The URL can be used to link to this page

2010/08/24 City Council Resolution 2010-101CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2010-101 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND APPROVING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR SONOMA MOUNTAIN VILLAGE LOCATED AT VALLEY HOUSE DRIVE AND BODWAY PARKWAY (APN'S 46-051-040,46-051-042, and 46- 051 -045) IN ROHNERT PARK, CA WHEREAS, the applicant, Sonoma Mountain Village, LLC and KDRP LLC, filed Planning Application No. PL2006 -053PD proposing a Planned Development, Zone Change, General Plan Amendment, and related certification of a Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR ") in connection with a proposed mixed -use project centered at Valley House Drive and Bodway Parkway (APN'S 46- 051 -040, 46- 051 -042, and 46- 051 -045) (the "Project "), in accordance with the City of Rohnert Park Municipal Code ( "RPMC "); and WHEREAS, the City retained PBS &J, a well - qualified environmental consulting firm, to prepare an environmental impact report ('EIR ") pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") for the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, the City of Rohnert Park, acting as the Lead Agency under CEQA, published a Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") of a Draft EIR for the proposed Project on May 14, 2007. The NOP was distributed for a 30 -day comment period that ended on June 13, 2007. The City then initiated work on a Draft EIR for the project Project; and WHEREAS, the City completed the Draft EIR on August 19, 2009 and circulated it to .affected public agencies and interested members of the public beyond the required 45 day public comment period, from August 19, 2009 to October 2, 2009; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Rohnert Park duly noticed and conducted a public hearing on September 24, 2009 in order to receive comments on the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, on July 7, 2010, the City published the Final EIR for the Project, Exhibit A of this Resolution, by incorporating: 1) the Draft EIR; 2) comments received about the Draft EIR and responses to those comments; 3) changes, clarifications and corrections to the Draft EIR; 4) appendices and 5) errata; and WHEREAS, on July 22, 2010, the Planning Commission held a public hearing at which time the Planning Commission reviewed the Final EIR prepared for the Project; recommended certification by the City Council and has otherwise carried out all requirements for the Project pursuant to CEQA; 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 environmental impact reports, have been fully implemented in the preparation of the EIR. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park makes the following findings, determinations and recommendations with respect to the Final EIR for the proposed Project: The City Council has independently reviewed, analyzed and considered the Final EIR and all written documentation and public comments prior to making recommendations on the proposed Project; and 2. The Final EIR was prepared, publicized, circulated, and reviewed in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and 3. That the Final EIR constitutes an adequate, accurate, objective, and complete EIR in compliance with all legal standards; and 4. The information and analysis contained in the Final EIR reflects the City's independent judgment as to the environmental consequences of the proposed Project; and 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 Council'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 that on the basis of the evidence contained in the administrative record of the Final EIR, the City Council finds based on the information submitted following the conclusion of the public comment period on the Draft EIR and following the consultant's responses thereto that the responses to comments provide clarification to the information contained in the Draft EIR and do not describe 1) a new substantial environmental impact resulting from the project or from new mitigation measures; 2) a substantial increase in an environmental impact; or 3) a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure that clearly would lessen the environmental impacts of the project that has not been adopted. The new information provided in the Final EIR does not constitute "significant new information" within the meaning of CEQA so as to require recirculation of the Final EIR. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5) and such information does not change the analysis or determinations of significance of potential impacts. The responses to comments demonstrate the Draft EIR contains sufficient mitigation measures to minimize or reduce impacts to a less than significant level; and revised language provided in the responses to comments is intended to clarify the required action and intent of the measures to ensure compliance. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park that it does hereby certify the Final EIR and direct the filing of a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that after considering the EIR, Exhibit A of this Resolution, and in conjunction with making these findings, the City Council hereby finds that pursuant to Section 15092 of the CEQA Guidelines, approval of the Project will result in significant effects on the environment; however, the City eliminated or substantially lessened these significant effects where feasible, and has determined that the remaining significant effects are found to be unavoidable under Section 15091 and acceptable under Section 15093; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Exhibit B (CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations) and Exhibit C (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 that Exhibit B of this Resolution provides the findings required under Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines relating to accepting adverse impacts of the Project due to overriding considerations. The City has balanced the economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project against the unavoidable environmental risks that may result, and finds that the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects. The City Council hereby adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached hereto as Exhibit B; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City Council hereby approves the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit C to this Resolution and require the Project to comply with the mitigation measures contained therein; and Attest: DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED on this 24th day of August, 2010 City Mayor BELFORTE: AYE BREEZE: AYE CALLINAN: AYE MACKENZIE: AYE STAFFORD: AYE AYES: (5) NOES: (0) ABSENT: (0) ABSTAIN: (0) EXHIBIT A FINAL EIR The Draft and Final EIR have been previously distributed. The attached Errata has been reviewed and recommended by the Planning Commission. Exhibit A ERRATA FOR THE SONOMA MOUNTAN VILLAGE PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH #20070521116 The following changes have been made to information provided on page 1 -3 in the Final EIR under the heading "Public Participation and Review" and to Responses to Comments 15 -14 and 15 -15 on page 4 -97. The public comment period for review of the Draft EIR ran from August 19, 2009 through October 2, 2009. Comment 15 -14 identified on the hearing transcript for the project indicates that there was a request to extend the public comment period for the EIR. The request to extend the public comment period was for the Walmart project and not on the Sonoma Mountain Village project. Therefore, responses to comments 15 -14 and 15 -15 are stricken from the record. This error has been corrected as shown below. These corrections do not change the analysis or the findings contained in the EIR. To show the revisions included in this errata any text to be deleted is reflected in stFikethreugh and new text to be added is shown in double underline. Chapter 1, Introduction, page 1 -3 is revised to read: A Notice of Completion (NOC) and copies of the Draft EIR were filed with the State Clearinghouse on August 19, 2009. An official 45 -day public review period for the Draft EIR was established by the State Clearinghouse and the comment period closed on October 2. 2009 a however thie ro „-.led was e)de r1orJ r^„t& The Notice of Availability was posted at City Hall and was published in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, a newspaper of general circulation, on August 19, 2009. Copies of the Draft EIR were available for review at the City of Rohnert Park's Community Development Department office at 130 Avram Avenue, Rohnert Park, CA 94928. Additional electronic files of the Draft EIR were posted on the City of Rohnert Park's Development Services Department website. Chapter 4, Comment and Responses, page 4 -97 is revised to read: - - - - - @.70..ezo.i "M _ ... _ -• - WE "11". - .. - - - Sonoma Mountain Village 1 July 19, 2010 Sonoma Mountain Village 2 July 19, 2010 EXHIBIT B FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS EXHIBIT B CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS RELATED TO THE CERTIFICATION OF THE SONOMA MOUNTAIN VILLAGE EIR BY THE ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL STATEMENT OF FINDINGS The findings and determinations contained herein are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the Project and the EIR. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the Rohnert Park City Council ( "Council ") in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Although the findings below identify specific pages within the Draft and Final EIRs in support of various conclusions reached below, the Council has no quarrel with, and thus incorporates by reference and adopt' as its own, the reasoning set forth in both environmental documents, and thus relies on that reasoning, even where not specifically mentioned or cited below, in reaching the conclusions set forth below, except where additional evidence is specifically mentioned. This is especially true with respect to the Council's approval of all mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIR, and the reasoning set forth in responses to comments in the Final EIR. The Council further intends that if these findings fail to cross - reference or incorporate by reference any other Part of these findings, any finding required or permitted to be made by this Council with respect to any particular subject matter of the Project must be deemed made if it appears in any portion of these findings or findings elsewhere in the record. I. INTRODUCTION These are the CEQA findings prepared by the City of Rohnert Park ( "City ") as lead agency for the Sonoma Mountain Village project ( "Project "). These findings pertain to the Project and the Environmental Impact Report prepared for that Project, designated as State Clearinghouse No. 20070521116. The Draft EIR, the Final EIR, and all the appendices comprise the "EIR" referenced in these findings. These CEQA findings are attached as Exhibit A and are incorporated by reference into the resolution recommending certification of the EIR. That resolution also incorporates an Exhibit B, which contains the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ( "MMRP "), and which references the Project's impacts, mitigation measures, levels of significance before mitigation, and resulting levels of significance after mitigation. The MMRP is incorporated into the Final EIR as Chapter 5. II. THE PROJECT The proposed project includes a Planned Development that would develop a mixed -use community on a ±175 -acre site (APNs 046 -051 -045, 046 - 051 -040, and 046 - 051 -042), a portion of which is currently developed with the vacant Hewlett Packard /Agilent technology campus. The project would construct 1,694 residential units plus 198 second dwelling units and 825,307 square feet of commercial, retail, and services. The project site is entirely within the City's Redevelopment Zone and the City's 20 -year Urban Growth Boundary. The project would provide for adaptive reuse of the existing buildings onsite and redevelopment of the existing technology campus, as well as development of the southern (vacant) portion of the site. Adaptive reuse has already begun within the technology campus portion of the site. As a Planned Development (P -D), the approval of the project is governed by the City of Rohnert Park Municipal Code. Article VII of the City of Rohnert Park Zoning Ordinance establishes the requirements for establishing a P -D zoning district. The consideration of a P -D zoning district application includes two stages: the review of a Preliminary Development Plan and the adoption of a Final Development Plan. Development of the site in accordance with the project approval also requires issuance of a Use Permit. The project applicant has submitted a Final Development Plan for consideration. A Use Permit may cover all phases of development and would be processed concurrently with the Final Development Plan. The project application includes a request for a General Plan amendment, which is included in Appendix E of the Final EIR. If approved, this amendment would amend the Rohnert Park General Plan Diagram to include the Sonoma Mountain Village plan and to accurately reflect the configuration of land uses included in the Final Development Plan. To maintain consistency with the requested General Plan amendments, the project would require a rezoning of the project site from "I -L" (Limited Industrial) to "P- D" (Planned Development). All standards, densities and other requirements of the new zoning would remain tied to the property designated by the District, unless formally amended by City Council action. City staff and the project sponsor will negotiate the terms of a Development Agreement to ensure that the developer and the City understand their respective rights related to the project and to ensure that the growth management triggers and the associated provision of project amenities and infrastructure are adequately addressed by both parties. Project Objectives Overall, project objectives as stated by the project sponsor include the following, as provided in the EIR: • Help Fulfill the City of Rohnert Park's Redevelopment and Responsible Growth Goals K • Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions as Compared to Standard Development Practice • Reduce Water Use and Impacts as Compared to Standard Development Practice • Create a Replicable Model for Sustainable Development • Create Jobs in Diverse Sectors Including Green Jobs • Increase Revenues to the City • Improve Public Safety • Provide Community Retail and Services • Create a Local Village Square that serves as a community gathering place • Enhance Housing Opportunities • Encourage a Local Balance Between Jobs and Housing • Provide Parks and Recreational Facilities • Restore Creeks and Waterway • Provide a Range of Housing Types and Affordability Levels • Provide Pedestrian - Friendly Neighborhoods and Access to Transit • Invite and Adopt Community Input III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE PROJECT Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. ( "CEQA ") and the CEQA Guidelines, Code of California Regulations, Title XIV, Section 15000 et seq., the City determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared to analyze the potential environmental effects of the Project. As required under CEQA, a Notice of Preparation (NOP). describing the proposed project and issues to be addressed in the EIR was distributed to responsible agencies (to state agencies through the State Clearinghouse), and other interested parties for a 30 -day public review period beginning May 14, 2007. At the June 14, 2007 Planning Commission meeting, the City's Planning Department conducted an EIR agency /public scoping session to allow interested parties to provide comments on the project with regard to potential environmental issues that should be considered in the EIR. The Draft EIR was prepared and circulated for a 45 -day public review period beginning August 19, 2009, and ending October 2, 2009. A Public Comment Session was held on September 24, 2009 to allow interested individuals to present their comments on the Draft EIR in a public forum. In addition to the comments that were received at the September 24th meeting, the City also received comment letters from interested individuals, businesses and agencies. The City prepared responses to all comments received on the Draft EIR during the public review, which in some cases required revisions to the Draft EIR. The responses to comments, changes to the Draft EIR, and additional information have been incorporated into the Final EIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires a lead agency to recirculate an EIR for further review and comment when significant new information is added to the 3 EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR but before certification. New information added to an EIR is not "significant" unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the project proponent declines to implement. The Guidelines provide examples of significant new information under this standard. Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR. Though changes have been made to the Draft EIR, the Final EIR does not contain significant new information as defined in the Guidelines and recirculation of the EIR is not required. IV. THE RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS The record upon which all findings and determinations related to the Project are based includes the following: The EIR and all documents referenced in or relied upon by the EIR. b. All information (including written evidence and testimony) provided by City staff to the Planning. Commission and the City Council relating to the EIR, the proposed approvals and entitlements, the Project or its alternatives. C. All information (including written evidence and testimony) presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council by the environmental consultant and subconsultants who prepared the EIR, or incorporated into reports presented to the Commission and the Council. d. All information (including written evidence and testimony) presented to the City from other public agencies relating to the Projector the EIR. e. All applications, letters, testimony and presentations presented by the Project Sponsor and its consultants to the City in connection with the Project. f. All information (including written evidence and testimony) presented at any public hearing or workshop related to the Project and the EIR. g. For documentary and information purposes, all locally- adopted land use plans and ordinances, including, without limitation, general plans, specific plans and ordinances, together with environmental review documents, findings, mitigation monitoring and reporting programs and other documentation relevant to regulation and management of land use in the area. h. The MMRP for the Project. L All other documents comprising the record pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e). 11 The custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record of proceedings upon which the Council 's resolution is based are located at the City of Rohnert Park, City Clerk, 130 Avram Avenue, Rohnert Park, CA 94928. The custodian of records is the City Clerk. These findings are based upon substantial evidence in the entire record before the Council. The references to certain pages or sections of the EIR set forth in these findings are for ease of reference only and are not intended to provide an exhaustive list of the evidence relied upon for these findings. V. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects." Section 21002 goes on to state that "in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof." The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code section 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (a); CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a).) For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(1).) The second permissible finding is that "[s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(2).) The third potential conclusion is that "[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(3).) Public Resources Code section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors." CEQA Guidelines section 15364 adds another factor: "legal" considerations. (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 (Goleta fl).) The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417.) "'[F]easibility' under CEQA encompasses `desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." (Ibid.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.AppAth 704, 715.) The CEQA Guidelines do not define the difference between "avoiding" a significant, environmental effect and merely "substantially lessening" such an effect. The City must therefore glean the meaning of these terms from the other contexts in which the terms are used. Public Resources Code section 21081, on which CEQA Guidelines section 15091 is based, uses the term "mitigate" rather than "substantially lessen." The CEQA Guidelines therefore equate "mitigating" with "substantially lessening." Such an understanding of the statutory term is consistent with the policies underlying CEQA, which include the policy that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such Projects." (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002.) For purposes of these findings, the term "avoid" refers to the effectiveness of one or more mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less - than- significant level. In contrast, the term "substantially lessen" refers to the effectiveness of such measure or measures to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce that effect to a less- than - significant level. These interpretations appear to be mandated by the holding in Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. Planning Commission (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 519 -521, in which the Court of Appeal held that an agency had satisfied its obligation to substantially lessen or avoid significant effects by adopting numerous mitigation measures, not all of which rendered the significant impacts in question less than significant. Although CEQA Guidelines section 15091 requires only that approving agencies specify that a particular significant effect is "avoid[ed] or substantially lessen[ed]," these findings, for purposes of clarity, in each case will specify whether the effect in question has been reduced to a less- than - significant level, or has simply been substantially lessened but remains significant. Moreover, although section 15091, read literally, does not .require findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as merely "potentially significant," these findings will nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the Final EIR. CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the Project lies with some other agency. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a), (b).) 0 With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project's "benefits" rendered "acceptable" its "unavoidable adverse environmental effects." (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15093, 15043, subd. (b); see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (b).) The California Supreme Court has stated, "[t]he wisdom of approving ... any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Goleta II, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 576.) These Endings constitute the Council members' best efforts to set forth the evidentiary and policy bases for its recommendation to approve the Project in a manner consistent with the requirements of CEQA. To the extent that these findings conclude that various proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the Council hereby recommends that the City bind itself to implement these measures. VI. CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR In accordance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City Guidelines, the City Council hereby certifies that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The Council has reviewed and considered the information in the record and the EIR prior to recommending approval of any element of or entitlement for the Project. By making these Endings, the Council confirms that the EIR is adequate to support the approval of the Project and the City Council ratifies and adopts the findings and conclusions of the EIR, as supplemented and modified by the Endings contained herein. VII. MITIGATION MEASURES, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, AND MMRP Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines Section 1.5097 require the City to adopt a monitoring plan or reporting program with adoption of the EIR to ensure that the mitigation measures and revisions to the Project identified in the EIR are implemented. The Council finds that the MMRP included in Exhibit B meets these requirements and the City Council adopts the MMRP. The mitigation measures recommended by the EIR and incorporated into the Project are specific and enforceable. As appropriate, some mitigation measures define performance standards to ensure no significant environmental impacts occur. The MMRP adequately describes conditions, implementation, verification, a compliance schedule and reporting requirements to ensure the Project complies with the adopted mitigation measures. The MMRP ensures that the mitigation measures are in place, as appropriate, throughout the life of the Project. The mitigation measures described in Exhibit B are incorporated into these findings as conditions of each of the approvals required for the Project. 7 The mitigation measures set forth in Exhibit B reflect the mitigation measures set forth in the EIR. The City may have modified the language of some of the mitigation measures and corresponding conditions for purposes of clarification and consistency, to enhance enforceability, to defer more to the expertise of other agencies with jurisdiction over the affected resources, to summarize or strengthen their provisions, and /or to make the mitigation measures more precise and effective, but has made no substantive changes to the mitigation measures. The City will use the MMRP to track compliance with Project mitigation measures. The MMRP will remain available for public review during the compliance period. VIII. FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS In accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15092, the Council adopts the findings and conclusions regarding impacts and mitigation measures that are set forth in the EIR. These findings do not repeat the full discussions of environmental impacts contained in the EIR. The Council ratifies, adopts and incorporates the analysis, explanation, findings, responses to comments and conclusions of the EIR, and adopts the reasoning of the EIR, of City staff reports, and of City staff and the presentations provided by the Project Sponsor. The Council has, by its review of the evidence and analysis presented in the EIR and in the record, acquired an understanding of the full scope of the environmental issues presented by the Project. In turn, this understanding has enabled the Council to make fully informed, thoroughly considered findings and recommendations regarding these important issues. These findings are based on a full appraisal of the EIR and the record, as well as other relevant information in the record of proceedings for the Project. Under Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2) and 15092(b)(2)(A), the Council recognizes that some mitigation measures require action by, or cooperation from, other agencies. Similarly, mitigation measures requiring the Project Sponsor to contribute towards improvements planned by other agencies will require the relevant agencies to receive the funds and spend them appropriately. The Council also recognizes that some impacts can only be mitigated by actions taken by other agencies to build the relevant improvements, which will require action by these other agencies that are not enforceable by the City of Rohnert Park. For each mitigation measure that requires the cooperation or action of another agency, the Council finds that adoption and /or implementation of each of those mitigation measures is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency, and that the measures can and should be adopted and /or implemented by that other agency. The Council finds that, except as provided in Section XI below, following implementation of mitigation measures identified in the EIR and Exhibit B, all of the Project impacts evaluated by the EIR will be less than significant as determined by the Draft EIR. IX. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS NOT FOUND TO BE SIGNIFICANT AND NOT ADDRESSED IN DETAIL IN THE EIR During preparation of the EIR, the issue areas of agricultural resources and mineral resources were found not to result in significant impacts and therefore are not addressed in detail in the EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15128, the reasons these issues were determined not to be significant are described below. Agricultural Resources The Project site has been developed since the 1960s and has served as offices, and a research and development facility for several decades. Based on site visits and the history of development in the area, there are no agricultural resources located on or near the Project Site. The project area does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency within the Project Site. According to the "Sonoma County Important Farmland 2006" map, the project area is considered "urban and built -up land," which contains no agricultural resources. No Williamson Act contracts have been executed on the project site or in the vicinity. The proposed project would not include any alterations to the existing environment that could result in conversion of farmland to non - agricultural uses (as there is no farmland located within the Proposed Project area). Thus, there would be no impact due to conversion of farmlands, no impact due to a conflict with an existing agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, and no impact would occur related to conversion of agricultural uses to non - agricultural activities. Mineral Resources Mining activities in California are regulated by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975. Based on guidelines adopted by the California Geological Survey (CGS — formerly know as the Division of Mines and Geology), areas known as Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) are classified according to information about the presence or absence of significant deposits. There are no known mineral resources on the project site. The CGS Mineral Land Classification Map for the Rohnert Park area classifies the Project Site as MRZ -1, which constitutes an area "where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where little likelihood exists for their presence." According to the CGS maps, the nearest mineral deposit classified area is Sector F, which is approximately 3 miles west of the project site and contains Sonoma Volcanics Basalt and Petaluma Formation Sand - Stonypoint. Since there are no known significant mineral deposits at the site and the nearest classified area is located approximately 3 miles from the project area, the proposed project would not impact mineral resources. w X. SIGNIFICANT AND POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS REDUCED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES The Council agrees with the characterization in the Final EIR with respect to all Impacts initially identified as "significant" or "potentially significant that would be less than significant with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a), a specific finding is made for each impact and its associated mitigation measures in the discussions below. Impact Criteria, as included in the EIR, are included below to provide context for each Impact identified. The below findings include some impacts that were identified in the EIR as "less than significant" for which mitigation measures were nonetheless provided to further ensure the "less than significant" status of the impact or further reduce the already "less than significant" impact. Aesthetics and Urban Design Impacts Impact Criterion #1 Scenic Vistas: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Impact 3.1 -1 In the absence of detailed plans illustrating the planned height of buildings on all portions of the project site, it cannot be confirmed that the project would not obstruct east facing views of the Sonoma Mountains, a Sonoma County designated Scenic Landscape Unit, from properties immediately west of the project site. The obstruction of views to the Sonoma Mountains would be a potentially significant impact. Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially significant. Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant. Explanation: Mitigation Measure 3.1 -1 requires measures to ensure that views of the Sonoma Mountains from existing properties are not obstructed. Measures include revised height and setback limits for structures and use of storey - poles to demonstrate that existing views would not be adversely affected. This mitigation measure will ensure that existing views to the Sonoma Mountains from properties immediately west of the project site would not be obstructed. Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.1 -1 identified in the EIR and listed in the MMRP will ensure that Impact 3.1 -1 would be reduced to a less - than- significant level. Impact Criterion #2 Visual Character and Appearances: Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Impact 3.1 -2 Project construction would require site grading, construction materials stockpiling and storage, and the use of construction equipment in varying intensity as the various phases of the 10 project are built. As a change from current site .conditions during periods of construction, and with the presence of adjacent residential communities, this is considered a potentially significant visual impact. This construction impact would be localized and short -term however, lasting intermittently during the actual phased periods of construction at specific locations within the project site construction areas (luring each phase of project construction. Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant. Significance After Mitigation: Less than. Significant. Explanation: Mitigation Measure 3.1 -2 requires measures to minimize stockpiling and storage of construction materials onsite and requires that staging areas be located internal to the project site and away from Camino Colegio and Bodway Parkway, and as close to or within the areas of construction as possible, out of the way of community traffic, pedestrian use, and local views. Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.1 -2 identified in the EIR and listed in the MMRP will ensure that Impact 3.1 -2 would be reduced to a less - than- significant level. Impact Criterion #3 Project Lighting: Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect (lay or nighttime views in the area? Impact 3.1 -3 Project lighting of parking areas, buildings, and streets could form point sources of light interfering with nighttime views from off -site locations, including local roadways and residences both on and off the project site. This would be a potentially significant impact. Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant. Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant. Explanation: Mitigation Measures 3.1 -3(a) and (b) require measures to minimize light spillage and use of reflective materials in public areas. Mitigation Measure 3.1 -3(a) requires all new street and other public area lighting to use fixtures that focus the light downward and include shields to prevent light spill to surrounding properties, sky glow, and glare. Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.1 -3(a) and (b) identified in the EIR and listed in the MMRP will ensure that Impact 3.1 -3 would be reduced to a less -than- significant level. Air Quality Impacts Impact Criterion #2 Air Quality Standard: Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Impact 3.2 -1 Construction activities associated with development of the Sonoma Mountain Village project could generate substantial (lust emissions. This would be a significant impact under Impact Criterion #2 regarding the substantial contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation. Significance Before Mitigation: Significant. Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant. Explanation: Mitigation Measures 3.2 -1(a) and (b) require measures to reduce generation of dust emissions during construction activities, including measures developed by the BAAQMD and designation of a dust control coordinator to ensure implementation of measures and provide a public point of contact. Mitigation Measure 3.2 -1(c) requires implementation of measures to reduce emissions from heavy -duty diesel - powered equipment, including but not limited to reduced equipment idling time, proper equipment tuning, use of alternative fuel equipment, and use of low- emitting diesel fuel. Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.2 -1(a), (b), and (c) identified in the EIR and listed in the MMRP will ensure that Impact 3.2 -1 would be reduced to a less - than- significant level. Biological Resources Impacts Impact Criterion #1 Special- Status Species Habitat Modification: Would the project adversely affect, either directly or through, habitat modifications, 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? Impact 3.3 -1 The project could result in the potential loss and/or degradation of rare plant populations. This would be a potentially significant impact. Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant. Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant. Explanation: Mitigation Measures 3.3 -1(a), (b), and (c) require measures to survey for and identify rare plants, obtain required take permits and implement required mitigation measures for any listed rare plants that would be impacted, and consult with CDFG regarding any designated rare plants that are not currently listed to determine appropriate measures to reduce impacts. Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.3 -1(a), (b), and (c) identified in the EIR and listed in the MMRP will ensure that Impact 3.3 -1 would be . reduced to a less -than- significant level. 12 Impact 3.3 -2 The project could result in the loss of California tiger salamander individuals or salamander habitat, a federally listed species. This would be a potentially significant impact. Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant. Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant. Explanation: Mitigation Measure 3.3 -2(a) requires consultation with the USFWS prior to construction disturbance to determine appropriate measures to avoid a potential take of California tiger salamander (CTS), which at the direction of USFWS could include preconstruction surveys by a qualified biologist. If measures taken in compliance with Mitigation Measure 3.3 -2(a) result in the determination that the project would result in the "take" of CTS, Mitigation Measure 3.3 -2(b) requires the project sponsor to obtain an incidental take permit pursuant to Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act and mitigate for take in compliance with the terms of the take permit, which could include payment of mitigation fees and / or purchase of mitigation lands. Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3 -2(a) and (b) identified in the EIR and listed in the MMRP will ensure that Impact 3.3 -2 would be reduced to a less- than - significant level. Impact 3.3 -3 Construction of the Project could result in the loss of burrowing owl individuals, a Species of Special Concern (eggs, nestlings, or juveniles). This would be a potentially significant impact. Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant. Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant. Explanation: Mitigation Measures 3.3 -3(a) through 3.3 -3(d) require implementation of measures to ensure that burrowing owl individuals and their habitat is identified onsite and that measures are taken to avoid impacts to this species and its habitat. Measures include surveys prior to construction, establishment of buffer zones during construction for active burrows, relocation mitigation, and consultation with CDFG regarding mitigation strategies and implementation. Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.3 -3(a) through 3.3 -3(d) identified in the EIR and listed in the MMRP will ensure that Impact 3.3 -3 would be reduced to a less- than - significant level. Impact 3.3 -4 The project could result in the direct loss or disturbance of nesting birds, including white- tailed kite, Cooper's hawk, and other raptors (birds -of- prey). This would be a potentially significant impact. Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant. 13 Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant. Explanation: Mitigation Measures 3.3 -4(a) and (b) require preconstruction surveys for active nesting sites on or adjacent to the project site and avoidance of any active nest sites discovered, as well as establishment of construction exclusion zones around nest sites to avoid disturbance of nesting activities. Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.34(a) and (b) identified in the EIR and listed in the MMRP will ensure that Impact 3.3 -4 would be reduced to a less - than - significant level. Impact Criterion #3 Effect Federally Protected Wetlands: Would the project adversely affect federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Impact 3.3 -5 The project would result in the filling or adverse modification of jurisdictional wetlands other "waters of the U.S." This would be a significant impact. Significance Before Mitigation: Significant. Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant. Explanation: Mitigation Measures 3.3 -5(a) and (b) require wetland delineations to be conducted for the project site and verified by the USACE prior to construction and mitigation for any impacts to wetlands consistent with required wetland permitting such that the project would result in no -net loss of wetland acreage or habitat value. Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.3 -5(a) and (b) identified in the EIR and listed in the MMRP will ensure that Impact 3.3 -4 would be reduced to a less - than - significant level. Impact Criterion #5 Local Policies or Ordinances: Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Impact 3.3 -6 The project would result in the loss of existing trees within the project site boundaries that are protected by municipal codes. This would be a significant impact. Significance Before Mitigation: Significant. Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant. Explanation: Mitigation Measure 3.3 -6 requires an inventory and assessment of all non - exempt trees on the project site prior to grading permit issuance and 14 mitigation for trees removed and protection of trees to be retained in compliance with the provisions of the Tree Removal Permit issued by the Community Development Director. Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3 -6 identified in the EIR and listed in the MMRP will ensure that Impact 3.3 -6 would be reduced to a less - than- significant level. Cultural Resources Impacts Impact Criterion #2 Archaeological Resources: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Section 15064.5? Impact 3.4 -1 There is low to moderate sensitivity for prehistoric cultural resources existing on the project site. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that prehistoric cultural deposits could be found anywhere within or near the project site and could be disturbed or destroyed through vegetation - clearing, grading, and construction activities. Damage to archaeological sites would be considered a potentially significant impact. Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant. Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant. Explanation: Mitigation Measure 3.4 -1 includes measures directing construction personnel to observe for cultural deposits that could be found during soil disturbing activities and to protect cultural deposits from construction disturbance should any be discovered. This mitigation measure requires that further measures be taken to characterize the deposit and perform data recovery if impacts to the cultural resources cannot be avoided. Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4 -1 identified in the EIR and listed in the MMRP will ensure that Impact 3.4 -1 would be reduced to a less - than- significant level. Impact Criterion #4 Human Remains: Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Impact 3.4 -2 It is possible, given the record of prehistoric use of the project area, that excavation or grading for the project could disturb human remains interred outside of formal cemeteries. This would be a potentially significant impact. Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant. Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant. Explanation: Mitigation Measure 3.4 -2 requires halting all ground - disturbing activities within 50 feet of any remains found during construction and 15 immediate notification of the County Coroner. If the remains are determined to be Native American, Mitigation Measure 3.4 -2 requires that further measures be taken including a field investigation by an archaeologist, notification of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and adherence to NAHC guidelines for the treatment and disposition of the remains. Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4 -2 identified in the EIR and listed in the MMRP will ensure that Impact 3.4 -2 would be reduced to a less - than- significant level. Geology and Soils Impacts The EIR identified no significant adverse project impacts with respect to geology and soils. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts Impact Criterion #2 Hazardous Materials Accidents: Would the project 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? Impact 3.6 -1 Project construction activities could disturb any unknown or remaining contaminated areas in the surface and/or subsurface soils and inadvertently expose construction workers or the environment to a health risk. Based on the findings of the Phase I Site Assessments and regulatory file reviews as described in this EIR, this adverse impact is considered potentially significant. Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant. Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant. Explanation: Mitigation Measure 3.6 -1 requires that a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment be conducted in areas of known concern as identified by the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and requires that any hazardous substances be handled and disposed of in compliance with applicable regulations. Mitigation Measure 3.6 -1 further provides measures for appropriate evaluation and handling of unknown contamination that could be discovered during construction activities, including preparation and implementation of a Safety and Health Plan. Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6 -1 identified in the EIR and listed in the MMRP will ensure that Impact 3.6 -1 would be reduced to a less - than- significant level. Impact 3.6 -2 Structure and building component demolition, modification, and removal could disturb hazardous materials in the existing buildings proposed for adaptive reuse, resulting in 16 increased risk of human or environmental exposure to hazardous materials. This would be a potentially significant impact. Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant. Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant. Explanation: Mitigation Measure 3.6 -2 requires inspection of buildings by a qualified environmental specialist prior to activities that could disturb hazardous materials and requires that any materials identified that could pose a safety risk be managed in accordance with applicable regulations. Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6 -2 identified in the EIR and listed in the MMRP will ensure that Impact 3.6 -2 would be reduced to a less - than- significant level. Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts Impact Criterion #3 Erosion /Siltation: Would the project 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 that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? Impact 3.7 -1 Project implementation would result in site grading, drainage improvements, and development, thus increasing runoff potential that could contribute to erosion or siltation on or offsite. This would be a potentially significant impact. Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant. Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant. Explanation: Mitigation Measure 3.7 -1 requires a Final Drainage Master Plan be prepared for all on- and off -site drainage facilities (including water quality facilities - BMPs) and approved by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project. The Plan must be prepared in accordance with City standards and policies, including measures to control erosion and siltation, and must be coordinated in its development with the Water Quality Management Plan for the project. Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.7 -1 identified in the EIR and listed in the MMRP will ensure that Impact 3.7 -1 would be reduced to a less - than- significant level. Impact Criterion #6 Stormwater Pollutants: Would the project introduce typical stormwater pollutants into ground or surface waters? 17 Impact 3.7 -2 Project implementation would alter land uses and increase the amount of typical stormwater pollutants into surface water and potentially groundwater. This would be a potentially significant impact. Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant. Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant. Explanation: Mitigation Measure 3.7 -2(a) requires the project sponsor to implement a site - specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) with Best Management Practices (BMPs) targeted to reduce post - construction pollutant loads. The WQMP must be approved by a qualified engineer or stormwater management professional of the Rohnert Park Public Works Department prior to the beginning of grading and /or construction activities. Mitigation Measure 3.7 -2(b) requires the project sponsor to implement a site - specific Chemical Application Management Plan for both public and private properties to control pesticide and nutrient applications within the proposed project area. The Chemical Application Management Plan would be made part of the WQMP. Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.7 -2(a) and (b) identified in the EIR and listed in the MMRP will ensure that Impact 3.7 -2 would be reduced to a less - than- significant level. Impact Criterion #9 Water Quality: Would the project alter groundwater or surface water quality, temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity? Impact 3.7 -3 Implementation and operation of the proposed project could adversely alter surface water quality, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity. ,This would be a potentially significant impact. Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant. Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant. Explanation: Mitigation Measure 3.7 -3 requires the project sponsor to implement one or more of the measures included in the mitigation measure to manage water temperature in water discharged from the project site to ensure that the project does not result in substantially higher temperature water runoff than the predevelopment condition. Measures could include one or a combination of below - ground water storage of runoff, shading surface water storage, water conservation measures, and /or implementing a water temperature monitoring plan. The final measures implemented for water temperature control will be reviewed and approved by the City prior to submittal of final grading plans. 18 Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.7 -3 identified in the EIR and listed in the MMRP will ensure that Impact 3.7 -3 would be reduced to a less - than- significant level. Land Use Impacts The EIR identified no significant adverse project impacts with respect to land use. Noise Impacts Impact Criterion #1 Noise Standards: Would the project expose persons to, or generate noise levels in excess of, standards established in the General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Impact 3.9 -1 Residential uses fronting Camino Colegio (between Manchester Avenue and Mitchell Drive) and residential uses fronting East Railroad Avenue east of Old Redwood Highway would be exposed to exterior traffic noise levels that exceed City standards. This would be a potentially significant impact for residences fronting Camino Colegio and a significant and unavoidable impact for residences fronting East Railroad Avenue. Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant (for residences fronting Camino Colegio) /Significant and Unavoidable (for residences fronting East Railroad Avenue). Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant (for residences fronting Camino Colegio) /Significant (for residences fronting East Railroad Avenue). Explanation: Mitigation Measure 3.9 -1 requires the project sponsor to construct a solid concrete /masonry wall along the property line on the north side of Camino Colegio between Manchester Avenue and Mitchell Drive to reduce Impact 3.9 -1 for residents along Camino Colegio to a less -than- significant level. The EIR determined that no mitigation measure is available to reduce the noise impact for residences facing East Railroad Avenue because driveway access is required for each residence. Thus, a continuous barrier along the frontage of these properties is infeasible. Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.9 -1 identified in the EIR and listed in the MMRP will ensure that Impact 3.9 -1 would be reduced to a less- than- significant level for residents along Camino Colegio. Impact 3.9 -1 would be significant and unavoidable for residences facing East Railroad Avenue since a continuous barrier along the frontage of these properties is infeasible. Impact Criterion #2 Groundborne Vibration /Noise: Would the project expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration levels? Impact 3.9 -1(a) Project construction would impact future residents. 19 Significance Before Mitigation: Less than Significant Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant Explanation: The EIR determined that Impact 3.9 -2 would be less than significant before mitigation. However, the EIR proposed Mitigation Measure 3.9 -1(a) to help further reduce the already less- than - significant impact. Mitigation Measure 3.9 -1(a) requires the project sponsor to inform future on -site residents of the possibility of disruption of sleep due to vibration from ongoing construction. It should be noted that construction would occur during normal day time hours and is not expected to disrupt sleep during nighttime hours. Finding: Impact 3.9 -1 would be less than significant before mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.9 -1(a) identified in the EIR and listed in the MMRP will further reduce the already less- than - significant impact. Impact Criterion #3 Ambient Noise Levels: Would the project cause substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Impact 3.9 -2 Residential uses fronting Camino Colegio (between Manchester Avenue and Mitchell Drive) and East Railroad Avenue east of Old Redwood Highway could be exposed to permanent increases in exterior traffic noise levels above accepted standards. This would be a potentially significant impactfor residences fronting Camino Colegio and a significant unavoidable impact for residences fronting East Railroad Avenue. Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant (for residences fronting Camino Colegio) /Significant (for residences fronting East Railroad Avenue). Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant (for residences fronting Camino Colegio) /Significant and Unavoidable (for residences fronting East Railroad Avenue). Explanation: Mitigation Measure 3.9 -1 requires the project sponsor to construct a solid concrete /masonry wall along the property line on the north side of Camino Colegio between Manchester Avenue and Mitchell Drive to reduce Impact 3.9 -1 for residents along Camino Colegio to a less -than- significant level. The EIR determined that no mitigation measure is available to reduce the noise impact for residences facing East Railroad Avenue because driveway access is required for each residence. Thus, a continuous barrier along the frontage of these properties is infeasible. Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.9 -2 identified in the EIR and listed in the MMRP will ensure that Impact 3.9 -2 would be reduced to a less - than- significant level for residents along Camino Colegio. Impact 3.9 -2 would be significant and unavoidable for residences facing East Railroad 20 Avenue since a continuous barrier along the frontage of these properties is infeasible. Impact Criterion #4 Ambient Noise Levels: Would the project cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Impact 3.9 -3 Construction activities associated with Sonoma Mountain Village could generate substantial temporary or periodic increases in noise levels potentially annoying residents. This would be a potentially significant impact. Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant Explanation: Mitigation Measure 3.9 -3 requires measures to reduce noise levels associated with construction activities and heavy -duty construction equipment, including but not limited to locating noise generating equipment at specified distances from occupied residences, notifying contractors and residents of allowable construction hours, and informing future residents of potential for noise disruption during ongoing construction. Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.9 -3 identified in the EIR and listed in the MMRP will ensure that Impact 3.9 -3 would be reduced to a less - than- significant level. Planning Policy Impacts Section 3.10 of the EIR provides and evaluation of the Sonoma Mountain Village project and its development components for consistency with the relevant goals and policies of the Rohnert Park General Plan. No impact determinations are made in this section of the EIR Population and Housing Impacts The EIR identified no significant or potentially significant impacts that could be reduced to a less than significant level through implementation of mitigation measures. Impact 3.11 -1 was determined to be significant and unavoidable and is addressed under Section XI below. Public Services Impacts The EIR determined that the proposed Sonoma Mountain Village project would result in no significant adverse public services impacts. Traffic and Circulation Impacts Impact Criterion #1 Traffic Volumes and Level of Service (LOS): Would the project cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? 21 Impact 3.13 -1 Under Baseline Conditions, the addition of project traffic would cause LOS to degrade, and delay to reach unacceptable levels at the Petaluma Hill Road/East Railroad Avenue intersection (Sonoma County jurisdiction) during both AM and PM peak hours. As a direct result of the addition of project traffic, the intersection would meet the requirements of the MUTCD Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant. This would be a significant impact. Significance Before Mitigation: Significant Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant. Explanation: Mitigation Measure 3.13 -1 calls for signalization of the Petaluma Hill Road/ East Railroad Avenue intersection to meet current Sonoma County standards. Implementation of this measure would ensure that this intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS B during peak hours. Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13 -1 identified in the EIR and listed in the MMRP will ensure that Impact 3.13 -1 would be reduced to a less - than- significant level. Impact 3.13 -14 During the construction period, temporary and intermittent traffic delays would result from truck movements as well as construction worker vehicles traveling to and from the project site. This construction - related traffic would result in a temporary reduction to the capacities of project area streets because of the slower movements and larger turning radii of construction trucks compared to passenger vehicles. Truck traffic that occurs during the peak commute hours (7 :00 a.m. to 9:00 a. m. and 4:00p. m. to 6.00 p.m.) could result in worse levels of service and higher delays at local intersections than during off -peak hours. Also, parking of construction workers' vehicles would temporarily increase parking occupancy levels in the area. This would be a potentially significant impact. Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant. Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant. Explanation: Mitigation Measure 3.13 -14 requires preparation and implementation of a construction traffic management plan, including measures to manage construction traffic and vehicle parking, that would be subject to review and approval by City staff prior to issuance of each major building permit for the project. The EIR determined that implementation of a traffic management plan including measures specified by Mitigation Measure 3.13 -14 would reduce Impact 3.13 -14 to a less -than- significant level. Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13 -14 would reduce Impact 3.13 -14 to a less -than- significant level. Impact Criterion #2 Hazards: Would the project generate hazards to safety from design features? 22 Impact No internal traffic or circulation features have been identified as specific hazards with respect to vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian safety. However, the discussion below is provided for context regarding Mitigation Measure 3.13-15 proposed by the EIR to further ensure that the project would not generate hazards to safety. Significance Before Mitigation: Less than Significant. Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant. Explanation: The EIR analysis identified no internal traffic or circulation features that would result in specific hazards with respect to vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian safety and determined that impacts to public safety from design features would be less than significant without mitigation. However, to provide an additional measure of safety, the EIR proposed Mitigation Measure 3.13 -15, which calls for specific measures to be implemented to ensure that no hazards are created as project plans are further refined. Measures include, but are not limited to compliance with Fire Department standards, providing appropriate access for trash collection vehicles, provision of appropriate turnarounds, avoidance of certain intersection geometries, and compliance with City standards. Finding: Impact 3.13 -15 would be less than significant before mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13 -15 identified in the EIR and listed in the MMRP will provide assurance that further refinement of the project design avoids creating a hazard as a result of design modifications. Utilities and Service Systems Impacts The EIR determined that the proposed Sonoma Mountain Village project would result in no significant adverse impacts with regard to utilities and service systems. Water Supply Assessment The SB 610 Water Supply Assessment prepared for the Sonoma Mountain Village project evaluates the adequacy of existing and future water supplies to meet the water demand created by the Sonoma Mountain Village project under normal and dry conditions. The assessment identifies water demand and supply under two scenarios- assuming City's Urban Water Master Plan for industrial purposes. The second scenario is from the Sonoma Mountain Village Water Plan in which projections of water use are based on the uses proposed as part of the rezoning and General Plan amendments. The DEIR assessed both scenarios and found the project's demand would be expected to remain within anticipated City -wide demand as shown in Tables 3.14 -2 and 3.14 -3 in the DEIR. The City would have sufficient water supply and water delivery infrastructure to serve the Sonoma Mountain Village project. There would be no significant adverse environmental impact from the project regarding new or expanded water resources. 23 Global Climate Change Impacts The EIR determined that the proposed Sonoma Mountain Village project would result in no significant adverse impacts with regard to Global Climate Change. XI. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS Under Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3) and (b), and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 (a)(3), 15092(b)(2)(B) and 15093, the Council finds that the remaining significant unavoidable adverse effects on the environment identified by the EIR are acceptable due to the overriding considerations described in Section XIV below. The significant unavoidable adverse impacts remaining after. mitigation of the Project are as follows: Aesthetics and Urban Design Impacts Aesthetic and Urban Design Cumulative Impacts to Scenic Viewsheds Significance Before Mitigation: Significant. Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable. Explanation: Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR for project impacts would not eliminate the adverse viewshed impacts of the proposed project within a cumulative context. The proposed project and other projects considered in the cumulative scenario for development could block existing views - a significant and adverse impact (Impact 4.2 -c). General Plan policies have been established to mitigate the impact of such visual impacts, and would be implemented as part of the prescribed mitigation. These impacts could only be eliminated by the elimination of the entire proposed project and many of the surrounding projects. Therefore, the proposed Sonoma Mountain Village project would contribute to significant and unavoidable adverse aesthetic or urban design impacts on scenic views under Impact Criterion #1. Finding: No mitigation measures are available to avoid or minimize cumulative impacts to scenic viewsheds. Cumulative impacts to scenic viewsheds are therefore significant and unavoidable. Air Quality Impacts Impact Criterion #3 Substantial Air Pollutant Emissions: Would the project result in a substantial net increase in the emissions of any air pollutant for which the project region is problematic under applicable federal or state air quality standards or plans, including releasing pollutants which exceed established quantitative thresholds? I.' Impact 3.2 -2 Project operational activities would generate emissions of ozone precursors (ROG, NOx) and particulate matter (PM�o) (criteria pollutants), that would exceed BAAQMD quantitative emission thresholds of 80 pounds per day each. These would be significant and unavoidable impacts under Impact Criterion #3 regarding the release of substantial air pollutant emissions. Significance Before Mitigation: Significant. Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable. Explanation: Mitigation Measure 3.2 -2 includes measures to reduce operational emissions through implementation of feasible energy reduction measures; however, even after the implementation of these energy reduction measures, project criteria pollutant emissions would be expected to exceed BAAQMD quantitative emission thresholds and remain significant and unavoidable under Impact Criterion #3 regarding the release of substantial air pollutant emissions. While implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2 -2 identified in the FIR and listed in the MMRP will reduce operational emissions to the extent feasible, project pollutant emissions would be expected to exceed BAAQMD quantitative emissions thresholds and Impact 3.2 -2 would remain significant and unavoidable. Finding: No mitigation measures are available to avoid or minimize Impact 3.2- 2. Impact 3.2 -2 is therefore significant and unavoidable. Cumulative Impacts to Air Quality Significance Before Mitigation: Significant. Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable. Explanation: The Sonoma Mountain Village project would require a General Plan Amendment and rezoning, which would significantly increase the site's potential for the direct and indirect emission of air pollutants. Ozone precursor and particulate emissions from project- related stationary and mobile sources would exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds. Moreover, air pollutant emissions from the proposed project would be a relatively large proportion of the total Rohnert Park emissions in the cumulative scenario. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified above for project impacts would not eliminate the adverse air quality impacts of the proposed project within the cumulative context. Finding: No mitigation measures are available to avoid or minimize cumulative impacts to air quality. Cumulative impacts to air quality are therefore significant and unavoidable. Biological Resources Impacts No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified by the EIR with respect to biological resources. 25 Cultural Resources Impacts No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified by the EIR with respect to cultural resources. Geology and Soils Impacts The EIR identified no significant and unavoidable adverse project impacts with respect to geology and soils. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts The EIR identified no significant and unavoidable adverse project impacts with respect to hazards and hazardous materials. Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts The EIR identified no significant and unavoidable adverse project impacts with respect to hydrology and water quality. Land'Use Impacts The EIR identified no significant and unavoidable adverse project impacts with respect to land use. Noise Impacts Impact Criterion #1 Noise Standards: Would the project expose persons to, or generate noise levels in excess of, standards established in the General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Impact 3.9 -1 Residential uses fronting Camino Colegio (between Manchester Avenue and Mitchell Drive) and residential uses fronting East Railroad Avenue east of Old Redwood Highway would be exposed to exterior traffic noise levels that exceed City standards. This would be a potentially significant impact for residences fronting Camino Colegio and a significant and unavoidable impact for residences fronting East Railroad Avenue. Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant (for residences fronting Camino Colegio) /Significant (for residences fronting East Railroad Avenue), Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant (for residences fronting Camino Colegio) /Significant and Unavoidable (for residences fronting East Railroad Avenue). Explanation: Mitigation Measure 3.9 -1 requires the project sponsor to construct a solid concrete /masonry wall along the property line on the north side of Camino Colegio between Manchester Avenue and Mitchell Drive to reduce Impact 3.9 -1 for residents along Camino Colegio to a less -than- significant level. The EIR determined that no mitigation measure is available to reduce the noise impact for residences facing East Railroad Avenue because driveway access is required for each residence. Thus, Impact 3.9 -1 would be 26 significant and unavoidable for residences facing East Railroad Avenue because a continuous barrier along the frontage of these properties is infeasible. Finding: No mitigation measures are available to avoid or minimize Impact 3.9- 1. Impact 3.9 -1 is therefore significant and unavoidable. Impact Criterion #3 Ambient Noise Levels: Would the project cause substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Impact 3.9 -2 Residential uses fronting Camino Colegio (between Manchester Avenue and Mitchell Drive) and East Railroad Avenue east of Old Redwood Highway could be exposed to permanent increases in exterior traffic noise levels above accepted standards. This would be a potentially significant impact for residences fronting Camino Colegio and a significant unavoidable impact for residences fronting East Railroad Avenue. Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant (for residences fronting Camino Colegio) /- Significant (for residences fronting East Railroad Avenue). Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant (for residences fronting Camino Colegio) /Significant and Unavoidable (for residences fronting East Railroad Avenue). Explanation: Mitigation Measure 3.9 -1. requires the project sponsor to construct a solid concrete /masonry wall along the property line on the north side of Camino Colegio between Manchester Avenue and Mitchell Drive to reduce Impact 3.9 -1 for residents along Camino Colegio to a less -than- significant level. The EIR determined that no mitigation measure is available to reduce the noise impact for residences facing East Railroad Avenue because driveway access is required for each residence. Thus, Impact 3.9 -2 would be significant and unavoidable for residences facing East Railroad Avenue because a continuous barrier along the frontage of these properties is infeasible. Finding: No mitigation measures are available to avoid or minimize Impact 3.9- 2. Impact 3.9 -2 is therefore significant and unavoidable. Cumulative Noise Impacts Significance Before Mitigation: Significant. Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable. Explanation: Under Impact Criterion #1, the noise exposures of residential uses along East Railroad Avenue would remain a significant unavoidable cumulative impact. The same conditions and conclusions would apply under Impact Criterion #2. Future cumulative increases in exterior noise levels at existing residential uses facing East Cotati Avenue would exceed the 27 applicable City of Cotati standards. Cumulative traffic would likely cause interior noise levels in some of the closest and oldest of the residential units along East Cotati Avenue to increase further above the noise standards set by Title 24 and the City of Cotati. Consequently, cumulative noise impacts to residential uses along East Cotati Avenue would be significant and unavoidable under Criterion #3. While implementation of project Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR and listed in the MMRP will reduce noise impacts to the extent feasible, the project's contribution to noise in the cumulative scenario would be significant and unavoidable. Finding: No mitigation measures are available to avoid or minimize cumulative noise impacts. Cumulative noise impacts are therefore significant and unavoidable. Planning Policy Impacts Section 3.10 of the EIR provides and evaluation of the Sonoma Mountain Village project and its development components for consistency with the relevant goals and policies of the Rohnert Park General Plan. No impact determinations are made in this section of the EIR. Population and Housing Impacts Impact Criterion #1 Growth: Would the project induce substantial growth in an area either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (e:g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Impact 3.11 -1 Development of the proposed project would directly generate an unanticipated residential population increase within the City of Rohnert Park. Significance Before Mitigation: Significant Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable. Explanation: The Sonoma Mountain Village project would generate population growth due to an increase in housing that would accommodate a larger population within the City and new employment opportunities on the project site. Because the project site is designated for industrial rather than residential uses in the General Plan, this population increase would be in addition to growth projected by the General Plan and would be considered a significant and unavoidable impact of the project even though the project would comply with the City's growth management goals and policies. No mitigation measures are available to avoid or minimize this impact. Finding: No mitigation measures are available to avoid or minimize Impact 3.11- 1. Impact 3.11 -1 is therefore significant and unavoidable. 28 Public Services Impacts The EIR identified no significant and unavoidable adverse project impacts with respect to public services. Traffic and Circulation Impacts Impact Criterion #1 Traffic Volumes and Level of Service (LOS): Would the project cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? Impact 3.13 -2 Under Baseline Conditions, the addition of project traffic would cause unacceptable LOS at the Petaluma Hill Road /Adobe Road intersection (Sonoma County jurisdiction) during the PM peak hour. This would be a significant impact. Significance Before Mitigation: Significant Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable. Explanation: While Mitigation Measure 3.13 -2 provides potential mitigation strategies that could reduce Impact 3.13 -2 to a less- than - significant level, to implement Mitigation Measure 3.13 -2, the City of Rohnert Park would be required to work with Sonoma County to determine a fair -share portion of improvements to this intersection, and if deemed appropriate, collect a fair - share allocation from the developers of the Sonoma Mountain Village Project. Since the intersection is controlled by Sonoma County, the project sponsor and the City can not ensure that Sonoma County will support and permit implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13 -2 or other equally effective improvements. Since it is uncertain whether the required mitigation measure will be implemented, Impact 3.13 -2 is significant and unavoidable. Finding: No mitigation measures are available to avoid or minimize Impact 3.13- 2. Impact 3.13 -2 is therefore significant and unavoidable. Impact 3.13 -3 Under Baseline Conditions, the addition of project traffic would cause LOS to degrade, and delay to reach unacceptable levels at the Old Redwood Highway /East Railroad Avenue intersection (Sonoma County jurisdiction) during the PMpeak hour. As a direct result of the addition of project traffic, the intersection would meet the requirements of the MUTCD Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant. This would be a significant impact. Significance Before Mitigation: Significant Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable. Explanation: Mitigation Measure 3.13 -3 calls for signalization of the Old Redwood Highway/ East Railroad Avenue intersection to reduce this impact to a less - than - significant level. However, the City of Rohnert Park has no jurisdiction over the subject intersection and therefore cannot formally introduce and /or implement Mitigation Measure 3.13 -3. Specific 29 infrastructure improvements and costs remain unknown for traffic mitigation projects in Sonoma County, and correspondingly, the feasibility and effectiveness of such mitigation measures also remains unknown. For this reason the impact is considered significant and unavoidable. Finding: No mitigation measures are available to avoid or minimize Impact 3.13- 3. Impact 3.13 -3 is therefore significant and unavoidable. Impact 3.13 -4 Under Baseline Conditions, the addition of project traffic would cause unacceptable LOS at the Old Redwood Highway /East Cotati Avenue intersection (City of Cotati jurisdiction) during the PM peak hour. This would be a significant impact. Significance Before Mitigation: Significant Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable. Explanation: Mitigation Measure 3.13 -4 calls for modifications to the Old Redwood Highway /East Cotati Avenue intersection to allow the intersection to operate at an acceptable LOS and reduce this impact to a less -than- significant level. While Mitigation Measure 3.13 -4 would reduce Impact 3.13- 4 to a less- than - significant level, to implement Mitigation Measure 3.13 -4, the City of Rohnert Park would be required to work with the City of Cotati to determine a fair -share portion of improvements to this intersection, and if deemed appropriate, collect a fair -share allocation from the developers of the Sonoma Mountain Village Project. Since the intersection is controlled by the City of Cotati, the project sponsor and the City can not ensure that City of Cotati will support and permit implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13 -4 or other equally effective improvements. Since it is uncertain whether the required mitigation measure will be implemented, Impact 3.13 -4 is considered significant and unavoidable. Finding: No mitigation measures are available to avoid or minimize Impact 3.13- 4. Impact 3.13 -4 is therefore significant and unavoidable. Impact 3.13 -5 Under Baseline Conditions, the addition of project traffic would cause unacceptable LOS.at the LaSalle Avenue /East Cotati Avenue intersection (City of Cotati jurisdiction) during the PM peak hour. With and without the addition of project traffic, the intersection would meet the requirements of the MUTCD Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant. This would be a significant impact. Significance Before Mitigation: Significant Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable. Explanation: Mitigation Measure 3.13 -5 calls for signalization of the LaSalle Avenue /East Cotati Avenue intersection to allow the intersection to operate at an acceptable LOS and reduce this impact to a less -than- significant level. 30 While Mitigation Measure 3.13 -5 would reduce Impact 3.13 -5 to a less -than- significant level, to implement Mitigation Measure 3.13 -5, the City of Rohnert Park would be required to work with the City of Cotati to determine a fair - share portion of improvements to this intersection, and if deemed appropriate, collect a fair -share allocation from the developers of the Sonoma Mountain Village Project. Since the intersection is controlled by the City of Cotati, the project sponsor and the City can not ensure that City of Cotati will support and permit implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13 -5 or other equally effective improvements. Since it is uncertain whether the required mitigation measure will be implemented, Impact 3.13 -5 is considered significant and unavoidable. Finding: No mitigation measures are available to avoid or minimize Impact 3.13- 5. Impact 3.13 -5 is therefore significant and unavoidable. Impact 3.13 -6 Under Cumulative Conditions, the addition of project traffic would cause LOS to degrade, and delay to reach unacceptable levels at the Petaluma Hill Road/East Railroad Avenue intersection (Sonoma County jurisdiction) during both AM and PM peak hours. As a direct result of the addition of project traffic, the intersection would meet the requirements of the MUTCD Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant. This would be a significant impact. Significance Before Mitigation: Significant Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable. Explanation: Mitigation Measure 3.13 -6 calls for implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13 -1, which requires signalization of the Petaluma Hill Road /East Railroad Avenue intersection to meet current Sonoma County standards. While implementation of this measure would mitigate the project's contribution to cumulative traffic impacts, the intersection would continue to operate at unacceptable conditions under the cumulative scenario. Impact 3.13 -6 would be significant and unavoidable following implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13 -6 as identified in the EIR and listed in the MMRP. Finding: No mitigation measures are available to avoid or minimize Impact 3.13- 6. Impact 3.13 -6 is therefore significant and unavoidable. Impact 3.13 -7 Under Cumulative Conditions, the addition of project traffic would cause delay to reach unacceptable levels at the Petaluma Hill Road /Adobe Road intersection (Sonoma County jurisdiction) during both peak hours. This would be a significant impact. Significance Before Mitigation: Significant. Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable. Explanation: To restore acceptable operating conditions at the Petaluma Hill Road/ Adobe Road intersection, Mitigation Measure 3.13 -7 calls for 31 Mitigation Measure 3.13 -2 to be implemented. While Mitigation Measure 3.13 -2 provides potential mitigation strategies that could reduce Impact 3.13- 7 to a less - than - significant level, to implement Mitigation Measure 3.13 -2, the City of Rohnert Park would be required to work with Sonoma County to determine a fair -share portion of improvements to this intersection, and if deemed appropriate, collect a fair -share allocation from the developers of the Sonoma Mountain Village Project. Since the intersection is controlled by Sonoma County, the project sponsor and the City can not ensure that Sonoma County will support and permit implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13- 2 or other equally effective improvements. Since it is uncertain whether the required mitigation measure will be implemented, Impact 3.13 -7 is considered significant and unavoidable. Finding: No mitigation measures are available to avoid or minimize Impact 3.13- 7. Impact 3.13 -7 is therefore significant and unavoidable. Impact 3.13 -8 Under Cumulative Conditions, the addition ofproject traffic would cause delay to reach unacceptable levels at the Old Redwood Highway /U.S. 101 Ramps intersection (City of Petaluma jurisdiction) during the PMpeak hour. This would be a significant impact. Significance Before Mitigation: Significant. Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable. Explanation: Mitigation Measure 3.13 -8 calls for widening the westbound approach at the U.S. 101 northbound off -ramp at the Old Redwood Highway /US 101 ramp intersection to include an additional right turn lane in order to mitigate transportation impacts at the intersection to a less -than- significant level. However, since the intersection is controlled by the City of Petaluma and the ramp is controlled by Caltrans, the project sponsor and the City cannot ensure that the City of Petaluma will support and permit construction of these or other equally effective improvements. For this reason Impact 3.13 -8 is considered significant and unavoidable. Finding: No mitigation measures are available to avoid or minimize Impact 3.13- 8. Impact 3.13 -8 is therefore significant and unavoidable. Impact 3.13 -9 Under Cumulative Conditions, the addition of project traffic would cause delay to reach unacceptable levels at the Old Redwood Highway /East Railroad Avenue intersection (Sonoma County jurisdiction) (luring the PM peak hour. This would be a significant impact. Significance Before Mitigation: Significant. Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable. Explanation: Mitigation Measure 3.13 -9 calls for implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13 -3, which would signalize the Old Redwood Highway/ East 32 Railroad Avenue intersection to mitigate transportation impacts at the intersection to a less -than- significant level. However, the City of Rohnert Park has no jurisdiction over the subject intersection and therefore cannot formally introduce and /or implement Mitigation Measure 3.13 -3. Specific infrastructure improvements and costs remain unknown for traffic mitigation projects in Sonoma County, and correspondingly, the feasibility and effectiveness of such mitigation measures also remains unknown. For this reason Impact 3.13 -9 is considered significant and unavoidable. Finding: No mitigation measures are available to avoid or minimize Impact 3.13- 9. Impact 3.13 -9 is therefore significant and unavoidable. Impact 3.13 -10 Under Cumulative Conditions, the addition of project traffic would cause delay to reach unacceptable levels at the Old Redwood Highway /East Cotati Avenue intersection (City of Cotati jurisdiction) during both peak hours. This would be a significant impact. Significance Before Mitigation: Significant. Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable. Explanation: Mitigation Measure 3.13 -10 would implement Mitigation Measure 3.13 -4, which calls for modifications to the Old Redwood Highway/ East Cotati Avenue intersection to allow the intersection to operate at an acceptable LOS and reduce this impact to a less- than - significant level. While Mitigation Measure 3.13 -4 would reduce Impact 3.13 -10 to a less -than- significant level, to implement Mitigation Measure 3.13 -4, the City of Rohnert Park would be required to work with the City of Cotati to determine a fair - share portion of improvements to this intersection, and if deemed appropriate, collect a fair -share allocation from the developers of the Sonoma Mountain Village Project. Since the intersection is controlled by the City of Cotati, the project sponsor and the City can not ensure that City of Cotati will support and permit implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13 -4 or other equally effective improvements. Since it is uncertain whether the required mitigation measure will be implemented, Impact 3.13 -10 is considered significant and unavoidable. Finding: No mitigation measures are available to avoid or minimize Impact 3.13- 10. Impact 3.13 -10 is therefore significant and unavoidable. Impact 3.13 -11 Under Cumulative Conditions, the addition of project traffic would cause delay to reach unacceptable levels at the LaSalle Avenue /East Cotati Avenue intersection (City of Cotati jurisdiction) during the PM peak hour. This would be a significant impact. Significance Before Mitigation: Significant. Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable. 33 Explanation: Mitigation Measure 3.13 -11 would implement Mitigation Measure 3.13 -5, which calls for signalization of the LaSalle Avenue/ East Cotati Avenue intersection to allow the intersection to operate at an acceptable LOS and reduce this impact to a less - than- significant level. While Mitigation Measure 3.13 -5 would reduce Impact 3.13 -11 to a less -than- significant level, to implement Mitigation Measure 3.13 -5, the City of Rohnert Park would be required to work with the City of Cotati to determine a fair -share portion of improvements to this intersection, and if deemed appropriate, collect a fair - share allocation from the developers of the Sonoma Mountain Village Project. Since the intersection is controlled by the City of Cotati, the project sponsor and the City can not ensure that City of Cotati will support and permit implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13 -5 or other equally effective improvements. Since it is uncertain whether the required mitigation measure will be implemented, Impact 3.13 -11 is considered significant and unavoidable. Finding: No mitigation measures are available to avoid or minimize Impact 3.13- 11. Impact 3.13 -11 is therefore significant and unavoidable. Impact 3.13 -12 Under Baseline Conditions, the addition of project traffic would cause the U.S. 101 freeway segment north of Rohnert Park Expressway and the segment between Washington Street and Petaluma Boulevard to operate at unacceptable conditions during both peak hours. This would be a significant and unavoidable impact. Significance Before Mitigation: Significant. Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable. Explanation: Mitigation Measure 3.13 -12 requires the project sponsor to contribute fair -share funding and to the proposed Marin- Sonoma Narrows HOV 101 Widening Project to mitigate this impact. The EIR analysis of the project's contribution to the subject segments of U.S. 101 concluded that the project would result in an increase in traffic that would remain significant and unavoidable following implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13 -12. Finding: No mitigation measures are available to avoid or minimize Impact 3.13- 12. Impact 3.13 -12 is therefore significant and unavoidable. Impact 3.13 -13 Under Cumulative Conditions, the addition of project traffic would cause the U.S. 101 freeway segment north of Rohnert Park Expressway and the segment between Washington Street and Petaluma Boulevard to operate at unacceptable conditions during both peak hours. This would be a significant impact. Significance Before Mitigation: Significant. Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable. 34 Explanation: Mitigation Measure 3.13 -13 requires the project sponsor to contribute fair -share funding and to the proposed Marin- Sonoma Narrows HOV 101 Widening Project to mitigate this impact. The EIR analysis of the project's contribution to traffic conditions on the subject segments of U.S. 101 under the cumulative scenario concluded that the project would result in an increase in traffic that would remain significant and unavoidable following implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13 -13. This is primarily due to the acknowledgement that U.S. 101 will experience congestion into the foreseeable future, and that construction of major capacity enhancements such as expansions or new freeways is unlikely. . Finding: No mitigation measures are available to avoid or minimize Impact 3.13- 13. Impact 3.13 -13 is therefore significant and unavoidable. Traffic and Circulation Cumulative Impacts A number of local intersections and US 101 would be impacted. Significance Before Mitigation: Significant. Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable Explanation: Under Cumulative plus Project conditions, (Impacts 3.13 -6 through 3.13 -11), a number of local intersections would operate at an unacceptable LOS with the addition of project traffic to the cumulative traffic volumes. However, these traffic impacts can be mitigated to less - than - significant levels through implementation of mitigation measures as described in the EIR. Since the implementation of certain .measures is uncertain due to jurisdictional constraints that limit the City's ability to enforce certain measures, the project's cumulative contribution is considered significant and unavoidable for certain impacts. Under cumulative development conditions, as noted under Impact 3.13 -13, the addition of project traffic would cause the U.S. 101 freeway segment north of Rohnert Park Expressway and the segment between Washington Street and Petaluma Boulevard to operate at unacceptable conditions during both AM and PM peak hours. The established MOE (measure of effectiveness) would not be maintained and the project would create a significant and unavoidable impact. Impacts 3.13 -6 through 3.13 -11 are significant and unavoidable since implementation of mitigation measures is uncertain due to jurisdictional constraints that limit the City's ability to enforce the mitigation measures. Impact 3.13 -13 would remain significant and unavoidable since construction of major capacity enhancements to U.S. 101 is considered unlikely. Finding: No mitigation measures are available to avoid or minimize cumulative traffic and circulation impacts. Cumulative traffic and circulation impacts are therefore significant and unavoidable. 35 Utilities and Service Systems Impacts The EIR determined that the proposed Sonoma Mountain Village project would result in no significant and unavoidable adverse impacts with regard to utilities and service systems. Global Climate Change Impacts The EIR determined that the proposed Sonoma Mountain Village project would result in no significant and unavoidable adverse impacts with regard to Global Climate Change. XII. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES Reasonable Range of Project Alternatives CEQA Guidelines § l 5126(a) require that an EIR describe a reasonable range of alternatives that would obtain most of the basic project objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental affects of the project and that the EIR evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Case law indicates that the lead agency has the discretion to determine how many alternatives constitute a reasonable range (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990), 52 C. 3d 553, 566); and that an EIR need not present alternatives that are incompatible with fundamental project objectives (Save San Francisco Bay Association vs. San Francisco Bay Conservation & Development Commission (1992), 10 Cal.App.4th 908). CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(f) states that the range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a "rule of reason" that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. Feasibility of Project Alternatives Additionally, CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(a) provide that an EIR need not consider alternatives that are infeasible. CEQA Guidelines §I5126.6(f)(1) provides that among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are `.`site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site." Alternatives Evaluated Based upon guidance contained in the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft EIR considered five alternatives to the proposed project: No Project/No Development Alternative, No Project /General Plan Buildout Alternative, All Residential Development Alternative, Reduced Density Alternative, and High Density /Open Space Alternative. No Project/No Development CEQA Guidelines §I5126.6(e)(1) provides the following direction relative to the No Project Alternative: The specific alternative of "no project" shall also be evaluated along with its impact. The purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow decision 36 makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, there would be no Sonoma Mountain Village project as proposed at this time. There could be an adaptive reuse of the five Agilent Technologies buildings on the project site (totaling 700,000 sf), and the current office use at the 350 employee level as a minimum would be expected to continue. The proposed residential, retail and commercial land uses, including new offices, hotel, health club, as well as the civic uses, new park and recreation space and landscaping would not be constructed or developed on -site. Finding: The Council finds that this alternative is infeasible in that it would not meet the project sponsor's objectives to create an example of sustainable development, create jobs in diverse sectors, provide community retail and services, create a local village square, enhance housing opportunities, provide a range of housing types and affordability levels, and provide pedestrian - friendly neighborhoods and access to transit. Explanation: No residential, retail, or commercial development would occur onsite. This alternative would not offer opportunities to enhance implementation of the Rohnert Park General Plan Housing Element goals and policies to promote options for housing and facilitate housing development, to provide for a range of housing types within the community, to address the housing needs of all economic segments and to provide for affordable housing opportunities. This alternative would not offer opportunities to enhance implementation of the General Plan goals and policies related to pedestrian- oriented neighborhoods and sustainable development. The project site would continue to be under - utilized. No Project / General Plan Buildout Alternative The No Project /General Plan Buildout alternative is defined by continued site development in accordance with the Master Plan approved by the City of Rohnert Park and described in Section 6.3 of the EIR. The No Project /General Plan Buildout alternative would complete the development of the 175 -acre project site as an industrial /office campus under the site's Limited Industrial zoning. No residential development would occur onsite, but the project site would accommodate more job opportunities than under the proposed project. Finding: The Council finds that this alternative is infeasible in that it would provide no significant advantage from an environmental standpoint over the proposed project; would result in greater environmental impacts in the areas of traffic, noise, air quality, climate change, and population, employment, and housing; would not further attainment of General Plan goals, objectives, and policies; and would not attain several of the project sponsor's objectives, including objectives of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, reducing water use, creating a model for sustainable development, improving public safety, 37 creating a local village square, enhancing housing opportunities, encouraging a local balance between jobs and housing, providing parks and recreational facilities, restoring creeks and waterways, providing a range of housing types and affordability levels, and providing pedestrian- friendly neighborhoods and access to transit. Explanation: Increased job opportunities on the project site would be expected to increase demands for residential development, which would exacerbate the potential for urban expansion in non - urbanized areas of Sonoma County and growth outside the City's Urban Growth Boundary. Conversely, with housing provided on the site (which is within the Urban Growth Boundary) as proposed, the project would contribute to reducing demand for residential growth outside the Urban Growth Boundary. This would be consistent with Rohnert Park General Plan Land Use and Growth Management Policy LU -34 which provides for maintaining agricultural and open space uses outside the Urban Growth Boundary, consistent with existing land use designations in the Sonoma County General Plan. Increased industrial development on -site would be expected to result in an increase in traffic generation as workers commute to and from the site. Associated air pollutant emissions, including greenhouse gas emissions, and noise levels would also increase compared to the proposed project. This alternative would not further the attainment of General Plan goals, policies and objectives related to transitioning densities, placing housing adjacent to parks and other open space, siting neighborhood commercial facilities in areas designed to maximize accessibility to residential areas, promoting a concentration of activity and continuity of retail uses, promoting pedestrian- oriented activity centers that serve as community focal points, and siting facilities and infrastructure to encourage walking, biking, and public transportation. All Residential Development Alternative The All Residential Development Alternative, as described in Section 6.4 of the EIR, would require the project sponsor to seek a zoning change and implement a conventional single - family residential development. Under this alternative, the existing buildings would be demolished rather than undergo adaptive reuse. Under this alternative, no development of condominium /townhouse units, commercial and retail uses — such as the proposed hotel, movie theater, health club, and restaurants — would occur. No employment - generating uses would remain onsite. Traffic generation associated with the project site would be less than with the proposed project, resulting in reduced traffic congestion, air pollutant emissions, and noise levels. This alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable noise impact of the proposed project but it would not avoid the significant and unavoidable traffic impacts of the proposed project. Finding: The Council finds that this alternative is infeasible in that it would provide a limited advantage from an environmental standpoint over the 38 proposed project; would not further attainment of General Plan goals, objectives, and policies; and would not attain several of the project sponsor's objectives, including objectives of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, reducing water use, creating a model for sustainable development, improving public safety, providing community retail and services, and encouraging a local balance between jobs and housing. Explanation: The reduced traffic generation from this alternative would avoid the proposed project's significant and unavoidable noise impact but would not provide any other substantial environmental benefit. Further, this alternative would not allow development of a diverse range of uses and an integrated community and would not allow for adaptive reuse of existing vacant and underutilized buildings. This alternative would not meet many of the project sponsor's objectives and would not further attainment of General Plan goals and policies related to transitioning densities, siting neighborhood commercial facilities in areas designed to maximize accessibility to residential areas, promoting a concentration of activity and continuity of retail uses, promoting pedestrian- oriented activity centers that serve as community focal points, promoting policies which preserve uses permitted under the area's Industrial land use designation, and siting facilities and infrastructure to encourage walking, biking, and public transportation. Reduced Density Alternative Under the Reduced Density Alternative, the project would be scaled back to the point where there would be no project- induced significant traffic impact on U.S. 101 service levels. Under this scenario, the project would contain 101 single - family units and 64,500 sf of office space with the project's civic and commercial /retail components remaining as proposed to serve the residents of Rohnert Park. This would be a reduction of 1,791 residential units and 218,993 sf of office space. The Reduced Density Alternative is considered in the EIR in an attempt to focus on avoiding the proposed project's significant Level of Service impacts on U.S. 101. This alternative also is directed toward reducing the project - generated traffic noise impacts on East Railroad Avenue east of Old Redwood Highway so as not to exceed noise standards as established in the Rohnert Park General Plan. The Reduced Density alternative would not avoid the air quality emissions impact identified for the project, but would avoid the significant unavoidable project - generated traffic noise impacts on East Railroad Avenue, east of Old Redwood Highway. This alternative would also avoid the significant unavoidable traffic impacts of increased volume -to- capacity ratios along specified U.S. 101 segments during the AM and PM peak hours. Other impacts requiring mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to less than significant levels, as identified in the EIR, would still be expected to occur with this alternative. Those impacts requiring mitigation would be expected to include potential visual quality impacts, intersection Level of Service traffic impacts, and other impacts relating to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, water quality, and noise. M This alternative would be expected to hinder efforts of the scale contemplated to implement the project sponsor's objectives of creating a model of sustainable development, reducing greenhouse gas emissions through incorporating energy efficiency, and adding carbon reduction measures into the project. The goal of a sustainable development would not be accomplished because of the reduced size of the project. Also, reducing the residential count and range of housing types to 101 single - family units would limit opportunities for housing in comparison with the proposed project. This would be inconsistent with the Rohnert Park General Plan Housing Element goals and policies to promote options for housing and provide for a range of housing types to address the housing needs of all economic segments. It is also unclear whether the reduction in residential units in this alternative would be able to support the civic and commercial /retail components of the project as originally envisioned. Finding: Though the EIR identified the Reduced Density Alternative as the Environmentally Superior Alternative to the proposed project, the Council finds that this alternative is infeasible in that it would not further attainment of General Plan goals, objectives, and policies; would not meet the project sponsor's objectives of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, reducing water use, creating a model of sustainable development, providing community retail and services, encouraging a local balance between jobs and housing, and providing a range of housing types and affordability levels; and would not allow development of an amount of land uses that would generate revenue for the project sponsor sufficient to support the project's financial obligations towards infrastructure development and payment of impact fees to the City. Explanation: Reducing the residential count and range of housing types to 101 single - family units would limit opportunities for housing in comparison with the proposed project. This would be inconsistent with the Rohnert Park General Plan Housing Element goals and policies to promote options for housing and provide for a range of housing types to address the housing needs of all economic segments. It is also unclear whether the reduction in residential units in this alternative would be able to support the civic and commercial/ retail components of the project as originally envisioned, thus the alternative would not further General Plan goals, objectives, and policies related to siting neighborhood commercial facilities in areas designed to maximize accessibility to residential areas, promoting a concentration of activity and continuity of retail uses, promoting pedestrian- oriented activity centers that serve as community focal points, and promoting policies which preserve uses permitted under the area's industrial land use designation. High Density Residential /Open Space Alternative The High Density Residential /Open Space Alternative consists of a revised land use plan that increases the number of proposed homes on -site to 2,600 units, eliminates the office component, and increases the open space component in order to provide recreational access and improve scenic view corridors of the Sonoma Mountains including Valley House Drive. Under this alternative, other proposed land uses (retail, grocery, gym, civic) .I would remain the same as the proposed project, but the average residential density would be more than 14 units per acre. This alternative would maintain an open space buffer along the western boundary and provide increased property setbacks from existing and proposed roads in order to promote recreational trails and view corridors. Further details of this alternative are provided in Section 6.6 of the EIR. Other impacts requiring mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to less than significant levels, as identified in the EIR, would still be expected to occur with this alternative. Those impacts requiring mitigation would be expected to include intersection Level of Service traffic impacts, and other impacts relating to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, water quality, and noise. Finding: The Council finds that this alternative is infeasible in that it would offer no significant advantage from an environmental standpoint over the proposed project (it would reduce some impacts but increase others and would not avoid most of the project's significant and unavoidable impacts); would not further attainment of General Plan goals, objectives, and policies; and would not attain several of the project sponsor's objectives, including objectives to create jobs in diverse sectors, increase revenues to the City, encourage a local balance between jobs and housing, and provide a range of housing types and affordability levels. Explanation: Since this alternative would increase the residential population of the project site and eliminate the commercial/ office component of the proposed project, it would result in greater impacts associated with services, utilities, and population and housing. This alternative would result in reduced traffic generation, which would lessen impacts to traffic, noise and air quality. The project's significant and unavoidable noise impact would be avoided while this alternative would still result in significant and unavoidable impacts to traffic and air quality. This alternative would not further General Plan goals, objectives, and policies related to transitioning densities, siting neighborhood commercial facilities in areas designed to maximize accessibility to residential areas, promoting a concentration of activity and continuity of retail uses, promoting pedestrian- oriented activity centers that serve as community focal points, and promoting policies which preserve uses permitted under the area's industrial land use designation. Environmentally Superior Alternative Sections 21002 and 21081 of CEQA require lead agencies to adopt feasible mitigation measures or a feasible environmentally superior alternative in order to substantially lessen or avoid otherwise significant adverse environmental effects, unless specific social or other conditions make such mitigation measures or alternatives infeasible. CEQA regulations prevent consideration of the "no project" alternative as the environmentally superior alternative. The EIR determined that the Reduced Density alternative would be the Environmentally Superior Alternative since it would avoid significant noise impacts projected to occur along East Railroad Avenue and would reduce the level of traffic impacts associated with 41 reduced Level of Service impacts identified for the proposed project for certain segments of U.S. 101. However, the Reduced Density alternative would not meet objectives of the project as discussed above and stated in the finding made for the Reduced Density Alternative. XIII. FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH INDUCEMENT Chapter 4 of the EIR provides an analysis of growth inducement effects of the proposed Sonoma Mountain Village Project, as required by CEQA Guidelines §15126.2(d). In summary, CEQA requires a discussion of how a project could increase population, employment, or housing growth in surrounding areas and consideration of the impacts resulting from this growth. CEQA Guidelines indicate that a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if it would induce substantial growth or concentration of population. Chapter 4 of the EIR discusses the manner in which the Sonoma Mountain Village project could contribute to or encourage such growth. Growth can be induced in a number of ways, such as through the elimination of obstacles to growth, through the stimulation of economic activity within the region, or through the establishment of policies or other precedents that directly or indirectly encourage additional growth. Induced growth would be considered a significant impact if it can be demonstrated that the potential growth would directly or indirectly have a significant effect on the environment. The analysis of growth inducement potential provided in the EIR focuses on four areas of analysis: 1) Employment; 2) Housing and Population; 3) Infrastructure and Public Services; and 4) the Urban Growth Boundary. Finding: The Sonoma Mountain Village Project would generate population growth in the region as a result of direct and indirect increases in employment, and by constructing residential housing that would accommodate up to approximately 4,438 new residents. The project would not construct infrastructure beyond that needed to serve the proposed development and would develop at a pace that would ensure that public services would not be inhibited or overtaxed. The project would be consistent with City and County General Plan policies regarding growth within the urban growth boundary and would not be expected to induce substantial growth outside this boundary. Explanation: The Sonoma Mountain Village Project would construct 1,694 residential units plus 198 second dwelling units and 825,307 square feet of commercial, retail, and services and infrastructure to serve these proposed uses. The project would offer primary employment in a variety of permanent job opportunities provided by onsite development, ranging from service oriented to high tech and managerial positions. Direct employment growth due to the project would lead to secondary employment growth. Secondary employment growth would stem from the "induced" employment generated by the economic activity occurring in the office and retail space proposed by 42 the project, or as the job "multiplier' effect of economic activity occurring onsite. Overall, opportunities for employment provided by the project would be consistent with the General Plan Land Use and Growth Management Element goals and policies to increase the ability of people to live and work in the City (Goal LU -C); promote a diverse range of jobs within the City (Goal LU -K); require sites designated as mixed use and near Bodway Parkway /Valley House Road to be developed with a variety of residential and non - residential uses (Policy LU -2); and encourage new neighborhood commercial facilities and supermarkets to be located to maximize accessibility to all residential areas (Policy LU -7). The rate of job growth would be generally proportional to the rate of project development anticipated under the City's Growth Management Program. The proposed 1,694 residential units plus 198 second dwelling units would accommodate up to an estimated 4,438 new residents. The project would institute a phasing program to comply with the growth management goals and policies of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Chapter 17.19. Infrastructure would be constructed and sized to accommodate the proposed development and would therefore not be expected to induce substantial growth beyond that proposed by the project. The pace of growth associated with the project would align with the ability of utility and public service providers to adequately serve the project. XIV. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the Council has balanced the economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the proposed Sonoma Mountain Village Project against the significant and unavoidable impacts, associated with the proposed Project, and has recommended adoption of all feasible mitigation measures. The Council has also examined potentially feasible alternatives to the Project, none of which are feasible. The City Council hereby adopts and makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project and the anticipated economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project. A. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts Based on information contained in the record and in the EIR, the Council finds that the Project would result in the following significant and unavoidable impacts as identified by the EIR: Project 3.2 -2 Project operational activities would generate emissions of ozone precursors (ROG, NOx) and particulate matter (PM10) (criteria pollutants), that would exceed BAAQMD quantitative emission thresholds of 80 pounds per day each. 43 3.9 -1 Residential uses fronting East Railroad Avenue east of OId Redwood Highway would be exposed to exterior traffic noise levels that exceed City standards. 3.9 -2 Residential uses fronting East Railroad Avenue east of Old Redwood Highway would be exposed to permanent increases in exterior traffic noise levels that exceed City standards. 3.11 -1 Development of the proposed project would directly generate an unanticipated residential population increase within the City of Rohnert Park. 3.13 -2 Under Baseline Conditions, the addition of project traffic would cause unacceptable LOS at the Petaluma Hill Road/ Adobe Road intersection (Sonoma County jurisdiction) during the PM peak hour. 3.13 -3 Under Baseline Conditions, the addition of project traffic would cause LOS to degrade, and delay to reach unacceptable levels at the Old Redwood Highway /East Railroad Avenue intersection (Sonoma County jurisdiction) during the PM peak hour. As a direct result of the addition of project traffic, the intersection would meet the requirements of the MUTCD Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant. 3.13 -4 Under Baseline Conditions, the addition of project traffic would cause unacceptable LOS at the Old Redwood Highway /East Cotati Avenue intersection (City of Cotati jurisdiction) during the PM peak hour. 3.13 -5 Under Baseline Conditions, the addition of project traffic would cause unacceptable LOS at the LaSalle Avenue/ East Cotati Avenue intersection (City of Cotati jurisdiction) during the PM peak hour. With and without the addition of project traffic, the intersection would meet the requirements of the MUTCD Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant. Cumulative 3.2 Project operational activities would generate considerable emissions of ozone precursors (ROG, NOx) and particulate matter (PM10) (criteria pollutants), that would contribute to the cumulative exceedance of the BAAQMD quantitative emission thresholds of 80 pounds per day each. 3.9 -4 Residential uses fronting East Railroad Avenue east of Old Redwood Highway could be exposed to permanent increases in exterior traffic noise levels above accepted standards under cumulative conditions. 3.9 -5 Cumulative traffic would likely cause interior noise levels in some of the closest and oldest of the residential units along East Cotati Avenue to increase further above the 45 dBA Ldn standards set by the City of L1! Cotati and Title 24. 3.13 -6 Under Cumulative Conditions, the addition of project traffic would cause LOS to degrade, and delay to reach unacceptable levels at the Petaluma Hill Road /East Railroad Avenue intersection (Sonoma County jurisdiction) during both AM and PM peak hours. As a direct result of the addition of project traffic, the intersection would meet the requirements of the MUTCD Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant. 3.13 -7 Under Cumulative Conditions, the addition of project traffic would cause delay to reach unacceptable levels at the Petaluma Hill Road/ Adobe Road intersection (Sonoma County jurisdiction) during both peak hours. 3.13 -8 Under Cumulative Conditions, the addition of project traffic would cause delay to reach unacceptable levels at the Old Redwood Highway /U.S. 101 Ramps intersection (City of Petaluma jurisdiction) during the PM peak hour. 3.13 -9 Under Cumulative Conditions, the addition of project traffic would cause delay to reach unacceptable levels at the Old Redwood Highway /East Railroad Avenue intersection (Sonoma County jurisdiction) during the PM peak hour. 3.13 -10 Under Cumulative Conditions, the addition of project traffic would cause delay to reach unacceptable levels at the Old Redwood Highway /East Cotati Avenue intersection (City of Cotati jurisdiction) during both peak hours. 3.13 -11 Under Cumulative Conditions, the addition of project traffic would cause delay to reach unacceptable levels at the LaSalle Avenue /East Cotati Avenue intersection (City of Cotati jurisdiction) during the PM peak hour. 3.13 -12 Under Cumulative Conditions, the addition of project traffic would cause the U.S. 101 freeway segment north of Rohnert Park. Expressway and the segment between Washington Street and Petaluma Boulevard to operate at unacceptable conditions during both peak hours. 3.13 -13 Under Cumulative Conditions, the addition of project traffic would cause the U.S. 101 freeway segment north of Rohnert Park Expressway and the segment between Washington Street and Petaluma Boulevard to operate at unacceptable conditions during both peak hours. 45 B. Finding The Council has considered all potentially feasible mitigation measures to substantially lessen or avoid the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts. Where feasible, the Council has recommended adoption of mitigation measures as part of the Project. The imposition of these measures will reduce the identified impacts, but not to a less- than - significant level. The Council finds that it is not feasible to fully mitigate these Project impacts. The Council has also considered all potentially feasible alternatives to the Project and finds that there are no feasible alternatives that would reduce the above significant and unavoidable impacts to a less- than - significant level. The Project's impacts identified and discussed above therefore remain significant and unavoidable. C. Overriding Considerations After review of the entire administrative record, including, but not limited to, the Final EIR, the staff report, applicant submittals, and the oral and written testimony and evidence presented at public hearings, the Council finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological and other anticipated benefits of the Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts, and therefore justify the approval of the Sonoma Mountain Village Project notwithstanding the identified significant and unavoidable impacts (Pub. Resources Code, § 21081; CEQA Guidelines, § 15093.). The benefits are addressed in detail in Section XIV.D below. The City Council specifically adopts and makes this Statement of Overriding Considerations acknowledging that this Project has eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible (including the incorporation of feasible mitigation measures), and find that the remaining significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project, which are identified above in Section XIV.A and described in Section XI, are acceptable because the benefits of the Project set forth below in Section XIV.D outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts identified. The Council finds that each of the overriding considerations expressed as benefits and set forth below in Section XIV.D constitutes a separate and independent ground for such a finding. Any one of the reasons for approval cited below is sufficient to justify approval of the Project. Thus, even if a court were to conclude that not every reason is supported by substantial evidence, the Council will stand by its finding that each individual reason is sufficient by itself. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits can be found in the preceding findings and in the documents found in the Record of Proceedings, as defined in Section IV. D. Benefits of the Project The Council has considered the EIR, the public record of proceedings on the proposed Project and other written materials presented to and prepared by the City, as well as oral and written testimony received, and does hereby find that implementation of o the Project as specifically provided in the Project documents would result in the following substantial public benefits: 1. The Project Would Enhance Opportunities For Housing in the City and Promote Housing Goals of the General Plan by Providing a Range of Housing Types. Housing is a major component of the proposed project and would include a broad range of lot sizes, home sizes and prices. Homes proposed would include a combination of single family detached, mixed -use, live /work, family and senior cohousing, and attached units, as well as high, medium and low density housing. Adaptive reuse of the existing buildings would include provision for mixed -use functions wherein residential uses would be combined with office and retail uses. Housing would include a mix of both rental and for -sale units with a range of pricing to assist in affordability requirements. The project will meet the affordable housing requirement by providing 15 percent (254 deed - restricted units) of the housing constructed onsite as affordable housing. An additional 254 units will be affordable -by- design for a total of thirty percent affordable housing units within the project. 2. The Project Would Generate Sales Tax Revenues For The City. The sales generated by commercial components of the Project would generate greater sales tax revenues for the City than would otherwise be generated by the site under existing land use and zoning designations. These revenues would go to the City's General Fund, which is the primary funding source for the construction, operation and maintenance of a number of essential City services, programs and facilities including fire and police services, recreation programs, transit operations, library services, public infrastructure such as water and sanitary. sewer service, and administrative functions, among other things. 3. The Project Would Create Diverse Employment Opportunities. The Project would generate additional employment opportunities, including temporary construction jobs as well as new permanent full -time and part-time jobs. The project is projected to bring 4,414 jobs into the City by 2020, consisting of 1,704 office jobs, 732 jobs in service and retail, 140 civic jobs, 640 construction jobs and 1,198 regional technology and service positions. The permanent onsite jobs can be categorized as 72% office and civic jobs and 28% service /retail jobs. It is reasonably expected that the City and its residents would enjoy the economic and social benefits from added employment opportunities offered by the Project. 4. The Project Would Incorporate Green Building and Sustainable Development Practices into Project Construction and Operation to Limit Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Promote Energy Efficiency and Conservation. The Project would incorporate numerous energy- conserving features. The project sponsor will incorporate green building and sustainable development practices 47 into project construction and operation. The objective is to seek compliance with Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Neighborhood Development (LEED -ND) certification and One Planet Communities certification to document a commitment to sustainable development. This includes the provision of infrastructure to support shared parking for residences and businesses, implementing a rideshare program, and a program to promote bicycling. The project would use reclaimed water for landscape irrigation to conserve treated domestic water. Energy efficiency and conservation is planned for the project by capitalizing on photovoltaic power and potential purchase of Green -E certified off -site renewable power. The existing buildings are planned to be retrofit over time targeting substantial reductions in existing energy use. An example of this includes the project sponsor's 2007 installation of 88,091 sf of photovoltaic solar panels on the roof of existing building #3 (proposed theater building with parking garage), which are capable of generating power for up to 1,000 homes. A Sustainability Action Plan (SAP) has been prepared by the project sponsor to define how the project will express this concept. The SAP (Appendix C of the Draft EIR) addresses a number of subject areas regarding resource conservation and includes procedures, plans, devices and features to be incorporated into the project to reduce carbon emissions, reduce solid waste generation, reduce individual transportation requirements, increase materials recycling, improve water use efficiency, enhance habitat preservation, and preserve the local culture. Sonoma Mountain Village has adopted specific targets for sustainability, such as 98% diversion of waste from landfill, 82% reduction in transport emissions, and 60% reduction in use of municipal water sources. 5. The Project Includes a Development Design that Would Provide Desirable Neighborhood and Community Characteristics. In addition to providing a wide range of housing types that would be consistent with housing goals and objectives of the General Plan, the Project Plan includes 12 new small parks and a centrally - located town square and open space within the site boundary. The onsite parks and open space total 27.23 acres, and include both active and passive recreation amenities. The proposed parkland acreage meets the City's requirements for parkland dedication. Commercial land uses are proposed to include a grocery store, shops and restaurants, a movie theater, hotel, daycare, health club, farmers' market, and an educational facility for sustainable living. 6. The Project Would Contribute To The Improvement of Public Safety by Constructing a Public Safety Facility. In coordination with the Department of Public Safety, the facility is planned to include a fire station and a police substation. Construction of the Public Safety Station is included in the City's PFFP (Public Facilities Financing Plan). The developer is responsible for providing funding for the permitting, design and construction of the new station, for which they will receive credits against their PFFP fees. 48 7. The Project Would Contribute To Continued Economic Development, Construction of Roadway Improvement, and Maintenance of City Services and Facilities. The project would support on -site economic development, including through funding contributions to the on -site Business Incubator. Through the Development Agreement and mitigation measures included in the EIR, the project would be required to pay Economic Development Fees, fair share of the costs to improve intersections that would be affected by project - generated traffic, a Regional Traffic Fee, and public maintenance fees to offset the projected fiscal deficit to City's General Fund created by the residential development. S. The Project Would Reuse Existing Vacant and Underdeveloped Buildings. The project will continue the adaptive reuse of the existing buildings onsite and redevelopment of the existing technology campus, as well as development of the southern (vacant) portion of the site. Adaptive reuse has begun within the technology campus portion of the site and will continue under the proposed development. By providing opportunities to live and work in proximity, the Planned Development promotes General Plan goals related to compact urban form and mixed use development. E. Determination and Adoption of Statement of Overriding Considerations The Council has weighed the economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the proposed Project, as set forth above in Section XIV.D, against the significant unavoidable impacts of the Project identified in the EIR (and identified above in Section XIV.A). The Council hereby finds that those benefits outweigh the risks and adverse environmental impacts of the Project, and further finds that the Project's significant unavoidable impacts are acceptable. Accordingly, the City Council adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations, recognizing that significant unavoidable impacts will result from implementation of the Project. The City Council further (i) adopts all feasible mitigation measures, as discussed in the Environmental Impact Report; (ii) rejects alternatives to the Project, as discussed in the Environmental Impact Report; and (iii) recognizes the significant unavoidable impacts of the Project, and the City Council finds that each of the separate benefits of the proposed Project, as stated herein, is determined to be unto itself an overriding consideration, independent of other benefits, that warrants approval of the Project and outweighs and overrides its significant unavoidable impacts, and thereby justifies the approval of the Sonoma Mountain Village Project. WE EXHIBIT C MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN . Chapter 5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting _Program INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the adoption of feasible mitigation measures to reduce the severity and magnitude of significant environmental impacts associated with project development. The Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Sonoma Mountain Village Project (proposed project) includes mitigation measures to reduce the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. CEQA also requires reporting on and monitoring of mitigation measures adopted as part of the environmental review process (Public Resources Code section 21081.6). This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is designed to aid the City of Rohnert Park in its implementation and monitoring of measures adopted from the Sonoma Mountain Village Draft EIR. The mitigation measures are taken from the Sonoma Mountain Village Draft EIR, as revised in the Final EIR. Mitigation measures in this MMRP are assigned the same number they had in the Draft EIR. The MMRP is presented in table format and it describes the actions that must take place to implement each mitigation measure, the timing of those actions, the entities responsible for implementing and monitoring the actions, and verification of compliance. RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES The City's Development Services Department (DSD) would be responsible for ensuring that design and construction contracts contain the relevant mitigation measures included in the EIR, and that mitigation measures are implemented during the design and construction phases of the project. The Public Works Department (PW) will be responsible for monitoring compliance with measures related to transportation and the City's Utilities Department is responsible for monitoring compliance with measures related to hydrology and water quality and public services and utilities (except for sewer). Individual project applicants and contractors shall be responsible for implementation of all mitigation measures, unless otherwise noted. In general, monitoring will consist of verifying that mitigation measures are implemented and ensuring that the following occurs: • Specific issues are considered in the design development phase • Construction contracts include the specified provisions • Certain actions occur prior to construction • The required measures are implemented during construction of the project Sonoma Mountain Village Project — Mitigation Monitoring Program 5 -1 PAProjects— All Employees \D40000+ \41336.00 Sonoma Mm Village \Screencheck FEIR\FE1R \5.0 MMRP 6.28.10.docx July 2010 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX All project - specific mitigation measures included in the EIR would be monitored to ensure consistency with the MMRP for the proposed project. The following MMRP Matrix includes all of the applicable mitigation and monitoring information for the proposed project. Sonoma Mountain Village Project — Mitigation Monitoring Program 5.2 PAProjects — All Employees\D40000+ \41336.00 Sonoma Mtn Village \Screencheck FEIR \FEIR \5.0 MMRP 6.28.10.docx July 2010 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sonoma Mountain Village Project EIR Mitigation Measure Action Implementing Party Timing Monitoring Party 3.1 Aesthetics and Urban Design, 3.1 -1 The project sponsor shall prepare a view corridor analysis in order to determine Prepare corridor Project sponsor On -going during DSD whether revised maximum building setback and height limits should be analysis. demolition, grading established within the T -4 General Urban Zone transect, so as not to obstruct and construction views of the Sonoma Mountains from existing properties immediately west of Implement applicable Project sponsor the project site. The revised building height and setback restrictions should be height and setback limited to the extent lines of sight to the Sonoma Mountains from properties restrictions. DSD immediately west of the project site would not be obstructed by new buildings on the project site. Storey -poles shall be erected in the field prior to building construction to demonstrate that existing views would not be adversely affected. if required, the revised height and setback restrictions would be included as a Condition of Approval and would apply only to the affected properties. 3.1 -2 The stockpiling and storage of construction materials and equipment prior to Minimize on -site Project sponsor On -going during DSD installation and use, as fixture phases of the project would be implemented, shall construction demolition, grading be minimized to the extent practicable by the project sponsor. Although equipment storage. Onsite contractors and construction construction staging areas have not been designated at this time, such staging areas shall be located internal to the project site. The staging areas shall be located away from Camino Colegio and Bodway Parkway, and as close to or within the areas of construction as possible, out of the way of community traffic, pedestrian use, and local views. 3.1 -3 a) All new street and other public area lighting shall include fixtures that focus the Light fixtures shall be designed to cast low Project sponsor Prior to DSD light downward and include shields to prevent light spill to surrounding angle illumination and construction properties, sky glow, and glare, to the extent feasible. shield spillover. b) Reflective surfaces in public areas shall be kept to a minimum using non - Non reflective Project sponsor Prior to DSD reflective material wherever possible. The use of non reflective paints, solar materials will be used construction treatments, and finishing materials will be encouraged during the development where possible. process. '3.2Air'Qaality . 3.2 -1 a) The project sponsor shall implement recommended dust control measures. To Implement listed dust Contractor On -going during PW reduce particulate matter emissions during project excavation and construction control measures. demolition, phases, the project contractor(s) shall comply with the dust control strategies grading, and developed by the BAAQMD. The project sponsor shall include in construction construction contracts the following requirements or measures shown to be equally effective. Notes: PW = Public Works – Engineering & Transportation SWCA = Sonoma County Water Agency DA = Development Agreement BAAOMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District DSD = Development Services Department CDFG = California Department of Fish & Game SCDHS = Sonoma County Department of Health Services Sonoma Mountain Village Project — Mitigation Monitoring Program S -3 PAProjects — All Employees \D40000+ \41336.00 Sonoma Mtn village \Screencheck FEiR \FEIR \5.0 MMRP 6.28.10.docx July 2010 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sonoma Mountain Village Project EIR Implementing Monitoring Mitigation Measure Action Party Timing Party • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose construction and " demolition debris from the site, or require all such trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard; • Water all exposed or disturbed soil surfaces in active construction areas at least twice daily; • Use watering to control dust generation during demolition of structures or break -up of pavement; • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non- toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved parking areas and staging areas; • Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved parking areas and staging areas; • Provide daily clean -up of mud and dirt carried onto paved streets from the site; • Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply non -toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.); • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph; • Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways; • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible; • Hydroseed or apply (non- toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive constriction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more); • Install wheel washers for all existing trucks, or wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the site; • Install wind breaks at the windward side(s) of construction areas; • Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour over a 30- minute period or more; and • To the extent possible, limit the area subject to excavation, grading, and other dust - generating construction activity at any one time. b) The project sponsor shall designate a dust control coordinator. To facilitate Designate a dust Project sponsor On -going PW control of dust during construction and demolition phases, the project sponsor control coordinator. throughout shall include a dust control coordinator in construction contracts. All demolition, constriction sites shall have posted in a conspicuous location the name and Post contact grading, and phone number of a designated construction dust control coordinator who can information for dust construction respond to complaints by suspending dust - producing activities or providing control coordinator. additional personnel or equipment for dust control. Notes: PIF = Public Works — Engineering & Transportation SWCA = Sonoma County Water Agency DA = Development Agreement BAAOMD = Bav Area Air Quality Management District DSD = Development Services Department CDFG = California Department of Fish & Game SCDHS = Sonoma County Department of Health Services Sonoma Mountain Village Project -- Mitigation Monitoring Program 5-4 PAProjects — All Employees \D40000+ \41336.00 Sonoma Mtn Village \Screencheck FEIR \FEIR \5.0 MMRP 6Z8.10.docx July 2010 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sonoma Mountain Village Project EIR Implementing Monitoring Mitigation Measure Action Party Timing Party c) The project contractor(s) shall implement measures to reduce the emissions of Implement measures Contractor Ongoing during PW pollutants generated by heavy -duty diesel - powered equipment operating at the identified to reduce grading, project site during project excavation and construction phases. The project diesel powered demolition, and sponsor shall include in construction contracts the following requirements or equipment emissions. construction. measures shown to be equally effective. • Keep all construction equipment in proper tune, in accordance with manufacturer's specifications; • Use late model heavy -duty diesel - powered equipment at the project site to the extent that it is readily available in the San Francisco Bay Area; • Use diesel - powered equipment that has been retrofitted with after - treatment products (e.g., engine catalysts) to the extent that it is readily available in the San Francisco Bay Area; • Use low- emission diesel fuel for all heavy -duty diesel - powered equipment operating and refueling at the project site to the extent that it is readily available and cost effective in the San Francisco Bay Area (this does not apply to diesel - powered trucks traveling to and from the site); • Utilize alternative fuel construction equipment (i.e., compressed natural gas, liquid petroleum gas, and unleaded gasoline) to the extent that the equipment is readily available and cost effective in the San Francisco Bay Area; • Limit truck and equipment idling time to five minutes or less; and • Rely on the electricity infrastructure surrounding the construction sites rather than electrical generators powered by internal combustion engines to the extent feasible. 3.2 -2 The project sponsor shall include in the project design specifications the Include energy Project sponsor Per the DA DSD /PW following minimum energy reduction measures or other measures shown to be reducing measures in equally effective: design specifications. • Use solar or low- emission water heaters in the residential and retail buildings; • Provide energy - efficient heating, cooling, and other appliances, such as cooking equipment, refrigerators, and dishwashers; • Provide energy - efficient and automated controls for air conditioning; • Install ozone destruction catalyst on air conditioning systems, in consultation with the BAAQMD; • Use light colored roof materials to reflect heat; • Where feasible and appropriate, use light colored parking surface materials; • Plant shade trees in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from parked vehicles; Notes: PW = Public Works — Engineering & Transportation SWCA = Sonoma County Water Agency DA = Development Agreement BAAOMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District DSD = Development Services Department CDFG = California Department of Fish & Game SCDHS = Sonoma County Department of Health Services Sonoma Mountain Village Project — Mitigation Monitoring Program 5 -5 PAProjects — All Employees \D40000+ \41336.00 Sonoma Mtn Village \Screencheck FEIR \FEIR \5.0 MMRP 6.28.10.docx July 2010 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sonoma Mountain Village Project EIR Implementing Monitoring Mitigation Measure Action Party Timing Party • If fireplaces are provided in new residential uses, install the low- emitting commercial fireplaces available at the time of development: and • Require that commercial landscapers providing services at the project site use electric or battery- powered equipment, or other internal combustion equipment that is either certified by the California Air Resources Board or is three- years -old or less at the time of use, to the extent that such equipment is reasonably available and competitively priced in the San Francisco Bay Area. 3:3 Biological Resources 3.3 -1 a) The project sponsor shall retain a qualified biologist, approved by the City, to Retain qualified biologist to conduct Project sponsor Prior to issuance of a grading pen nit DSD conduct focused surveys on all undeveloped /unimproved project areas for appropriate special for Phases 1C, 2,3 special- status plant species including, but not limited to, Sonoma sunshine, status plant surveys. fragrant fritillary, Burke's goldfields, Sebastopol meadowfoam, and showy Indian clover during the appropriate time of year (generally February through July),. prior to issuance of grading permits for the southern portion of the project (Phases IC, 2, and 3). If no special- status plants are located during the surveys, no further mitigation would be required. b) If any state or federally listed special - status plant species are found during the If special status plant Project sponsor's Prior to issuance of DSD surveys in areas that cannot be avoided during construction, the project sponsor species are found, biologist a grading pen-nit shall consult with the appropriate agency (i.e., USFWS, CDFG, or both) to obtain the appropriate for Phases 1C, 2,3 obtain an incidental take permit for the removal of any state or federally listed take permit to replace plant populations in the project site area. Specific mitigation measures detailing the species. replacement methods and ratios the project sponsor would be responsible for would be developed as required by the agency, but would likely include transplanting existing populations, collection of seed for planting at a mitigation site, and either purchase of mitigation lands where the lost plants will be reestablished, or purchase of mitigation credits at an approved mitigation bank prior to issuance of a grading permits for the southern portion of the project (Phases 1 C, 2, and 3), pursuant to the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy. c) If any non - listed special - status plant species are found during the surveys in Notify CDFG if Project sponsor's Prior to issuance of DSD areas that cannot be avoided, the project sponsor shall notify CDFG within 24 avoidance of special biologist a grading permit hours so that an opportunity can be made available to salvage plants, soil or seed status species is not for Phases 1 C,2,3 banks, for use in rare plant restoration in mitigation areas prior to issuance of a possible. grading permits for the southern portion of the project (Phases 1 C, 2, and 3). Notes: PW = Public Works — Engineering & Transportation SWCA = Sonoma County Water Agency DA = Development Agreement BAAOMD = Bav Area Air Quality Management District DSD = Development Services Department CDFG = California Department of Fish & Game SCDHS = Sonoma County Department of Health Services Sonoma Mountain Village Project — Mitigation Monitoring Program 5 -6 PAProjects — All Employees \D40000+ \41336.00 Sonoma Mtn Village \Screencheck FE1R \FEIR \5.0 MMRP 6.28.10.docx July 2010 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sonoma Mountain Village Pro'ect EIR Implementing Monitoring Mitigation Measure Action Party Timing Party 3.3 -2 a) Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the southern portion of the project Initiate Project sponsor/ Prior to issuance of DSD /USFWS /CDF (Phases 1C, 2, and 3), the project sponsor and /or their representatives shall USFWS /CDFG Project sponsor's a grading permit G initiate an informal consultation with the USFWS to discuss measures to avoid a consultation with a biologist for Phases IC,2,3 potential take of CTS during construction. Additionally, since CTS became a qualified biologist and Candidate for listing as Endangered under CESA on February 5, 2009, the develop mitigation project sponsor shall include CDFG in all informal consultations with the measures to address USFWS to discuss potential impacts on and avoidance measures for CTS. potential impacts to Although details of these measures would be developed in consultation with the CTS. USFWS and CDFG, they would likely include: • Retaining a qualified biologist, approved by the City, to conduct a preconstruction survey of the project site area to ensure that no potential upland retreat habitat has been created (i.e., through ground squirrel activity) since the 2004 habitat assessment, • Seasonal restrictions on grading and construction to avoid the wet season dispersal period (i.e., October through March), • Installation of drift fences around the perimeter of the construction area to prevent any CTS from moving into the area, • Providing compensation for loss of CTS upland habitat, as required by the USFWS and CDFG (either through avoidance, or purchase of mitigation . credits at a USFWS /CDFG approved bank), if any suitable habitat is found during the preconstruction surveys referenced above, and • Retaining qualified biologists, approved by the City, to monitor the project site area during construction to ensure that no CTS would be harmed. Assuming complete avoidance can be achieved, no incidental take permit from either CDFG or USFWS would be required. However, if CTS are discovered to be present in the project site area, and a "take" of the species cannot be avoided, Mitigation Measure 3.3 -2(b) shall be required pursuant to the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy. b) Prior to construction or issuance of a grading permits for the southern portion of If required, initiate Project sponsor/ Prior to DSD/USEWS /CDF the project (Phases I C, 2, and 3), the project sponsor and /or their representatives consultation with Project sponsor's construction or G shall initiate consultation with the USFWS (pursuant to Section 7 of the Federal USFWS Section 7 and biologist issuance of a Endangered Species Act), and CDFG (pursuant to Section 2081 of the CDFG. grading permit for California Endangered Species Act) to obtain an incidental take permits for loss Phases 1C,2,3 of any individual CTS. Details of the requirements of the Incidental Take Permits would be developed during consultation with the USFWS and CDFG, but would likely include (but not be limited to) the following. Notes: PW = Public Works — Engineering & Transportation SWCA = Sonoma County Water Agency DA = Development Agreement BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District DSD = Development Services Department CDFG = California Department of Fish & Game SCDHS = Sonoma County Department of Health Services Sonoma Mountain Village Project — Mitigation Monitoring Program 5-7 PAProjects — All Employees \D40000 + \4I 336.00 Sonoma Mtn Village \Screencheck FEIR\FEIM5.0 MMRP 6.28.10.docx ,July 2010 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sonoma Mountain Village Project EIR Mitigation Measure Action Implementing Party Timing Monitoring Party • Preparation of a Biological Assessment pursuant to Section 7 of the FESA for submission to the USFWS for their review. • Retaining qualified, permitted biologists to monitor for, and potentially move CTS outside of the project site area. • Payment of mitigation fees, and/or purchase of mitigation land to compensate for the loss of CTS and their habitat. If CTS should be elevated from Candidate to Endangered status under CESA, an additional and separate authorization from CDFG will be required. 3.3 -3 DSD /CDFG a) Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project (Phases 1 B, 1 C, 2, and 3), the project sponsor shall hire a qualified biologist, approved by the City, to Hire a qualified biologist Project Prior to the conduct both nesting and wintering season surveys for burrowing owl to to conduct nesting and wintering sponsor /Sponsor's biologist issuance of grading permit for determine if the site is used by this species. The timing and methodology for the season surveys for Phases 1 B,1 C,2,3 surveys are based on the CDFG /Burrowing Owl Consortium Survey Guidelines burrowing owls in and are detailed below. CDFG may require that these surveys be repeated accordance CDFG annually if project construction is expected to span over two or more years. Guidelines. • Winter (Non- Breeding) Season (September 1 through January 31) —Four site visits on separate days, 2 hours before to 1 hour after sunset or 1 hour before to 2 hours after sunrise. These initial surveys shall be conducted as close as possible to the initiation of construction (preferably no more than 30 days prior to ground breaking). • Nesting Season (February I to August 31) —Four site visits on separate days, 2 hours before to 1 hour after sunset or 1 hour before to 2 hours after sunrise. At least two of the surveys shall be conducted during the peak nesting season between April 15 and July 15. In addition to the wintering and nesting season surveys, pre - construction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist, approved by the City, within 7 -days prior to the start of work activities where land conversions are planned in known or suitable habitat areas. If construction activities would be delayed for more than 7 days after the preconstruction surveys, then a new preconstruction survey would be required. All surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the CDFG/Burrowing Owl Consortium survey protocols (Burrowing Owl Consortium, 1993). Notes: P = Puhlic Works — Engineering & Transportation SWCA = Sonoma County Water Agency BAAOMD =Bay Area Air Quality Management District DSD = Development Services Department SCDHS = Sonoma County Department of Health Services Sonoma Mountain Village Project — Mitigation Monitoring Program PAProjects —All Employees \D40000+ \41.36.00 Sonoma Mtn Village \Screencheck FEIR \FEIR \5.0 MMRP 6.28.10.docx DA = Development Agreement CDFG = California Department of Fish & Game S -8 duly 2010 r.iiiigauon tvionitormg and Reporting Program for the Sonoma Mountain Village Project EIR Timing Monitoring Party Mitigation Measure Action Implementing Party If the above survey does not identify any burrowing owls on the project site, no further mitigation would be required. However, should any individual burrowing owls or burrowing owl nests be located, Mitigation Measures 3.3 -4(b) through (d) shall be implemented. b) If burrowing owls are discovered in the project area, the project sponsor shall notify the City and CDFG. A biologist, Notify the City and Project sponsor/ Prior to the DSD /CDFG qualified approved by the City, shall implement a routine monitoring program and establish a fenced exclusion zone CDFG of burrowing owls and establish Project sponsor's biologist issuance of a around each occupied burrow. No construction activities shall be allowed within minimum 160 -foot grading permit the exclusion zone until such time that the burrows are determined to be buffer zones during Buffer zones unoccupied. The buffer zones shall be a minimum of 160 feet fi•om an occupied non breeding season throughout burrow during the non - breeding season (September 1 through January 31), and a and 250 -foot buffer minimum of 250 feet from an occupied burrow during the breeding season zones during breeding construction (February I through August 31). season. c) The project sponsor shall provide appropriate passive relocation mitigation for project- related effects on the burrowing owl in consultation Passive relocation for Project sponsor / Prior to the DSD /CDFG with CDFG. No relocation shall occur during the breeding season (i.e., passive relocation of burrowing owls. Project sponsor's biologist issuance of a burrowing owls can only be conducted during the non - breeding season). grading permit Mitigation can be conducted either on the project site, or at an off -site location that is approved by the CDFG. Preference is for on -site within open space areas, if possible. d) The CDFG shall be consulted regarding the implementation of avoidance or passive relocation methods. All activities that would in disturbance Consult CDFG Project sponsor/ Prior to the DSD /CDFG result a to burrows shall be approved by CDFG prior to implementation. regarding avoidance and passive relocation Sponsor's biologist issuance of a grading methods. permit/potential disturbance to burrowin owls Notes: PW = Public Works – Engineering & Transportation SWCA = Sonoma County Water Agency DA = Development Agreement BAAOMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District DSD = Development Services Department CDFG = California Department of Fish & Game SCDHS = Sonoma County Department of Health Services Sonoma Mountain Village Project — Mitigation Monitoring Program 5-9 PAProjects — All Employees \D40000+ \41336.00 Sonoma Mtn Village \Screenclheck FEIR \FEIR \5.0 MMRP 6.28. l0.docx July 2010 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sonoma Mountain Village Project EIR Mitigation Measure Action Implementing Party Timing Monitoring Party 3.3 -4 a) If construction is to occur between March 15 through August 30, the project Preconstruction survey Project sponsor Prior to sponsor, as required by the CDFG, shall conduct a pre - construction breeding- conducted for nesting construction DSD /CDFG season survey of the project site within 14 days of when construction is planned raptors. to begin. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist, approved by the City, to determine if any birds are nesting on or directly adjacent to the project site. If the above survey does not identify any nesting raptor species on the project site, no further mitigation would be required. However, should any active bird nests be located, Mitigation Measure 3.3 -3(b) shall be implemented. b) The project sponsor, as required by CDFG, shall avoid all birds nest sites Avoidance measures Project sponsor Prior to DSD /CDFG located in the project site during the breeding season (approximately March 15 for nest sites construction through August 30) while the nest is occupied with adults and /or young. This implemented. avoidance could consist of delaying construction to avoid the nesting season. Any occupied nest shall be monitored by a qualified biologist to determine when the nest is no longer used. If the construction cannot be delayed, avoidance shall include the establishment of a non - disturbance buffer zone around the nest site. The size of the buffer zone shall be approved by the CDFG. The buffer zone shall be delineated by highly visible temporary construction fencing. 3.3 -5 a) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for phases with the potential to impact Retain a qualified Project sponsor Prior to the DSD/USACE wetlands (Phases 1 C, 2, and 3 and undeveloped portions of Phase 1 B), the biologist to re- verify issuance of a project sponsor shall retain a qualified biologist, approved by the City, to the 2002 wetland grading permit for conduct a re- verification of the 2002 wetland delineation at the site in delineation. Phases 1 C,2,3 and accordance with the 1987 Manual. The delineation shall also be expanded to portions of 1B include that portion of the northern half of the project area (comprising a Mitigate impacts to detention basin in the northwest corner of the site). The delineation report shall jurisdictional features be updated and submitted to the USACE for re- verification prior to the issuance (see MM 3.3- 5(b)). of grading permits. If it is determined by the USACE that these features are jurisdictional, then the project sponsor would have the following options: avoidance, removal and replacement mitigation, or a combination thereof. If the avoidance option is adopted, a minimum 100 foot wetland buffer zone setback would be established. The project sponsor shall coordinate with the USACE to ensure that the most feasible mitigation option is incorporated. Notes: PW = Public Works — Engineering & Transportation SWCA = Sonoma County Water Agency DA = Development Agreement BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District DSD = Development Services Department CDFG = California Department of Fish & Game SCDHS = Sonoma County Department of Health Services Sonoma Mountain Village Project — Mitigation Monitoring Program 5 -10 P: \Projects — All Employees \D40000+ \41336.00 Sonoma Mtn Village \Screencheck FEIR \FEIR \5.0 MMRP 6.28.10.docx July 2010 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sondma Mountain Village Project EIR Implementing Monitoring Mitigation Measure Action Party Timing Party b) Where avoidance of existing wetlands is not feasible, then mitigation measures Implement required Project sponsor Prior to the DSD/USACE shall be implemented for the project related loss of any existing wetlands on mitigation measures as issuance of a site, such that there is no -net loss of wetland acreage or habitat value. Wetland a part of the Section grading permit for habitat acreage replacement can be greater than the acreage of wetlands that fall 404 permitting process Phases IC,2,3 and under the jurisdiction of the USACE and /or the RWQCB. to address the loss of portions of I (i) Wetland mitigation shall be developed as a part of the Section 404 CWA wetland acreage or habitat val. permitting process, or for non jurisdictional wetlands, during permitting through the RWQCB and/or CDFG. Mitigation is to be provided prior to issuance of grading permits for phases with the potential to impact wetlands (Phases IC, 2, and 3 and undeveloped portions of Phase 113). Mitigation could include purchase of the appropriate amount of credits from a Santa Rosa Plain mitigation bank. The exact mitigation ratio is variable, based on the type and value of the wetlands that would be affected by the project, but agency standards typically require a minimum of 1: I for preservation and 1:1 for the construction of new wetlands. In addition, a wetland mitigation and monitoring plan shall be developed that includes the following: • Descriptions of the wetland types, and their expected functions and values, • Performance standards and monitoring protocol to ensure the success of the mitigation wetlands over a period of five to ten years; • Engineering plans showing the location, size and configuration of wetlands to be created or restored; • An implementation schedule showing that construction_ of mitigation areas will commence prior to or concurrently with the initiation of project construction; and • A description of legal protection measures for the preserved wetlands (i.e., dedication of fee title, conservation easement, and /or an endowment held by an approved conservation organization, government agency or mitigation bank). (ii) Mitigation is to be provided prior to the issuance of grading permits by the Acquire appropriate Project sponsor Prior to the DSD /USACOE /R City for phases with the potential to impact wetlands (Phases 1 C, 2, and 3 wetland permits. issuance of a WQCB /CDFG and undeveloped portions of Phase 113), the project sponsor shall acquire grading permits for all appropriate wetland permits. These permits may include but are not Phases 1C,2,3 and limited to a Section 404 Wetlands Fill Permit from the USACE, or a portions of 1B Report of Waste Discharge from the RWQCB, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB, and, if necessary, a Section 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFG. rvuees. r n- = rumuc worics — t✓ngineerrng crr i ransportatron 3WCA = Sonoma County Water Agency DA = Development Agreement BAAOMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District DSD = Development Services Department CDFG = California Department of Fish & Game SCDHS = Sonoma County Department of Health Services Sonoma Mountain Village Project — Mitigation Monitoring Program 5 -11 MProjects —All Employees \D40000+ \41336.00 Sonoma Mtn Village \Screencheck FEIR \FEIR \5.0 MMRP 6.28.10.docx July 2010 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sonoma Mountain Village Project EIR Implementing Monitoring Mitigation Measure Action Party Timing Party 3.3 -6 To insure the project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances Comply with the Project sponsor Prior to the DSD protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance provisions of the Tree issuance of a under Impact Criterion #5, prior to the issuance of grading permits on any removal Permit grading permit portion of the project site, the project sponsor shall hire a licensed and certified including mitigation arborist to inventory all non - exempt trees on the project site slated to be measures requiring removed and assess as directed by the City as to size, health, species and tree replacement and location. This inventory shall be provided to the City of Rohnert Park Planning the protection of trees and Building Manager or his /her designee for review. The project sponsor shall retained. then comply with the provisions of the Tree Removal Permit issued by the Planning and Building Manager, including tree replacement and the protection of any trees to be retained during construction. 3,4 Cultural Resources . 3.4 -1 The project sponsor shall provide construction specifications, inclusive of earth - Provide construction Project sponsor Prior to ground DSD disturbance required for the project, that instruct operators of site - grading and specifications that breaking excavation equipment to be observant for unusual or suspect archaeological instruct construction materials that may surface from below during site- grading and excavation operators to be operations. Archaeological materials include features such as concentrations of observant for unusual artifacts or culturally modified (darkened) soil deposits including trash pits older or suspect than fifty years of age. archeological materials. In the event that unknown archaeological remains are discovered during Halt work in close Project sponsor Ongoing DSD subsurface excavation and construction, land alteration work in the vicinity of proximity to any throughout the find shall be halted and a qualified archeologist consulted. Prompt archaeological remains construction evaluations could then be made regarding the find and a resource management discovered. Evaluate plan that is consistent with CEQA requirements could then be implemented. If resources discovered prehistoric archeological deposits are discovered, local Native American and consult with local organizations shall be consulted and involved in making resource management Native American decisions. All applicable State and local legal requirements concerning the organizations, as treatment of cultural materials and Native American burials shall be enforced. necessary. Notes: P = Public Works — Engineering & Transportation SWCA = Sonwna County Water Agency BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District DSD = Development Services Department SCDFIS = Sonoma County Department of Health Services Sonoma Mountain Village Project — Mitigation Monitoring Program PAProjects — All Employees \D40000+ \41336.00 Sonoma Mtn Village \Screencheck FEIR \FEIR \5.0 MMRP 6.28.10.docx DA = Development Agreement CDFG = California Department of Fish & Game 5 -12 July 2010 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sonoma Mountain Village Project EIR Implementing Monitoring Mitigation Measure Action Party Timing Party If subsequent investigations result in the recording of prehistoric archeological sites that cannot be avoided and preserved, and the importance of the cultural deposits cannot be determined from surface evidence, then subsurface testing programs shall take place to make such determinations. Testing procedures shall be designed to specifically determine the boundaries of sites, the depositional integrity, and the cultural importance of the resources, as per CEQA criteria. These investigations shall be conducted by qualified professionals knowledgeable in regional prehistory. The testing programs shall be conducted within the context of appropriate research considerations and shall result in detailed technical reports that define the exact disturbance implications or important resources and present comprehensive programs for addressing such disturbances. Measures similar to the ones described below would also apply: • Avoidance of an archaeological site through modification of the roadway plan line that would allow for the preservation of the resource • Covering or "capping" sites with a protective layer of fill; this could be a good way of mitigating situations where public access may be increased as a result of development. Archaeological monitoring during the filling process would be recommended. In circumstances where archaeological deposits cannot be preserved through avoidance or capping, data recovery through excavation would be the alternative. This measure would consist of excavating those portions of the site(s) that would be adversely affected. The work shall be accomplished within the context of detailed research and in accordance with current professional standards. The program should result in extraction of sufficient volumes of archaeological data so that important regional research considerations can be addressed. The excavation should be accomplished by qualified professionals and detailed technical reports should result. In considering subsurface testing and excavations of prehistoric archaeological sites, consultation with the local Native American community is essential; all aspects of the programs, including the treatment of cultural materials and particularly the removal, study and reinternment of Native American burials shall be addressed. All applicable State and local legal requirements concerning these issues shall be strictly adhered to. Notes: PW = Public Works — Engineering & Transportation SWCA = Sonoma County Water Agency DA = Development Agreement BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District DSD = Development Services Department CDFG = California Department of Fish & Game SCDHS = Sonoma County Department of Health Services Sonoma Mountain Village Project — Mitigation Monitoring Program 5 -13 P:\Projects— All Employees \D40000+ \41336.00 Sonoma Mtn village \Screencheck FEIR \FEIR \5.0 MMRP 6.28. I0.docx July 2010 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sonoma Mountain Villaze Proiect EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4 Implementing Monitoring Action Party Timing Party -2 If human remains are discovered during any phase of project construction, all ground- disturbing activities within 50 feet of the If human remains are Project sponsor Ongoing DSD remains shall be halted and the County coroner notified immediately. If the remains are determined by the discovered during any throu hout construction activities, g County coroner to be Native American, the Native American Heritage all ground - disturbing construction Commission (NAIIC) shall be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of activity within 50 feet the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. of the remains shall be The project sponsor shall also retain a professional archaeologist with Native halted immediately, American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of the specific and the County discovery site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by coroner shall be the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist may provide professional assistance notified immediately. to the Most Likely Descendant, including excavation and removal of the human remains taking into account the provisions of State law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e) and Public Resources Code section 5097.98, to the satisfaction of the City of Rohnert Park Planning Department. Mitigation Measure 3.4 -3 shall be implemented prior to the resumption of ground- disturbing activities within 50 feet of where the remains were discovered. 3.5 Geology and Soils — There are no significant geology and soils impacts. 3.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3.6 -1 A Phase TI Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) shall be conducted by the Conduct a Phase IT Project sponsor Prior to project project sponsor in areas of known concern identified in the Phase I ESA. These ESA within areas DSD /SCDHS grading areas are near the chemical storage areas, near the existing diesel UST, near the identified in the Phase historic diesel fuel spill site, near the nitrogen above ground storage tank and I ESA as being of near the solvent pit tank. This investigation shall involve the collection and concern. analysis of soil and groundwater samples. Sampling shall extend at least to depths proposed for site grading or excavation, and samples shall be tested for elevated levels of petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds, or lead. This assessment shall be completed by a Registered Environmental Assessor, Registered Geologist, Professional Engineer, or similarly qualified individual prior to initiating any earth - moving activities at the project site. Soils with concentrations of hazardous substances above regulatory threshold limits shall be disposed of off -site in accordance with California hazardous waste disposal regulations (CCR Title 26) or shall be managed in place with approval of DTSC, Sonoma County Department of Health Services, or the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Notes: P = Public Works — Engineering & Transportation SWC,4 = Sonoma County Water Agency BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District DSD = Develo meat Services Department DA = Development Agreement Development P CDFG = California Department of Fish &Game SCDHS = Sonoma County Department of Health Services Sonoma Mountain Village Project — Mitigation Monitoring Program PAProjects — All Employees \D40000+ \41336.00 Sonoma Mtn Village \Screencheck FEIR \FEIR \5.0 MMRP 6.28.10.docx 5 -14 July 2010 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sonoma Mountain Village Project EIR Mitigation Measure Action Implementing Party Timing Monitoring Party In the event that residual or unknown contamination is visually discovered during site grading or excavation activities, fitrther investigations be If required, retain a Project sponsor Throughout project DSD /SCBHS shall completed to verify the extent of contaminated soils and if any necessary qualified consultant to prepare a work plan, to construction remediation actions would be required. Because the contaminated materials be implemented by a could pose a potential health hazard to construction workers, if contaminated Site Safety Officer. soil is confirmed, a comprehensive Site Safety and Health Plan would be required to keep occupational exposure within prescribed limits and to prevent the migration of contaminants beyond the site boundaries (a California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirement for work at hazardous waste sites). The plan would be prepared by a consultant specializing in the handling of hazardous materials in accordance with regulatory requirements and the Occupational Safety and Health Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste Site Activities.' It would identify potential hazards, material handling procedures, dust suppression measures, necessary personal protective clothing and devices, and appropriate equipment. In addition to measures that protect on -site workers, the plan would include measures to minimize public exposure to contaminated soil or groundwater. Such measures would include dust control, appropriate site security, restriction of public access, perimeter air monitoring, posting of warning signs, and would apply from the time of surface disruption throughout the completion of earthwork construction. If elevated levels of hazardous materials are detected, more effective dust control measures would need to be implemented including more frequent watering of excavated materials, or more frequent covering of material that is stockpiled at the point of excavation. If levels of detection at the construction site perimeter do not exceed allowable levels of exposure for workmen at the site, it is unlikely that pedestrians or other members of the general public would be subject to harmful exposures. The Safety and Health Plan would need to be implemented through the direction of a Site Safety Officer. 1 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Occupational Health and Safety Administration, U.S. Coast Guard, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Occupational Safely and Health Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste and Site Activities, 1985. Notes: PW = Public Works — Engineering & Transportation SWCA = Sonoma County Water Agency DA = Development Agreement BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District DSD = Development Services Department CDFG = California Department of Fish & Game SCDHS = Sonoma County Department of Health Services Sonoma Mountain Village Project— Mitigation Monitoring Program 5 IS PAProjects — All Em - ployees \D40000+ \41;36.00 Sonoma Mtn Village \Screencheck FEiR \FEIR \5.0 MMRP 6.28.10.docx July 2010 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sonoma Mountain Village Project EIR Implementing Monitoring Mitigation Measure Action Party Timing Party 3.6 -2 The project sponsor shall retain a qualified environmental specialist (e.g., a Registered Environmental Assessor) to inspect the buildings. The specialist shall Retain a REA to inspect buildings for Project sponsor Prior to DSD / SCDHS identify any asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls, mercury, lead, or other hazardous materials. commencing the demolition, hazardous materials present which would then be tested. If found at levels that removal and /or would require special handling, these materials would need to be managed as Materials managed as remodeling or required by law and according to federal and state regulations and guidelines, required by local, reconstruction of including those of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the California State, and federal exterior or interior Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the California regulations. portions of existing Department of Toxic Substances Control. buildings on the project site 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality' 3.7 -1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a Final Drainage Master Plan for all on- Prepare a Final Project sponsor Prior to issuance of DSD /PW and off -site drainage facilities (including water quality facilities - BMPs) shall Drainage Master Plan a grading permit be prepared by the project sponsor and submitted to the City of Rohnert Park's Map in accordance Department of Public Works and the Development Services Department for with SCWA and review and approval. The Final Drainage Plan shall be prepared by a Registered SUSUMP Design Civil Engineer and shall be in conformance with the City of Rohnert Park Storm standards. Drain Design Standards, Municipal Code 16.16.020 C. Storm Drains and General Plan goals and policies in Section 7.2 Drainage, Erosion, Stormwater, . and Flooding and Section 6.3 Water Quality. The Final Drainage Plan shall include a comparative analysis of stormwater runoff peak flow rate and duration from the site for flow events important to stream geomorphology conditions and flood flow conveyance; from 20 percent of the 2 -year peak flow event up to the pre- project 10 -year peak flow event. The Final Drainage plan shall be prepared in accordance with the SCWA and SUSUMP Design Standards and shall include design measures and BMPs that demonstrate that peak flows from under project buildout conditions would not result in a net increase in peak flow rate or duration over pre - development conditions from 20 percent of the 2 -year peak flow event up to the pre - project 10 -year peak flow event. The post - project flow duration curve shall not deviate above the pre- project flow duration curve by more than 10 percent over more than 10 percent of the length of the curve corresponding to the range of flows to control. Flow control structures may be designed to discharge stormwater at a very low rate that does not threaten to erode the receiving waterbody. This flow rate (also called Qcp138) shall be no greater than 20 percent of the pre - project 2 -year peak flow. The Final Drainage Notes: P = Public Works — Engineering & Transportation SWCA = Sonoma County Water Agency BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District DSD = Development Services Department SCDHS = Sonoma County Department of Health Services Sonoma Mountain Village Project — Mitigation Monitoring Program P:\Projects— All Employees \D40000+ \41336.00 Sonoma Mtn Village \Screencheck FEIR \FEIR \5.0 MMRP 6.28. l0.docx DA = Development Agreement CDFG = California Department of Fish & Game 5 -16 July 2010 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sonoma Mountain Village Project EIR Implementing Monitoring Mitigation Measure Action Party Timing Party Plan shall include at a minimum, written text addressing existing conditions, the effects of project improvements, all appropriate calculations, a watershed map, potential increases in downstream flows and volumes, proposed on -site and off - site improvements, on -site water quality facilities, effectiveness of water quality BMPs, operation and maintenance responsibilities, inspection schedules, reporting requirements and shall include specifics regarding the timing of implementation. Grading permits shall be issued following City approval of the proposed Final Drainage Plan. The Drainage Plan shall be coordinated in its development with the Water Quality Management Plan to maximize the efficiency of BMPs for both stormwater detention and water quality treatment. 3.7-2 a) The project sponsor shall prepare and implement a site - specific Water Quality Prepare a site specific WQMP with BMPs, Project Sponsor Prior to issuance of a grading permit DSD /PW Management Plan (WQMP) with Best Management Practices (BMPs) targeted to reduce post - construction pollutant loads by the values listed in Table 3.7 -4a and Table 3.7 -4b, Scenario 1 or Scenario 2, depending upon the final drainage and storage designs. This WQMP shall identify specific stormwater BMPs for reducing potential pollutants in stormwater runoff. Each BMPs or suite of BMPs shall be selected to target removal rates equal to at least the "Required Load Reduction for LTS" values in Table 3.7 -5a and Table 3.7 -5b Scenario I (no water quantity controls), or Scenario 2 (water quantity controls), depending upon the final drainage and storage designs. BMP location, size, design and operation criteria, and pollutant removal rates expected shall be referenced, documented, and incorporated into the WQMP. The WQMP must be approved by a qualified engineer or stormwater management professional of the Rohnert Park Public Works Department prior to the beginning of grading and /or construction activities. The WQMP shall include the following BMPs along with selected BMPs to target pollutant removal rates: Notes: PW = Public Works — Engineering & Transportation Sff"CA = Sonoma County Water Agency DA = Development Agreement BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District DSD = Development Services Department CDFG = California Department of Fish & Game SCDHS = Sonoma County Department of Health Services Sonoma Mountain Village Project — Mitigation Monitoring Program 5 -17 P: \Projects —All Employees \D40000+ \41336.00 Sonoma Mtn Village \Screencheck FEIR\FEIR\5.0 MMRP 6.28.10.docx July 2010 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sonoma Mountain Village Project EIR Mitigation Measure Action Implementing Party Timing Monitoring Party • Waste and materials storage and management (design and construction of outdoor materials storage areas and trash and waste storage areas, if any, to reduce pollutant introduction). • Spill prevention and control. • Slope protection. • Water efficient irrigation practices (Municipal Code 14.52 Water Efficient Landscape; water efficient guidelines and Conceptual Landscape Plan). • Permanent erosion and sediment controls (e.g., hydroseeding, mulching, surface covers). • Routine source control BMPs and activity restrictions to prevent the introduction of pollutants to stormwater runoff. These shall include street sweeping practices, landscape management practices, other operations and maintenance practices, tenant/owner use restrictions, and others. Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CCRs) or lease restrictions shall be defined and implemented as part of deed restrictions or lease agreements. The project sponsor shall prepare the CCRs and lease restrictions and shall be responsible for tenant/home owner education and enforcement of restrictions until such responsibilities are formally transferred to a Property Owners' Association (POA) or similar authority. The project sponsor is encouraged to consider the following BMPs: • Minimize directly connected impervious area, including: pervious concrete or other pervious pavement for parking areas (e.g., turf block), pervious pavement for paths and sidewalks, and direction of rooftop runoff to pervious areas. • Incorporation of rain gardens or cisterns to reuse runoff for landscape irrigation. • Wet vaults for subsequent landscape irrigation. • Sand filters for parking lots and rooftop runoff. • Frequent and routine street and parking lot sweeping. • Media filter devices for roof top drain spouts (including proprietary devices). • Biofiltration devices (bioretention features, swales, filter strips, and others). • Drain inlet filters. • Pet waste stations. Notes: PW = Public Works – Engineering & Transportation SWCA = Sonoma County Water Agency DA = Development Agreement BAAQMD = Bav Area Air Quality Management District DSD = Development Services Department CDFG = California Department of Fish & Game SCDHS = Sonoma County Department of Health Services Sonoma Mountain Village Project — Mitigation Monitoring Program 5 -18 P: \Projects — All Employees \D40000+ \41336.00 Sonoma Mtn villagoScreencheck FEIR\PEIR\5.0 MMRP 6.28. 10.docx July 2010 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sonoma Mountain Village Project EIR Implementing Monitoring Mitigation Measure Action Party Timing. Party Unless sufficient objective studies and review are available and supplied with the WQMP to correctly size devices and to document expected pollutant removal rates the WQMP shall not include: • Hydrodynamic separator type devices as a BMP for removing any pollutant except trash and gross particulates. • Oil and Grit separators. The WQMP shall not include infiltration BMPs unless they comply with design guidelines and requirements specified in TC -1: Infiltration Basins in the California Stormwater Quality Association Stormwater Quality BMPs Handbook for New Development and Significant Redevelopment (2003) and shall meet NPDES Phase 2 General Permit Attachment D minimum requirements including adequate maintenance, and that the vertical distance from the base of any infiltration device to the seasonal high groundwater mark shall be at least 10 feet. Furthermore, prior to infiltration, stormwater should be pre- treated through a system such as a biofilter to minimize potential groundwater pollution. The WQMP shall also identify the responsible party for operations and maintenance of structural BMPs and implementation of non - structural BMPs and compliance with any management or monitoring plans. The responsible party, project sponsor, or POA shall prepare an annual report to the City of Rohnert Park documenting the BMP operations and maintenance activities, implementation of routine source control BMPs, and compliance with any management and monitoring plans. The City of Rohnert Park or their designee shall review the annual reports for compliance with the WQMP and implement enforcement actions as necessary. During the design review process, a qualified stormwater management professional shall review and approve site plans for assuring the effectiveness of stormwater quality BMPs in removing pollutants according to the target pollutant removal rate guidelines noted in Table 3.7 -4a and Table 3.7 -4b. BMPs will be installed and maintained as stipulated in the City of Rohnert Park SWMP and NPDES Phase 2 General Permit. Motes: P = Public Works — Engineering & Transportation SWCA = Sonoma County Water Agency DA = Development Agreement BAAOMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District DSD = Development Services Department CDFG = California Department of Fish & Game SCDHS = Sonoma County Department of Health Services Sonoma Mountain Village Project —Mitigation Monitoring Program 5_I9 P:\Projects — All Employees \D40000+ \413 36.00 Sonoma Mtn Village \Screencheck FEIR \FEIR \5.0 MMRP 628.10.docx July 2010 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sonoma Mountain Village Pro'ect EIR Mitigation Measure Action Implementing Party Timing Monitoring Party b) The project sponsor shall prepare and implement a site - specific Chemical Application Management Plan for both public and private to Prepare and implement Project sponsor Prior to issuance of DSD /PW properties control pesticide and nutrient applications within the proposed project area, including a site - specific Chemical Application a grading permit identification of the responsible party for ensuring implementation of the Management Plan Chemical Application Management Plan, and its incorporation into the WQMP. The Chemical Application Management Plan shall provide guidelines and rates for chemical controls and applications within the Sonoma Mountain Village project area. The emphasis on the Chemical Application Management Plan shall be to minimize use through the correct application and use of chemicals less likely to migrate to the aquatic environment. Synthetic, quick- release fertilizer use shall be restricted through homeowners' associations and leasing agreements. Compost and naturally- derived fertilizers shall be encouraged and slow- release synthetic fertilizers shall be allowed, but their use shall not be encouraged. Pesticide use shall be restricted and label requirements followed. Diazinon use shall not be allowed. The Chemical Application Management Plan shall include homeowner education and guidance to prevent misuse and overuse of pesticides and chemicals. All public area and homeowner association landscape maintenance personnel shall be properly trained in the Chemical Application Management Plan and shall have an appropriate applicator license for restricted -use chemicals that might be applied. Pool and spa treatment methods, chemicals, and drainage restrictions, based on preferred treatment and procedures that minimize environmental degradation shall be incorporated into homeowner association and leasing agreements. Informational guidance and restrictions associated with the Chemical Application Management Plan shall be supplied to homeowners and tenants. 3.7 -3 Water temperature mitigation for the proposed project shall be implemented using one of the following management measures: Implement the Project sponsor Prior to grading DSD /PW /RWQCB/ • Stormwater runoff storage may be located in below - ground storage devices appropriate water temperature mitigation plans SCWA where feasible to minimize potential heating during storage. measures. • Any surface water storage area for Stormwater may be shaded by trees (preferred) or artificial shading. Notes: PW = Public Works – Engineering & Transportation SWCA = Sonoma County Water Agency BAAOMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District DSD = Development Services Department SCDFIS = Sonoma County Department of Health Services Sonoma Mountain Village Project — Mitigation Monitoring Program P: \Projects —All Employees \D40000+ \41336.00 Sonoma Mtn Village \Screencheck FEIR \FEIR \5.0 MMRP 6.28.10.docx DA = Development Agreement CDFG = California Department of Fish & Game 5 -20 July 2010 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sonoma Mountain Village Project EIR Implementing Monitoring Mitigation Measure Action Party Timing Party • Water conservation shall be practiced to limit the amount of stored water or "nuisance" (uncontrolled) runoff water from entering the storm drain systems. Homeowners' Association and leasing agreements shall include restrictions on water use activities that cause or contribute to nuisance flows. • Discharge water temperature monitoring shall be periodically conducted in accordance with a Temperature Monitoring Plan prepared by the project sponsor in consultation with the City of Rohnert Park and the RWQCB. Temperature Monitoring Plan shall be approved by the City of Rohnert Park prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Results of the Temperature Monitoring Plan shall be reported annually to the City of Rohnert Park and RWQCB. If project site discharges are determined to have the potential to substantially affect in- stream water temperatures, by either the City of Rohnert Park or the RWQCB, the project sponsor shall consult with the RWQCB, SCWA, and City of Rohnert Park to develop a riparian restoration plan to restore riparian vegetation and trees along a portion or portions of the affected stream. Riparian vegetation would serve to provide shade and mitigate potential increases in water temperature. The City- and RWQCB- approved Temperature Monitoring Plan shall be incorporated into the WQMP. The final determination of the appropriate water temperature management implementation measure will be made by the project sponsor and approved by City staff prior to submittal of final grading plans. 3.8 Land Use — There are no significant land use policy impacts. 3.9 Noise 3.9 -1 A seven - to eight- foot -high solid concrete /masonry wall along the property line Construct wall. Project sponsor During DSD /PW on the north side of Camino Colegio between Manchester Avenue and Mitchell construction of Drive shall be constructed prior to commencement of construction activities on Phase IA the SMV project site adjacent to Camino Colegio. The wall shall be designed to be similar to the existing wall along Camino Colegio between Manchester Avenue and Mainsail Drive. a) The project sponsor shall provide a disclosure statement to all prospective Inform future onsite Project sponsor Ongoing during DSD /PW residents of the possibility of disruption of sleep due to vibration from ongoing residents that they construction on -site construction activity associated with project development, could be deprived of sleep. Notes: P = Public Works — Engineering & Transportation SWCA = Sonoma County Water Agency DA = Development Agreement BAAOMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District DSD = Development Services Department CDFG = California Department of Fish & Game SCDHS = Sonoma Couniy Department of Health Services Sonoma Mountain Village Project — Mitigation Monitoring Program 5 -21 P: \Projects —All Employees \D40000 + \41 3.6.00 Sonoma Mtn Village \Screencheck FEIR \FEIR \5.0 MMRP 6.28.I0.docx July 2010 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sonoma Mountain Village Project EIR Mitigation Measure Action Implementing Party Timing Monitoring Party 3.9 -2 Implement Mitigation Measure 3.9 -1. Construct wall. Project sponsor During DSD /PW construction of 3.9 -3 The project contractor(s) shall implement measures to reduce noise levels Incorporate Project sponsor Phase ]A Ongoing during DSD /PW generated by construction equipment operating at the project site during project construction project grading and construction phases. The project sponsor shall include in equipment noise construction construction contracts the following requirements or measures shown to be mitigation measures. equally effective: • Stationary construction equipment that generates noise levels in excess of 65 dBA L,, shall be located as far away from existing residential areas as possible. If required to minimize potential noise conflicts, the equipment shall be shielded from noise sensitive receptors by using temporary walls, sound curtains, or other similar devices • Heavy -duty vehicle storage and start-up areas shall be located a minimum of 150 feet from occupied residences where feasible • An information sign shall be posted at the entrance to each construction site that identifies the permitted construction hours and provides a telephone number to call and receive information about the construction project or to report complaints regarding excessive noise levels • The project sponsor shall inform future on -site residents of the possibility of noise disruption due to ongoing construction activity associated with project development. 3.10 Planning Policy and Relationship to Plans—There are no impacts identified in this section. 3.11 Population and Housing — Impacts to population and housing were determined to be significant and unavoidable. Therefore, there are no mitigable population and housing impacts. 3.12 Public Services — There are no significant public services impacts. 3.13 Traffic and Circulation' 3.13 -1 As the Petaluma Hill Road /East Railroad Avenue intersection would meet the Build signal light at Project sponsor Prior to completion DSD /PW requirements of the MUTCD Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant after project intersection of of the first project trips have been added, signalization of this intersection is required. The signal Petaluma Hill Road phase shall be built to current Sonoma County standards. and East Railroad Avenue. Notes: PW = Public Works — Engineering & Transportation SWCA = Sonoma County Water Agency BAAQMD =Boy Area Air Quality Management District DSD = Development Services Department SCDHS = Sonoma County Department of Health Services Sonoma Mountain Village Project — Mitigation Monitoring Program P: \Projects —All Employees \D40000+ \41336.00 Sonoma Min Village \Screencheck FEIR \FEIR \5.0 MMRP 6.28.10.docx DA = Development Agreement CDFG = California Department of Fish & Game 5 -22 July 2010 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sonoma Mountain Village Project EIR Implementing Monitoring Mitigation Measure Action Party Timing Party 3.13 -2 As acknowledged in the Rohnert Park General Plan, traffic congestion Coordinate with Project sponsor Prior to issuance of DSD /PW presently exists in the Penngrove community at the Petaluma Hill Sonoma County to grading permits Road /Adobe Road intersection during AM and PM peak hours. The buildout determine the of the Rohnert Park General Plan would result in additional traffic in this area. appropriate fair -share One design solution at the Petaluma Hill Road/Adobe Road intersection cost to be allocated to would be to widen and reconfigure the intersection. The northbound approach Sonoma Mountain could be reconfigured to include one shared through -left turn lane, and one Village in order to shared through -right turn lane. The eastbound approach could be reconfigured implement to include a left -turn lane and a shared through -right turn lane. The westbound improvements. approach could be reconfigured to include a shared through -left turn lane, and an overlapped right -turn lane. It should be noted that although limited Determine the pedestrian facilities are available, pedestrian conditions are of utmost concern feasibility of the at this intersection; especially considering that there is a school located at the mitigation measure northwest corner of the intersection. Thus, the right -of -way acquisition implementation given required to complete the necessary widening would need to include space for the fiscal constraints. full pedestrian facilities. 3.13 -3 As the Old Redwood Highway /East Railroad Avenue intersection would meet Coordinate with the Project sponsor /City of Prior to issuance of DSD /PW /City of the requirements of the MUTCD Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant after City of Cotati to Cotati grading permits Cotati project trips have been added, signalization of this intersection is required. determine the The signal would be subject to current Sonoma County standards. appropriate fair -share cost to be allocated to Sonoma Mountain Village in order to implement the recommended improvements. Determine the feasibility of the mitigation measure implementation given the fiscal constraints. Notes: P = Public Works — Engineering & Transportation SI�VCA = Sonoma County Water Agency DA = Development Agreement BAAOAID = Bav Area Air Quality Management District DSD = Development Services Department CDFG = California Department of Fish & Game SCDHS = Sonoma County Department of Health Services Sonoma Mountain Village Project — Mitigation Monitoring Program 5 -23 PAProjects — AI! Employees \D40000+ \41336.00 Sonoma Mtn Village \Screencheck FEIR\PEIR\5.0 MMRP 6.28.10.docx July 2010 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sonoma Mountain Village Project EIR Implementing Monitoring Mitigation Measure Action Party Timing Party 3.13 -4 One design Solution at the Old Redwood Highway /East Cotati Avenue Coordinate with the Project sponsor /City of Prior to issuance of DSD /PW /City of intersection would be to reconfigure the southbound and westbound City of Cotati to Cotati grading permits Cotati approaches to the intersection (without widening), and updated the traffic determine the signal phasing. The southbound through lane shall be reconfigured into a appropriate fair -share shared through -left turn lane, and the northbound - southbound signal phasing cost to be allocated to shall be changed from protected phasing to split phasing. The westbound Sonoma Mountain through -right turn lane shall be reconfigured into an exclusive right turn lane. Village in order to This reconfigured right turn lane shall be overlapped with the southbound split implement the phase. recommended improvements. Detennine the feasibility of the mitigation measure implementation given the fiscal constraints. 3.13 -5 As the LaSalle Avenue /East Cotati Avenue intersection would meet the Coordinate with the Project sponsor /City of Prior to issuance of DSD /PW /City of requirements of the MUTCD Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant with and City of Cotati to Cotati grading permits Cotati without the addition of project trips, signalization of this intersection is determine the required. appropriate fair -share cost to be allocated to Sonoma Mountain Village in order to implement the recommended improvements. Determine the feasibility of the mitigation measure implementation given the fiscal constraints. 3.13 -6 Implement Mitigation Measure 3.13 -1. Build signal light at Project sponsor Upon completion DSD /PW intersection of of the first project Petaluma Hill Road phase and East Railroad Avenue Notes: P = Public Works — Engineering & Transportation SWCA = Sonora County Water Agency DA = Development Agreement BAAOA,fD = Bav Area Air Quality Management District DSD = Development Services Department CDFG = California Department of Fish & Game SCDHS = Sonoma County Department of Health Services Sonoma Mountain Village Project — .Mitigation Monitoring Program 5_24 PAProjects —Al I Employees \D40000+ \41336.00 Sonoma Mtn Village \Screencheck FEIR \FEIR \5.0 MMRP 6.28.10.docx ,July 2010 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sonoma Mountain Village Project EIR Implementing Monitoring Mitigation Measure Action Party Timing Party 3.13 -7 Implement Mitigation Measure 3.13 -2. Coordinate with Project sponsor Prior to issuance of DSD /PW Sonoma County to grading permits detenmine the appropriate fair -share cost to be allocated to Sonoma Mountain Village in order to implement the recommended improvements. 3.13 -8 in order to mitigate transportation impacts at the Old Redwood Highway/ Coordinate with the Project sponsor /City of Prior to issuance of DSD /PW /City of US 101 ramp intersection the project sponsor, in conjunction with the City of City of Rolinert Park, Rohnert Park/City of grading permits Petal urn a/Cal trans Rolinert Park, City of Petaluma, and Caltrans, proposes to widen the Caltrans and the City Petaluma/Caltrans westbound approach (U.S. 101 northbound off -ramp) to include an additional of Petaluma to right turn lane. determine the appropriate fair -share cost to be allocated to Sonoma Mountain Village in order to implement the recommended improvements. Determine the feasibility of the mitigation measure implementation given the fiscal constraints. Notes: PW = Public Works — Engineering & Transportation SWCA = Sonoma County Water Agency DA = Development Agreement BAAOMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District DSD = Development Services Department CDFG = California Department of Fish & Game SCDHS = Sonoma County Department of Health Services Sonoma Mountain Village Project — Mitigation Monitoring Program 5 -25 PAProjects — All Employees \D40000+ \41336.00 Sonoma Mtn Village \Screencheck FEIR \FEIR \5.0 MMRP 6.28. I0.docx July 2010 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sonoma Mountain Village Pro'ect EIR Implementing Monitoring Mitigation Measure Action Party Timing Party 3.13 -9 Implement Mitigation Measure 3.13 -3. Coordinate with the Project sponsor /City of Prior to issuance of DSD /PW /City of City of Cotati to Cotati grading permits Cotati determine the appropriate fair -share cost to be allocated to Sonoma Mountain Village in order to implement the recommended improvements. Determine the feasibility of the mitigation measure implementation given the fiscal constraints. 3.13 -10 Implement Mitigation Measure 3.13 -4. Coordinate with the Project sponsor /City of Prior to issuance of DSD /PW /City of City of Cotati to Cotati grading permits Cotati determine the appropriate fair -share cost to be allocated to Sonoma Mountain Village in order to implement the recommended improvements. Determine the feasibility of the mitigation measure implementation given the fiscal constraints. Notes: P = Public Works — Engineering & Transportation SWCA = Sonoma County Water Agency BAAOMD = Bav Area Air Quality Management District DSD = Development Services Department SCDHS = Sonoma County Department of Health Services Sonoma Mountain Village Project — Mitigation Monitoring Program PAProjects —All Employees \D40000+ \41336.00 Sonoma Mtn Village \Screencheck FEIR \FEIR \5.0 MMRP 6.28.10.docx DA = Development Agreement CDFG = California Department of Fish & Game 5 -26 July 2010 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sonoma Mountain Village Pro'ect EIR Implementing Monitoring Mitigation Measure Action Party Timing Party 3.13 -11 Implement Mitigation Measure 3.13 -5. Coordinate with the Project sponsor /City of Prior to issuance of DSD /PW /City of City of Cotati to Cotati grading permits Cotati determine the appropriate fair -share cost to be allocated to Sonoma Mountain Village in order to implement the recommended improvements._ Determine the feasibility of the mitigation measure implementation given the fiscal constraints. 3.13 -12 The project sponsor shall contribute funding to the proposed Marin- Sonoma Coordinate with the Project sponsor /City of Prior to issuance of DSD /PW /Caltrans Narrows HOV 101 Widening Project. The City of Rohnert Park shall, Marin Sonoma Rohnert Park/ Marin grading permits cooperate with the appropriate agencies to determine a fair -share portion of Narrows HOV 101 Sonoma Narrows HOV funds to improve freeway operation, and if deemed appropriate, collect a fair- Widening Project to 101 Widening Project share allocation from the developers of the Sonoma Mountain Village Project. determine the Also, future residents and employees of the project shall contribute to freeway appropriate fair -share projects through payment of Sonoma County's quarter -cent sales tax for cost to be allocated to transportation improvements. Sonoma Mountain Village in order to implement the recommended improvements. Determine the feasibility of the mitigation measure implementation given the fiscal constraints. Notes: P = Public Works — Engineering & Transportation SWCA = Sonoma County Water Agency BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District DSD = Development Services Department SCDHS = Sononsa County Department of Health Services Sonoma Mountain Village Project — Mitigation Monitoring Program P: \Projects— All Employees \1540000+ \41336.00 Sonoma Mtn Village \Screencheck FEIR \FEIR \5.0 MMRP 6.28.10.docx DA = Development Agreement CDFG = California Department of Fish & Game 5 -27 July 2010 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sonoma Mountain Village Project EIR Implementing Monitoring Mitigation Measure Action Party Timing Party 3.13 -13 The project sponsor shall contribute funding to the proposed Marin- Sonoma Coordinate with the Project sponsor /City of Prior to issuance of DSD /PW/ Marin Narrows HOV 101 Widening Project. The City of Rohnert Park shall Marin Sonoma Rohnert Park/ Marin grading permits Sonoma Narrows cooperate with the appropriate agencies to determine a fair -share portion of Narrows HOV 101 Sonoma Narrows HOV HOV 101 Widening funds to improve freeway operation, and if deemed appropriate, collect a fair- Widening Project to 101 Widening Project Project share allocation from the developers of the Sonoma Mountain Village Project. determine the Also, future residents and employees of the Project shall contribute to freeway appropriate fair -share projects through payment of Sonoma County's quarter -cent sales tax for cost to be allocated to transportation improvements. Sonoma Mountain Village in order to implement the recommended improvements. Determine the feasibility of the mitigation measure implementation given the fiscal constraints. 3.13 -14 The project sponsor and construction contractor shall develop a construction Develop a construction Project sponsor Prior to the DSD /PW traffic management plan for review and approval by City staff. Construction traffic management issuance of each traffic management strategies to reduce, to the maximum extent feasible, plan. major building traffic congestion and the effects of parking demand by construction workers permit shall be provided for in the Plan, which shall include at least the following items and requirements: • A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck trips and deliveries to avoid peak traffic hours, detour signs if required, lane closure procedures, signs, cones for drivers, and designated construction access routes. • Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel regarding when major deliveries, detours. and lane closures would occur. • Location of construction staging areas for materials, equipment, and vehicles (shall be located on the project site). • Identification of haul routes for the movement of construction vehicles that would minimize impacts on vehicular and pedestrian traffic, circulation and safety. Notes: P = Public Works — Engineering & Transportation SWCA = Sonoma County Water Agency BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District DSD = Development Services Department SCDHS = Sonoma County Department of Health Services Sonoma Mountain Village Project — Mitigation Monitoring Program P: \Projects — All Employees \D40000+ \41336.00 Sonoma Mtn Village \Screencheck FEIR \FEIR \5.0 MMRP 6.28. I O.docx DA = Development Agreement CDFG = California Department of Fish & Game 5 -28 July 2010 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sonoma Mountain Village Project EIR Implementing Monitoring Mitigation Measure Action Party Timing Party • Provisions for monitoring surface streets used for truck routes so that any damage and debris attributable to the trucks can be identified and corrected. • Subject to City review and approval, and prior to start of construction, a construction worker transportation demand management (TDM) program shall be implemented to encourage construction workers to carpool or use alternative transportation modes in order to reduce the overall number of vehicle trips associated with construction workers. • A process for responding to, and tracking, complaints pertaining to construction activities, including the identification of an onsite complaint manager. 3.13 -15 The project sponsor shall: Incorporate design Project sponsor Prior to issuance of DSD /PW • Design all internal roadways in accordance with Fire Department standards; measures that are in grading permits provide adequate Fire Department turning radii at all intersections; accordance with Fire • Provide adequate access for trash collection vehicles: Department and Public • Avoid dead -end streets, or provide a turnaround at any dead -end street Works standards. terminus; • Minimize vehicle connections to Camino Colegio. Focus traffic on internal roadways to the two primary intersections; • Avoid acute angle intersections; • Avoid off -set intersections; and • Provide adequate sight distance at all intersections in accordance with City Public Works Department standards. 3.14 Utilities and Service'Systems' 7 There are no significant utilitiI s and service, systems impacts 3.15 Climate Change- There are,no,significant climate change impacts. Notes: PW = Public Works — Engineering & Transportation SWC,4 = Sonoma County Water Agency DA = Development Agreement BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District DSD = Development Services Department CDFG = California Department of Fish & Game SCDHS = Sonoma County Department of Health Services Sonoma Mountain Village Project — Mitigation Monitoring Program 5 -29 P: \Projects —All Employees \D40000+ \41336.00 Sonoma Mtn Village \Screencheck FEIR \FEIR \5.0 MMRP 6.28.10.docx July 2010