2010/11/16 Planning Commission ResolutionPLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2010-30
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF
THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SOUTHEST SPECIFIC
PLAN PROJECT LOCATED NORTHEAST OF BODWAY PARKWAY AND VALLEY
HOUSE DRIVE (APN 47-111-030)
IN SONOMA COUNTY, CA
WHEREAS, the applicant, Redwood Equities LLC, filed Planning Application Nos.
PL2003-031 and PL2003-054TSM proposing a Prezone, General Plan Amendment, Specific
Plan, Tentative Map and related applications and certification of a Environmental Impact Report
('BIR") in connection with a proposed mixed-use community located northeast of the
intersection of Bodway Parkway and the existing Canon Manor subdivision (APN 47-111-030)
(the "Project'), in accordance with the City of Rohnert Park Municipal Code ("RPMC"); and
WHEREAS, the City retained PBS&J to prepare an environmental impact report ('BIR")
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") for the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, the City of Rohnert Park, acting as the Lead Agency under CEQA,
published a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of a Draft EIR for the proposed Project on October
29, 2003. The NOP was distributed for a 30 -day comment period beginning on October 29,
2003. The City then initiated work on a Draft EIR for the project (Project); and
WHEREAS, the City completed the Draft EIR on December 14, 2005 and circulated it to
affected public agencies and interested members of the public for the required 45 day public
comment period, from December 14, 2005 to January 27, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Rohnert Park duly noticed and
conducted a public hearing on January 26, 2006 in order to receive comments on the Draft EIR;
and
WHEREAS, the City completed the Recirculated Draft EIR to update three chapters of
the Draft EIR and circulated it for public review on June 24, 2009 for the required minimum of
45 days, from June 24, 2009 through August 7, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Rohnert Park duly noticed and
conducted a public hearing on July 23, 2009 in order to receive comments on the Recirculated
Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, on. October 22, 2010, the City published the Final EIR for the Project,
Exhibit A of this Resolution, by incorporating: 1) the Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR; 2)
comments received about the Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR and responses to those
comments; 3) changes, clarifications and corrections to the Draft EIR and Recirculated 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.
WHEREAS, pursuant to California State Law and the RPMC, public hearing notices
were mailed to all property owners within an area exceeding a three hundred foot radius of the
subject property and a public hearing was published for a minimum of 10 days prior to the first
public hearing in the Community Voice; and
WHEREAS, on November 16, 2010, the Planning Commission held a public hearing at
which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to the
Final 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:
1. 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 FIR 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.
6. The Final EIR identifies potentially significant effects on the environment that
could result if the project were adopted without changes or alterations in the
project and imposition of mitigation measures. Based thereon, the Commission
further finds that:
(a) Changes, alterations, and mitigation measures have been incorporated
into, or imposed as conditions of approval on, the project.
(b) These changes, alterations, and mitigation measures will avoid the
significant environment effects identified in the Final EIR or lessen their
impact below the threshold of significance.
(c) These changes, alterations, and mitigation measures are fully enforceable
because they have either resulted in an actual change to the project as
proposed or they have been imposed as conditions of approval on the
project.
(d) The City has prepared a Mitigation Monitoring Program to track
compliance with these changes, alterations, and mitigation measures.
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 periods on the Draft EIR and the Recirculated
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 the Recirculated 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 B (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 CEQA Findings and 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 16th day of November, 2010 by the
City of Rohnert Park Planning Commission by the following vote:
AYES:5 NOES:6 ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
AHANOTU / ARMSTRONG I/ BORBA ✓ NILSON �NORDIN
Jolt BorbaThairperson, Rohnert Park Planning Commission
Attest: V
Susan kevedo, Recor ng Secretary
CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
RELATED TO THE CERTIFICATION OF THE
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
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 by this City Council in all respects and are fully and completely supported by
substantial evidence in the record as a whole.
Although the findings below identify specific sections within the Draft and Final EIRs in
support of various conclusions reached below, the City Council incorporates by reference and
adopts as its own, the reasoning and analysis set forth in both the Draft and Final EIR and thus
relies on that reasoning, even where not specifically mentioned or cited below, in reaching the
conclusions set forth below, except where additional evidence is specifically mentioned. This is
especially true with respect to the Council's approval of all mitigation measures recommended in
the Final EIR, and the reasoning set forth in responses to comments in the Final EIR. The City
Council further intends that if these findings fail to cross-reference or incorporate by reference
any other part of these findings, any finding required or permitted to be made by this City
Council with respect to any particular subject matter of the Project must be deemed made if it
appears in any portion of these findings or findings elsewhere in the record. The Final EIR,
comments and responses to comments and all appendices are hereby fully incorporated herein by
this reference.
I. INTRODUCTION
These are the CEQA findings prepared by the City of Rohnert Park ("City") as lead
agency for the Southeast Specific Plan project ("Project"). These findings pertain to the Project
and the Environmental Impact Report prepared for that Project, designated as State
Clearinghouse No. 2003112011. The Draft EIR, the Final EIR, and all the appendices comprise
the `BIR referenced in these findings.
These CEQA findings are attached as Attachment A and are incorporated by reference
into the resolution certifying the EIR. That resolution also incorporates an Attachment 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
Section 4.
II. THE PROJECT
The Southeast Specific Plan (SESP) proposes a mixed-use community on approximately
80 acres adjacent to the southeast City limits and within the City's Urban Growth Boundary.
The 80 acres proposed for development under the SESP lies southeast of the intersection of
Bodway Parkway and the existing Canon Manor subdivision. The site is made up of two parcels,
APN 047-111-030 consisting of 79.7 acres and APN 047-111-051 consisting of 0.1 acres located
along Valley'House Drive between Bodway Parkway and Petaluma Hill Road. Currently, the
site is lion -urbanized and under annual cultivation for hay crops. There is an existing dwelling
and associated outbuildings located at the northeast corner of the site with access from Petaluma
Hill Road. The existing dwelling will remain and be parcelized with access from Woodbridge
Drive. Outbuildings will be removed from the site. A well and septic system currently serving
the dwelling will be abandoned in favor of City services. There are no other improvements to the
site with most of the remainder in agricultural operations.
The proposed project would provide for development of up to 475 residential units,
10,000 square feet of commercial space, a 7.9 -acre park/detention basin site and a 0.3 -acre public
facility site. The commercial space would be constructed in a mixed-use parcel that also
includes townhomes and apartments. The project proposes development standards and design
guidelines to govern all development within the Specific Plan area. The Applicant is seeking
approval of the Specific Plan, including a Final Development Plan and Development Area Plan,
as well as General Plan Amendments to reflect the Specific Plan.
The Specific Plan process involves a two step process. The Applicant has submitted a
Preliminary Plan for consideration by the public, the Planning Commission and the City Council.
Upon approval of the Preliminary Plan through a public hearing process, the Applicant has
prepared a Specific Plan including Design Guidelines, a Final Development Plan and
Development Area Plan, General Plan Amendments to reflect the Specific Plan and a
Development Agreement. The Applicant has additionally submitted an application for Pre -
Zoning and Annexation of the property to the City of Rohnert Park. The proposed Plan and its
accompanying documents are forwarded to Planning Commission for review and
recommendation. The recommendations of the Planning Commission are forwarded to City
Council for action.
The proposed Final Development Plan includes a grid circulation system intended to
provide multiple connections that distribute vehicle traffic evenly throughout the neighborhood
and allow for convenient and efficient bicycle and pedestrian circulation.
The South East Specific Plan includes procedures and other requirements for a
Development Area Plan (DAP) for development within the specific plan are of approximately
eighty acres. The DAP shall describe the preliminary floor plans, landscaping plans and typical
elevations including conceptual materials and appearance of the structures. The applicant has
proposed a DAP for the entire project site rather than a phased submittal for Panning
Commission consideration.
The project application includes a request for a General Plan amendment, which is
included in Appendix E of the Final EIR. The current land use designations on the project site in
the Rohnert Park General Plan are Rural Estate Residential, Low Density Residential, Medium
Density Residential, and Mixed Use. The project proposes to amend the configuration of the
existing General Plan designations on the site and to add Public/Institutional and
Parks/Recreation designations. If approved, this amendment would amend the Rohnert Park
General Plan Diagram to accurately reflect the configuration of land uses included in the Final
Development Plan.
The Southeast Area is located outside of the existing City limit and is not currently
included in the City of Rohnert Park Zoning Map. The entire Southeast Area is proposed to be
zoned Specific Plan (SP). Uses and development standards for the area would be determined by
the proposed Southeast Specific Plan.
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:
• To incorporate specific lands within the southeast portion of the City's sphere of
influence and its Urban Growth Boundary in order to provide opportunities for
housing and mixed use (housing with commercial development)
• To provide a sustainable project that complies with the City's "green building"
policies
• To integrate a variety of housing types in accordance with City policy for the SESP
area
• To coordinate the adoption of the Specific Plan in a manner that provides for the
systematic implementation of the General Plan as is consistent with the growth
management and public facilities goals and policies of the General Plan
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 October 29, 2003. At
the November 13, 2003 Planning Commission meeting, the City's Planning Department
conducted an EIR agency/public scoping session to allow interested parties to provide comments
on the project with regard to potential environmental issues that should be considered in the EIR.
The Draft EIR was prepared and circulated for a 45 -day public review period beginning
December 14, 2005, and ending January 27, 2006. A Public Comment Session was held oil
January 26, 2006 to allow interested individuals to present their comments on the Draft EIR in a
public forum. In addition to the comments that were received at the January 26 meeting, the
City also received comment letters from interested individuals, businesses and agencies.
The Recirculated Draft EIR was prepared to provide additional analysis and updated
information where it was found that the original circulated EIR did not identify and analyze all
potential environmental impacts under worst case scenario conditions. The Recirculated Draft
EIR was completed and circulated for public review on June 24, 2009 for the required minimum
of 45 -days. The review and comment period extended through August 7, 2009. A Public
Comment Session held on July 23, 2009 to allow interested individuals to present their
comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR in a public forum. No oral comments were provided.
The City prepared responses to all comments received on the Draft EIR and Recirculated
Draft EIR during the public review, which in some cases required revisions to the Draft EIR and
Recirculated Draft EIR. The responses to comments, changes to the Draft EIR and Recirculated
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 EIR is not "significant" unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public
of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the
project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the project proponent declines to
implement. The Guidelines provide examples of significant new information under this
standard. Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely
clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR. Though changes
have been made to the Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR, the Final EIR does not contain
significant new information as defined in the Guidelines and additional 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 EIR and all documents referenced in or relied upon by the EIR.
b. All information (including written evidence and testimony) provided by City staff
to the Planning Commission and the City Council relating to the EIR, the proposed approvals
and entitlements, the Project or its alternatives.
C. All information (including written evidence and testimony) presented to the
Planning Commission and the City Council by the environmental consultant and .subconsultants
who prepared the EIR, or incorporated into reports presented to the Commission and the Council.
d. All information (including written evidence and testimony) presented to the City
from other public agencies relating to the 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 EIR.
g. For documentary and information purposes, all locally -adopted land use plans and
ordinances, including, without limitation, general plans, specific plans and ordinances, together
with environmental review documents, findings, mitigation monitoring and reporting programs
and other documentation relevant to regulation and management of land use in the area.
h. The MMRP for the Project.
i. 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 Council's decision is based are located at the City of
Rohnert Park, City Clerk, 130 Avram Avenue, Rohnert Park, CA 94928. The custodian of
records is the City Clerk.
These findings are based upon substantial evidence in the entire record before the
Council. The references to certain pages or sections of the EIR set forth in these findings are for
ease of reference only and are not intended to provide an exhaustive list of the evidence relied
upon for these findings.
V. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that "public agencies should not approve
projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available
which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" The
same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies
in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible
alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such
significant effects." Section 21002 goes on to state that "in the event [that] specific economic,
social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures,
individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof."
The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code section 21002 are
implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before
approving projects for which EIRs are required. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (a);
CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a).) For each significant environmental effect identified in an
EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or
more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that "[c]hanges or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091,
subd. (a)(1).) The second permissible finding is that "[s]uch changes or alterations are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding.
Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such
other agency." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(2).) The third potential conclusion is that
"[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the final EIR." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(3).)
Public Resources Code section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account
economic, environmental, social and technological factors." CEQA Guidelines section 15364
adds another factor: "legal" considerations. (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of
Supervisors (1990) 52 Ca1.3d 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." (Ibid.; see also Sequoyah
Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.AppAth 704, 715.)
The CEQA Guidelines do not define the difference between "avoiding" a significant
environmental effect and merely "substantially lessening" such an effect. The City must
therefore glean the meaning of these terms from the other contexts in which the terms are used.
Public Resources Code section 21081, on which CEQA Guidelines section 15091 is based, uses
the term "mitigate" rather than "substantially lessen." The CEQA Guidelines therefore equate
"mitigating" with "substantially lessening." Such an understanding of the statutory term is
consistent with the policies underlying CEQA, which include the policy that "public agencies
should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation
measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of
such Projects." (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002.)
For purposes of these findings, the term "avoid" refers to the effectiveness of one or more
mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less -than -significant level. In
contrast, the term "substantially lessen" refers to the effectiveness of such measure or measures
to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce that effect to a less -
than -significant level. These interpretations appear to be mandated by the holding in Laurel
Hills Homeowners Association v. Planning Commission (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 519-521, in
which the Court of Appeal held that an agency had satisfied its obligation to substantially lessen
or avoid significant effects by adopting numerous mitigation measures, not all of which rendered
the significant impacts in question less than significant.
Although CEQA Guidelines section 15091 requires only that approving agencies specify
that a particular significant effect is "avoid[ed] or substantially lessen[ed]," these findings, for
purposes of clarity, in each case will specify whether the effect in question has been reduced to a
less -than -significant level, or has simply been substantially lessened but remains significant.
Moreover, although section 15091, read literally, does not require findings to address
environmental effects that an EIR identifies as merely "potentially significant," these findings
will nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the Final EIR.
CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where
feasible; to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise
occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are
infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the Project lies with some other agency.
(CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a), (b).)
With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially
lessened, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if
the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons
why the agency found that the project's "benefits" rendered "acceptable" its "unavoidable
adverse environmental effects." (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15093, 15043, subd. (b); see also Pub.
Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (b).) The California Supreme Court has stated, "[t]he wisdom
of approving ... any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests,
is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are
responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those
decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Goleta 77, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 576.)
These findings constitute the City Council members' best efforts to set forth the
evidentiary and policy bases for its decision 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 City hereby binds itself to implement these measures. These
findings, in other words, are not merely informational, but rather constitute a binding set of
obligations that will come into effect when the Council adopts a resolution approving the Project.
VI. CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR
In accordance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City Guidelines, the Council,
as lead agency, certifies that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA
Guidelines and the City Guidelines. The Council further certifies that it has reviewed and
considered the information in the EIR prior to approving any element of or entitlement for the
Project. Similarly, the Council finds that it has reviewed the record and the EIR prior to
approving any element of or entitlement for the Project. By making these findings, the Council
confines, ratifies and adopts the findings and conclusions of the EIR, as supplemented and
modified by the findings contained herein. The EIR and these findings represent the independent
judgment and analysis of the City and the Council
The Council certifies that the EIR is adequate to support the approval of the Project. The
EIR is adequate for each entitlement or approval required for adoption of the Specific Plan and
annexation of the Specific Plan area to the City of Rohnert Park.
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
Council finds that the MMRP included in Attachment B meets these requirements and hereby
adopts the MMRP.
The mitigation measures recommended by the EIR and incorporated into the Project are
specific and enforceable. As appropriate, some mitigation measures define performance
standards to ensure no significant environmental impacts occur. The MMRP adequately
describes conditions, implementation, verification, a compliance schedule and reporting
requirements to ensure the Project complies with the adopted mitigation measures. The MMRP
ensures that the mitigation measures are in place, as appropriate, throughout the life of the
Project. The mitigation measures described in Attachment B are incorporated into these findings
as conditions of each of the approvals required for the Project.
The mitigation measures set forth in Attachment B reflect the mitigation measures set
forth in the EIR. The City may have modified the language of some of the mitigation measures
and corresponding conditions for purposes of clarification and consistency, to enhance
enforceability, to defer more to the expertise of other agencies with jurisdiction over the affected
resources, to summarize or strengthen their provisions, and/or to make the mitigation measures
more precise and effective, but has made no substantive changes to the mitigation measures. The
City will use the MMRP to track compliance with Project mitigation measures. The MMRP will
remain available for public review during the compliance period.
VIII. FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS
In accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15091 and 15092, the Council adopts the findings and conclusions regarding impacts
and mitigation measures that are set forth in the EIR. These findings do not repeat the full
discussions of environmental impacts contained in the EIR. The Council ratifies, adopts and
incorporates the analysis, explanation, findings, responses to comments and conclusions of the
EIR. The Council adopts the reasoning of the EIR, of City staff reports, and of City staff and the
presentations provided by the Project Sponsor.
The Council has, by its review of the evidence and analysis presented in the EIR and in
the record, acquired an understanding of the full scope of the environmental issues presented by
the Project. In turn, this understanding has enabled the Council to make fully informed,
thoroughly considered decisions on these important issues. These findings are based on a full
appraisal of the EIR and the record, as well as other relevant information in the record of
proceedings for the Project.
Under Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section
15091(a)(2) and 15092(b)(2)(A), the Council recognizes that some mitigation measures require
action by, or cooperation from, other agencies. Similarly, mitigation measures requiring the
Project Sponsor to contribute towards improvements planned .by other agencies will require the
relevant agencies to receive the funds and spend them appropriately. The Council also
recognizes that some impacts can only be mitigated by actions taken by other agencies to build
the relevant improvements, which will require action by these other agencies that are not
enforceable by the City of Rohnert Park. For each mitigation measure that requires the
cooperation or action of another agency, the Council finds that adoption and/or implementation
of each of those mitigation measures is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency, and that the measures can and should be adopted and/or implemented by that
other agency.
The Council finds that, except as provided in Section XI below, following
implementation of mitigation measures identified in the EIR and Attachment B, all of the Project
impacts evaluated by the EIR will be less than significant as determined by the Draft FIR and
Recirculated Draft EIR.
IX. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS NOT FOUND TO BE SIGNIFICANT AND NOT
ADDRESSED IN DETAIL IN THE EIR
During preparation of the EIR, the issue areas of hazardous materials, cultural resources
and population / housing 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.
Hazardous Materials and Cultural Resources
In a 2001 Phase I Site Assessment by Harris & Lee Environmental Sciences, it was
indicated that a record review and site investigations revealed no Environmental Conditions
(contaminants) respecting the site, nor did any other site present a likely impact to the proposed
project site. However project generating hazardous materials handling and disposal is addressed
in Section 3.11 of the Draft EIR, Utilities. In addition, in a 2002 cultural resources evaluation of
the project site by Archaeological Resource Service, it was noted that the results of a literature
search and surface examination showed that archaeological monitoring of future proposed
excavations was not warranted (cultural resources is further discussed in Section 3.6 of the Draft
EIR, Land Use).
Popuiation/Housing
The City of Rohnert Park General Plan designates the project site under four different
residential land use classifications. Under these designations, the project would accommodate a
maximum of 510 residential units. The proposed project includes 475 units. The population that
would be supported at the project site is consistent with the General Plan projections and the
General Plan EIR analysis of population and housing.
X. IMPACTS EVALUATED IN THE EIR AND DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
The City Council agrees with the characterization in the Final EIR with respect to all
Impacts initially identified as "significant" or "potentially significant' that would be less than
significant with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. In
accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15091(a), a specific finding is made for each impact and its
associated mitigation measures in the discussions below. Impact Criteria, as included in the EIR,
are included below to provide context for each Impact identified. The below findings include
some impacts that were identified in the EIR as "less than significant' for which mitigation
measures were nonetheless provided to further ensure the "less than significant' status of the
impact or further reduce the already "less than significant' impact. The Council again ratifies,
adopts and incorporates the full analysis, explanation, findings, responses to comments and
conclusions of the EIR.
Aesthetic Impacts
Impact Criterion #2
Visual Character and Appearances: Would the project substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
Impact 3.1-2
Project construction would require site grading, construction materials stockpiling and
storage, and the use of construction equipment which would appear out of character with the
setting. This construction impact would be localized and short-term, lasting intermittently
during the actual phased periods of construction at specific locations within the project site
construction areas during each phase of project construction.
Significance Before Mitigation: 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 Petaluma Hill Road 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 3.1-3
No significant adverse lighting impact has been identified for the Southeast Specific
Plan project. However, Mitigation Measure 3.1-3 is provided to avoid the potential for an
adverse lighting effect.
Significance Before Mitigation: Less than Significant
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant
Explanation: The EIR determined that Impact 3.1-3 would be less than significant
before mitigation. However, the EIR proposed Mitigation Measure 3.1-3 to help further
reduce the already less -than -significant impact. Mitigation. Measure 3.1-3 includes
control of night lighting to avoid glare and point sources of light interfering with the
vision of on- and off-site residents and motorists on local roadways. New lighting levels
provided should be compatible with general illumination levels in existing areas.
Finding: Impact 3.1-3 would be less than significant before mitigation. Implementation
of Mitigation Measure 3.1-3 identified in the EIR and listed in the MMRP will further
reduce the already less -than -significant impact.
Air Quality Impacts
Other than the construction period impact described below, the EIR identified no significant
adverse project impacts with respect to air quality.
Impact Criterion #2
Construction Period Emissions: Would the project violate any air quality standards?
Impact 3.2-1
Construction activities associated with development of the Southeast Specific Plan project
could generate substantial dust emissions. This would be a significant impact under Impact
Criterion #2 regarding the substantial contribution to an existing or projected air quality
violation.
Significance Before Mitigation: Significant
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant
Explanation: Mitigation Measure 3.2-1(a) and (b) require measures to reduce generation
of dust emissions during construction activities, including measures developed by the
BAAQMD and designation of a dust control coordinator to ensure implementation of
measures and provide a public point of contact. Mitigation Measure 3.2-1(c) requires
implementation of measures to reduce emissions from heavy-duty diesel -powered
equipment operating at the project site during project excavation and construction phases.
Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 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
Land Use Impacts
Impact Criterion #1
Plan Consistency: Would the project conflict with applicable land use plans or policies?
Impact 3.6-1
Cultural Resources: No adverse impacts have been determined regarding cultural resources
under existing plans and policies. However, Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 is provided to ensure
the protection of any archaeological resources that may be discovered during grading and
excavation of the project site in accordance with General Plan Policy EC -3.
Significance Before Mitigation: Less than Significant
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant
Explanation: The EIR determined that Impact 3.6-1 would be less than significant
before mitigation. However, the EIR proposed Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 to ensure the
impact would remain less than significant if any archaeological resources are uncovered
onsite. Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 includes measures to protect any archeological
resources discovered during project construction activities.
Finding: Impact 3.6-1 would be less than significant before mitigation. Implementation
of Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 identified in the EIR and listed in the MMRP will further
reduce the already less -than -significant impact.
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 3.7-1
Future residents of the Southeast Specific Plan site could be exposed to exterior traffic levels
that exceed City standards. 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 outdoor activity areas and the
residences beyond to be setback a minimum of 199 feet from the centerline of Petaluma
Hill Road, 73 feet from the centerline of Valley House Drive east of Bodway Parkway
extending to the site entry on Valley House Drive, 63 feet from the centerline of Valley
House Drive west of Petaluma Hill Road extending to the site entry on Valley House
Drive, and 64 feet from the centerline of Bodway Parkway. The EIR determined that
Mitigation Measure 3.7-1 would reduce the noise impact to a less -than -significant level.
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
for future residents of the Southeast Specific Plan site.
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 3.7-2
Construction activities associated with the Southeast Specific Plan project could generate
substantial temporary or periodic increases in noise levels potentially annoying residents. This
would be a significant impact.
Significance Before Mitigation: Significant
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant
Explanation: Mitigation Measure 3.7-2 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 3.7-2 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.
Public Services Impacts
The EIR determined that the proposed Southeast Specific Plan project alone would result in no
significant adverse public services impacts, but that coupled with cumulative development, the
project would contribute to significant impacts.
Impact Criteria #2 and 44
Recreation: Would the project coupled with cumulative growth require new or physically
altered recreational facilities resulting in substantial adverse environmental impacts or result
in substantially accelerated physical deterioration?
Impact 3.8-1
The Southeast Area Plan project, coupled with cumulative development, would be expected to
increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated
This would be a significant impact.
Significance Before Mitigation: Significant
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant
Explanation: Mitigation Measure 3.8-1 stipulates that the City would be responsible for
implementing General Plan Open Space Element goals and policies regarding the
maintenance and management of parks and related facilities. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure 3.8-1 would ensure the project's contribution to cumulative impacts
related to recreation would be less than significant.
Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.8-1 identified in the EIR and listed in
the MMRP will ensure that Impact 3.8-1 would be reduced to a less -than -significant
level.
Relationship to Plans and Planning Policy Impacts
Section 3.9 of the EIR provides and evaluation of the Southeast Specific Plan 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.
Traffic and Circulation Impacts
Impact Criterion #2
Hazards: Would the project create safety hazards?
Impact 3.10-2
An increased demand for transit services resulting from project development would increase
bus dwell times at adjacent bus stops and potentially block traffic along Petaluma Hill Road,
increasing hazards to vehicles and pedestrians. Safety hazards would compound through the
current lack of curbs and gutters along Petaluma Hill Road adjacent to the bus stops nearest
the project which presents difficulties for patrons barding and alighting buses
Significance Before Mitigation: Significant
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant
Explanation: Mitigation Measure 3.10-2 requires the construction of bus pullouts with
appropriate curbs and gutters along Petaluma Hill Road or near the project site as well as
adequate pedestrian access paths/sidewalks to the bus stops from the project site.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.10-2 would ensure the project's impacts related
to safety hazards would be less than significant.
Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.10-2 identified in the EIR and listed in
the MMRP would ensure that Impact 3.10-2 would be reduced to a less -than -significant
level.
XI. SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Under Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3) and (b), and CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15091(a)(3), 15092(b)(2)(B) and 15093, the Council determines that the remaining
significant and unavoidable adverse effects on the environment identified by the EIR are
acceptable due to the overriding considerations described in Section XIV below. The significant
and unavoidable adverse impacts remaining after mitigation of the Project are as follows:
Aesthetic Impacts
Impact Criterion # 2
Views and Appearances: Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
Impact 3.1-1
The proposed project would allow new urban development to replace the undeveloped
landscape that currently occupies the project area. Project buildout would result in the
conversion of an open field subject to annual harvesting, to urban development. This change
in visual appearance to the Specific Plan project area would be highly visible to passers-by
who travel along any of the abutting roads, and to those residents whose homes currently
maintain viewlines to the project area open space, and would constitute a degradation of the
existing visual character of the site and its surroundings.
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 impact of the proposed project to the
change in the visual appearance to the Specific Plan project area. Notwithstanding the
project's compliance with the Sonoma County General Plan and Southeast Specific Plan,
and its consistency with existing City of Rohnert Park development patterns, the
proposed project would allow new urban development to replace the undeveloped
landscape that currently occupies the project area.
Cumulative Impacts to Visual Character
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 substantially change the existing visual
character of the region — a significant and adverse impact (Impact 3.1-1). 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 Southeast Specific Plan project would contribute to
significant and unavoidable adverse aesthetic impacts on the visual character of the
project site under Impact Criterion 42.
Land Use Impacts
Impact Criterion #1
Land Use Plans or Policies: Would the project conflict with applicable land use plans or
policies?
Impact 3.6-2
Buildout of the Southeast Specific Plan project site would result in the loss of approximately
80 acres of land designated as Farmlands of Local Importance by the State Department of
Conservation and Sonoma County Board of Supervisors. This would be a significant and
unavoidable land use impact with respect to Sonoma County land use policies.
Significance Before Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable
Significant After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable
Explanation: No mitigation is available for the Loss of Farmlands of Local Importance.
The Loss of Farmlands of Local Importance would remain significant and unavoidable
under Impact Criterion # 1 regarding conflicting with County land use plans or policies.
Cumulative Impacts to Land Use
Significance Before Mitigation: Significant
Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable
Explanation: To the extent other specific plan proposals or other development would
require the conversion of agriculturally suitable land or land that is under agricultural use,
the project's impact to the loss of Farmland of Local Importance would be significant and
unavoidable in a cumulative context.
Relationship to Plans and Planning Policy Impacts
Section 3.9 of the EIR provides and evaluation of the Southeast Specific Plan 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.
Traffic and Circulation Impacts .
Impact Criterion #1
Traffic Volumes and Level of Service (LOS): Would the project cause an increase in traffic
that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system?
Impact 3.10-1
Traffic increases resulting from the Southeast Specific Plan project, coupled with the
currently approved projects, would result in intersection levels of service at or worse than the
applicable level ofservice threshold at the intersections of Adobe Road & Petaluma Hill Road
(Sonoma County), East Cotati Avenue & Old Redwood Highway (Cotati), East Cotati Avenue
& LaSalle Avenue (Cotati), Railroad Avenue & Petaluma Hill Road (Sonoma County), and
Railroad Avenue & Old Redwood Highway (Sonoma County). This would be a significant
impact.
Significance Before Mitigation: Significant
Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable
Explanation: Mitigation Measure 3.10-1 provides potential mitigation strategies that
could reduce Impact 3.10-1 to a less -than -significant level. However, because the
affected intersections are outside of the jurisdiction of the City of Rohnert Park,
enforcement of these mitigation measures is uncertain and relies on the City's ability to
negotiate and reach agreement with the jurisdictions within which these mitigation
measures would be implemented. Because of the uncertainty of successful
implementation of this Mitigation Measure, this EIR must presume that this Mitigation
Measure may not be implemented or may be incompletely implemented. Therefore, the
traffic and circulation impacts under Impact Criterion 41 are recognized as remaining
significant and unavoidable.
Traffic and Circulation Cumulative Impacts
A number of local intersections and US 101 would be impacted.
Significance Before Mitigation: Significant
Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable
Explanation: Under Cumulative plus Project conditions, (Impacts 3.10-3 and 3.10-4), 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 impacts to
four local intersections. Under cumulative development conditions, as noted under
Impact 3.10-4, the addition of project traffic would cause the U.S. 101 freeway segments
north of Rohnert Park Expressway and the segment south of the Old Redwood Highway-
Penngrove Interchange 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. Impact 3.10-3 is 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 3.10-4 would remain
significant and unavoidable since construction of major capacity enhancements to U.S.
101 is considered unlikely.
Global Climate Change Impacts
Impact Criterion #1
Climate Change: Would the project substantially conflict with or obstruct the implementation
of GHG emissions reduction goals under AB 32, the Sonoma County CLAP, or other State
and City regulations?
Impact 3.10-1
The proposed Southeast Specific Plan would increase population, employment, and
development in the Spec fc Plan area. This increase would result in a corresponding increase
in greenhouse gas emissions, which could potentially contribute to a cumulatively
considerable adverse impact on climate change.
Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant
Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable
Explanation: Mitigation Measure 3.12-1 is proposed to promote additional energy
efficiency to off-site improvements (traffic lights) and access to public transportation.
However, because there would still be an increase in greenhouse gas emissions as a result
of the proposed project, and no quantitative thresholds have been established to
determine what level of increase is considered significant, the proposed project's impacts
are conservatively assumed to be significant and unavoidable.
XII. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
Reasonable Range of Project Alternatives
CEQA Guidelines §15126(a) require that an EIR describe a reasonable range of
alternatives that would obtain most of the basic project objectives but would avoid or
substantially lessen any of the significant environmental affects of the project and that the EIR
evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Case law indicates that the lead agency has
the discretion to determine how many alternatives constitute a reasonable range (Citizens of
Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990), 52 C.3d 553, 566); and that an EIR need not
present alternatives that are incompatible with fundamental project objectives (Save San
Francisco Bay Association vs. San Francisco Bay Conservation & Development Commission
(1992), 10 Cal.App.4th 908). CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(f) states that the range of alternatives
required in an EIR is governed by a `Yule 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(f)(1) provides that among the
factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are "site
suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans
or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably
acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site."
Alternatives Evaluated
Based upon guidance contained in the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft EIR considered three
alternatives to the proposed project: No Project Alternative, Alternative Project Site, and
Reduced Density Project.
No Project Alternative
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 makers to compare the
impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not
approving the proposed project.
Under the No Project Alternative, there would be no site annexation and there would be
no Southeast Specific Plan development project as currently proposed within the annexation
area. Therefore, current use all or part of the site for hay production would be expected to
continue into the future for an unspecified period of time. Excluding the unavoidable and
significant cumulative traffic impacts for specified intersections, the No Project alternative
would avoid the environmental impacts associated with implementing the Southeast Specific
Plan as proposed, leaving open the possibility of site development under current county zoning.
Finding: The City Council finds that this alternative is infeasible in that it would not
meet the project sponsor's objectives to annex the project site into the City and develop a
range of housing types in a sustainable project. The project site would generally continue
to be under-utilized given its location within the City's Urban Growth Boundary,
available access, and the potential availability of public services and utilities.
Explanation: No residential or mixed use development would occur onsite. This
alternative would not offer opportunities to integrate the project site with other
development within the City, provide additional housing opportunities, and facilitate
mixed use development
Alternative Project Site
The EIR considered other areas in Rohnert Park where the project conceivably could be
located. Trak impacts (both project -specific and cumulative), visual impacts (both project -
specific and cumulative), and the loss of 80 acres of agriculturally suitable farmland are
identified as significant and unavoidable impacts for the project. The EIR concluded that should
an alternative location be determined possible for the project, future traffic growth would still be
expected to result in US 101 level of service impacts and intersection levels of service at or
worse than the applicable level. of service thresholds for various intersections within and outside
the City Limits. In addition, the EIR concluded that locating the project within another currently
proposed Specific Plan area or adjacent lands would not eliminate the farmland impact as
identified for the proposed Southeast Specific Plan. Lastly, the EIR found there is no substantial
evidence to conclude that this alternative would avoid or substantially lessen the unavoidable
visual or traffic and circulation effects resulting from cumulative development.
Finding: The City Council finds that this alternative is infeasible in that it would provide
no significant advantage from an environmental standpoint over the proposed project and
would not further attainment of General Plan goals, objectives, and policies.
Explanation: There is no substantial evidence to conclude that this alternative would
avoid or substantially lessen the unavoidable traffic and circulation effects resulting from
cumulative development. Therefore, no significant environmental advantage is identified
for an alternative project location. Additionally, at another location, the Southeast
Specific Plan project as proposed would not be consistent with the General Plan
provisions for Specific Plan areas as currently established.
Reduced Density Alternative
This alternative would reduce the scale of the proposed project. Under this scenario, the
project would contain 296 residential units as compared to 475 units as currently proposed. The
EIR determined this alternative would still result in the loss of about 80 acres of land designated
as Farmlands of Local Importance. Mitigation measures would be similar to the proposed
project. A project of reduced density would provide more space to physically implement visual
and noise mitigation measures that rely primarily on the establishment of building setbacks.
However, none of the significant effects of the Southeast Specific Plan project as proposed
would be avoided or substantially reduced to less than significant levels under the Reduced
Density alternative.
Finding: Though the EIR identified the Reduced Density Alternative as the
Environmentally Superior Alternative to the proposed project, the City Council finds that
this alternative is infeasible in that it would not avoid the Significant. and Unavoidable
impacts of the proposed project to agricultural resources, aesthetics, climate change, and
transportation and circulation. It would also not support the goals and policies of the
General Plan Housing Element to promote opportunities for housing and facilitate
housing development, provide for a range of housing types within the community,
address the housing needs of all economic segments and provide for affordable housing
opportunities.
Explanation: Reducing the residential count and range of housing types to 296
residential units would limit opportunities for housing and for a variety of housing types
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. Reducing the residential count would not reduce traffic volumes sufficiently
to avoid impacts to transportation and circulation, particularly for intersections identified
in the EIR and for US 101.
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. The Reduced Density alternative would not eliminate unavoidable
significant adverse agricultural land use or visual or intersection level of service impacts
identified for the project, under approved and cumulative development scenarios, and mitigation
would still be required for construction air quality, noise, traffic and circulation, and visual
impacts. However, the EIR determined that the Reduced Density project could provide specified
benefits in that it would facilitate mitigation to reduce the identified significant visual impacts
(although these would remain significant), and could reduce noise impacts to a less than
significant level. The Reduced Density project would allow for greater flexibility in the
establishment of roadway setbacks to preserve views to regional hillsides, provide for a more
effective transition in development density across to the site extending to the Urban Growth
Boundary, facilitate building setbacks from Petaluma Hill Road to mitigate traffic noise
exposure, assist in positioning the residential units to adjust for side and front yard setbacks and
the location of units with respect to project site roadways, and facilitate design of the project
landscape development component in accordance with the provisions of the Southeast Specific
Plan Design Guidelines prior to City Design Review.
XIII. FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH INDUCEMENT
Chapter 4 of the EIR provides an analysis of growth inducement effects of the proposed
Southeast Specific Plan 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 Southeast Specific Plan 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.
Finding: The South East Specific Plan project would directly generate population growth
by providing housing for approximately 1,327 people. Project construction would
generate jobs in the construction, materials fabrication and supply industries up until the
time of construction completion. The provision of construction jobs would create an
indirect demand for local goods and services. Construction of the project is not expected
to generate substantial population growth or new economic activity in the region because
project construction would be expected to employ construction workers already living
and working in the Bay Area. Construction of the project would include provision of new
infrastructure for the Southeast Specific Plan project and its development components.
This new infrastructure would lessen potential obstacles to growth, but is considered
growth accommodating and not directly growth inducing. The project would be
consistent with the City of Rohnert Park General Plan and would comply with the City's
Growth Management Program, which assures that the rate of population growth will not
exceed the average annual growth rates established in the General Plan. 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 Southeast Specific Plan would construct 475 residential units and up
to 10,000 square feet of commercial space. The project would offer a limited number of
primary employment jobs as well as a range of temporary construction jobs. Overall;
opportunities for population growth and employment provided by the project would be
consistent with the General Plan Land Use and Growth Management Element goals and
policies. The rate of job growth would be generally proportional to the rate of project
development anticipated under the City's Growth Management Program. 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 City Council has balanced the economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the
proposed Southeast Specific Plan project against the significant and unavoidable impacts
associated with the proposed Project, and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures. The City
Council has also examined potentially feasible alternatives to the Project, none of which are
feasible. The City Council hereby adopts and makes the following Statement of Overriding
Considerations regarding the significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project and the
anticipated economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project.
A. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
Based on information contained in the record and in the EIR, the City Council has
determined that the Project would result in the following significant and unavoidable impacts as
identified by the EIR:
Impact Impact Description
Number
3.1-1 New urban development will replace the undeveloped landscape that
currently occupies the project area. This change in visual appearance to
the Specific Plan project area would be highly visible to passers-by who
travel along any of the abutting roads, and to those residents whose
homes currently maintain viewlines to the project area open space.
3.6-2 Buildout of the Southeast Specific Plan project site would result in the
loss of approximately 80 acres of land designated as Farmlands of Local
Importance by the State Department of Conservation and Sonoma County
Board of Supervisors.
3.10-1 Traffic increases resulting from the Southeast Specific Plan project,
coupled with the currently approved projects, would result in intersection
levels of service at or worse than the applicable level of service threshold
at the intersections of Adobe Road & Petaluma Hill Road (Sonoma
County), East Cotati Avenue & Old Redwood Highway (Cotati), East
Cotati Avenue & LaSalle Avenue (Cotati), Railroad Avenue & Petaluma
Hill Road (Sonoma County), and Railroad Avenue & Old Redwood
Highway (Sonoma County).
3.12-1 The proposed Southeast Specific Plan would increase population,
employment, and development in the Specific Plan area. This increase
would result in a corresponding increase in greenhouse gas emissions,
which could potentially contribute to a cumulatively considerable adverse
impact on climate change.
B. Finding
The City Council has considered all potentially feasible mitigation measures to
substantially lessen or avoid the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts. Where feasible,
mitigation measures have been adopted as part of the Project. The imposition of these measures
will reduce the identified impacts, but not to a less -than -significant level. The Council finds that
it is not feasible to fully mitigate these Project impacts.
The City Council has also considered all potentially feasible alternatives to the Project.
The City Council 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 City Council finds that specific economic, legal, social,
technological and other anticipated benefits of the Project outweigh the significant and
unavoidable impacts, and therefore justify the approval of the Southeast Specific Plan project
notwithstanding the identified significant and unavoidable impacts (Pub. Resources Code, §
21081; CEQA Guidelines, § 15093.). The benefits are addressed in detail in Section XIV.D
below.
The City Council specifically adopts and makes this Statement of Overriding
Considerations acknowledging that this Project has eliminated or substantially lessened all
significant effects on the environment where feasible (including the incorporation of feasible
mitigation measures), and finds 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 City Council finds that each of the overriding
considerations expressed as benefits and set forth below in Section XIV.D constitutes a separate
and independent ground for such a finding. Any one of the reasons for approval cited below is
sufficient to justify approval of the Project. Thus, even if a court were to conclude that not every
reason is supported by substantial evidence, the City Council will stand by its determination 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 City Council has considered the EIR; the public record of proceedings on the
proposed Project and other written materials presented to and prepared by the City, as well as
oral and written testimony received, and does hereby determine that implementation of the
Project as specifically provided in the Project documents would result in the following
substantial public benefits:
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 estate, low
density, medium density, and attached multi -family. The project also proposes to assist the City
in meeting its affordable housing requirement by providing affordable units (including low and
very low income units) according to the City's inclusionary housing ordinance and through the
requirements imposed in the Development Agreement and Affordable Housing Plan.
Additionally, the Project proposes to meet the goals of General Plan by providing for a
variety of housing types including low density, medium density, rural estate and mixed use
allowing attached housing. The Project also provides for affordable housing to meet the needs of
lower income households. The Project is located within the Urban Growth Management
Boundary which represents the ultimate edge of urban uses in the Rohnert Park Planning Area.
The Project promotes the housing goals of the General Plan by:
0 Providing a variety of housing types in its housing mix. (GM -16)
• Developing linkages between neighborhoods and interconnected network of
streets (CD -2)
• Promoting connections with adjacent neighborhoods (CD -B and CD -2)
• Preserving the rural character along Petaluma Hill Road by requiring rural
residential uses would locate adjacent to this corridor. (CD -13 and CD -52).
2. The Project Would Generate Sales Taxes For The City.
The sales generated by commercial components of the Project will generate increased
sales tax and property tax revenues for the City. 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 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 a 7.1 -acre
park/detention basin site, a 0.3 -acre public facility site, and a mixed use area with approximately
10,000 square feet of commercial building area. The proposed parkland acreage meets the City's
requirements for parkland dedication. The Neighborhood Park is proposed to be within '/4 to '/z
mile of all homes within the planning area. Park amenities would include a playground, dog
park, picnic area, basketball half -court, soccer fields, turf play fields, pathways, lighting, and
more. Commercial land uses are proposed to encompass business, office, retail shops, residences
and may include institutions and service organizations.
4. The Project Would Contribute To Continued Economic Development,
Construction of Roadway Improvement, and Maintenance of City Services
and Facilities.
The Project will mitigate impacts to Valley House Drive through road improvements or
payment of fees. Additionally, the Applicant will pay its applicable traffic impact fees for its
share of regional transportation improvements. The applicant shall pay impacts to local roadway
systems as expected by construction vehicles and the increase in population generated by the
Project. The Applicant shall be responsible by the payment of fees to offset the cost of increased
services and maintenance generated by the Project.
The Project will also be subject to the payment of fees to provide for and maintain public
infrastructure such as Public Facilities Financing Plan fees to help fund off-site improvements,
City-wide and Regional Traffic fees, Pavement Maintenance fees, Public Services Impact fees,
and Maintenance of On -Site Infrastructure fees. The public improvements will be funded and
maintained through a Funding Mechanism such as a community facilities district. These fees
and funding mechanisms are also described in the Development Agreement which is
incorporated by this reference.
E. Determination and Adoption of Statement of Overriding Considerations
The City Council has weighed the economic, legal, social, technological, and other
benefits of the proposed Project, as set forth above in Section XIV.D, against the significant
unavoidable impacts of the Project identified in the EIR (and identified above in Section XIV.A).
The City Council hereby determines that those benefits outweigh the risks and adverse
environmental impacts of the Project, and further determines that the Project's significant
unavoidable impacts are acceptable.
Accordingly, the City Council adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations,
recognizing that significant unavoidable impacts will result from implementation of the Project.
Having (i) adopted all feasible mitigation measures, as discussed in the Environmental Impact
Report; (ii) rejected alternatives to the Project, as discussed in the Environmental Impact Report;
and (iii) recognized the significant unavoidable impacts of the Project, the City Council hereby
finds that each of the separate benefits of the proposed Project, as stated herein, is determined to
be unto itself an overriding consideration, independent of other benefits, that warrants approval
of the Project and outweighs and overrides its significant unavoidable impacts, and thereby
justifies the approval of the Project.
W
W
W
w
N
05'�9.00cZ
�5m.��o�
ON
5��woo�oo.00���o,cmov
q5?:5
,
Gan W wn
wy^.'d9 U, P. '°
q.a^gS
N R^ 6� O O y r:
° O' ^ w y G O
�^.
^ C F v°. n' p 6 w p m �G O
.,
R5
ow.G,roa, 4a°'
a5',�'ay ...
poky oP•-w.5.a�,:. 0--.aoo^�w
vOPi
dam,° �N O'
00 y
< w09
n G gg n OnW rpi.
t°ab5-w"Drn"5'__ Soorom_C)d
'-y�5009PP
Qr o m
mr-�.2vpdP
�..n P�+p, rwi. %'t�. Nydnw.O ,pi'Up
no
ao ^n.0
p°, F^p F w=n0
�
pp °<° O.� pi �n �y'n ^F.
vG-a
.°t o S
0.ronn
p C p W `C y N R
�°.. eyF}T^. pOo
F' m N y y w p ;; P ? y^ `G C) .T N
�'
....
.
n
0Fy.�$' R
"" %0 a5.,°.,,vny;7
Mn ... r"° nw'' nn no•"
O. ', j. m�J m dao,
�'0
.wy..
pm M�
m ,�'na ,`-t<�.
'zd•F �.
aoo�o°-y°n oboyav
triw.4
='o
5
.aam-'Tai
Via^
.y..Onn�QFi
B.gWo=•0c.2
an nty.,W 'n_,ao 5w'-O•y
Go°,o_ epi�5„ cvww`°aav
roc^n�pF�U
�G.dg a'.
w�rt0.w. .d o5f)c,
:m
��. Ch�pp�p�_G• m
w.R.Npwp Po
o^m'y ene.�P: Pa',o dOofii
nOotd-o ry
a°yaw]n
coon...:€^+
cpw<o'n^.5 <^c'.o0o5.m^..
R-. oo n,O 0, ;;
° oyo^� y
�"vn,Flymm�
o'„wo p;
fDow...�. anQ wic ro
n, pn pPo n... o.n`<Fd
Q:
ri
p 0 >-'i npRAF
ron
.-
O P• ro°
y•oo
5-0 FP.Pc
Ha .
a 4-e=rta5°5
rr°'P•
•
0°0a "p
^ w. a."c
adPo��yvw0
'
zr'
Qa
5oo•
; .
°eo°
-.4�-o
6q,cw
p<,
a-c°00
5
0.C�
m nn,�o
.o P,
° a
�oy
nncao &00 o �°^p•pp,
�aa-o'Foa p,
wo,mo�Ero
a°o'�y-o w, �: •P'Iy ToF�.°., no
^moo
a'�o ^ P. w
nn
a ., ^ " c ❑
OnF� O
; c R. c,,.
N^c h d�.c
P••�o'nP
2. �oo.�y'a5:w°'o
cyr"''a o� o.a
E cP�''.5•r+..
�Fm
zr
aaK
B fyi3O
OOo,g
�Ctpp
N.�
row.
^Gm's7•O
p
fU
n
a
f°O
.moi
' w o
fD m
m m
as %• Ci
M
b
R
''row
O
m
n n
npp
pp "• eo.
, w�5.
O
c
d
o,
-°
d
5
00
b
II
A
w
w
n
�
•
•
•
•
m oq o
.p p °, f, p
s
•
•
•
e
dom�rta
�ooY�°od
o 0..
�G C' c'; ...
E:
o
c'o
y K d• in o m
Ka
� 5 co W.
fD Fd'
Q�e:
�?:
m_,
y"ao Q::g
p^naoow
tlo
to d�'
O'd i"•
•'�O
F�DSm •'
NSG° 7 �:mC
.��.�
Hx
P
a
m
�rt
.�••a
^na�..�ao
�a
��
]5•�m.o°
cc.�_m by. a�_md.
�.p
oo.
2.a
�w°cd_B
O�tldc�
m•<
66
d
eco
.oa<`cbc
..,d 0.no
�6ypd o0
O�
Od
'OM
'd
y04C
y.p+^.�Ov
�.doo
.-
�o•
�
�o
�^
::.
owe
<g;B
w•y
N
."-n„o°.o c
�Qo
�'ort�pc�
C�Nm,.Y°'
nFO
vpp.mO.avC'
o�OyFAi
�O. rs� '^..
bY�7
m�m.N
dndyampYn'O�
.Oo.
wwOonOo
.
o^6o0.°q:Ooo.-
'n3
dp<V(
HmS
�n
�mw•�+
d' oF
.nO
a
Smod'fidpo'Nw
aOs
-m
o0
cp
c.
d
,i''dma
Ov �+.°.°
09`0
P'�•
`<°
�
pmN'hm
.n "o
yEl
pfib'GyGy+.^O°
O,
Gyi
W
?wo
>—,6.
7R
�m
O
CR^.
<y�TS�
M.
to�^T
p.+
�s°"�
I
C�'N S M.
o�
R Cp
�oao¢a
'_
-Z
&
v2
� �
�G
m
O .O. m n
o• �
7
y
^y
d
FLAT �P
P
o
cp
a
15' on
o,r
rb0
p
b
H
0
�n
C
'+
04
a
om�O
O
p ao d
'x.8:59.
'Cq�
g
^ G
� 0„do Godo
G.
0
�
m 2
5'
00
N
y �•m =
'<'< coo m Boa
�. ^. `°°-`o' o o.E°n•rn EELa�
2m
mn yOO.O
mma=�o °o
<.,�.
:°:ay°� °'o F=•o•oF�m c.ywoa
�'mn». �a�w.Fm
ppw�mmm-
�i, m-�G`w�ao
oVac°6�°
��»,�
oo;a�ai?o
�o]o'^<ppw..`��Eo
�G.,,� 5.00Cwyo
°
BE
O O
w _ .° N
ioroy.w.,...-..
.:.
v`;mfDw a�rn6aa a. 6. as b.. G a
wa6nFN mow.. rvo^� 0^5
o�?.<Omy
o3tr,'..-w
6woo
y. °-Gnn^poo caao�w �n
w v9 00 oo- VE; --
m m°
w
a�, a a
4.
.35
°. P+ to,
~'�
° � G
E'TJO P. `°" O.y 0 Q.v d w v' N �. w N p' rJ•
.,, .
_
��.wrOF
nG
(DwNNMy
_
a c G° 5• (y EL?F, vn o n o
Nw wa �� °NST °cr NN IaO 7n
y
'T
v'a�a'
.N
•O °O
mao'Ua
kW^mto
^°'°omp. voFw aoFw nm oto E. nFO
.g..a _
OOn.mC✓'m ,C.o
no
o
^75.40a"o
yo
c.
..°ofp
P<^' 6:0 ,Go•,'�'�°-n�°.5 yvw�i
wa
"po••p`-'
a&ir`' a
N'UO v'
a0 ° 'c'� a 5,w,
�'M�°-nO n OOa`m
R
roN
n
rOi.
-z-o-
..�'O. C .°.� C .°p �•w+. fD'6°n
.O.. y.00.�.
°an.5"EL
NGtlC
nwc�o
qyq qyq Pti
19 g -w
�w
�^^.^.
va Hdron
°
c.66�=
��Oa<
oOmy� O O 6NO °w O'p
o•g. a�
aCr+N O6y
asbcwwoa
�npaE�i
boc. f Mme'
>✓ w
a 0.
`<oo°e
oaQ oaf "
mH`°
;o• .a
J
w
2�a
6�o
.
v
cy�rP
c
o
oy�.
�
O
CB
acc
ycy_°G,
a.Pro
y
p
UQ
H
p a m
O w O
y n
b
0'O_
^
R
v m
A
0
o
o .vac
....
c,. p
o oa
w°
0
' g w i �6
n
���
'� o°^ O•
^•�tlQ
�3
y�00
a
G
n6 w
a• ^
m
�o
as
-
N d^'i E
'p O w 'O• �.O � -0 - gb,: C
m v w d R R� d _C ii io Rg
^ '.Op`O 'F�i'O. .<O.:G^<v �`O!'OOt'u �. tyo •pp•� abbOO c�. Edi OCO�m^P 00p
-..0A�RG .0w. Q
-O ^^e. O ': O' O N S N 6 a' ^. C
G v MPC
] O
.wnoG0
m�
roto ym .COo^.�wLi Foa m�ym Gmp �<ndaO,� OOO.-- „
.do. ^•�, ] Ow
2.m coo ^ d•e 7 n R
awo P' lZ.O,,�P aOOo fD'OOw
a�Cjy�mi ay9 Ery -
��0:9 ,"O,� &7.lM�K•°.�m.<Q'm ;�
9wwd.0To:7ry "�+0.9w 'yN
VO y=m raN dO'0
nOpomO-GG
dA W..py ���s
x'N0 �'�yE'• movr*'womii�N
"_.9.�.Ow,.`�°o-OOq,a�oG,o(c�
0 ^.b f�ro�'o''6''oyg'nf�3
^7.'p p�Yy�n Nb� ODtgo
yip-��CjO
p�-.
O
FO p,�. rn �.'� 0. �`p�' �• 7, ^ O FO v+ O a N O ^��i p' O F O
�wGMw ^•bfdD N'-d'.�i�.00
moo ww C.My ^.�� Nd•.'�!t! yYapC
ma
�y7
G O.OgogKRO—=*:E(;t
'0 QF mOoc°,mo
,�p
BOOOpNNO
a6x p an ao�c2
a
w X000
'A+;
�GioO�. �..m �' 7�'O�^O �.w^^cf°io ^.�•O �nmaiyo G^. �cO`,o
�o "'v.� � � yw^m Qo •F B �o ryry ^: c �m S•- ., �o f1 �ro g �;
P.
-a 6
^q
P' o a ao
G w Eoog oo^C'nK
8c 0do2oc.P^o QrvC '" w o an
�+.� Co�'.tla
O+
�+y py
CM
w d
P. L.�F=•fdi'ppe: •m ^Gpy.��i+ G
ammo ?: yw�om �mowwm�o�
�
SOC
"tl
a^GF.
f)
rr
7'O
�d�&
n d O p n
wno .^.'o.
g
.wo � �rtw.
Rs
�w•�w o �u ��
a
o o
d d
roo
c c
m?
G G
�.
W
O
w
O� <w CJ AOwo°� °�N�MR�WOwop FM�N'd
•N
C y p � � N �v' w O w O F N .v N 20. ^. y^ � ^ O� ^+ a � �..wi+ � �'. O
O..
bioCO ry-'n�D p.�pG
•`m_p"ryb °Om�'+'Rt<o .^T r,
.ry � �.a o'9- w w m a-+'� �<o. -. n:o Y_-m`_w O:<w•m �O-rnN^O
0N wvopOpnS
r�O,.OO CCCO �O^OCG C_.°UEG+-C6�GAp
COG� �.^•.. OON
0 �"•i
11
9-0 R.qO�rOi�C
o
p^ Ono a p.p�.
.-M'°
ONO
y
'tlO
.ceC�bw.�ww.OpC.
aC. °Ny^KnaOPO Ap.(
a
�S
s 0 CGyiWNT�vaay
„O„Mw
o' p ry NCO .°•. y C .Oi. ha .pry E p^ O O io 0
Rd
Nob^.an�oo•�n• a::�'�a(�w�P'pM,ay•yoa;P:c'<F F wp
a
00.
O^M;^�<p' vO+�O [Cj"'GyY. wpOpip�v+'^:PY v'+O.S LT•Np NpCx-aO �.R
Eng
M
+±p '& ° a .wy � m pO.. = Y] p N y to `< C1 d ,N.,.� G ' O .O•..�5 tLmc1
.i Np N.
�N �NS+O�0Fg-n'.H F 7
O
ryC�•.'`e. F. to go r•o0
�.f7� a
a'p m a.m g ry o'°;, ,a^ rn
w 5Ti �..
�
0(095•
.y
E'�•w Opq WWO �.�O700.0�. vViN nyo
7n .�.ro,.^N. o^..O myV,
F1
00
rye°0,Mo°
Nna�, bO�pr OO a- .y ^R'Mm
Cd
OR
fD C.
d
i+
0 00
A
O w ry A O <
w9
°
K
b .O �� •'O Pon
00 2
�P
N
w�o
a S w g w g
p�
aPm
ti
N
vY
wo&�oG�
N w fD M�.ry
K
O�oabo�
5
n�w..O Gy,N
r;
Fl
aO+mo oOo,:,:
O .
UG
N O 7'O
Pi'NP'�G.�o
N.
�p•
prod"
n
Oo w 7`(°'°'`
my `Trvn C;
�b
] O O MN N
UQ
ao
�S
b
o
.�
6
OG
Mro`
7
ao
m
QO CN
�
N y
as