Loading...
2013/10/24 Planning Commission Resolution (7)PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2013-23 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY SITE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND STADIUM AREA MASTER PLAN FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS WHEREAS, the City of Rohnert Park proposes to amend the General Plan Diagram and Stadium Area Master Plan Final Development Plan (SAMP) (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared for the Project and concluded that the proposed Project would not have a significant effect on the environment; therefore a Negative Declaration was prepared; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California State Law, the Negative Declaration were circulated for a period of 20 days and a Notice of Intent was published in the Community Voice on October 4, 2013; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California State Law and the City of Rohnert Park Municipal Code (RPMC), a public hearing notice was published for a minimum of 10 days prior to the first public hearing in the Community Voice; and WHEREAS, on October 24, 2013, the Planning Commission held a public meeting at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify regarding the Initial Study and Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, at the October 24, 2013 public meeting the Planning Commission of the City of Rohnert Park reviewed and considered the information contained in the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the proposal, which is attached to this resolution as Exhibit 1; and WHEREAS, Section 21000, et. seq., of the Public Resources Code and Section 15000, et. seq., of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (the "CEQA Guidelines"), which govern the preparation, content, and processing of Negative Declarations, have been fully implemented in the preparation of the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Rohnert Park makes the following findings, determinations and recommendations with respect to the Negative Declaration for the proposed Project: 1. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration and all written documentation and public comments prior to making recommendations to the City Council on the proposed Project; and 2. An Initial Study was prepared for the Project, and on the basis of substantial evidence in the whole record, there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment, therefore a Negative Declaration has been prepared which reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis. 3. The Negative Declaration was prepared, publicized, circulated, and reviewed in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and 4. The Negative Declaration constitutes an adequate, accurate, objective, and complete Negative Declaration in compliance with all legal standards; and 5. The documents and other materials, including without limitation staff reports, memoranda, maps, letters and minutes of all relevant meetings, which constitute the administrative record of proceedings upon which the Commission's resolution is based are located at the City of Rohnert Park, City Clerk, 130 Avram Ave., Rohnert Park, CA 94928. The custodian of records is the City Clerk. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Rohnert Park that approval of the Project will not result in any significant effects on the environment and no mitigation measures are identified in the Negative Declaration, thus a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is not necessary; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Rohnert Park that it does hereby recommend City Council adopt the Negative Declaration and direct the filing of a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any interested person may appeal this Resolution of the Planning Commission to the City Council within 10 calendar days of its passage pursuant to RPMC Section 17.25.123. Any such appeal shall be in the form provided by RPMC Section 17.25.124 and with the payment of the fee established by the City. DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED on this 24`h day of October, 2013 by the City of Rohnert Park Planning Commission by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 2— ABSTAIN: ^J _AhsJ--t Jbs�-t- ADAMS I BLANQUIE BORBA GIUDICE HAYDON f usan Adams, Chairperson, Cityof ohnert Park Planning Commission Attest: . cvrl (��" Susan Azevedo, Rec ding Secretary EXHIBIT 1 NEG DECAS INITIAL STUDY PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY SITE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND STADIUM AREA FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT 19 apk1NERT pqR �._1-4LIF0RNZ-t&00' Cel City of Rohnert Park File Number PL2013-047 OCTOBER 2013 PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND STADIUM AREA FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY PROJECT TITLE: LEAD AGENCY: City of Rohnert Park Public Safety Site GPA and Stadium Area FDP Amendment City of Rohnert Park Development Services 130 Avram Avenue Rohnert Park, CA 94928-2486 CONTACT PERSON: Marilyn Ponton, Development Services Manager EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant land PROJECT SUMMARY: Project Description Summary: The subject property is located in the Stadium Area Master Plan (SAMP). The City Council certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the SAMP in June 2008. The SAMP EIR included Mitigation Measure 14-1a, which states: The project proponent is responsible for dedicating to the City of Rohnert Park a 3 acre site for future development of a Northwest Public Safety Facility. Projects within SAMP shall pay impact fees or contribute a proportional share for improvements in order to meet the goal of a 4 minute response time. This project proposes to change the current land use designation of the project site from Regional Commercial to Public Institutional in order to allow future construction of the Northwest Public Safety Facility on this site, which is more central and accessible than the Public Safety facility site identified in the SAMP. 2 (707) 588-2231 PROJECT Labath Avenue north of Hinebaugh Creek and opposite the LOCATION: intersection of Labath Avenue and Martin Avenue Rohnert Park, CA APN: Not yet assigned PROJECT City of Rohnert Park APPLICANT: 130 Avram Avenue Rohnert Park, CA 94928-2486 GENERAL PLAN: Existing Designation: Regional Commercial Proposed Designation: Public/Institutional ZONING: Planned Development EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant land PROJECT SUMMARY: Project Description Summary: The subject property is located in the Stadium Area Master Plan (SAMP). The City Council certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the SAMP in June 2008. The SAMP EIR included Mitigation Measure 14-1a, which states: The project proponent is responsible for dedicating to the City of Rohnert Park a 3 acre site for future development of a Northwest Public Safety Facility. Projects within SAMP shall pay impact fees or contribute a proportional share for improvements in order to meet the goal of a 4 minute response time. This project proposes to change the current land use designation of the project site from Regional Commercial to Public Institutional in order to allow future construction of the Northwest Public Safety Facility on this site, which is more central and accessible than the Public Safety facility site identified in the SAMP. 2 SOURCES AND INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE The following list identifies referenced information sources utilized by this analysis and the location where each document is available for review. In addition, description and analysis of existing conditions, regulatory requirements, impacts, and mitigation measures presented in the SAMP EIR are incorporated herein by reference, as provided under CEQA Guidelines Section 15150. Applicable information from the SAMP EIR is summarized in each environmental impact analysis discussion presented below. City of Rohnert Park 2000. City of Rohnert Park General Plan, Fifth Edition, July 2000. Available: http:./,/www.ci.rohnert-park.ca.us/index.aspx?page=86 City of Rohnert Park 2008. Stadium Area Master Plan EIR, June 2008- Available: http: //www.ci.rohnert-park.ca.uslindex.aspx?nage=426 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) 2010. CEQA Guidelines May 2010. Available: http:Ilwww.bagqmd.gov/—/mediaIFilesIPlannin 0 20ando/o.(JResearch jCEQAI Draft BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines May -2010 Final.ashx?la=en ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact." A more detailed assessment may be found on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Greenhouse Gases ❑ Land Use & Planning ❑ Population & Housing ❑ Transportation & Circulation I DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial study: ❑ Agriculture ❑ Air Quality ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Energy & Mineral Resources ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance X I find that the Proposed Project COULD NOT has a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the 3 project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier General Plan EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier General Plan EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(c)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(1), the City of Rohnert Park, as lead agency for the proposed project, has prepared an initial study to make the following findings: 1. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, the proposed activity is adequately described and is within the scope of the General Plan EIR. 2. There is no substantial evidence before the lead agency that the subsequent project may have a significant effect on the environment. 3. The analyses of cumulative impacts, growth inducing impacts, and irreversible significant effects on the environment contained in the General Plan EIR are adequate for this subsequent project. 4. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21157.6(a), having reviewed the General Plan EIR, the City of Rohnert Park finds and determines that: i, Signature a. no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the General Plan EIR was certified, and b. that there is no new available information which was not and could not have been known at the time the General Plan EIR was certified. 061- V, Date Marilyn Ponton AICP Development Services Manager City of Rohnert Park Printed Name For 4 2 BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION The area of Rohnert Park westerly of Highway 101 lacks a Public Safety Facility. To ensure that the City can maintain its goal of providing responses to emergency calls within four (4) minutes, the City has planned to locate a Public Safety Facility in the northwest portion of the City. This project is proposed to facilitate relocation of the Public Safety facility that is already anticipated in the SAMP to a location that is more central and provides better access. The relocation of the Public Safety facility site would not result in an increase in development intensity and overall land uses planned within the City of Rohnert Park. Instead it would reduce the total amount of land planned for Regional Commercial land uses within the SAMP. The project site is located within the SAMP and is subject to the requirements and provisions of the SAMP and the mitigation measures included in the SAMP EIR. Therefore, the requirements identified in the SAMP EIR mitigation measures are required conditions for any development within the project site. 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Mitigation Measure 14-1a of the SAMP EIR requires dedication to the City of Rohnert Park of a 3 -acre site within the SAMP for future development of a Northwest Public Safety Facility. This measure further requires that projects within the SAMP pay impact fees or contribute a proportional share for improvements. These requirements were established as mitigation under the SAMP EIR to support the City in meeting a goal of providing a 4 -minute response time to calls for emergency assistance. This project proposes to change the current land use designation of the project site from Regional Commercial to Public Institutional in order to allow future construction of the Northwest Public Safety Facility on this site, which is more central and accessible than the public safety site identified in the SAMP. 4 DISCRETIONARY ACTION Implementation of the proposed project would require discretionary approval from the City of Rohnert Park City Council to amend the City of Rohnert Park General Plan to change the land use designation of the project site from Regional Commercial to Public Institutional, as shown in the following diagrams. The proposed project would also involve amendments to the text and figures included in the SAMP Final Development Plan. 5 Stadium Area Boundary ® Parks/Recreation High Density Residential Regional Commercial ® Public/Institutional Industrial SOURCE: City orRonnert Park zo FIGURE Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations September 2013 STADIUM AREA MASTER PLAN "PD" ZONING DISTRICT Rural Estate Residential Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential _ I Iigh Density Residential Industrial - Commercial - N - Commercial - R Commercial - R/ High Density Residential Mixed Use Office Public/institutional Parks/Recreation Open Space - Environmental Conservation Open Space - Agriculture and Resource Management n\11 \\ Community Separator A',Im,osare.n tended I, oeconfs l e nl wit h the Ge—d';nQ''ag-1 lwel oval adjust mems 1, other mops may be made I or c. -,—y 3o,e d,la h— Co.n ly o1 Sonomo GS dep-lent ord The City of R,1-1 Pork `"'rzey�o�t •••••••• Sphere of Influence ^--^ 20 Year Urban Growth Boundary ® City Limits Existing/Proposed r .' • Major Arterial (4-6 lanes) ••••••.. Minor Arterial (2 lanes) - Major Collector (4 lanes) -- - Minor Collector (2 lanes) Figure 2.2-1 General Plan Diagram Adopled:l 11712000 Diagram Revisions: l Ip/2000 1/23/01 Reso 20 1-24 7/24/01 Res, 2001-161 8/28/01 Reso 2001-192 10/22/02 Reso 2002-247 10/14/03 Res- 2003-236 and 2003-238 9/25/05 Reso 2005-296 5/23/06 Reso 2006-142 6/13/06 Reso 2006-161 6/10/08 Reso 2008-87 6/24/ 10 Reso 2010-102 12/7/ 10 Reso 2010-133 Reso 2010-135 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The following section adapts and completes the environmental checklist form presented in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The checklist is used to describe the impacts of the proposed project. For this checklist, the following designations are used: Potentially Significant Impact: An impact that could be significant, and for which no mitigation has been identified. If any potentially significant impacts are identified, an EIR must be prepared. Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: An impact that requires mitigation to reduce the impact to a less -than -significant level. Less -Than -Significant Impact: Any impact that would not be considered significant under CEQA relative to existing standards. No Impact: The project would not have any adverse impact. I. AESTHETICS Would the project: Issues a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character 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? Potentially Potentially Significant Less -Than - Significant With Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact ❑ ❑ X X No Impact I X ❑ X (a -d) As discussed in Chapter 4 of the SAMP EIR, the project site supports mixed native and non- native grasses; it does not support any trees, rocks, structures, or other scenic resources. The 31 southern boundary of the property is bordered by Hinebaugh Creek. The property is surrounded on the west and east side by commercial and industrial development. To the north is land designated in the SAMP as Regional Commercial. Trees and vegetation adjacent to Hinebaugh Creek are visible across the project site from Labath Avenue adjacent to and north of the project site. The Sonoma Mountain hillsides and ridgelines are visible across the project site from Labath Avenue and from the segment of Martin Avenue west of the site, however intervening urban development minimizes the vividness and distinctness of these views. As noted in the SAMP EIR, the Sonoma County General Plan identifies U.S. 101 and Petaluma Hill Road as designated scenic corridors (Sonoma County, 2008), and the SAMP area is not visible from either of those corridors. Further, as noted in the SAMP EIR, the project site is not designated as, or adjacent to, a scenic vista. The project proposes to change the General Plan designation for the site from Regional Commercial to Public Institutional; no specific construction is proposed at this time. In the future, a new Department of Public Safety facility will be developed on this property consisting of a four to six bay station with dormitory space for four to six firefighters. Future development of the site could block views of Hinebaugh Creek from commercial development to the north but this would not be considered significant since the future commercial development is not a location where someone would spend passive time enjoying views of the surrounding area. II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: Potentially Significant Issues Impact — -- -- --- ---- Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated ---------- Less -Than - Significant No Impact Impact a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the j n [ X Farmland Mapping Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act X contract? c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code X section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code rA Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less -Than - Significant No Impact Impact section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by ❑ ❑ X Government Code section 51104(g))? d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest ❑ ❑ ❑ X use? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in ❑ ❑ ❑ X conversion of Farmland to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest D X ❑ land to non -forest use? (a -e) The subject property is an undeveloped parcel surrounded by urban uses with no agricultural use. The property is not in a Williamson Act contract and the site is not mapped as farmland under the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. The project site does not support any forestry resources. III. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project Potentially Significant Issues Impact Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less -Than - Significant Impact No Impact a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable ! ❑ ❑ X air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an ❑ X existing or projected air quality violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment D X ❑ under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed E Potentially Potentially Significant Less -Than - Significant With Mitigation Significant Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ X concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X people? (a -e) The project proposes to change the General Plan designation for the site from Regional Commercial to Public Institutional; no specific construction is proposed at this time. In the future, a new Department of Public Safety facility would be developed on this property consisting of a four to six bay station with dormitory space for four to six firefighters. During construction of future improvements on the site, the contractor will have to conform to emission control strategies that control dust and exhaust emissions as required in Mitigation 5.2a of the SAMP EIR. During operation of the future Public Safety facility, local air pollutant emissions would be generated by vehicle trips to and from the facility, areas sources such as consumer products and landscaping equipment. Energy use at the facility would also contribute to regional air pollutant emissions. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines (2010) include "screening criteria to provide lead agencies and project applicants with a conservative indication of whether the proposed project could result in potentially significant air quality impacts. If all of the screening criteria are met by a proposed project, then the lead agency or applicant would not need to perform a detailed air quality assessment of their project's air pollutant emissions." There is no screening criteria specific to public safety facilities or fire stations. The operational characteristics of the future facility can be approximated by considering that the facility would function with both residential and office components. The dormitory space for up to six firefighters would be equivalent to six or fewer households. To reflect operation of a general office building with up to six employees, a ratio of one employee per 350 square feet is assumed. Thus the office functions of the facility would be similar to those of a 2,100 square foot office. The BAAQMD screening criteria for operational emissions from a single-family residential development is 325 dwelling units, and the BAAQMD screening criteria for operational emissions from a general office is 346,000 square feet. The future Public Safety facility would be substantially smaller than these criteria. Therefore the future facility that would be permitted under the proposed project would not be expected to generate air pollutant emissions that would result in a significant air quality impact. 7 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: Issues 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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? a. b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? Potentially Significant Potentially With Less -Than - Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ X X X M X (a -f) As discussed in Chapter 6 of the SAMP EIR, biological studies completed in the project area found that the project site supports native and non-native grasses and does not contain any riparian or other sensitive natural habitats, does not support any trees, and does not support any wildlife movement or migration corridors or nursery sites. Further, the biological studies completed in the SAMP did not locate special status plant species. The southern 10 boundary of the property is bordered by Hinebaugh Creek but the property does not extend into the creek area. The Rohnert Park General Plan 2020 indicates that the project site is not in an area known to have wetlands. The proposed project would have no impact related to riparian or wetland habitat; other sensitive natural communities; wildlife movement, migration, or nursery sites; conflicts with local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources; conflicts with habitat conservation plans; or special status plants. The SAMP area was classified as having suitable habitat for several special status animal species: • The EIR determined that grasslands in the project vicinity could provide foraging habitat to birds, including special status species. The EIR concluded that development of the SAMP area would result in minimal loss of this foraging habitat and would not have a significant impact on habitat modification. • The project area is also located within the potential range of the Sonoma County California tiger salamander (CTS) and the northwestern pond turtle (City of Rohnert Park, 2008). According to the SAMP EIR, the northwestern pond turtle, a California species of special concern, would be unlikely to occur in the project area due to existing roadways (including gutters and curbs) and surrounding development. The CTS is a federally endangered and California species of special concern. No CTS or special status plant species were found in any of the wetlands surveyed in 2001-2002 and 2005. In addition, the U.S. Department Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) issued a letter, included as Appendix B to the SAMP EIR, determining that development in the SAMP area, including the project site, would be unlikely to affect CTS. The SAMP EIR further concluded that neither surveys nor mitigation would be required for the CTS in the SAMP area, including the project site (City of Rohnert Park, 2008). • As recognized in the SAMP EIR, there is potential for the project area to support nesting raptors and roosting bats. The SAMP EIR includes one mitigation measure, summarized below, that would ensure potential impacts to these species remain less than significant. Because compliance with the existing SAMP mitigation measures is a requirement for any development at the project site under the City's certification of the SAMP EIR, the proposed General Plan amendment and likely future construction of a public safety facility would have less than significant impacts on biological resources. Because the following measure is already required conditions for any development within the project site, no new mitigation measures are necessary. Mitigation 6.4a of the SAMP EIR requires pre -construction surveys for nesting raptors and bat roosts within 50 feet of construction activities with a minimum time of 48 and 24 hours before project construction activities. This would include the Hinebaugh Creek area even though this property does not actually extend into the creek area. Further, mitigation under Impact 6-6 requires that work be stopped if sensitive or listed species are encountered. Based on the biological studies completed for the SAMP and as demonstrated in the SAMP EIR, with implementation of the applicable SAMP EIR mitigation, future development at the project site would be expected to have a less than significant impact on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. 11 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: Issues a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource on site or unique geologic features? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Potentially Potentially Significant With Less -Than - Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact X X X (a -d) The proposed project involves changing the General Plan land use designation for the project site from Regional Commercial to Public/Institutional and similarly amending the SAMP Final Development Plan. The proposed change in land use designation would not result in any physical environmental changes at the project site. However the proposed General Plan amendment would allow for future construction of a Public Safety facility at the project site. As discussed in Chapter 7 of the SAMP EIR, a Cultural Resources Survey for the Stadium Area was prepared as part of the SAMP EIR. No archaeological materials were encountered as a result of the surface reconnaissance within the SAMP, including the project site. No evidence of prehistoric resources, features, artifacts, or modified soil was observed within the project area. However, it is possible that isolated artifacts may be present at the project site, and that any such artifacts could be disturbed during future construction at the site. The SAMP EIR contains three mitigation measures that identify requirements that must be met if any artifacts are uncovered during construction. These mitigation measures apply to any future development at the project site because it is included in the SAMP. Because these measures are already required conditions for any development within the project site, no new mitigation measures are necessary to ensure that the project would have no significant impacts on cultural resources. SAMP EIR Mitigation 7 -la requires that if at any time during earth disturbing activities a concentration of artifacts or a cultural deposit is encountered, work shall cease in the immediate area and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted by the construction manager to evaluate the find and make further recommendations. SAMP EIR Mitigation 7. lb requires if human remains are encountered anywhere on the Project site, all work shall stop in the immediate vicinity and both the County Corner and a qualified archaeologist shall be notified by the construction manager immediately so that an evaluation can be performed. 12 SAMP EIR Mitigation 7-3a requires implementation of protection actions for paleontological resources. Per state law, in the event that paleontological resources or unique geologic features are encountered during construction on the site, all earthwork within a 50 meter radius of the find will be stopped, the city of Rohnert Park notified, and a paleontologist retained to examine the find and make appropriate recommendations. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: Issues a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? e. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code? f. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less -Than - Significant Impact X No Impact X 0 I X ❑ 0 X X X X X (a—f) The proposed project involves changing the General Plan land use designation for the project site from Regional Commercial to Public/Institutional and similarly amending the SAMP Final Development Plan. The proposed change in land use designation would not result 13 in any physical environmental changes at the project site. However the proposed General Plan amendment would allow for future construction of a Public Safety facility at the project site. As discussed in Chapter 8 of the SAMP EIR, the City and County General Plan Safety Elements identify the Rodgers Creek fault, about 3 miles north of the subject property, as a potential source of seismic activity that must be taken into consideration during the planning of development in the City. Due to the presence of sandy soil and high groundwater beneath the Project site, there is the potential for liquefaction to occur during a seismic event. The soil layers beneath the site are either dense enough or contain a sufficient percentage of fine- grained (i.e. clayey) soil to not be significantly affected by liquefaction. The incorporation of earthquake safety design for construction in the City, through the use of the California Building Code as adopted by the City of Rohnert Park, has ensured that structures in the City are designed to minimize hazards related to building stability during seismic activity such as earthquakes. The SAMP EIR includes two mitigation measures, summarized below, that identify standards to ensure development is designed to withstand seismic activity. Because these measures are already required conditions for any development within the project site, no new mitigation measures are necessary to ensure that the project would have no significant impacts related to seismic hazards. The natural ground surface topography at the Project site and general vicinity is generally flat to slightly sloping to the east. The average gradient is about 1 percent and elevations at the site are between 89 and 92 feet above mean sea level. Hinebaugh Creek flood control channel parallels the south boundary of the subject property. Because the site is relatively flat it is unlikely that the site would be subject to substantial soil erosion, the loss of topsoil or the potential for a landslide. SAMP EIR Mitigation Measure 8-2a requires that all future building on the site comply with the California State Building Code seismic requirements. SAMP EIR Mitigation Measure 8.3a requires that new construction utilize site preparation, grading, and foundation designs in accordance with site-specific soil conditions. VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS' Would the project: Issues a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the atmosphere? 14 X Potentially Potentiall Significant y With Less-Than- Signifcan Mitigation Significant No t Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 14 X Issues Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less -Than - Significant No Impact Impact X (a -b) Greenhouse gas emissions and climate change effects were not evaluated in the SAMP EIR. Climate change, which involves significant changes in global climate patterns, has been associated with an increase in the average temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth's surface, or global warming. This warming has been attributed to an accumulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere. These GHGs trap heat in the atmosphere, which in turn heats the surface of the Earth. State and federal legislation has resulted in policies that define targets for reductions in GHG emissions. Climate change research and policy efforts are primarily concerned with GHG emissions related to human activity. In particular, California adopted the 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act (commonly referred to as AB 32), which established a statewide emission reduction target to ensure that GHG emissions in the year 2020 are equal to the statewide GHG emissions in 1990. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) 2008 Scoping Plan estimated that GHG emissions in the state would have to be reduced by approximately 29 percent from business -as -usual (BAU) levels in order to meet the GHG emissions reduction requirement. Even before the passage of A1332, the City of Rohnert Park initiated actions to reduce GHG emissions and become more sustainable overall. These actions include: • Adoption of the California 2010 Building Code, referred to as CalGreen, which includes requirements for energy efficiency, water use efficiency, and other sustainability measures. • Energy Efficiency Ordinance 2007-779. This ordinance also established Title 14- Sustainabilty, in the Municipal Code (March 2007) • City Council adopted resolution 2004-111, which set a goal for GHG reductions of 20 percent by the year 2010 for internal City operations (baseline year 2000) (May 2004) • City Council adopted resolution 2005-233, which sets a goal of green house gas reductions of 25 percent by the year 2015 for community -wide use, private and public (baseline year 1990) (July 2005) BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (2010) screening criteria discussed in Section II Air Quality above include criteria for GHG emissions. Projects that meet all of the screening criteria can be determined to have a less than significant impact related to GHG emissions. The operational characteristics of the future Public Safety facility can be approximated by considering that the facility would function with both residential and office components. The BAAQMD screening 15 Potentially Potentiall Significant y With Significan Mitigation t Impact Incorporated Less -Than - Significant No Impact Impact X (a -b) Greenhouse gas emissions and climate change effects were not evaluated in the SAMP EIR. Climate change, which involves significant changes in global climate patterns, has been associated with an increase in the average temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth's surface, or global warming. This warming has been attributed to an accumulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere. These GHGs trap heat in the atmosphere, which in turn heats the surface of the Earth. State and federal legislation has resulted in policies that define targets for reductions in GHG emissions. Climate change research and policy efforts are primarily concerned with GHG emissions related to human activity. In particular, California adopted the 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act (commonly referred to as AB 32), which established a statewide emission reduction target to ensure that GHG emissions in the year 2020 are equal to the statewide GHG emissions in 1990. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) 2008 Scoping Plan estimated that GHG emissions in the state would have to be reduced by approximately 29 percent from business -as -usual (BAU) levels in order to meet the GHG emissions reduction requirement. Even before the passage of A1332, the City of Rohnert Park initiated actions to reduce GHG emissions and become more sustainable overall. These actions include: • Adoption of the California 2010 Building Code, referred to as CalGreen, which includes requirements for energy efficiency, water use efficiency, and other sustainability measures. • Energy Efficiency Ordinance 2007-779. This ordinance also established Title 14- Sustainabilty, in the Municipal Code (March 2007) • City Council adopted resolution 2004-111, which set a goal for GHG reductions of 20 percent by the year 2010 for internal City operations (baseline year 2000) (May 2004) • City Council adopted resolution 2005-233, which sets a goal of green house gas reductions of 25 percent by the year 2015 for community -wide use, private and public (baseline year 1990) (July 2005) BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (2010) screening criteria discussed in Section II Air Quality above include criteria for GHG emissions. Projects that meet all of the screening criteria can be determined to have a less than significant impact related to GHG emissions. The operational characteristics of the future Public Safety facility can be approximated by considering that the facility would function with both residential and office components. The BAAQMD screening 15 criteria for operational GHG emissions from a single-family residential development is 56 dwelling units, and the BAAQMD screening criteria for operational emissions from a general office building is 53,000 square feet. The future Public Safety facility would be substantially smaller than these criteria. Therefore the future facility that would be permitted under the proposed project would not be expected to generate air pollutant emissions that would result in a significant air quality impact. VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: Issues 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 likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or 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, 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? Potentially Significant Less - Potentially With Than - Significant Mitigation Significan No Impact Incorporated t Impact Impact 16 X X R M X 1 1i i X M Potentially Significant Less - Potentially With Than - Significant Mitigation Significan No Issues Impact Incorporated t Impact Impact h. Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to X urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (a -h) The proposed project involves changing the General Plan land use designation for the project site from Regional Commercial to Public/Institutional and similarly amending the SAMP Final Development Plan. The proposed change in land use designation would not result in any physical environmental changes at the project site. However the proposed General Plan amendment would allow for future construction of a Public Safety facility at the project site. The proposed project and future construction and operation of a Public Safety facility at the project site would not create hazards to the public regarding hazardous materials, substances or waste. As discussed in Chapter 9 of the SAMP EIR, the project site is not on any list of hazardous material sites. The project site is not in the vicinity of a school or a public or private airport. As a vacant property, there is potential on the project site for wildland fires to occur. The proposed change in General Plan designation would not alter this potential risk. The future development of the site under either the current or the proposed General Plan designation would reduce the potential for wildland fires at the project site Further, because the project site is an undeveloped parcel surrounded on three sides by urbanized areas, the future development of the site under either the current or the proposed General Plan designation would reduce the amount of wildland interface with urbanized areas. IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: Issues a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Potentially Significant Less - Potentially With Than - Significant Mitigation Significan No Impact Incorporated t Impact Impact 17 X X d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or ❑ X 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 exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide ❑ X substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g. Place housing within a 100 -year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100 -year floodplain 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. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X X X 1 1 X (a -j) The proposed project involves changing the General Plan land use designation for the project site from Regional Commercial to Public/Institutional and similarly amending the SAMP Final Development Plan. The proposed change in land use designation would not result in any physical environmental changes at the project site. However the proposed General Plan amendment would allow for future construction of a Public Safety facility at the project site. The Public Safety facility is already planned to be located with the SAMP and the utility infrastructure in the area is sized to accommodate sewage disposal and collection and dispersal of storm water from the site. As discussed in Chapter 10 of the SAMP EIR, development of the SAMP, including the future Public Safety facility, will reduce groundwater recharge but not to the extent that it would impact any nearby wells. Development of the site will not alter the course of Hinebaugh Creek on the south side of the property. This property is not within the 100 -year floodplain. There is no risk of flooding as a result of a failure of a levee or dam Potentially Significant Less - Potentially With Than - Significant Mitigation Significan No Issues Impact Incorporated t Impact Impact c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or I_. ❑ Cl X river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or ❑ X 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 exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide ❑ X substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g. Place housing within a 100 -year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100 -year floodplain 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. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X X X 1 1 X (a -j) The proposed project involves changing the General Plan land use designation for the project site from Regional Commercial to Public/Institutional and similarly amending the SAMP Final Development Plan. The proposed change in land use designation would not result in any physical environmental changes at the project site. However the proposed General Plan amendment would allow for future construction of a Public Safety facility at the project site. The Public Safety facility is already planned to be located with the SAMP and the utility infrastructure in the area is sized to accommodate sewage disposal and collection and dispersal of storm water from the site. As discussed in Chapter 10 of the SAMP EIR, development of the SAMP, including the future Public Safety facility, will reduce groundwater recharge but not to the extent that it would impact any nearby wells. Development of the site will not alter the course of Hinebaugh Creek on the south side of the property. This property is not within the 100 -year floodplain. There is no risk of flooding as a result of a failure of a levee or dam and people or structures on the site will not be subject to inundation by a seiche, tsunami or mudflow. X. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less -Than - Significant No Impact Impact a. Physically divide an established community? [:i=1 X b. Conflict with any applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local I Ji X coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating on environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community's conservation plan? ,_J X (a -c) The proposed project involves changing the General Plan land use designation for the project site from Regional Commercial to Public/Institutional and similarly amending the SAMP Final Development Plan. The proposed change in land use designation would not result in any physical environmental changes at the project site. However the proposed General Plan amendment would allow for future construction of a Public Safety facility at the project site. The project site is adjacent to commercial land uses to the east and west, while residential land uses are present to the south, on the south side of Hinebaugh Creek. The proposed change in the land use designation on the project site and future construction of the Public Safety facility will not physically divide an established community. The use of the property for a Public Safety Facility will not conflict with any land use plans, policies or regulations of the City of Rohnert Park. There are no habitat conservations plans or community conservation plans applying to this property. XI. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Significant Potentially With Less -Than- No Significant Mitigation Significant Impa Issues Impact Incorporated Impact ct a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? 19 X �_ �...�.. �..... .. _.......... ..�_ Potentially Significant Potentially With Less -Than- No Significant Mitigation Significant Impa Issues Impact Incorporated Impact ct b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site ❑ ❑ X delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? (a -b) There are no known mineral resources on the subject property and the site is not delineated on the General Plan as a mineral resource recovery site. XII. NOISE Would the project result in: Issues Potentially Exposure of persons to or generation of noise Significant Less - Potentially With Than - Significant Mitigation Significan No Impact Incorporated t Impact Impact a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the X local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or X groundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels X existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity ❑ CJ ❑ X above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or ❑ n ❑ X 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, would the project expose people X residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (a -f) The proposed project involves changing the General Plan land use designation for the project site from Regional Commercial to Public/Institutional and similarly amending the SAMP Final Development Plan. The proposed change in land use designation would not result 20 in any physical environmental changes at the project site. However the proposed General Plan amendment would allow for future construction of a Public Safety facility at the project site. Noise levels in the project vicinity would temporarily increase as Public Safety vehicles leave the site in response to an emergency situation. Temporary noise levels associated with emergency response activities are not subject to the City's Noise Ordinance. Outside of these emergency response events, operation of the Public Safety facility would not permanently increase the ambient noise levels in the project site. XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: Potentially Significant Potentially With Less -Than - Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or X indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of X replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement X housing elsewhere? (a -c) The proposed project involves changing the General Plan land use designation for the project site from Regional Commercial to Public/Institutional and similarly amending the SAMP Final Development Plan. The proposed change in land use designation would not result in any physical environmental changes at the project site. However the proposed General Plan amendment would allow for future construction of a Public Safety facility at the project site. The Public Safety facility is necessary as a result of ongoing and planned growth in the City of Rohnert Park and would not generate substantial additional population growth. The project would not provide for construction of housing or extension of infrastructure to presently unserved areas and would not substantially increase employment opportunities in the City. Staffing of the future Public Safety facility would require 4 to 6 personnel at one time. Since the property is undeveloped, there would be no impact on any existing housing or displacement of persons. XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental 21 impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: (a -d) The proposed project involves changing the General Plan land use designation for the project site from Regional Commercial to Public/Institutional and similarly amending the SAMP Final Development Plan. The proposed change in land use designation would not result in any physical environmental changes at the project site. However the proposed General Plan amendment would allow for future construction of a Public Safety facility at the project site. As discussed above, the Public Safety facility is necessary as a result of ongoing and planned growth in the City of Rohnert Park and would not generate substantial additional population growth, therefore the project would not substantially increase demands for public services. Additionally, construction of the future Public Safety facility would have a positive impact on fire protection by supporting the City in attaining and maintaining its goal of a four minute response time throughout all of the City specifically in northwest Rohnert Park. XV. RECREATION Would the project: Potentially Significant Issues Impact Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Potentially a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other Significant recreational facilities such that substantial Potentially With Less -Than - occur or be accelerated? Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ X b. Police protection? ❑ 0 ❑ X c. Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ X d. Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ X (a -d) The proposed project involves changing the General Plan land use designation for the project site from Regional Commercial to Public/Institutional and similarly amending the SAMP Final Development Plan. The proposed change in land use designation would not result in any physical environmental changes at the project site. However the proposed General Plan amendment would allow for future construction of a Public Safety facility at the project site. As discussed above, the Public Safety facility is necessary as a result of ongoing and planned growth in the City of Rohnert Park and would not generate substantial additional population growth, therefore the project would not substantially increase demands for public services. Additionally, construction of the future Public Safety facility would have a positive impact on fire protection by supporting the City in attaining and maintaining its goal of a four minute response time throughout all of the City specifically in northwest Rohnert Park. XV. RECREATION Would the project: Potentially Significant Issues Impact Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less - Than - Significan No t Impact Impact a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial X physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an X adverse physical effect on the environment? (a -b) The proposed project involves changing the General Plan land use designation for the project site from Regional Commercial to Public/Institutional and similarly amending the SAMP Final Development Plan. The proposed change in land use designation would not result 22 in any physical environmental changes at the project site. However the proposed General Plan amendment would allow for future construction of a Public Safety facility at the project site. As discussed above, the Public Safety facility is necessary as a result of ongoing and planned growth in the City of Rohnert Park and would not generate substantial additional population growth, therefore the project would not substantially increase demands for or use of recreational facilities. XVL TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Would the project: Issues a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for 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 features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? a. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks) Potentially Significant Potentially With Less -Than - Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact X KI X X X X X (a -f) The proposed project involves changing the General Plan land use designation for the project site from Regional Commercial to Public/Institutional and similarly amending the SAMP Final Development Plan. The proposed change in land use designation would not result in any physical environmental changes at the project site. However the proposed General Plan amendment would allow for future construction of a Public Safety facility at the project site. 23 As discussed in Section II Air Quality above, the operational characteristics of the future facility can be approximated by considering that the facility would function with both residential and office components: The dormitory space for up to six firefighters would be equivalent to six or fewer households, with a single household typically generating 9.5 daily vehicle trips. It is likely that the residential use of the facility would not generate this volume of traffic however because staff would be at the facility in 24-hour shifts and would not make the typical household trips to work, shopping, and schools throughout each day. To reflect operation of a general office building with up to six employees, a ratio of one employee per 350 square feet is assumed. Thus the traffic generation associated with the office functions of the facility would be similar to that of a 2,100 square foot office. Government office buildings A typical trip generation rate for office buildings is 11 daily vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet. Based on these conservative assumptions, the future Public Safety facility would generate approximately 80 vehicle trips per day. Roadways and intersections in northwest Rohnert Park have sufficient available capacity to accommodate the additional traffic from the future Public Safety facility without resulting in significant decreases in levels of service. XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: Potentially Significant Issues Impact Potentially Significant Less - With Than - Mitigation Significan No Incorporated t Impact Impact a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control X Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction X of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of X existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and X resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve X the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to 24 Potentially Significant Less - Potentially With Than - Significant Mitigation Significan No Issues Impact Incorporated t Impact Impact the provider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid 4:.7 X waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, State, and local statutes f X and regulations related to solid waste? (a -g) The proposed project involves changing the General Plan land use designation for the project site from Regional Commercial to Public/Institutional and similarly amending the SAMP Final Development Plan. The proposed change in land use designation would not result in any physical environmental changes at the project site. However the proposed General Plan amendment would allow for future construction of a Public Safety facility at the project site. The Public Safety facility is already planned to be located with the SAMP and the utility infrastructure in the area is sized to accommodate the future Public Safety facility. Water supply and infrastructure, waste water treatment and disposal infrastructure, and the gas and electricity supply and infrastructure in the project area are sufficient to meet the needs of the future Public Safety facility. XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Issues 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 nroiect have environmental effects Potentially Significant Impact Potentially X Significant Less - With Than - Mitigation Significan Incorporated t Impact X No Impact X LJ X 25 No Impact Issues which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Less - Potentially With Than - Significant Mitigation Significan Impact Incorporated t Impact No Impact (a -c) As discussed throughout this Initial Study, the proposed project will not degrade the quality of the environment, will not impact fish or wildlife and does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 26