2010/07/22 Planning Commission Resolution (3)PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2010-19
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF
THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 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/Codding Enterprises, fled
Planning Application No. PL2005-047PD proposing a Planned Development, Zone Change,
General Plan Amendment, and related certification of a Environmental Impact Report ('BIR") 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 Rolmert 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 Robnert 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 by.
incorporating: l) the Draft EIR; 2) comments received about the Draft EIR and responses to those
comments; 3) changes, clarifications and corrections to the Draft EIR; and 4) appendices; 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 Planning Commission of the City
of Rohnert Park ("Commission") makes the following findings, determinations and
recommendations with respect to the Final EIR for the proposed Project:
I. The Commission 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
5. The documents and other materials, including without limitation staff reports,
memoranda, maps, letters and minutes of all relevant meetings, which constitute
the administrative record of proceedings upon which the Commission's resolution
is based are located at the City of Rohnert Park, City Clerk, 130 Avram Ave.,
Rohnert Park, CA 94928. The custodian of records is the City Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that on the basis of the evidence contained in the
administrative record of the Final EIR, the Commission 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 that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that
the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park ("City Council") 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 and in conjunction with
making these findings, the Planning Commission 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 A (CEQA Findings and Statement of
Overriding Considerations) and Exhibit 13 (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 A 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 Planning Commission hereby
recommends that the City Council adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached
hereto as Exhibit A; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
21081.6, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit B to this Resolution and
require the Project to comply with the mitigation measures contained therein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any interested person may appeal this Resolution
of the Planning Commission to the City Council within 10 calendar days of its passage pursuant
to RPMC Section 17.25.123. Any such appeal shall be in the form provided by RPMC Section
17.25.124 and with the payment of the fee established by the City.
DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED on this 22nd day of July, 2010 by the City of
Rohnert Park Planning Commission by the following vote:
AYES: 3 NOES: ABSENT: 2* ABSTAIN:
AIIANOTU Y` ARMSTRONGBORBA AB NILSON Y NORDIN Y
*Armstrong:
bl"
Secretary
Park Planning Commission
EXHIBIT A
CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
RELATED TO THE CERTIFICATION OF THE
SONOMA MOUNTAIN VILLAGE EIR
BY THE ROHNERT PARK PLANNING COMMISSION
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 Planning Commission
("Commission") 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 Commission has no
quarrel with, and thus incorporates by reference and adopts 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 Commission'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 Commission
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
Commission 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 S.
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
2
• 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
• hncrease Revenues to the City
• Improve Public Safety
• Provide Community Retail and Services
• Create a Local Village Square that serves as a commur ity 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
ETR.
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
continents 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 continent 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
EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR but before
certification. New information added to an ETR 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 FIR 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:
a. The FIR 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 FIR, 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 ETR, 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 Project or 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 FIR.
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).
The custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the
administrative record of proceedings upon which the Commission's resolution is based
are located at the City of Rohnert Park, City Clerk, 130 Avram 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 Commission. 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
most 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 II).)
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." (,lbid.; 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).)
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]hewisdom 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 11, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 576.)
These findings constitute the Commission 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 Commission hereby
recommends that the City bind itself to implement these measures.
VI. CERTIFICATION OR THE EIR
In accordance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City Guidelines,
the Commission hereby recommends that the City Council certify that the EIR has been
completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The Commission has
reviewed and considered the information in the record and the E,IR prior to
recommending approval of any element of or entitlement for the Project. By making
these findings, the Commission confirms that the EIR is adequate to support the approval
of the Project and recommends that the City Council ratify and adopt the findings and
conclusions of the FIR, as supplemented and modified by the findings contained herein.
VII. MITIGATION MEASURES, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, AND MMRP
Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines Section
15097 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 Commission finds that the MMRP included in Exhibit B
meets these requirements and hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the
MMRP.
The mitigation measures recommended by the BIR 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.
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 Commission recommends that the Council
adopt 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 Commission recommends that the Council ratify,
adopt and incorporate the analysis, explanation, findings, responses to comments and
conclusions of the ETR, and adopt the reasoning of the EIR, of City staff reports, and of
City staff and the presentations provided by the Project Sponsor.
The Commission 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 Commission 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 Commission 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 Commission 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 Commission 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 Commission 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 ETR will be less than significant as determined by
the Draft ETR.
IX. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS NOT FOUND TO BE SIGNIFICANT AND
NOT ADDRESSED IN DETAIL IN THE EIR
During preparation of the ETR, 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-I, 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
9
is located approximately 3 miles from the project area, the proposed project would not
impact mineral resources.
X. SIGNIFICANT AND POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
REDUCED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH IMPLEMENTATION
OF MITIGATION MEASURES
The Commission 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 FIR, hi 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 sabshnnlial 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 con firmed that the project would not obstruct eastfacing 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?
10
Impact 3.1-2
Project construction would require site grading, construction materials stockpiling rind
storage, and the use of construction equipment in varying intensity as the various phases of the
project are built. As it change front current site conditions during periods of construction, and
with the presence of adjacent resddential continua this is consideree! a potentially
significant visual impact. This construction impact would be localized and short-ternnhowever,
lasting intermittently during the actual phased perioels of construction at specific locations
within the project site construction areas during 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 day or nighttime views in the area?
Impact 3.13
Project lighting ofparking areas, buildings, and sheets could fora: point sources of light
interfering with nighttime views from off-site locations, including local roadways and
residences Goth on and off the project site. This. would be a potentially significant hupact.
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 Iight
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.
it
Air Quality Impacts
Impact Criterion #2
Air Quality Standard: Would the project violate any air quality statulard or contribute
substantially to alt existing orprojected air quality violation?
Impact 3.2-1
Construction activities associated tvith development of the Sonoma Mountain Village project
could generate substantial durst emissions. This would be a significant Impact under Impact
Criterion 92 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 treasures 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.
12
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.
Lnpact 3.3-2
The project could result in the loss of California tiger salamander individuals or salamander
hahital, a federally listed species. This would he a potentially signifrcant 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 he a potenthrlly 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.
13
Impact 3.3-4
The project could result in the direct loss or disturbance of nesting Girds, including white-tailed
kite, Cooper's hmvk, and other raptors (birds -of -prey). This would he a potentially significant
impact.
Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant.
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 Iess-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
"eons.
Impact 3.3-5
The project would result in the filling or adverse nmrlllication of jurisdictional wetland/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 Ioss
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 ivould result in the loss of existing trees within the project site boundaries that are
protected by municipal codes. This would be a significant impact.
14
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
mitigation for trees removed and protection of trees to be retained in
compliance with the provisions of the Tree Removal Permit issued by die
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 arrd could be disturbed or destroyed through
vegetation -clearing, grayling, and construction activities. Damage to archaeological sites world
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 dining 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 carmot 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 ofpreldstoric use of the project area, that excavation or grading
for the project could disturb human retains interred outside of formal cemeteries. This world
be a potentially significant impact
15
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
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 NAI -IC guidelines for the treatment and disposition of the
remains.
Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-2 identified in the FIR 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 at, remaining contaminted areas in
the surface and/or subsurface soils and inadvcricnlly expose construction workers or the
environment to a health risk. Based ori 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.
16
Finding: Implementation of MitigationMeasure 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.
Lnpact 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
increased risk of human or environmental exposure to hazardous materials. This Would be a
potentially signficant 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 FIR 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
ILnpact 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 runofflimential 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.
17
Impact Criterion #6
Stm•mwater Pollutants: Would the project introduce typical stornnwater polhdants into ground
or surface waters?
Impact 3.7-2
Project inaplenaentation would alter land uses and increase the amount of typical stormwater
pollutants into surface water mad potentially groundwater. This would he 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 beginnhlg 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 altergromuhwater or surface water quality, temperature,
dissolved oxygen, or un•hirlity?
Impact 3.7-3
Implementation nut operation of the proposed project could adversely alter surface water
quality, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and tu•hidity. This would he 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.
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 Iess-
than-significant level.
Land Use Impacts
The EIR identified no significant adverse project impacts with respect to land use.
Noise Impacts
Impact Criterion 41
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
regencies?
Impact 3.9-1
Residential uses fronting Camino Colegio (between ManchesterAvenue and Mitchell Drive)
and residential uses fronting East Railroad Avenue east of Old Retbvood Highnvay would be
exposed to exterior traffic noise levels that exceed City standards. This would be a potentially
significant impact for residences fro ting 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 o• generate excessive
groundborne vibration levels?
19
Impact 3.9-1(a)
Project construction would impact future residents.
Significance Before Mitigation: Less than Significant
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant
Explanation: The FIR determined that Impact 3.9-2 would be less than significant
before mitigation. However, the FIR 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 usesfronting Camino Colegio (between Manchester A venue and Mitchell Drive)
and Last 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 inipactfor residences fronting Camino Colegio and a significant unavoidable
impact for residences fronting Last 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 thatno 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 -
20
than -significant level for residents along Camino CoIegio. Impact 3.9-2
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 #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 Sonouut Mountain Village could generate substantial
temporaty or periodic increases in noise levels potentially annoying residents. This world 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 loyal and capacity of the street system?
21
Impact 3.13-1
Under Baseline Conditions, the addition ofproject traffic would course LOS to degrade. and
dehry to reach unacceptable levels at the Petdtrna Hill RoactlEast Railroad Avenue
intersection (Sonoma County jurisdiction) during both AM and PMpeak 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 IeveI.
Impact 3.13-14
Daring the construction period, temporary and intermittent trt ffuc delays would resullfrom
truck movements ar well as construction worker vehicles traveling to and fr•onn the project site.
This construction -related trtffrc would result in a temporary reduction to the capacities of
project area streets because of the slower movennents• and larger turning radii of construction
trucks compared to passenger vehicles. Truck trafTic that occurs during the peak con nate
hours (7.•00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.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 he 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 Iess-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 sd fety from design features?
22
IInoact
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 3.134 S proposed by the EIR tofurther 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 FIR 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 FIR 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 Commission finds that
die 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 isprahlematic under applicable
federal or state air quality standards or plans, including releasing pollutants which exceed
established quantitative thresholds?
24
Impact 3.2-2
Project operational activities would generate emissions of ozone precursors (ROG, NOx) and
Particulate matter (PMtd (criteria pollutants), that would exceed BAAOMD quantitative
erttission thresholds of 80 pounds per day each. These ivould he 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 EIR 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 Ouality
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 sites
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 Iarge
proportion of the total Rohriert 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 ETR 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 rind Mitchell Drive)
and residential uses fronting East Railroad Avenue east of Old Reahvood Highway would be
exposed to exterior traffic Iroise 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
Ievel. 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
W.
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 Canino Colegio (between Manchester Avenue and Mitchell Drive)
and East Railroad Avenue cast of Old Redwood Highway could be exposed to permanent
increases in exterior n afle noise levels above accepted standards. This would be a potentially
slgnifucanl, 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 contir nous 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 Ievels 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
Growtlu Would the project induce substantial growtlt in an area edther 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.
FM
Public Services Impacts
The ETR identified no significant and unavoidable adverse project impacts with respect
to public services.
Traffic and Circulation Impacts
Impact Criterion 41
Traffic Volumes and Level of Service (LOS): Would the project cause an increase in trrffac
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 ofproject traffic would cause unacceptable LOS at
the Petaluma Hill RoadlAdabe Road intersection (Sonoma County juristliction) during the PM
peak boar. 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 Rol -inert 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.
Imnact 3.13-3
Under Baseline Conditions, the addition ofproject traffic would cruise LOS to degrade, and
delay to reach unacceptable levels at the Ohl Rerhuood Highway/East Railroad Avenue
intersection (Sonoma County jurisdiction) during the PMpeak hour. As a direct result of the
addition ofproject t rtf/ic, the intersection world meet the requirements of the MUTCD Perak
Hour Volume Signal Warrant. This world be a significant inipact.
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 ofprojeef trgffrc would cause unacceptable LOS at
the Old Reabvood Highway/East Cotati Avenue intersection (City of Cotati jurisdiction) during
the PMpeak hour. Tris 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 Coalitions, the addition afproject traffic would cause unacceptable LOS at
the LaSalleAvenue/East Cotati Avenue intersection (City gfCotati,jurisdiction) during the PM
peak hour. With and without the addition of project trgffic, the intersection would meet the
requirements of the MUTCD Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant. TItis 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 Ievel.
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.
Itnnact 3.13-6
Under Cumulative Conditions, the addition of project traffic wordd cause LOS to degrade, and
delay to reach unacceptable levels at the Petaluma Hill RoadlEast Railroad Avenue
intersection (Sonoma County jurisncction) during both AM and PM peak hours. As a direct
result of lite addidon ofprojeci traffic, the intersection wotdd meet the requirements of the
MUTCD Peak Haiti- 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.
Iinoact 3.13-7
Under Cumulative Conditions, the addition ofproject traffic would cruise delay to reach
unacceptable levels at the PetalumaHill Road/Adobe Road intersection (Sonoma County
jurisdiction) during both peak /tours. This would be it 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 of project traffic would cause delay to reach
unacceptable levels ret the Old Redwood Highway/U.S. 101 Ramps intersection (City of
Petaluma jurisdiction) (hang the PM peak hour. This would be a significant impact.
Significance Before Mitigation: Significant.
Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable.
Explanation: Mitigation Measure 3.13-8 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 High waylEast Railroad Avenue intersection (Sonoma
County jurisdiction) during the PMpeak hour. This would be a significant impact.
Significance Before Mitigation: Significant.
Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable.
Explanation: Mitigation Measure 3.13-9 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 carmot
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 tuldition ofproject traffic would cause delay to reach
unacceptable levels at the Old Redwood Highway/East Could 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 ofproject traffic world cause delay to reach
unacceptable levels at the LaSalle Avenue/East Cotati Avenue intersection (City of Cotatl
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.
Imnact 3.13-12
Under Baseline Conditions, the addition ofproject traffic would cause the U.S. 101 fi-eeway
segment north ofRohnert 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.
Imnact 3.13-13
Under Cumulative Condition, the addition: of project traffic would cruse tae 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 bot: peak hours. This would
he 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 he 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.§ I 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 C3d 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(0
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 §15126.6(0(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 §15126.6(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
Agi lent Technologies buildings on the project site (totaling 700,000 so, 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 Commission 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 Commission 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 envirornnental 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 Willi
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 corninunity 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 Commission finds that this alternative is infeasible in that it would
provide a limited advantage from an environmental standpoint over the
proposed project; would not further attainment of General PIan 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 sponsors objectives and would not further attainment of
General PIan 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 areas 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.
39
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 FIR identified the Reduced Density Alternative as the
Environmentally Superior Alternative to the proposed project, the
Commission 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 ii
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 comrnunity 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)
IN
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 Commission 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 Iocal 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 areas 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. 1+INDINGS 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 Commission 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 Commission has also
examined potentially feasible alternatives to the Project, none of which are feasible. The
Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt and make 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
Commission 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 Old 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 Ievels 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
Ell
increase further above the 45 dBA Ldn standards set by the City of
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.
B. Finding
The Commission has considered all potentially feasible mitigation
measures to substantially lessen or avoid the Project's significant and unavoidable
impacts. Where feasible, the Commission 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 Commission finds that it
is not feasible to fully mitigate these Project impacts.
The Commission 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 Commission 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 Commission recommends that the City Council specifically adopt
and make 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 Commission 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 Commission 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 Commission 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
46
of 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 fill -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. Itis 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 FIR) 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-Iocated 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 Prgject Would Contribute To The Improvement of Public
Scifety 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.
The Project Would Contribute To Continued Fcononic
Development, Construction of Roadway Improvement, and
Maintenance of City Services and T^'acilities.
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 Commission has weighed the economic; legal, social, technological,
and other benefits of the proposed Project, asset 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 Commission 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 Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the
Statement of Overriding Considerations, recognizing that significant unavoidable impacts
will result from implementation of the Project. Having recommended that the City
Council (i) adopt all feasible mitigation measures, as discussed in the Environmental
Impact Report; (ii) reject alternatives to the Project, as discussed in the Environmental
Impact Report; and (iii) recognize the significant unavoidable impacts of the Project, the
Commission further recommends that the City Council find 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.
49
Exhibit B
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 Moni(oring Program 5-1
PSPtojttls-All Em1)loyc"\D40000A4i336.00 Sommnn Mm Village%cmmshcck PEIRWEIM5.0 MNIRP628, I DAocc Ady2010
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 Yillage Projecl — A4iligation Monitoring Program 5-2
P:Wrojdals-All Gnplgecs1040000+b1336.008onoina Mtn Village\scenic& PEIRWEIR15.0 MMRP 6.28.10.doar JunY2010
C
'o i
❑ o
0
0 o
a
W
b9 G0
6A
bU C C
W
cv
cao
c c
c .vc
G
•E
V to
nc"
c o c
to c—
E o
,0_ 2 0
bA=bi, e
_
o
to eci @ o
G �'�
C E
toU
O'v N
O N N
O
b
O
to
p
o `o
o
`0 0
NC u
6
mo
O"
00 0
4-
6
M
4J a
U U
v v
[J
v o
V V
<+ v
C
o
G
L
`p
E
L
bA
V^- 2
m G.
... a
a0i p0
rt 'p
e
w
Eh on.�o
o's
�o
_.
� v
d
.`dO
as c:ev
E cE
2�av cmv
.Z'
�o
�'
�
'�
ivL�
a
E'er
�
rn•vo c'" m$
m E
d
E�
bA G
'L
o a c_n a
E V
O y _M w
y
N
o o yy
C 'J•
•-y
L
Nm
L'. 'O G N
Pi 2 v' ` v
in
oar" 'fin a 0
cOEO
�•p+.�,
au
Nyv
a
tO
myoa
0-6 F;
••5n>o
Ei•
>$`nr
1'
oFi
o 'v G m o
vu c
c o •o
y E$'-�s2 0�
ooi
e... 'e"D> T
g E°1c
o._. c0
bA
to.Ri5
t� S i
C fEJ O p
y^~i N
'
7m
.L
b
'O
C aj J
e> n N O
u15
C C
N a
V 90 2
c 1 N J U
E' 6 d w
V tUO y a JG O
�'dvov
.O Y
N
3a �p>u�..�c'oa`a
Ey{ .es
2 oar coo
sawoco�E
rA3v
�a"•o^o
O
3a.;a-
m to? o o m- ron 0
m y -0 D o n
�a c u
N a Y
'
a) b
bU9 m
N -<aj
do v'a •��o
O
n�u...O03
_=R Ear
na t7 cv o'o a.�a�.o
v Ong ou.v
av u `v '
Eco❑'E
.2AA�eav
N E V �'..'-. v O FO fJ
N V A � Q�
L R
to
N
ON E`�'OCCJ
N
N .�
.E
EP'UC
c o v v
VUi� tEGGEC'�VNO
N'E
to
d.V+inp
� � 'O
d—�� p a«• h
15`vr
v
0E.v-°��
`•F'a4
°�o.�'�'�'
=k d8 woivV ov
n.E •-roomy
.=°�c
e3i'o
�o cv
y L N ^C'. 'S` C% C
N-0�"N.Eb
U« E C N U .a.. •yp
vuGv
C r Q W' 4 N Q
au
N R j C
.N N
o� U2'011
M
M
M
M
O
O �
s
c 5
b�
c
o
E �
a
c
E
o
w
a
L
y
m o
E
ro� 0. "0 v
�a
�
8oS
roo
KI w
C
N
a
N
'v
E o
�1
CO
0
O U N
N—
V
D_E� �CO.OE
�YQC'ON
o?
C F
o a.'.co_, o= m
s
¢.2
r a t o v iO
c
�i -• v o�
p,2_'
v a m
m
>. E
a. u4 Yi�.y
ooc'N�oF
2-6
A N N L N y C 7 •n,.
U °^ q U
ro> E
o v
'O •� = y
bo � o e
itl es ta
U
23
`°
E
�;,ay
mo=ow�caci
N .Nc•.o�
E
N9 E
°e° E y 'O
O v N N
a
N C .J
O2
'O G "O „' a .. ° U
N 20 N N 6
c o c v
c�
'o"°o`°�.,�$,+n3
a�3d
go3m�i=a�
h•�y Nm.�"
u v nv
en
iv
E
L
d N
m^ 3
°_❑°
a N � w a x o
o _ � c v
C
E
z
EA 9
bD
E c c
O
Q
b0 F G
0.
F
o
o
0
1
w
w
(y
cJ
o
w
~
�x
d
�
e
Gl L
O
E O •�+ E
N L
V O
6 u
A Y
0--9
h
N
�^• '�
• p
Gp
v J
6 3 '«
«_ OA
F E
ip.` �
va G O v
_ v� 'N
7
A' 9 G O'i,
TI C v
C
u
OL
•«'
L
O
.�.0
p
of
R1 :"•v
5
<
m
.rd .a
cE
•fC
E'•,. 6�
N v`Q�
vxpO y^C
.E
U'v;`pG 0.0
Ap_
O O
F
`.i C
C�
�0
O v' O
4�
'_Y C d w
.G'Luv' ✓Vi 'O =�
—0,f3
N 9
O
Y
'v'
U
N .. Z' 6
'd N O •• « O N
y
4
e�
2 uen cc
N N
o" m
E �•
.J �
es.
O
eo
G
O U
6E4
�
O
w
V
C'O'O
Ec E
P 35md
d•"c•_vbo
�vv
��a
C.
U •O CO c •�
C N —
V 't
C O
�
bU �
(p R'O.,
Ln
y
�
f°
m
9� G �
o. o i, a: °,.
% 2 c `u•� �
v
a
c
d
u Q o. G,
r
c?
v
e '..
9
n� �
.,..
yw yc.A
vC�m QO Tvv,
rniv� m+c
_
'•f
E• m
.'E .0
c..
H
'E
c�'c cp
i> N 0.
e^i, •G y G L
V.O Ov
O y Q •p . pC1
Vw'���GO
'O W y �
C43. OUV•O
V
6—.Oti
N e]
NF
N
� � Y Q
o..y� CF
O v
b y um .•/i
.N v
el �
y E
O
C >;'O '3
3 uO
=F=CC
OL OV 6Q0 �'.nV„�@�6._
9 v y
c
cJ�G"OCi
W O .�
UA
C.
O
vO'v GO o'F
vvi
o� �
Amy a,o�toia>a•=t`d
m'o
�uL "�o��
A'a
:i2
o 3c ur �ro
^_ �
� ca'rJ� �, to
� o m a � mVQ•.]2'
�«
4O
•`i
L,F t�0.� �a'� P.
p=
`n
m
F a a E
• • •
• •
• •
Fwd
•
• • •
V
N
N
�7
G
o
Q Q Q
I.
O« M O« O r M
F•'
c m c p A o 'F s
.E
o
6A
° y>'
F
w 6
d
L
N
000 y. ODn
Y
CL
U .O p
W
o u
ro m i, m -dA m = u c
v v c
..�
$a'o^ 23p wNM.
no
o
Q ods
O
i3
19 ou y 8
L+
is Vp' 'Z O q
Y�
•p 'n
� N
�
�,
V
•OA
O
bn v
G '�
.3 '3
[C
`o M
'off
In
V
•O�
sv
M
��n�m� u RS c.c� hC��ih. ri
o�R�u��
O N •O
�.oab ��f�c
a P' p °
" `O Dn y, N V, !S' N O V
O
d n N
.� .L.. 4v_ Vj T
ova
>a.�>T'aEoGu a 02
"">R„
:C
yo`-'•-">,
E>
c moc, m•n•pP ay oCo
o v
bA
v m avi >
0 v ^ vi > n o 0,0-
'em33ro.�°c"E.A
r E v0
o...vo�
o._Eo'�s v Q -w cL4.vma �'a
�y
°'c.°'pn co3dsa
R
a 5a4 -.p
mo"'='�
vaemo� a
v o
p ro
-> e v- o y`� N m m o
'bB tip O
O
N L 4. N
C'pO C.p. 0. « _`U
m R 0 r _n M'€ u A 6a A O
m
u =A r«>
a 4°-,'O
" c 'm " L c n v a v
�z
W n
api O
0
i
p�•L L
p
EN 000. OL N «�'O_L0a OG y NN?r3
O°
A� O L E y W
H vpi w� y C 'JN 'O '0O u rA. •^ y y y� 6 0' 'CO v°i L O i'
N A L �'�apl
440
oro d 3 N A �,E au '�^' d C N �•:t R. N 'O O E
C
C «
y 5
',� N •p
Na)L
Lp6C 7R 40=N�F60"Ni ��.0 N�ONR
M
G
Q
U
A
Q
N
O
N
A
Ou_r0
V pry
.O
O A M
�
G
a p,U
0 0 o ECi
0.
Ep
C
o o
p p
v
y a'dl
c o'an
L' W
C
•O
L U
C75 E�
H.3
.nom
FGA
uo,aE o.
� °N
�
? N S •c3 w
:°
c o y 5 j ' m o s
a'i o ;_v
v u o�
L•Oj E
N
O'N N F N
y
'� G •O '��+ .yr. �° L � 9
N � C q
� � l` O P. C N
g; a➢
'L
'N'«
o0 ooG`ya
'do�c�
o
s�� ._ ..° v°�m�VE�sm
_ycN'�N•9 uo.
�•
yq5o�0m. 'c
v
v'� ..amu vA �u•-v5c
c3o.a
£�$'££3s
C, «�-n' ` "9G''O y N
C>E n7'OLu
'O
•O O..° C'
��.'•!)'O
bz N 7 C 5 L O
a am u0
u�.
v
�0
�2
D
°'en mai>:
Y �
9.i3 '-a
.G_£':.
p�
o..vv-,3 L"a'�?v
75
h _ 0'O itl
vG
•_
o� v•SU
-,
N m O � o t, -^.
'
C
0
O T
[Y v°i 1
O N Q 7E
N d N
y -G
v0 N C'
0➢ O'N `g O pV.
> 1
tri
�yO
o'o�c iqn
.ctcr
nON"
cyCca
w'CUi0>J3
'"VSO
oNj
0d dE p co
UVN�_I
-e
0NPG
-N
ov
sOD
W
vz
'�--2
"
o Z
m0
mv
NWI
wEau
UN:$>'
NFyVaVp
-0
. O
N Q
OU'YQ°m>ro
tN�CO+f
mi_o
nU a
vaovO9
c-ZF 9v=cVoOc1
O
uy
>
.2O
15
_:jNvbNCc^J4:y-PapCpUvc
'oEdy
UN,OO
gN9
Y.�lZ
G mG'N
bpN
v�au tc'��oti�c��3;
ESU y'�Z
•y"n
g'-'•=nn£=Ha
aAm�vCv
R�c—
o,c wr°`4nv.°ac.S Cv rG�
pc
oa-v=w€3
N
r�
G
O
o
Q
5_
o
Rwry
to
_ p'EU
Cnm
F
m c1d
W t
an 1
to
c
o
G
U 6 eD
bA W
_c
y
= o to y
x�
p
M
y
bA C
h
c
4
°+
V
'a$
C A
O O
'O
U 5 O 'T 6
M y O
ayniz «
N
aziw�r 3
C. 7.
'epi
c$ v E
m y =
co 3 c'>
m
G
O c
— U y
.o
�m
H�'C
O(n
" o
ym
�� SoroE>>iy
G
�U X493
'L
rn oto
.p
.E L F
v
,° v
v'o o
nra a p' 3
u.+
o> 3 m c
B O G p m
P rf T'u U_ u R
.-. O_ U
µ• V ,A
O
y> C C 'p U
L
4 0 •j cJ' 2
41.1 ('L'
N CL Z L '3 N
N £l :
�
u .L >,
°'
O 6 V ..� O p
p
n. ,• ` .c .4
Q
$ � y F O � p
� o L,
—
y m aG S •. v `a.
y
t o nb
`V, ^4.
.O V C .� d
dA w
�• h rj. .0
y n`� U u a>']
y
A
O
—^RJ
U
N 0 F
¢Cu
m
Um
OOA y@ V
p n uy'i •R 1
m
O ,"J h
L p O E
CT)yb
..0
—L .�• 6
N
oL [7 G
.� ..
N C 5
.-.O
F.' N n
U'�.-O,
.p y
.U_.
Qf�L'0M'a
'c^.v
mo$v
Cp^
[�. O U
C A Nom.. D O
p '�.' .O c] O L
N N
� � � � CJ u
'.
4N. � O p
V ,0.. .p{ '!
p•.`E y, V 6 (�
ons
ma,
4'e�^u1F pm
v�6C.JCyd O'-J�DO.
9•p
C.m NCO
NNEJC
OOO N'o��L'
�a;�EEo
c. a
Ul0
O'��"E T�fiIT
o,� a
3y.c VM
;Gv c
a•o
F:8
Vv
ocv'u
dou �'p GcG
o•Hc ��
A._ R pAo
• •
,`^� m
0."m.. U b ai ,OO N•
•
.-C. H n o 'E r U U
M
M R
f0
C
L T
V
V
V
C
CU O O
O y^.
O WFp,
b➢
b
._ o.a a
�
op
C
C
C O
N w
4 O �en
y
N'O
d0
N v.
v D
N D
y
p„ a
DoDov yD y
.y o
k. 'o o
�
o
D
i. CO
0 7Y
$:E '
o
d
v
`Woo
,a
'b q
C
'OD G �� W�
es
N C.: 'O of
O fn
O
y
c O
'G
O00
y
O
0 talJ C
O'S
bll 2
Lf'
N Q
E
O W M1'n
O. G O 9 LL
oaev
t H O V E�
`owoa. �so�
ate"❑^� A
�co>.�U
caa
cs�
.OG
O
o d
y Q E C Vw- o G
V a a�
Fi. O C L
0 `o o
u U Q
n
bn
v F
e •� 7 c D y"
y w" u ei
E
D c R
Z o ' E nm
5 m '�
,urv.
0 0
'�' �°p .. E
w �'• m 0 � F' ecn
oc
yr N„
Ems. a�c��oE2
av`�o W.N
Vyo
oa o. y o c u
G E �' F� 7 E
�
F P. 2.L � s �'_^
S
F 4A
.0...
A
Q 7
U
w u
Fi
O a
m b
O O
« m
0vM
O E
O
rj
p U y
V V
L
•� q n 6
EL C.
bb
G
o 0
0
v
0 coy.
s
AE,y
W
a
R
T
O
N•" 9
u C �.n
•L
N
bf
C.
N .0. O' k GL
_F v' O _
P.
o
v v L 6 6] d IJ C N N
ob
E .j O U N 0 ._ •• p y �Q
W
•G
�' d •^amu ✓ yu S G«
•C G Cp t
O
"` O
C OO
>
i O' R� G • v V� G
v
U« X' �'• .S W On N L
£_3$
is EEo
m'r
v cp.
Co
�EF`
'5.oQ
SG`u5o
KA 'F, ov
vov'.A
o
aAa
wcD
u
R Fn
yd$ w o u
0tE =
m, 02 .'5! a m
om>0
.¢
c
yM
'� G N F� .p O U O• C G N �°
O O C .C_'r] L e� Tl .w O h O
v
.F Be.>o'°n c o.n C7e a2 mz> 0
�o ol°vow'� Deno o•..
u'ma9•n �o'M A2'u U•o�Lv, o.�
a o
vv -3 �m dUD 55oao
❑
�^'� ��� w u U
y
aFi C7 GaL L. Lryi .O .'�..-.0 �U Gs.O
da G:-LUa._OmCV
NO
C u o m 0.
O g T
i F 6.9 " 4 N ^; O N tAp
F
p« p
(jA a _C $ .Z C y 2 •00 .� G. ti 6 V
�. n
N 'h O G O •_
N a� C Wi
C
O T u.. i •� N C .O 4y
N '^ 'i. L •f^� N "' a O O h E'
U'.Oj
"O N C
4)o.N�o'o
vpr '>i 0 N N 6 .�
`�ZF a"0i >30 cOp
od o.0. �3aa W�iov0�y
m �
g�
�= o� o aoi a N c v •tOo
� 'pN, •�
2 coi a�pn. .p oy�
UC U°$cF
DueFE
..L
O
00,5ao.G_.~.� m
,•F�
4
O
Q
p
F'
U O_
O tJ p_
E W U O
n o
Wn n
y�PSe. 4
C
O
O
C
G
a 4'
y
v4,
a
y
E
o
0
p
4.
f1
F
Ew
tlA iri
v N c y
i
O V
� o D
a N
p
m J.
p.w
v�'+eui alma
4E
L
Fp
0
ti a N c
>
s d
C
1+
-«
u
syn
ro
�
o
v: o
u G V
'o c
N
.� p a U R D E C
V
Y .a. A E r
O
tp N N p
O"a0 n.G O C 9 N Q Y
co °0-n o'o o Z v
o
ei°p>5Y°^Egos
C o
•• c o
rna o'm �
a
v g62�_
-^
c
O�._'rJ.a..-.
o C g E m o H
—a
«3o
zi`
`
' c e4i a o a' d a y G'
_
n," s v
. 8
v v o E ,t
5.e 13
2
'0
�d5d
C
" .O O T)
V
ei
n 4 m
z v
a
a
o
•-
"
UW
.—,4u
o
—6�o
0 o0.0
p
a�
sp.
a. C:E
r�
o
$ o `c°�c
52
c o
•ic
v'o
`o L'co."'
3
r o.
O yg .amu
FYv�o
obi E
'o oo E"�«�
,�9<
3 0. o m N
.unc v"
"-n o E c•.Ycn cF yi
mo
a
a
GL V C aJ
y� g dN 7 N V C' W
V
C
i E N a N E
43 U
O«•Y CO V1t'Q
L
n Ga—�.•
^,0m Uua«a_o Ec
o
to a� cE2
wc co
O. p 9 O^'
9•au
V CIO E V
a�fquG
V .w�
o
pmO,eni
.o.
�=o aov>��c`
.nu
vo
ri$nm>
E c«o �0a Oo,a
>mfE
zi
c�H•
tP
o
m
>.
�aEW.vu
y
S3.!'2
34...3°.>Aoro._
'✓� m 'vl L 6
a
v
.'f
bb
C
ms
r
o �
a
c
en ani
o w E
v o
bA
c
oo
0
H
H n
0
F
u
Q0.
U
N U
v..
q �
AL'
G�
U
T w yl U'
U
O tp 3 p �-' 'O �' � w ✓Oj
O« i„ �•
N M d
a W -'
r `•• v
F t�
�
,o
v�i
=•°.^•' exi $ c Q C=
(� O
vf c
G •rr w
v q P. 8 .E
., w N aGG 'O iJ ' .d a
> 0 Up y
O V
•
yC+
.o ocmwavEv
.i
om a�n.ce
p6R'OFw
Vey Of -'0._ y
UA p.O .n �Jv 93�N'JzCF3
G
aNiON ny V'j pN
^J O._.ya6 ��.ty O_E�u
wSydNOGm
OyQU rp
OyG G L'O�Oaplj9NE
-Op v-Oi
'' �.
'o a•v mow
cc.r-cv.v
-cv.a�
�o=� .o ub
0uE! Cc Raa
w E � a
vd•^a
s
o'^
0
°-'.o m�'Sv •".
oa ET°o'raw c.-w•�«o=�E
I',' rC L V? H
pL..• C •O
p C V a
y .O Pal
6 h O �� N. 0. d
U U C •S T C V N N` O O
p
o•cE-fie^E °c00 `-•
oAEm 49� mea �iao�L�
V
F as am rao
oo aU' d
Fav E ow._. �o an�
ri
m
0
c q
5
m
c
F
C
s
E w
and
P.
E
2
a�
P.
b
Q
o
O
❑• =
c
bA C
h m R Y.
m m y
-h u.
=_
6
'O
' A -OO U
O,
M N
C
t0 'O 2_
O
(^JN 'O
"'
II�GGt o
Eo„Ruw o m E
w
Ea>;,
0 E
jp
LE C75
NEQ,�
O' $ 0. O A a
9
-'
6 7
C O
4. j A
O .E m '.] w SO• T
c'm c o •n
E O
�... oz
=
E O
y._
c 3
i'o
v•j' �`is •� 'a
m .ARE
�+Xr Ey
o,a'4v�g
_u
3c'
d
F. V
q m y0. 1' 0
'7'
q= Pl
Esc Pio'�c°5
�x ,. o'��
'uZ'ogv Nc'o=
="'0”V
Dn
o •ci°• c o v: 3 0
ypw w c
o> l m 'G' `t4 a c
avi
m'z bu s °'
i E el v
N¢
'-O
y 6 O G R vOi
a E.
O '�'•
i�c R2ha
cm E?,
t6m>L' ^9
$-
p Aro
cv to
R;?
a
..Ac
GD�yv '��o�'p�l��
G O 2
A3E>v
-cp.00 .A o=°��
E<u
�•S �, �
`o
�••O
foo_ -�.J� 05'
p� .,-.�
o•o o
Eno°1'
to
evOip-5°'.0
00>OQ
CV -p
.�CO�OvO.
<o.0 mm
•O•'d'i0
i 6 p 9 rJ 9 n
U'p y 0 0 0
v n C m
Co
�"in 9 6' .E (^ Y i 'pd .E 'C
•
C N -W' v... m N fO
.O-. y 6 vi
bb
^
C
µ.
y
H
O
q
DA
« c
DU p .p^
G 011
L.
ui °pC
o R
12
W
�
a
«
by
a
a
n
L
v 4
vbyv
P
o
44�
R
a
m
a
L V
COU•Y�OmN^sm
1
Nay1
O
OD
'Z; F_
�Rv
.S
�
w
N
c� � c 3 c c r r+.
u
a
m
u •S .p p
✓,
O V m O
R
w Y
v
•'a
.a � A
y Y m — C4
bA C
L'O
m a o c_ E Q c
m
a
N ^Io eo ^N, y m y o ,�• .
oO.I
�mN vJ'm'«N_n�deo .9
3�T SLZua°i
by
'~'
�F�m�ova v nQc
p d3
m=V�
,C
5
I : by Em
uWVNv >
by
0>
O
C .D
oV)
E m:y 4
+='
R
c•'apiomnE vwpva
'o "a 't ro o ro.�-p N'c "a c,n 3
0.0
L
NNma.5Nro.o
s r c c N• o.�� >.0 yyp �.
y.E 4VNviys G.m�+ON
R
c"� y�'bAC— O"'VN
C-._ y O
vN.N>
i°>-a�c_A m39��N
o
Y O's W)o C
`a o3'H
¢' raF—c'-0
n�v_'bc �h9 aTiGovlo «FN,
m
�d p.Y_'N=�"
m bU
av
ciDz$,« E�icy�vpal�`31n
v c
Y
°'^ U
cDb c'�m '4._.y eZ
c
v
m > iy o m 6n b4 o o r
M
V�^ Q ei m o m i 'b s• itl to
co v3eEia
EAo~md=m
bOTL
F
Zt AyO C- OG L C 6 C O
by,
">C
Q N N C'>
«'O E C U y m (r
_« V m _^.. C4 EO.
'_
5 C [�'j M'O
N O w 0 p
°
E= N o y `• C C �!1 ° 6 G
E p
VJ V N G V rr .hj u_ G
_. _
N N^ G.� N G a ✓�+
,p .>'.u7 hL V O�pU G
G °'V -.Y O m V.0 (V EL.. p]
v7i 3 =.
5
O
yIODG
a
W y- 1J m m ro n V i� m L d
E F 6 v CD - R y T
n d
GgQ'ocd �c'T'�.3o N:-•
'o
c' AC0
N�O'uoccy+ a'
,cc
Capu
J U
to Um
by
0
cy�ovaA.2
E3•�0m
•y
O O yG G O
... MV UG=FQ-ca E'C7v
Q n `ac G v vFbK o. N.O h V
ry
M
-
16
M
F
�
a v
y
'o mss,
p
y L
r.
v
e v
F y
O
N
p
g
U e
La
a
SO
5_
p
J
o c
Q II
OD
p
�
G
U
� O
O II
s
.^Gi
fi -
ro
g,3°
^n v
�bo oDti
u E
O U
c c
W a 4
a 3
N�
bb
40
C
O
�
G
6
-
o�
++
N
L
N
L
E
O
h
F.
�a
ro
bAW
e-
m A u
y U
E g
650
•o ^o
L Ci
Q
'O m
v�
o W
N a<1On
,o
e G
W w
F
y «
Y
�_
F
o
U
i^
� >>
`� G q C1
d 3 A a, r
O N ,p y> F q
O
Y p
.. -• i �+
ISO
.O v ,y
2, b O
o'
G 'O u N O oll
N N
�? iE y
�
N
W
3
N
«�-. li p L
yFj .o
N
O
o
N F
c uo
Nm3Q„,c8u
dz tb
E A
0
M
0
h
�t No
O
0ty �r
0 4b.n
�...
o =
v
o•
C.
c a•� =' y YnE
12 o .N .
c y w
v
aci
00
E
9
aioo�a�aaa rop
caroOm
umnaY
tC A uC C vnP'_m
�'�7�a�
E
W
.N+
N F y C m •�. 'C
m N L [d L” O E 9.E
� E't
m p
0o=
O
o
9
_
on'Fo vmL'p:
'gym "c°,
.oa'm GcooEa
N >
-v�m✓H
3
vS�A$a Airv�''ya.d
�•�o
av�� eN
v O
ro.
N 6 v
C •J
z u_
ED �,' C C O �U VJ N
N O E U 0 TJ
Ao
O W 6
'^dwN o:..E
N 4.
.TO
O
> :: '•- o
v c
T W
m vo
o�Na a.
=q°v
+� y9 'ov m ai
u
o N: �Fn
m m
V voi •S O t
�C
F" L O <i 'O 9-5 5 voi vvi i =u
.LL' V
�
a v
y
eo 4
ev
r.
v
e v
a
g
U e
La
a
SO
a c
O
�
o
Q II
h q
�
fi
Ep
s
fi -
ro
g,3°
^n v
�bo oDti
u E
c c
W a 4
a 3
N�
IOIq
40
a
-
o�
++
4
nl
C
S
wV
60
o
G d
G Y
o S8 A
II 4
.. O
> a"ff "il v
CrO C.9 O'
V
O
o
`g Kn
U
6
lL
to
4
0
v�'
n
e
E
rt
w
A
nn
Lw
WD
F e
to M
< . 2 .— ,
c
.=
t� GA �
�.
x
�E
Q
A
Q^
>1
S, u
9
o c s i v ° v
Lo'
d
o
= .= c
m^o"
I`nc
.�
•C
-o
Mca U nOa U—
•O
N via E3
E—y ,0
w
• N
.. y o m c s o
CC
a
p 0. ou a: w � G 'v v y w c ,� �o a o
S c u cs o_
Oa
N °
O
Dv3c
`uGo
°EFin 2oq.0 o`oc'5a
v c¢ s
p Q
w
oG co'
�:o€w g�.c=avGG a. `�°Fa Brio od~
Ciq
az
w U-
oat
L
Gc�t; mE
uu °�2E a��h�_�_E>�s Es m�
hq
�m.E
mE«o
noD�vZ
— n
eov''�YoN'm u"o u�. ,m,
N °
°0i^
E N°A
C
`QF' ^Q O Y 0 4 —O
a4J C C. a 49 —a Is
m>> O� O U V '3 G P. N 6 u i� �• N
Q
O=
k O .O a E A .J" v Q
m C .iy Q� ° ._. �. C Vl O A r O ? O N
3 q
G
O
z, '� -O N v d C
J. 3 A v ` C e N i7 CO m p' A w O
d
'�
N
m ECw oQ wU
EcyvOoa. 6Fd
to ,w�
oc °°cc_c ;,3H Nv¢mo U. �owA n
fir°
by
Lspev�03
�Quci:o Cy..
to
� rn, A -F-5:
S
Rt`Oi
)ayUi�.L�Co>�'yywoo LajO v o
on
UR
cJC¢av"i
Hv svW orn
n�rA'o6F maa vv�v L''Yu o0
_G'.,•Q
o
m�w5
uoo
0$mv$�'F
taso«ym
ou�$p,Q�
e'
N. a rov. 0 °
avv.y'av�Z_oC ca
V N
A 8 X41
r: d
y a d t C E
E9
E b � 0.a N
C
�Q SJ.
O
6v"Oi a N
Ei
O
aGi' i
0
N
map UA CD ..Gd
h
a
�o
r
e`3 O�IQ
o 0
M
M
'z°wy
hd
bn
E
?
W
04
Q
G
O
V E
bA
F
m n
N
p cA
bA
G
H
C
Y
O a
U
V
L
d
E
O
a
L V
V 5
x�
�
as
C
w y
a 0�
bA C
^m o.ro
O' LbU
N vUi W U N� 6� c
L
•C
'H > v a
c
R' «
5
.0
.yp. m—
N 1 '
o.'� o .ice-"L° m n o o ';5
ro
u n
o
«w
m
3�
='may �4o s�
O
y j v w upi d L.•
t
�ab
'v w a � G 'y
b_n
U Cp
y
�
NOO;aV C
CLQ
RV6
FV
�9 p�CWV1?L+
bAb1l
C
0
m
A
y
W A J:�'
o
� E
c E«n
�"p" EvuANc
m
d h
U
E b�.O .p
@9
N 00
N N C
O_
c+'
CGLN'O 'JL
R _3
U N
a C
d P —O 09
pn
O~
�' p N
v
C G A
U g
W
U f^ O iU �U. O• C O
U
i
C
A
ry •E m
v 3
«^ n
w w .� E Y .y c
yD
v>
O
n O O �[J T p c
N ..
y y H td
F G'O Rq
O if
N "`$
N 6
6 C p
4V
F m. I'.' ='r. E 00
•S r
G
Y
Y LO W
3f C
�' O ��
00
n
E c
f E a
ti C
U
�.�
y .R..
A �'� O O
��•c
F.•c'
Q=�
E U N N
caaf=m
CY '% C .0 a N OC,O
CY
5��v�mo�S
C
Ep, � c�Eio
E�
3 �
ao'o
�o:hEn
" o
�F ^'
m �o. "av
-5 ahyE o
rr S.3io"�' Nd
s �n
F: at Q
d
F�5_°��
«tT,A
F.3
N
rn
C
Lo �'
.o a
z
co
C
F
en
c
v
y
�
+�
a
L
E
E �
nn W
o �
L
�
E RI
V
O
A
�
x
G C
N=
O V]
A O
d' 'J m
YO 0 va c C4 m o
y., 44
�
b
°:
0
'°$' a`i U v of <
CeCo
'V
pq
bb
W
'o o.v
gs `-' o 8m 8:40
0
° "0
2
?
i
.
'E C.. O= n
w
F b C
U
v
a o en
U
0 4.b U g s
'c a"
Z
a
m
L• ma. E vmi
2 o
m
e ••
�
.om p g "-
m o w N
v
Q'6
a`f
CO
_
d3 �C VN�esQ
C
m` G
`• O y
( U 1. 0./ t� F O C C
.O
C
'^ w N
W�2
EP= .C.
2.2
CA. my
OAU
�CJ�GO.0
..�>^�JG�VV�
OCO
C
�.011p
c0. y"C'O
C4: iJ
iE
C .O
y ... _ ^L.
U O
O
v
A�
.0
c o
u -C
3 o d g g
o hN3.�o,�x._
1O '°
o c omen v c
U�m m5
p,o
m
nn`c,
aZi
.-3
moo
Nk.59WQL
m
C
i_
O 0.
5
C
E
E=
F
'G
C T
d L
�
s
v d
c
w
�a
L
�
bA
yo. U
L
a
0
d
a�
a
o
o
a m
4
�
o o y
y
o
•ro ro c D."' � ro 4
c; v m
'C �
_ _
4 P
4^
�
v�
T L. .- O .p i U m
N � 6V'�L.. •J 9
v �N g r 0.
c
p
Gv
>
E c'4, u.E"Eo
�Ns�cco4
mo'�As
o
G o
m
oEd
�'o u.6md
o!/�
ma
2'
v�.oa
ml °�
no
Ecenv wK
`c wlm Ea e
�s10
of
5
�ti ga�cE:g°
=mmo•L-^'
o
m
ro(_'o
�vEAWgJ,�
�ooc�
m.��v
5'..0?U
v
�ii.c�o.00
�C'ON 61f
6rC OU 60U6
�y 0.9
U1
y
2 Ei
y
OG
mvi 6 On,
lu'N
E v v
�C.�CG
N
OVm
by
;O V
.C
O)
C
y
.L C •^^,. 0 C
O ro o •E row
'''' -`-' 0 ECJ
3
o?v
Er
�aW „^.-. o-
!] c o 0 o
o
oo.o mg
iOw a 4 o cc o.0
—Z•'ww
•VO
.C��
v
CO�p0. NyyF6
i7 il "'•
HOUNyy
v f I
i,: 0. ^3
v
ro w .Z c m -`o,
��+ u .`�- u m c$
C.•00. C U U a!
aGv
Y
�a�
Soo
�
3
ca3iE
752
3.O omA oo—alo
43 ycm
my 3s a��w
FEmo. C
'� o€ o�v
n3�
• •
f=6'AUm
.E Eym
Ao.y
p
c➢
U
CY
3
Q
Q
N
Q
O u
u E
b➢
F O
m N
E
�
o
y 'aW
6
O
W
4`
tlD
C
o
0
O
y
6
N y
V
U
w
�
�
O
C
O V
U O U q
U u Oq
nA L
o
.� a 4 v
F�
yFj YU
IL
'O
C A
_
bAG
Ec
N
v o
c
p�g
P o
!'. o u c o
w, e k
> a m
% e
cn ei
b y b➢
U
W h
.o
gip, "' w
o^ y
GD A
O AD�Lu
2
y
N
.pvUt U aJ
•O U C
O
O C b_0 .U.
L
N 4
u V
-p �o
v8�
oa
WE
yoN
r�aa
y
�E
H
o4�3a
L`
O'J
�
ov E`�usv
'�
G. N .� 3) G0 6 0 W. V
N b0
L '�
F r 6
0 a �•
n R M 0➢'Fu.
�RP'
F�F WN WSJ
UOpN7
�U.O
O.FW
�, O.0
GG`
.2 E O.`1_
U
W u
N
u0 dl VO .�
N
1]
'O.
0
E
—O U W W
6 U O
'3
F U J
jC
a
�
C
`E N
N
U `
m C .0 a V t0 Y
p .y
�� 6.0
O
�E�
b
eD�
n�con-_FNi
W W
"mc-
o.
�
`m oda
Fc
co3
cFoQ� Ea,
yon�E.6 E'EE
_o� N
v
v��E
=a>aWi
NN$
c
oo
yt
E E� v
v
u
3
M
M
bn
F
o G
N O
Q
Q
q E c
no
•C
c u u Ui �
F
o c
C 4' u1 O
O G U
� O
b0
c
o 0
•_
E
�a
boo
•i au
�.,
b
Q
F
c a
c E o
C
adi
a�
�
•s
��s
C1 •• � _' R y '` a
C
L o 'o
•C
i U V y'o U C O'O.d w y Op9 'U- "• V
L
L ='_'O. WI a
y
C
CN a4 Cl- 0.>I c >oa�.c
�a$�.? 'tj'
`�E
cq u5a m�v� jv� =c
i
a�•ovs
R •�
o
c
�"'
a o
a'i � V 9 9
r N 0. 9� E
c a r�U d >� OSNP•
1
W u q
c> c — E
jf
o.
=
b
y v A aoR. s ro, E«
U o u Qv
C<. dO CaU
•n=y OU
W•y E, E U—RM
C C O O V CL 9`«
,UL6
E 0-6 o m
y
O
d A C u .O 'E A .0. s eUi „ a 4 y '•' yy c
N y
U U C q p'
'aL
�>
S A H= 3
c
o@
uwb 05 �_ jN4>,oQ o2
o 'S ' E � •5 :'-. y 5 o n c. o R—
ca o.EO :o'd
q 9 u an 4 N
0.h C'.. �`
y
O
-ll
2 abi 4
L=
0CO a
ua�m. '50. RP. 0.1.•H'VOC
•� = q O 'O R O
'O
2
jw
hLauO .¢y NaR
sE-0Cao—g,, a5
9EE-43y
,%2=483_ n�
p N •O RJ, F
Si j V G Q R '.".•
O q R a CL O C R O O N E
Q 'a0 —R
,—�
V
��Eo R"3ogp Ya; 2...0 `0 •-3.o c=
oc�aKi c &o0
c3$aa'
uv $ n�'�
c.VSo yf� m 2•"C`ov9 .foo
UWLe•"U c~J9HN4L y«''S'.�N C,7 NO q`•'i.
�'
O LOOS 4«..w
— A•'•
y EN c `fix 4�,V mv�"R-.
.cOU
''_•�`vT:i b Y0.R
v
oo
G oG q
OQ
Nv
3AC3O U FEY' C4 4
F^ 0.cO� L>R :V
d
ri
d
bn
a
y'L'
a
a
•a
B
i
F
L
R
L
•E
•�uu
e.o�
w
�"'s
0.
p
cO
O
O
O
•L
�
Q ..
V
p• O
h
bL
G
C
_
wE
a
b
G
v
°-
a
G
•O
a
•O
n
a
'�
C O C O
L
Z"
L_
'E3 k1
U L
'a c
v,
`•'' a
e
R
a.+
C �, •C '2 d •6
Cn
^
F
G G
v C C U N P 6'->O
�' Y c •" � o R �
'C
Vl
a
d
[^
O N v
o
3 7
.co w a
o
a
u
C80
bG
F
vE c'o
m ^ A
N y
bb
E
o
n•
pp
v
o o g9 N y my .o �'v g or
N
{mom
SN
N
N=cv N
O
.F.
O G ... U •O
.Ni • O '.CNS L � V. N O M O•'O y O V
•N
•C
U�`U N•O•V COCF.
� .�
G$0O 0.
N = ;w O ,{-p .� O.2 O
7
Rw R U
_
`,O
_ V O d>
O G
12
oro:Be�t
o� bo c,{��.
O a .. C �.. f.. C 6
j` p• 6 i6
G,
d G N CRJ
F
¢ tsia
N
M
~
P
ri
N
M
_
o,
N
bb
O
O D.
V
m
GO
q
vv
to
Q b
C
N 4
H S
E.=m
'.�^�
=en
-
E
° to
U
�
II
IUy
w
O
Q
bnc
U
N
i
E q
w A+
eui
o 0
o.0
P.
E
.o
O
o
v
ro .w
bA
G
G V `J N G U N r C N V
v U
i v
0
Q'2
Ey'��Ew,Ro va
oovRoomE
`e �•u aoo Ru $ v E N
aoe
\ U
o oA u�
v°�'
O
bAO
e4
h
'
m
5
• C
A E° v
> a
e R
O
m'^
CJ ^J b G V
O N C
O
Q
r..'U
't• �`. C bll O
o v y A o
L a
-a
orn
�A.o�o.
b
s
.. O'•aO.pF.G Qt' m`
v E
hQ
o
L
nQ
�r35 Ra o�n.muJu 'vme�g
4j
�
O
O
o
\
U
c
m
c 6.
�V
5 o
EU
O
vt
O
Q
O
I
Q
Q
0
0
E
en
=wi
o �s
a
o
m
e
c _
O
O
IDA
E
U
V
y
E R
G O
c
O O
H
�
C
E
o
O
�
�
A
tlA y
O
O g W 0 0 0 y E C O C Q
'� O p 4• O O U E C E'E C
0 A 3
x04�
°a
•{ted
��' SASE E°' �•G�
T
�� ���__ cv =,a3�
QEOJ'
SGbO p.p6��•N FU
CO��^�E09G04 �.n '�U�'N�cWQ
C
y
00 O N
0
bA G
y
.O
cis«
C
2..navvu
C"
o
'-�eai
oOvpcF'�+'c"
'o
GO
o1O�
6 p
O
�G
t�
s •O G'1 H G
O
d
�
x
y�::c 0 go
09.00
>o
ai
O
5��.so,00s
O x t5 bb C c k_
,�j bCU
1 p•y
Aon
Qxy
M
v0.
OO
yA
0. o 00°IN .
n
_
0
aov}c-°'aEw
'�bb
o
$L..
12
6
O.S
fel
rj
(rj
'1 C
bb
"y
Q
L E
GGi
c E
c E
C O
F
a
n
O e
E
bA
Nen
0
v
v
w
5)
U
a
c`
It
O
m
e
V U
h3V
v
s
R
W
a
v
0
E
o
o R
w
�
oaf
)°., U
'"��' i, a> m d� v 9 bj
V 0.0 p � y'.R.. v y �,' O � r7i.-i-p�•q
�cvcc,�ooa cvc °'�E�c
bA�
o'ocwo°c��E
'o
«
OE
a °
bA G
o 0
o h
�csV
w
F o
Cl)
0 5
U n
c
E2Coa"i�
ti�
o�
bn
O �oaR
4
mo c�
A b u
H 5
r
d 0
o g
ed¢
.'
m
ac 3rii -
eiS�
o
b u
o=
«C Tv
W
.o
�a'o=
30o
ao
3
C
eEi
v o v a
� b
r o
e d
b0
0
0
F
C
Z'Ug
Um
_o
3
C q
O
U
V
�
Q
�
4.
k
b➢=E
N
=E
N
F
g9
g
.a
4
0.
O
O
b➢
G
L
V
V
o.q
o
eQ
•o
0
d
P.
R
bD
u�.AGNu�C wL.t <.l O4t
•C
f'
'iO v� O O q c v v_ O O O
.'L-''
v O
M z <J� C 9 c v v_ O Ej
c o u V
o m 'a� o � ^' ^—
O
U V' v i.1 C
= m vF
5 ani E
a s g E
c
R R
b➢ q
a o
s.
a0.
O ^q
O
C O
o U)
A
a
N
C
5
M
<�
'37
v
v
S�
5
0
0
e
c
vepi
E
E
ri
o
F
YR3s
A
>
Q
Q
Q
N
Q
O y
O y
w
0.
?.
0
0
bb
.T.
.'�, q TO o
i?
$3m
9 E
v 0.
4U
0�'/-
u
O
FY
R
H v
•O
�''^_. '� p� �.� c a .• m c L
•5 c v v =a'Sv tea. c.W
b
�p
°
�O C v0. O O O C U C C_
o �oc�m
ebA
Gx c.�'�c�Eo Eoeu
E oG o ai .E ' w
P._m
`o vo c=_E E q. 9vco5
�vv o00=_E c D _°c
9
-
o..EEa
C
Cp
m
bA C
w •°
O
y 6 V� N
y7
t
N d
R C ,. N
IGO
p
0 N
m 5
o m
v• a15
v
O Ji
E.L Ow «-u CZ
C
7
= N C
6 o y.
>�
bA15
5
p $'78 Fog
lel
N
M
rr�
c q c
G
a
z3v
n
o
c a
n
p 000
j
O
0
P
5
W
C•
y G
O G'E C
V ? y
F
o.�
g cSn
0.y
o a
E
0.
° c
O u
'8
°
°�
a+
°
➢r�
_o 2 gHo
N
s.N
ac.�3"�'C�E
a-
y�noo ya. d�AEa
O.
o t v von o c W E v E o m
o
a
P
C
bu c
E o w •°-', v
S2.2
'oo
U 68.5 OII M C T j O
mss+
o-ov°o`o-
2.'033 Syan v um
�CID
ei ES
Wm °' ro n c w •+ v c
'O .. C
O
° o t0
. -6
SG. °�
LN
U y
V
'J 6 C O U T' 6° U
va
12 02
E„
C LU A O. j C W y
y 4. n !O > W° U O
'a^+
O C
U'C .n
yF by LsU. EL COV
Tro•O
J'VO O
v bs. a
H n�
% a,Ei
c c 07
� o. h C ... � v A No
$o °`Eo�'nn
occ A44c unuu o� e'c'-N
0-'3 > e:Er E
o E E.o a,.•'. o.� � `d nen $ � a�
v
V O L^' U v �'
U C C CD O +• 4. C'G tJ "N C O C V F
3 tA. A 'LO U
O 5
6
n� o
U U U y
��z c3,oj>r G.A.,
ci3 Hpc
enifC'w N CE
ri
ri
v q O
bA 7
Q O O
g� ti
c. E
bA m qU
c O w y
�> O
Y N
R.
i+
w
E GC W U
Ctl F.i V y
FL. °� � y 4O�vy ? •�
� = °} •V u 0 � C F Fri
0
•� �O• m O p 0 0 9 d m U E � _W N � G �
o a
� 2 '9 `�d y p •.� c o A� 'v�' a k. C y v h q p a
WE a M
e �2cE v 0Xv
� R 4
ow�a'3 `aao �'v cE�o Ec"Oc uc
g H9 R oao.c a .N ,� `n co G`.o m mG aoroti °£
H i E �
O O G h NO c
a+� m �ocgo y 's=� a IOIq 0.8
o` c o cp$ m o o e3 cry p w o
O V O V V— y v V N u m p m u_ N; U 4 N✓ .�R. 6 0 d 9
m E u V N d M 9 74 'R
>
t- n n roj
c01� o.a
eq =s
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
stiikethrough 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 —;o.. t!:_ ._.._..=.°=' ::__=)!e^^'e^'
y --qui-d-0! r
its. 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:
TAMt - _...._.
_....-- --
"No
Sonoma Mountain Village 1 July 19, 2010
Sonoma Mountain Village 2 July 19, 2010