not have an effect on a scenic vista, damage any scenic resources, degrade the existing visual character or create a new source of light or glare. Therefore, there would be no impact to visual resources. Press Democrat GPA and Rezone Project September 2014 Initial Study Page 9 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES Significant mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ❑ ❑ ❑ Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ❑ ❑ ❑ Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment ❑ ❑ ❑ which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of ❑ ❑ ❑ forest land to non -forest use? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment ❑ ❑ ❑ which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? a. - e. The project site is located in a developed area of the city on land currently designated and zoned for industrial development. An existing industrial use, the Press Democrat production facility, is located on a portion of the site. No forest resources exist on the site or in this area of the City. In addition, the project is not proposing any development only a minor subdivision to create two parcels and a change in the underlying land use designation and zoning for a small portion of the site. The project would not conflict with land zoned for agriculture, or convert farmland or forest land to non-agricultural or non -forest uses. Therefore, there would be no agricultural or forest land impacts. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. Press Democrat GPA and Rezone Project September 2014 Initial Study Page 10 e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ number of people? a. - e. The project applicant is not proposing any development at this time only a minor subdivision to create two parcels and a change in the underlying land use designation and zoning for a portion of the site. The project site is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The BAAQMD has the primary responsibility for ensuring that the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin attains and maintains compliance with federal and state ambient air quality standards. The BAAQMD regulates air quality through its permit authority over most types of stationary emissions sources and through its planning and review process. The California ambient air quality standards are generally more stringent than federal standards. The federal and state Clean Air Acts define allowable concentrations of six air pollutants, which are referred to as "criteria air pollutants." When monitoring indicates that a region regularly experiences air pollutant concentrations that exceed those limits, the region is designated as nonattainment and is required to develop an air quality plan that describes air pollution control strategies to be implemented to reduce air pollutant emissions and concentrations. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is designated nonattainment for the federal 8 - hour ozone (Os) standard. The area is in attainment or unclassified for all other federal standards. The area is designated nonattainment for state standards for 1 -hour and 8 - hour Os, 24-hour small particulate matter (PMlo), annual PMlo, and annual respirable particulate matter (PM2.5). To address the regions nonattainment status, the BAAQMD Press Democrat GPA and Rezone Project September 2014 Initial Study Page 11 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than III. AIR QUALITY Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the E] ❑ Z ❑ applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ❑ Z ❑ substantially to an 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 state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑ concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ number of people? a. - e. The project applicant is not proposing any development at this time only a minor subdivision to create two parcels and a change in the underlying land use designation and zoning for a portion of the site. The project site is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The BAAQMD has the primary responsibility for ensuring that the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin attains and maintains compliance with federal and state ambient air quality standards. The BAAQMD regulates air quality through its permit authority over most types of stationary emissions sources and through its planning and review process. The California ambient air quality standards are generally more stringent than federal standards. The federal and state Clean Air Acts define allowable concentrations of six air pollutants, which are referred to as "criteria air pollutants." When monitoring indicates that a region regularly experiences air pollutant concentrations that exceed those limits, the region is designated as nonattainment and is required to develop an air quality plan that describes air pollution control strategies to be implemented to reduce air pollutant emissions and concentrations. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is designated nonattainment for the federal 8 - hour ozone (Os) standard. The area is in attainment or unclassified for all other federal standards. The area is designated nonattainment for state standards for 1 -hour and 8 - hour Os, 24-hour small particulate matter (PMlo), annual PMlo, and annual respirable particulate matter (PM2.5). To address the regions nonattainment status, the BAAQMD Press Democrat GPA and Rezone Project September 2014 Initial Study Page 11 adopted the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy (BAAQMD 2006) and the Bay Area 2010 Clean. Air Plan (BAAQMD 2010a), which is an update to the 2005 document and provides "an integrated, multi -pollutant strategy to improve air quality, protect public health, and protect the climate." The 2010 plan addresses 03, PM2,5 and PMlo, air toxics, and greenhouse gases (GHGs). The 2010 plan identifies a number of control measures to be adopted or implemented to reduce emissions of these pollutants. The BAAQMD has adopted California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) air quality guidelines (2010 BAAQMD Guidelines; BAAQMD 2010b) that establish air pollutant emission thresholds that identify whether a project would violate any applicable air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Compared with the previous set of guidelines adopted in 1999, the 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines lower the level of pollutant emissions and health risk impacts that are considered a significant environmental impact. The BAAQMD's adoption of the thresholds has been challenged in court. However, the litigation is procedural in nature and does not assert that the BAAQMD failed to provide substantial evidence to support its adoption of these thresholds. Because the 2010 thresholds are more conservative than the BAAQMD's prior thresholds, this impact analysis is based on the 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines. The 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines also establish screening criteria based on the size of a project to determine whether detailed modeling to estimate air pollutant emissions is necessary. Table 1 lists several examples of screening levels set by the 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines. Table 1 BAAOMD Screening Criteria Land Use Type Construction Related Size Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Screening Size* General office building _Screening 277,000 sf (ROG) 346,000 sf (NO,) Office park 277,000 sf (ROG) 323,000 sf (NO.J Regional shopping center or strip mall 277,000 sf (ROG) 99,000 sf (NOJ Quality restaurant 277,000 sf (ROG) 47,000 sf (NOJ Sin le-familv residential 114 du (ROG) 325 du (ROG) Apartment, low-rise, or condo/ townhouse, aeneral 240 du (ROG) 451 du (ROG) City park 67 acres (PMio) 2,613 acres (ROG) Daycare center 277,000 sf ROG) 53,000 sf (NO Source: BAAQMD 2010b, Table 3-1. * If the project size is less than the screening size, the project would have less than significant impacts. If the project size is greater than the screening size, detailed project -specific modeling is required. sf = square feet; ROG = reactive organic gas; NO,= oxides of nitrogen; PMio= small particulate matter; du= dwelling units It is assumed that future development of this site would comply with whatever standards, thresholds, and requirements are in place at the time by the BAAQMD which would ensure impacts associated with project construction and operation could be reduced to acceptable levels. Press Democrat GPA and Rezone Project September 2014 Initial Study Page 12 Buildout of the project assuming a 0.40 FAR would allow development of commercial uses up to 66,748 sf. This is below the screening threshold of 277,000 sf for construction emissions and 99,000 sf for operational emissions (regional shopping center or strip mall). As the project is smaller than the screening criteria size, emissions of criteria air pollutants associated with construction and operation of the proposed project would remain below the BAAQMD thresholds. Project operation would not result in emissions that violate any applicable air quality standards, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or conflict with the air quality plan; impacts would remain less than significant. Cumulative Impacts As discussed above, the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is currently designated as a nonattainment area for state and national 03 standards and state PMlo and PM2.5 ambient air quality standards. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basins nonattainment status is attributed to the region's development history. Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the region's adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. As described in the BAAQMD 2010 Guidelines (BAAQMD 2010b), "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. Instead, a project's individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project's contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project's impact on air quality would be considered significant." Because construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in emissions that violate any applicable air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, the project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: 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 regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife 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 plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ❑ ❑ ❑ protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Press Democrat GPA and Rezone Project September 2014 Initial Study Page 13 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any ❑ ❑ [� native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ ❑ [] Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? a. - f. The project applicant is not proposing any development at this time only a minor subdivision to create two parcels and a change in the underlying land use designation and zoning for a 3.8 -acre portion of the site. The site is located in a developed area of the City and is currently designated and zoned for industrial development with a portion of the site developed with the Press Democrat production facility. The project site is not included within a habitat conservation plan (HCP) or state conservation plan. The remainder of the site is undeveloped. Ornamental trees and street trees are present along the northeast boundary of the project site as well as scattered along the eastern and southern boundaries as well. No streams or waterways are present. It is unlikely the project site contains any special -status plant or animal species or their habitat since a majority of the site is developed with an industrial facility and the remainder of the site consists of paved parking lots and ornamental landscaping. However, trees within the project site could support nesting raptors and other migratory birds. Nesting birds are protected by the California Fish and Game Code and the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Mitigation is required to ensure the impact is reduced to less than significant. The loss of heritage trees would be regulated by the City's Heritage Tree Preservation Ordinance. The project is not proposing to disturb the site through grading, site clearing or construction activities at this time. Therefore, the project would not adversely affect any special -status plant or animal species or wetlands, interfere with wildlife corridors, conflict with any city policies or a HCP. Therefore, there would be no biological resources impacts aside from potential impacts to nesting raptors and other migratory birds, which would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation. Press Democrat GPA and Rezone Project September 2014 Initial Study Page 14 Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure BIO -1: The project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist, acceptable to the City to conduct nest surveys on the site and within 200 feet of its borders prior to construction or site preparation activities occurring during the nesting/ breeding season raptor species (typically February through August). The surveys shalt be conducted no earlier than 30 days prior to commencement of construction/ restoration activities. Mitigation Measure BIO -2: If active raptor nests are present in the construction zone or within 200 feet of these areas, a fence shall be erected at a minimum of 50 feet around the nest site and remain until the end of the nesting season or until the biologist deems necessary. This temporary buffer may be greater depending on the identification of the bird species and construction activity elements, as determined by the biologist. Mitigation Measure BIO -3: If an active raptor nest is located on or adjacent to the project site, tree removal, grading, and other project -related disturbances shall be prohibited within 200 feet of the active raptor nest until the young have fledged. Prior to disturbance within 200 feet of an active raptor nest, the project developer shall retain a qualified biologist or ornithologist, acceptable to the City to confirm that the young have fledged. The biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities will occur near active nest areas to ensure the safety of raptors at peril. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ® ❑ (] significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ® ❑ [� significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique D ❑ El paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? a. - d. The project applicant is not proposing any development at this time only a minor subdivision to create two parcels and a change in the underlying land use designation and zoning for a small portion of the site. The project is not proposing to disturb the site through grading, site clearing, building demolition or construction activities at this time. However, future development activities could unearth or disturb known or unknown archaeological or historic resources. Compliance with the required mitigation would ensure the impact is reduced to less than significant. It is not anticipated there would be any paleontological resources present that could Press Democrat GPA and Rezone Project September 2014 Initial Study Page 15 be affected by future development. The project would not adversely affect any archaeological, historic, or paleontological resources. Nor would the project disturb any human remains. However, future development requires mitigation to ensure the impact remains less than significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure CUL -1: If any cultural resources are discovered during ground -disturbing activities, work in the immediate area shall stop and a qualified archaeologist brought in to evaluate the resource and to recommend further action, if necessary. Construction crews shall be directed by holder of the grading permit to be alert for cultural resources which could consist of, but not be limited to: artifact of stone, bone, wood, shell, or other materials; features, including hearths, structural remains, or dumps; areas of discolored soil indicating the location of fire pits, post molds, or living area surfaces. Mitigation Measure CUL -2: In the event that human remains are discovered, all work in the area shall stop immediately, and the applicant shall contact the County Coroner. If the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, both the Native American Heritage Commission and any identified descendants shall be notified and recommendations for treatment solicited pursuant to CEQA Section 15064.59(e). Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: 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 or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 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 Press Democrat GPA and Rezone Project September 2014 Initial Study Page 16 a. - e. The project applicant is not proposing any development at this time only a minor subdivision to create two parcels and a change in the underlying land use designation and zoning for a small portion of the site. The project is not proposing to disturb the site through grading, site clearing or construction activities. However, it is assumed future development of the site would be required to comply , with all applicable requirements and would be designed and constructed in accordance with all applicable buildings codes, which address seismic hazards and would reduce the potential for structure damage. The project, as proposed, would not expose people or structures to any seismic hazards, create soil erosion, or construct new structures on unstable soils. Therefore, there would be no geologic impacts. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: or collapse? ❑ ❑El d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table18- ❑ ❑ ❑ 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ e) 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? a. - e. The project applicant is not proposing any development at this time only a minor subdivision to create two parcels and a change in the underlying land use designation and zoning for a small portion of the site. The project is not proposing to disturb the site through grading, site clearing or construction activities. However, it is assumed future development of the site would be required to comply , with all applicable requirements and would be designed and constructed in accordance with all applicable buildings codes, which address seismic hazards and would reduce the potential for structure damage. The project, as proposed, would not expose people or structures to any seismic hazards, create soil erosion, or construct new structures on unstable soils. Therefore, there would be no geologic impacts. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. a. - b. The project is not proposing to develop the portion of the site changing from industrial to commercial uses. However, assuming development of commercial uses under a 0.40 FAR, approximately 66,748 sf could be developed. As discussed above under Air Quality, the size of the project would not trigger any significant construction or operational air quality impacts. Therefore, the project's contribution Press Democrat GPA and Rezone Project September 2014 Initial Study Page 17 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly ❑ ❑El or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? a. - b. The project is not proposing to develop the portion of the site changing from industrial to commercial uses. However, assuming development of commercial uses under a 0.40 FAR, approximately 66,748 sf could be developed. As discussed above under Air Quality, the size of the project would not trigger any significant construction or operational air quality impacts. Therefore, the project's contribution Press Democrat GPA and Rezone Project September 2014 Initial Study Page 17 to a cumulative increase in greenhouse gas emissions would be negligible and it is anticipated that future development would not generate greenhouse gas emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with plans or policies designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, greenhouse gas emissions impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ environment through the routine transport, use, 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 release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ❑ ❑ ❑ 01 acutely hazardous materials, substances, or 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 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 safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑ j❑ would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ❑ ❑ ❑ IX loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Press Democrat GPA and Rezone Project September 2014 Initial Study Page 18 a. - h. The project applicant is not proposing any development at this time only a minor subdivision to create two parcels and a change in the underlying land use designation and zoning for a portion of the site. The project is not proposing to disturb the site through grading, site clearing or construction activities. The project site is located in a developed area of the city and is not adjacent to lands potentially exposed to wild fire risks. The closest airports to the project site are the Sonoma County Airport and Petaluma Municipal Airport, both over 10 miles from the site. Future development would also be required to comply with all federal, state and local requirements for the use, handling and storage of hazardous materials. Therefore, the project would not expose the public to the use, storage and transport of hazardous materials, impair implementation of an adopted emergency response plan, create a safety hazard for people within an airport land use plan, or expose people or structures to wildfire. Therefore, there would be no hazards impacts. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or [] ❑ ❑ 0 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 (e.g., 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? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of 0 ❑ the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially , increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off- site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would 0 ® ❑ ❑ Press Democrat GPA and Rezone Project September 2014 Initial Study Page 19 a. - j. The project applicant is not proposing any development at this time only a minor subdivision to create two parcels and a change in the underlying land use designation and zoning for a portion of the site. The project is not proposing to disturb the site through grading, site clearing or construction activities. However, future development of the project site could increase impervious surfaces, including parking lots which can collect fluids, oils, and gas from trucks and cars that could be discharged into the City's storm drain system. Preparation of a site-specific stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) would be required along with a site-specific drainage study to ensure impacts to storm runoff and water quality are reduced to less than significant. Because the project, as proposed, does not include any development there would be no increase in impervious surfaces or changes in groundwater recharge. Future development would be required to prepare a hydrology and drainage study to quantify the amount of impervious surface area and the increase in stormwater flows. The project, site is not within a 100 year floodplain, as indicated on Flood Insurance Rate (FIRM) Map #06097C0877E. The project would not change the existing drainage pattern, contribute runoff, degrade water quality or place people or structures within a 100 year floodplain. Therefore, there would be no hydrology or water quality impacts. Press Democrat GPA and Rezone Project September 2014 Initial Study Page 20 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ 0 ❑ Q g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area ❑ ❑ ❑ as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures ❑ ❑ 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 levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ a. - j. The project applicant is not proposing any development at this time only a minor subdivision to create two parcels and a change in the underlying land use designation and zoning for a portion of the site. The project is not proposing to disturb the site through grading, site clearing or construction activities. However, future development of the project site could increase impervious surfaces, including parking lots which can collect fluids, oils, and gas from trucks and cars that could be discharged into the City's storm drain system. Preparation of a site-specific stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) would be required along with a site-specific drainage study to ensure impacts to storm runoff and water quality are reduced to less than significant. Because the project, as proposed, does not include any development there would be no increase in impervious surfaces or changes in groundwater recharge. Future development would be required to prepare a hydrology and drainage study to quantify the amount of impervious surface area and the increase in stormwater flows. The project, site is not within a 100 year floodplain, as indicated on Flood Insurance Rate (FIRM) Map #06097C0877E. The project would not change the existing drainage pattern, contribute runoff, degrade water quality or place people or structures within a 100 year floodplain. Therefore, there would be no hydrology or water quality impacts. Press Democrat GPA and Rezone Project September 2014 Initial Study Page 20 Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure HYDRO -1: The project applicant shall develop and implement a site- specific storm water pollution prevention plan acceptable to the City that identifies best management practices for effectively reducing discharges of storm water containing sediment and construction wastes resulting from site construction activities. The applicant shall comply with all other requirements set forth in NPDES General Permit CAS000002. Mitigation Measure HYDRO -2: The project applicant shall design and construct storm drainage improvements to remove oil and grease from discharges from parking lots, including directing runoff to vegetated swales or areas, consistent with best management practices. Mitigation Measure HYDRO -3: The project applicant shall prepare a site-specific hydrology and drainage study acceptable to the City showing the increase in storm water runoff that would result from development of the project site. Based upon the results of this study, the developer shall design and construct a storm drain system in accordance with Sonoma County Water Agency Flood Control Design Criteria (latest revision), specific to the project. a. -c. The project applicant is not proposing any development at this time only a minor subdivision to create two parcels and a change in the underlying land use designation and zoning for a portion of the site. The Press Democrat production facility and associated surface parking is the only development on the site. The remainder of the site is undeveloped. There are no residential neighborhoods either on or adjacent to the project site. The project would not divide an established community because there is no community present on the site. The project site is located in a developed area of the City and is not within any conservation plans. Therefore, the project would not physically divide a community or conflict with a HCP and there would be no impacts. The project is proposing to re -designate and rezone an approximately 3.8 -acre portion of the site from Industrial to Regional Commercial as well as split the property into two parcels to accommodate this change in land use and zoning. The Industrial land use Press Democrat GPA and Rezone Project September 2014 Initial Study Page 21 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No X. LAND USE AND PLANNING Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ [—� b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or ❑ ❑ [, .� Z regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ plan or natural community conservation plan? a. -c. The project applicant is not proposing any development at this time only a minor subdivision to create two parcels and a change in the underlying land use designation and zoning for a portion of the site. The Press Democrat production facility and associated surface parking is the only development on the site. The remainder of the site is undeveloped. There are no residential neighborhoods either on or adjacent to the project site. The project would not divide an established community because there is no community present on the site. The project site is located in a developed area of the City and is not within any conservation plans. Therefore, the project would not physically divide a community or conflict with a HCP and there would be no impacts. The project is proposing to re -designate and rezone an approximately 3.8 -acre portion of the site from Industrial to Regional Commercial as well as split the property into two parcels to accommodate this change in land use and zoning. The Industrial land use Press Democrat GPA and Rezone Project September 2014 Initial Study Page 21 designation and zoning would remain unchanged for the remainder of the site. The project site is not located within any of the City's adopted Specific Plans. The project would not conflict with any land use goals or policies in the City of Rohnert Park's General Plan or any policies adopted to avoid an environmental effect. Therefore, there would be no impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. a.- b. There are no known locally -important mineral resources on the project site and the site is not delineated on the City's General Plan as a mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, there would be no impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than XI. MINERAL RESOURCES Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ ❑ E resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important ❑ ❑ ❑ mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local ❑ ❑ ® ❑ general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? a.- b. There are no known locally -important mineral resources on the project site and the site is not delineated on the City's General Plan as a mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, there would be no impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than XII. NOISE Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Expose persons to or generate noise levels in ❑ (—J excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Expose persons to or generate excessive ❑ ❑ ® ❑ groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) Create a substantial permanent increase in ambient ❑ ❑] ❑ noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) Create a substantial temporary or periodic increase ❑ ® ❑ in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan ❑ ❑ ❑ Press Democrat GPA and Rezone Project September 2014 Initial Study Page 22 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than XII. NOISE Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use 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, ❑ E] ❑ would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? a. -f. The project applicant is not proposing any development at this time only a minor subdivision to create two parcels and a change in the underlying land use designation and zoning from Industrial to Regional Commercial for a portion of the site. The Press Democrat production facility and associated surface parking is the only development on the site. The remainder of the site is undeveloped. There are no residential areas either on or adjacent to the project site. The closest sensitive receptor is a residential neighborhood located approximately two miles east of Highway 101 and the project site. It is assumed all future development would comply with the City's Municipal Code for hours of construction and maintenance of construction equipment to ensure short-term noise associated with construction would be less than significant. Assuming development of the site under the allowable 0.4 FAR approximately 66,748 sf of commercial uses could be developed. As noted in the Transportation section, development of future commercial uses compared to the underlying Industrial land use designation would increase daily PM peak hour trips by approximately 100 more than if the site was developed with industrial. The increase in 100 additional PM peak hour trips is not anticipated to generate a substantial increase in future noise levels. Because the closest sensitive receptors are located over two miles from the site, noise associated with project construction activities or noise associated with project operation would be less than significant. Noise impacts associated with groundborne vibration, or an increase in long term noise sources above existing levels would also be less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new Press Democrat GPA and Rezone Project Initial Study Less Than Significant Impact No Impact September 2014 Page 23 Less Than Significant Potentially With Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated ❑ ❑ Less Than Significant Impact No Impact September 2014 Page 23 a. -c. The project applicant is not proposing any development at this time only a minor subdivision to create two parcels and a change in the underlying land use designation and zoning from Industrial to Regional Commercial for a portion of the site. The project site is located in the City and has been designated for future industrial development. The project would not induce substantial population growth because it does not include development of residential uses or infrastructure to support future development. The project site is vacant and does not contain any residential uses. The project would not displace housing or people. Therefore, there would be no impacts to population and housing. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. Potentially XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Significant Impact Would the project: a) 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 following public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools IS Less Than Significant With Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ Less Than ❑ ❑ ❑ Significant Potentially With Less Than XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ ❑ [l necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, [] ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? a. -c. The project applicant is not proposing any development at this time only a minor subdivision to create two parcels and a change in the underlying land use designation and zoning from Industrial to Regional Commercial for a portion of the site. The project site is located in the City and has been designated for future industrial development. The project would not induce substantial population growth because it does not include development of residential uses or infrastructure to support future development. The project site is vacant and does not contain any residential uses. The project would not displace housing or people. Therefore, there would be no impacts to population and housing. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. Potentially XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Significant Impact Would the project: a) 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 following public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools IS Less Than Significant With Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Press Democrat GPA and Rezone Project September 2014 Initial Study Page 24 XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Parks Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Other public facilities? E] F-1 ❑ a. The project applicant is not proposing any development at this time only a minor subdivision to create two parcels and a change in the underlying land use designation and zoning from Industrial to Regional Commercial for a small portion of the site. It is not anticipated that future development of regional commercial uses would exceed existing acceptable levels of fire and police protection. The project, as proposed, does not include development of residential uses or infrastructure to support future development. Therefore, the project would not increase demand for police, fire, schools and parks there would be no impacts to public services. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. Less Than Less Than Significant Potentially With Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated ❑ ❑ Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Other public facilities? E] F-1 ❑ a. The project applicant is not proposing any development at this time only a minor subdivision to create two parcels and a change in the underlying land use designation and zoning from Industrial to Regional Commercial for a small portion of the site. It is not anticipated that future development of regional commercial uses would exceed existing acceptable levels of fire and police protection. The project, as proposed, does not include development of residential uses or infrastructure to support future development. Therefore, the project would not increase demand for police, fire, schools and parks there would be no impacts to public services. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. a. - b. The proposed project does not include the construction of new housing or any other uses that would result in an increase in population; therefore, there would be no increase in demand and no impact to existing and planned recreational facilities. Future development of regional commercial uses would also not increase demand for recreational uses. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. Press Democrat GPA and Rezone Project September 2014 Initial Study Page 25 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than XV. RECREATION Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ [� ❑ neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or [] N require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might, have an adverse physical effect on the environment? a. - b. The proposed project does not include the construction of new housing or any other uses that would result in an increase in population; therefore, there would be no increase in demand and no impact to existing and planned recreational facilities. Future development of regional commercial uses would also not increase demand for recreational uses. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. Press Democrat GPA and Rezone Project September 2014 Initial Study Page 25 XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for Ahe performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? El ❑ Less Than ❑ ❑ Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact ❑ ❑ El ❑ 0 No Impact INK 01 ❑ ❑ ❑ a. -b. A Traffic Impact Study for the Press Democrat Rezoning in the Cihj of Rohnert Park was prepared for the project by W -Trans (September 5, 2014). The Traffic Study evaluated the potential change in traffic associated with rezoning 3.8 acres from industrial to commercial land uses. The Traffic Study evaluated 8 intersections under PM peak conditions to capture the highest potential impacts for the proposed project, which would allow for development of regional commercial uses that typically generate few morning trips but a substantial number of evening peak hour trips. The PM peak period also captures the highest volumes on the local transportation network. 1. Redwood Drive/Golf Course Drive West 2. US 101 South Ramps/Golf Course Drive 3. Commerce Boulevard/ Golf Course Drive Press Democrat GPA and Rezone Project September 2014 Initial Study Page 26 ❑ ❑ 0 No Impact INK 01 ❑ ❑ ❑ a. -b. A Traffic Impact Study for the Press Democrat Rezoning in the Cihj of Rohnert Park was prepared for the project by W -Trans (September 5, 2014). The Traffic Study evaluated the potential change in traffic associated with rezoning 3.8 acres from industrial to commercial land uses. The Traffic Study evaluated 8 intersections under PM peak conditions to capture the highest potential impacts for the proposed project, which would allow for development of regional commercial uses that typically generate few morning trips but a substantial number of evening peak hour trips. The PM peak period also captures the highest volumes on the local transportation network. 1. Redwood Drive/Golf Course Drive West 2. US 101 South Ramps/Golf Course Drive 3. Commerce Boulevard/ Golf Course Drive Press Democrat GPA and Rezone Project September 2014 Initial Study Page 26 4. US 101 North Ramps/Commerce Boulevard 5. Redwood Drive/ Business Park Drive 6. Redwood Drive/ Rohnert Park Expressway 7. US 101 South Ramps/Rohnert Park Expressway 8. US 101 North Ramps/ Rohnert Park Expressway The City has a level of service (LOS) standard C for intersections with the exception of a LOS D for the intersections of Golf Course Drive West/ Redwood Drive, Golf Course Drive West/ US 101 Southbound Ramps, Golf Course Drive/ Commerce Boulevard, and Commerce Boulevard/ US 101 Northbound Ramps. For intersections that are projected to operate at unacceptable levels in the future, the City's General Plan does not specify what level of traffic impact an individual project would need to cause in order for such impacts to be considered significant, so criteria established by the County of Sonoma were applied. The County of Sonoma indicates that for intersections projected to operate at unacceptable levels in the future without a project, the project would be considered to create a significant impact if it increases the average vehicle delay at the affected intersection by 5.0 seconds or greater. As shown in Table 2, under existing conditions seven of the eight study intersections are operating acceptably. The intersection of Redwood Drive/Rohnert Park Expressway is currently operating unacceptably at LOS D. The General Plan does not specifically exempt this intersection from the City's LOS C standard, but does indicate that intersections currently operating at LOS D or lower may be deemed acceptable when evaluating the traffic impacts associated with a proposed project, so long as the development results in no further degradation in LOS and provided that no feasible improvements exist to improve the LOS. As described in greater detail in the Traffic Study, the ability to realistically achieve LOS C operation at this intersection is considered infeasible. Given that the intersection is currently operating at LOS D and that no feasible improvements exist to improve operation to LOS C, LOS D operation at this intersection is considered to be acceptable. Table 2 Existhw- PM Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Stud- Intersection Delay LOS 1. Redwood Dr/ Golf Course Dr W 40.5 D* 2. US 101 S Ramps/Golf Course Dr 20.8 C 3. Commerce Blvd/ Golf Course Dr 25.0 C 4. US 101 N Rams Commerce Blvd 12.7 B 5. Redwood Dr/ Business Park Dr 8.4 A 6. Redwood Dr/Rohnert Park Expressway 45.2 D** 7. US 101 S Ramps/ Rohnert Park Expressway 23.8 C 8. US 101 N Ramps/ Rohnert Park Expressway 23.4 C Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service * LOS D operation considered acceptable at this location per the General Plan ** LOS D considered to be acceptable since no feasible improvements exist to achieve LOS C Source: W -Trans 2014 The proposed rezone could result in a new 166,869 square foot lot (approximately 3.8 acres). The City's zoning code allows an FAR of 0.50 for industrial uses and an FAR of Press Democrat GPA and Rezone Project September 2014 Initial Study Page 27 0.40 for commercial uses. The parcel's development potential was therefore calculated as follows: • Industrial: 166,869 sf lot x 0.50 FAR = 83,435 sf building potential • Commercial: 166,869 sf lot x 0.40 FAR = 66,748 sf building potential Table 3 shows the potential trips that would be generated by the existing industrially - zoned property versus the potential trips that would be generated by the proposed commercially -zoned property. The zoning change is projected to generate up to 100 more PM peak hour trips than would have resulted from buildout under the current industrial zoning. Table 3 Trim Generation Summary Land Use SF Daily Trips PM Peak Hour Rate I Tris In Out Existing - General Li ht Industrial 83,400 582 0.97 81 �10 71 Proposed - Commercial Retail Center 66,700 2,958 2.71 181 80 101 Net Increase 1 2,376 24.0 100 1 70 30 Source: W=Trans 2014 Table 4 shows the intersection operations under Existing plus Project plus Recently Approved Projects to account for projects that are anticipated to be constructed in the near future. As shown in Table 3, under Existing plus Project plus Recently Approved Projects (Oxford Suites/ McDonald's, Amy's Kitchen, and Fiori Estates) all eight study intersections are projected to continue operating acceptably. Impacts under the Existing plus Project conditions would be less than significant. Table 4 Existing plus Proiect PM Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Stu4y Intersection Delay I LOS 1. Redwood Dr/ Goff Course Dr W 45.0 D* 2. US 101 S Ramps/Golf Course Dr 21.0 C 3. Commerce Blvd/Golf Course Dr 25.2 C 4. US 101 N Ramps/Commerce Blvd 12.7 B 5. Redwood Dr/Business Park Dr 7.3 A 6. Redwood Dr/Rohnert Park Expressway 46.7 D*** 7. US 101 S Ramps/Rohnert Park Exj2ressway 23.6 C 8. US 101 N Ramps/ Rohnert Park Expressway 24.0 C Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service * LOS D operation considered acceptable at this location per the General Plan ** Considered to be acceptable since project results in no further degradation of LOS Source: W Trans 2014 Future traffic volumes assume buildout of the Northwest Specific Plan area, completion of Phase II of the Graton Rancheria Casino and Hotel, buildout of the Rohnert Park General Plan including Specific Plan areas, and regional buildout throughout the region to the year 2040 as obtained from the Sonoma County Travel Model (SCTM/ 10), maintained by the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA). The SCTM/10 model assumes buildout of the project site with its current industrial land use Press Democrat GPA and Rezone Project September 2014 Initial Study Page 28 designation. The SCTA model assumes a financially -constrained set of infrastructure improvements to be in place by the year 2040. In other words, the model only includes roadway and alternative transportation improvements that SCTA has deemed to be financially - feasible by the year 2040, including the widening of US 101 through the Marin -Sonoma narrows and implementation of Sonoma -Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) commuter rail service. Several roadway and intersection improvements in the project vicinity are included in the City of Rohnert Park's 2011 Update to the Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP), and will be funded through identified sources including payment of area -wide traffic impact fees by developers. Roadway improvements identified in the PFFP are assumed to be in place under the Future and Future plus Project traffic analysis scenarios. As shown in Table 5, under the anticipated future traffic volumes, and with the addition of the future roadway improvements included in the City's PFFP, seven of the eight study intersections are expected to operate acceptably at LOS D or better. The intersection at Redwood Drive/Golf Course Drive West is projected to operate unacceptably at LOS E, although operation at this intersection would be expected to improve to acceptable levels with implementation of future improvements identified in the Northwest Specific Plan. Table 5 Future PM Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Study hiterajactipa Delay L05) 1. Redwood Dr/Golf Course Dr W 73.1 E 2. US 101 S Ram s/Golf Course Dr 38.0 D* 3. Commerce Blvd/ Golf Course Dr 38.4 D* 4. US 101 N Ramps/ Commerce Blvd 36.5 D* 5. Redwood Dr/Business Park Dr 19.3 B 6. Redwood Dr/Rohnert Park Expressway 45.6 D** 7. US 101 S Ramps/ Rohnert Park Ex ressway 22.3 C 8. US 101 N Ramps/Rohnert Park Expressway 29.4 _- C____.__1 Motes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service Bold text = deficient operation. * LOS D operation considered acceptable at this location per the General Plan ** LOS D considered to be acceptable since intersection operates at LOS D under existing conditions and no feasible improvements exist to achieve LOS C Source: W Trans 2014 As shown in Table 6, under future conditions at Redwood Drive/Golf Course Drive West, the project is projected to be responsible for a 3.9 -second increase in average vehicle delay, assuming no further improvements beyond those included in the 2011 PFFP. Project volumes at the intersection of Redwood Drive/Rohnert Park Expressway are projected to increase the average vehicle delay by 0.3 seconds. Such increases in delay would be imperceptible to drivers, and are less than the five -second incremental increase in delay that would be considered to cause a significant traffic impact. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant under Future plus Project conditions. Press Democrat GPA and Rezone Project September 2014 Initial Study Page 29 Table 6 FiifiirP nitic Prn;pct PM Peak 14o1ir intersection Levels of Service Stttdy Intersection Pelay LOS 1. Redwood Dr/Golf Course Dr W 77.0 E 2. US 101 S Ramps/Golf Course Dr 38.0 D* 3. Commerce Blvd Golf Course Dr 38.8 D* 4. US 101 N Ramps/Commerce Blvd 36.6 D* 5. Redwood Dr/Business Park Dr 19.8 B 6. Redwood Dr/Rohnert Park Expressway 45.9 D*** 7. US 101 S Ramps/ Rohnert Park Expressway 22.2 C 8. US 101 N Ramps/ Rohnert Park Ex ressway 29.6 C Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; W5 = Levet of Service Bold text = deficient operation. * LOS D operation considered acceptable at this location per the General Plan ** LOS D considered to be acceptable since intersection operates at LOS D under existing conditions and no feasible improvements exist to achieve LOS C *** Considered to be acceptable since project results in no further degradation of LOS Source: W Trans 2014 C. The proposed project would not change air traffic patterns or result in an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in a substantial safety risk. The closest airports are the Sonoma County Airport and Petaluma Municipal Airport, both over 10 miles from the site. There would be no safety risks associated with proximity to airports; therefore, there would be no impact. d.& The proposed project does not include any hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp e. curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). Therefore, there would be no impact. In addition, the project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Access to the project site would continue to be provided via Redwood Drive and Business Park Drive and would be designed consistent with City standards to ensure adequate emergency access is provided. There would be no impact. f. Pedestrian facilities exist within and adjacent to the project site. Sidewalks are present along Business Center Drive and Redwood Drive, but are not provided on J. Rogers Lane or the access driveway to the Press Democrat production facility. Class II bike lanes currently exist on both sides of Golf Course Drive -Golf Course Drive West and Redwood Drive. Class II bicycle lanes are also planned along Business Park Drive along with a future Class I multi -use path along the SMART commuter rail corridor that would be accessible from the project site via bicycle lanes on Golf Course Drive. Transit in the area is provided by Sonoma County Transit (SCT). SCT routes 12, 14, 44 and 48 provide bus access on both the east and west sides of Highway 101 and to Petaluma and Santa Rosa. Bus stops are provided in both directions on Redwood Drive and Business Park Drive within walking distance of the project site. The project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit or bicycle facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. The impact would be less than significant. Press Democrat GPA and Rezone Project September 2014 Initial Study Page 30 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ❑ ❑ ❑ applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or ❑ ❑ (❑ wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new [ ❑ �_] stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the E-1 ❑ L—] project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements 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 the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ❑ ❑ 0 capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ❑ ❑ ❑ regulations related to solid waste? a.- g. The project applicant is not proposing any development at this time only a minor subdivision to create two parcels and a change in the underlying land use designation and zoning from Industrial to Regional Commercial for a portion of the site. Future development is anticipated to be accommodated by the City's water supply and wastewater infrastructure. Development of the site for Industrial uses was assumed in the General Plan and determined to not result in any impacts. Changing the use to regional commercial is not anticipated to increase demand for water supply, wastewater treatment, landfill space or energy beyond what was originally contemplated under Industrial uses. It is also assumed that adequate infrastructure capacity in the area as well as adequate water supply is available to serve future development. The project does not include development of any uses or infrastructure that would increase demand for water, wastewater, solid waste, or energy resources. Press Democrat GPA and Rezone Project September 2014 Initial Study Page 31 Therefore, the project would not increase demand for public utilities and there would be no impacts. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Significant Mitigation significant Impact Incorporated Impact No 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 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 impacts that are individually ❑ ❑ ❑ limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project 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)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which ❑ ❑ Z ❑ will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a. The project, as currently proposed, does not include the construction of any structures or operation of any uses. Therefore, the project would not adversely impact biological or cultural resources. However, future development of regional or commercial uses could potentially affect biological or cultural resources. Therefore, mitigation is included to ensure impacts associated with future development would be reduced to less than significant. b. Assuming development of the site under the allowable 0.40 FAR for commercial development the project could develop up to 66,748 sf. Under this assumption the project would contribute a small increase in vehicle trips during the PM peak hour (100 trips) compared to the designated industrial land use designation. However, the project's contribution to a significant cumulative impact at the Redwood Drive/Golf Course West intersection would not be considerable because the delay associated with project traffic would be less than 5 seconds, which does not meet the County's threshold. Assuming development of the site with commercial uses, the increase in air emissions Press Democrat GPA and Rezone Project September 2014 Initial Study Page 32 associated with project operation under cumulative conditions would be less than significant because the size of the project would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact. The project would not result in any other impacts that are cumulatively significant. C. The project, as proposed, along with future development of regional and commercial uses on a portion of the site would result in environmental effect that would cause substantial adverse effects on people. As explained throughout this Initial Study, these impacts would all be less than significant. Press Democrat GPA and Rezone Project September 2014 Initial Study Page 33 REFERENCES BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 2006. Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. Adopted January 4, 2006. http:/ / www.baagmd.gov/ —/ media/ Files/ Planning%20and°/`20 Research/ Plans/ 2005 %200zone %20Strategy/ adoptedfinal_voll.ashx. BAAQMD. 2010a. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. September 15, 2010. http:/ /www.baagmd.gov/—/media/ Files/ Planning%20and %2OResearch/ Plans/2010 20Clean%2OAir %20P1an/ CAP %20Volume %20I%20 %20Appendices.ashx. BAAQMD. 2010b. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. May 2010. http:/ /www.baagmd.gov/—/ media/ Files/ Planning%20and%2OResearch/ CEQA/ Draft _BAAQMD_CEQA_Guidelines_May_2010 _Final.ashx?la=en. City of Rohnert Park. 2000. General Plan (Fifth Edition). Adopted July 2000. REPORT PREPARERS Heather Martinelli, AICP Christine Kronenberg, AICP Press Democrat GPA and Rezone Project September 2014 Initial Study Page 34 EXHIBIT 2 FINDINGS FOR THE PRESS DEMOCRAT GPA/REZONE PROJECT REQUIRED FINDINGS CEQA requires that, prior to approval of a project, the Lead Agency make specified findings related to each of the significant or potentially significant environmental effects considered in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The MND identified several significant or potentially significant effects on the environment. The City of Rohnert Park City Council's findings with respect to each of these significant or potentially significant environmental effects are presented below. It is anticipated that the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park will adopt the MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and approve the Project in conjunction with its adoption of this document. With these actions in place, all the Project environmental effects will be reduced to less than significant. The findings for the proposed Project are based upon substantial evidence, comprised primarily of the information, analysis and mitigation measures described in the MND and other information incorporated into these documents by reference. SECTION 1.0 FINDINGS OF THE LEAD AGENCY WITH REGARD TO THE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT 1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT THAT DO NOT REQUIRE FINDINGS Environmental effects that the MND found to be less than significant without mitigation do not require findings under CEQA. These effects include the following: Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation and Traffic Utilities and Service Systems 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT THAT REQUIRE FINDINGS The environmental effects that were found by the Mitigated Negative Declaration/initial Study (MND) to be significant and/or potentially significant prior to the application of mitigation measures include the effects listed below. As required by CEQA, the City of Rohnert Park City Council must make findings with respect to each of these significant effects. The City Council's findings, and the evidence in support of those findings, are detailed below. Future development at the project site could result in, or contribute to, impacts to nesting birds protected by the California Fish and Game Code and the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. EFFECT: Although the Project proposes no specific development at this time, the project site would eventually support development of regional commercial uses on the 3.8 -acre portion of the site. The existing trees on the project site could support nesting raptors and other migratory birds. Therefore, mitigation is provided to ensure that potential impacts to nesting raptors and migratory birds would remain less than significant. MITIGATION: Mitigation Measure 13I0-1: The project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist , acceptable to the City to conduct nest surveys on the site and within 200 feet of its borders prior to construction or site preparation activities occurring during the nesting/breeding season raptor species (typically February through August). The surveys shall be conducted no earlier than 30 days prior to commencement of construction/restoration activities. Mitigation Measure 13I0-2: If active raptor nests are present in the construction zone or within 200 feet of these areas, a fence shall be erected at a minimum of 50 feet around the nest site and remain until the end of the nesting season or until the biologist deems necessary. This temporary buffer may be greater depending on the identification of the bird species and construction activity elements, as determined by the biologist. Mitigation Measure BIO -3: If an active raptor nest is located on or adjacent to the project site, tree removal, grading, and other project -related disturbances shall be prohibited within 200 feet of the active raptor nest until the young have fledged. Prior to disturbance within 200 feet of an active raptor nest, the project developer shall retain a qualified biologist or ornithologist, acceptable to the City to confirm that the young have fledged. The biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities will occur near active nest areas to ensure the safety of raptors at peril. FINDING: Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO -1 through BIO -3 would ensure that impacts related to nesting raptors and other migratory birds would be reduced to less than significant levels. Future development at the project site could result in, or contribute to, impacts to unknown cultural resources. EFFECT: Although the Project proposes no specific development at this time, the project site would eventually support development of regional commercial uses on the 3.8 -acre portion of the site. Future ground -disturbing activities could impact unknown cultural resources. Therefore, mitigation is provided to ensure that potential impacts to cultural resources remain less than significant. MITIGATION: Mitigation Measure CUL -1: If any cultural resources are discovered during ground -disturbing activities, work in the immediate area shall stop and a qualified archaeologist brought in to evaluate the resource and to recommend further action, if necessary. Construction crews shall be directed by holder of the grading permit to be alert for cultural resources which could consist of, but not be limited to: artifact of stone, bone, wood, shell, or other materials; features, including hearths, structural remains, or dumps; areas of discolored soil indicating the location of fire pits, post molds, or living area surfaces. Mitigation Measure CUL -2: In the event that human remains are discovered, all work in the area shall stop immediately, and the applicant shall contact the County Coroner. If the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, both the Native American Heritage Commission and any identified descendants shall be notified and recommendations for treatment solicited pursuant to CEQA Section 15064.59(e). FINDING: Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL -1 and CUL -2 would ensure that impacts to cultural resources would be reduced to less than significant levels. Future development at the project site could result in, or contribute to, impacts to water quality by increasing the amount of impervious surface within the project site. EFFECT: Although the Project proposes no specific development at this time, the project site would eventually support development of regional commercial uses on the 3.8 -acre portion of the site. Future development would increase the amount of impervious surface within the project site, which could impact water quality and drainage. Therefore, mitigation is provided to ensure that potential impacts to hydrology and water quality remain less than significant. MITIGATION: Mitigation Measure HYDRO -1: The project applicant shall develop and implement a site-specific storm water pollution prevention plan acceptable to the City that identifies best management practices for effectively reducing discharges of storm water containing sediment and construction wastes resulting from site construction activities. The applicant shall comply with all other requirements set forth in NPDES General Permit CAS000002. Mitigation Measure HYDRO -2: The project applicant shall design and construct storm drainage improvements to remove oil and grease from discharges from parking lots, including directing runoff to vegetated swales or areas, consistent with best management practices. Mitigation Measure HYDRO -3: The project applicant shall prepare a site-specific hydrology and drainage study acceptable to the City showing the increase in storm water runoff that would result from development of the project site. Based upon the results of this study, the developer shall design and construct a storm drain system in accordance with Sonoma County Water Agency Flood Control Design Criteria (latest revision), specific to the project. FINDING: Implementation of Mitigation Measures HYDRO -1 through HYDRO -3 would ensure that impacts to hydrology and water quality would be reduced to less than significant levels.