Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2020-021 N.C.S. 02/03/2020Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. of the City of Petaluma, California RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE SID COMMONS APARTMENT PROJECT, PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT WHEREAS, J. Cyril Johnson Investment Corp. ("Applicant") submitted an application to the City of Petaluma for a 278 -unit apartment project with a community clubhouse and a swimming pool, terracing of the Petaluma River bank, and ancillary improvements; and WHEREAS, current entitlement requests submitted by the applicant include a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone APN 019-010-009 from the Oak Creek Apartments Planned Unit Development (PUD) to R4 (Residential 4 and a Planned Unit Development (PUD)) and a PUD Amendment to remove references to APN 019-010-009 that will no longer be part of the PUD after the Zoning Map Amendment and to reflect the as built Oak Creek Apartments, and WHEREAS, subsequent entitlements will enable development of the Sid Commons Apartment project including Site Plan and Architectural Review and a Lot Line Adjustment or Tentative Parcel Map' to divide APN-009 from land on the east side of the Petaluma River and, if desired, realign parcels to reflect final site design. WHEREAS, on July 11, 2007, a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared and circulated to all responsible and affected agencies for consultation on the scope of an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") to be prepared for the project pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.4 and California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines Section 15082; and WHEREAS, on July 25, 2007, a public Scoping Meeting was held to solicit comments from the public on the scope of the EIR; and WHEREAS, based on the Scoping Meeting and responses to the Notice of Preparation, the City prepared a Draft EIR dated March 1, 2018 (SCH No. 2007072041) in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. and CEQA Guidelines Section 15000 et seq, which reflected the independent judgment of the City as to the potential environmental effects of the original project; and WHEREAS, the Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR was published in the Argus Courier on March 1, 2018, and mailed to residents and occupants within 500 feet of the site (meeting CEQA's notice requirements); and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was circulated for the required 45 -day public review period from March 1, 2018 to April 16, 2018 and the City continued to accept public comments through the City Council hearing on May 21, 2018; and 1 As the tentative parcel map proposes to create three parcels, its approval would be conducted administratively, anticipated to occur following SPAR approval. Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 1 WHEREAS, the City distributed copies of the Draft EIR in conformance with CEQA to those public agencies that have jurisdiction by law with respect to the project and to other interested persons and agencies, and sought the comments of such persons and agencies; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 18, 2018 to consider the Draft EIR, the purpose of the hearing being to inform the public about the contents of the Draft EIR and to receive oral comments about the adequacy and accuracy of the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on May 21, 2018 to consider the Draft EIR, the purpose of the hearings being to inform the public about the contents of the Draft EIR and to receive oral comments about the adequacy and accuracy of the Draft EIR, and directed preparation of a Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR"); and WHEREAS, written and oral comments on the Draft EIR have been received and responses to those comments have been prepared in the form of a Final EIR; and WHEREAS, in response to significant environmental conclusions reached in the Draft EIR and in response to public comments on the Draft EIR, including concerns raised during the public hearings on the Draft EIR by City Planning Commissioners and City Council members, the Applicant submitted a revised conceptual site plan for evaluation in the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, the Revised Project proposed a 205 -unit apartment project with a community clubhouse and a swimming pool, terracing of the west bank of the Petaluma River, a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, an emergency vehicle access drive at Bernice Court, as well as modifications and revisions to the original Project (now the "Revised Project") to reduce and/or avoid significant impacts that would have otherwise occurred pursuant to the original project including removal of the at -grade crossing of the railway via an extension of Shasta Avenue and setting development back from the Petaluma River Plan Corridor; and WHEREAS, the Revised Project also proposed to address an exceedance of the City's Street Design and Construction Standards & Specifications by implementing a Traffic Calming Plan for improvements along Graylawn and Jess Avenues to enhance livability along these residential streets; and WHEREAS, the Revised Project boundaries are contained within the property at the terminus of Graylawn Avenue, east of the railway, west of the River on APNs 019-010-009, 019- 010-006, a portion of the River bank for terracing purposes on APN 019-010-007 occupied by the existing Oak Creek Apartments, and 019-010-008 for access; and WHEREAS, the environmental effects of the Revised Project have been analyzed and compared to the environmental effects of the original project, and that analysis has been included in the Final EIR, concluding that: a) no new significant environmental impacts not previously identified in the Draft EIR would result from the Revised Project, and b) no substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact has been identified as resulting from the Revised Project, and no additional mitigation measures are necessary to reduce such impacts to a level of insignificance, and Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 2 c) there is no feasible alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed in the Draft EIR that would clearly lessen significant environmental impacts of the Revised Project and that the Project applicant declines to adopt; and WHEREAS, the Notice of Availability for the Final EIR was published in the Argus Courier on October 31, 2019, mailed to residents and occupants within 1,000 feet of the site, filed with the Sonoma County Cleric and State Clearinghouse (exceeding CEQA's notice requirements), published on the City's website, and made available for public review and comments at City Hall, the City Community Center and the Public Library; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR was circulated for more than the required 10 -day public review period from October 31, 2019 to February 3, 2020; and WHEREAS, the City distributed copies of the Final EIR in conformance with CEQA to those public agencies that have jurisdiction by law with respect to the project and to other interested persons and agencies, and sought the comments of such persons and agencies; and WHEREAS, an Errata to the Final EIR (Exhibit 3) was prepared to clarify information presented in the Final EIR including minor text edits and corrections, clarification on the location of the floodway line, and post processing of raw hydrologic data, which demonstrates that the special flood zone A99 is located outside of the 100 -year floodplain consistent with FEMA mapping; and WHEREAS, on October 15, 2019 and October 29, 2019 the Applicant held neighborhood meetings to create dialogue with community members, provide information and updates on the Revised Project, and address concerns; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public meeting on November 19, 2019, at which time it considered the information presented in the Final EIR, accepted public testimony, and approved Resolution No. 2019-021 recommending the City Council certify the FEIR; and WHEREAS, in response to comments received at the November 19, 2019 Planning Commission hearing, the Applicant further refined the conceptual site plan, now the Newly Revised Project, reducing the development to 180 units, providing 3 -story structures for all buildings not adjacent to existing single family dwellings, committing to a Zero Net Energy all - electric Project, preserving all protected -status trees both within the River Access and Enhancement Plan's River Plan Corridor and within the RODZ-subject APN-009 (Tree Numbers 39, 59, 60, 61, and 200), retaining the two isolated wetlands closest to the river, including 10% onsite inclusionary units (18 units) affordable to low-income households for a term of 55 years, and further pulling development away from the Petaluma River; and WHEREAS, the Newly Revised Project at 180 units as presented in the conceptual site plan is fully within the scope of analysis considered in the DEIR, which analyzed a 278 unit concept, and the Final EIR, which analyzed a 205 unit concept; and WHEREAS, the EIR identified several potentially significant impacts that will be reduced to a less than significant level with specified mitigation measures; therefore, approval of the Newly Revised Project will require adoption of Findings on Impacts and Mitigations as set forth in attached Exhibit 1; and Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 3 WHEREAS, the Newly Revised Project will not result in significant and unavoidable impacts as all potential impacts identified in the EIR can adequately be avoided, reduced or mitigated such that they do not constitute significant and unavoidable impacts; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR did not identify any significant and unavoidable impacts of the 205 -unit Revised Project and therefore no statement of overriding consideration is required for approval of the 180 -unit Newly Revised Project; and WHEREAS, with mitigation the Newly Revised Project does not have the potential to have a significant adverse impact on wildlife resources as defined in the State Fish and Game Code, either individually or cumulatively, though it is not exempt from Fish and Game filing fees; and WHEREAS, the Newly Revised Project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List compiled by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, the EIR identified several potentially significant impacts that will be reduced to a less than significant level with specified mitigation measures, and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(d), a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared and set forth in Exhibit 2 to ensure that all mitigation measures which serve to reduce environmental impacts of the Project are fully implemented; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR was presented to the Petaluma City Council City at a duly noticed hearing on February 3, 2020, at which time the City Council accepted public comment and reviewed and considered the information presented in the Final EIR prior to making a decision on the project; and WHEREAS, the custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings for the Project is the City of Petaluma Planning Division, Petaluma City Hall, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Petaluma that the above recitals are true and correct and incorporated by reference. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Petaluma City Council herby certifies the Final EIR for the newly revised 180 unit concept plan (from here on referred to as the "Project") and finds as follows: 1. The Final EIR for the Sid Commons Apartments Project, inclusive of the Draft EIR and references and all attachments thereto, have been completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Petaluma Environmental Review Guidelines; and 2. As required by CEQA and based on substantial evidence in the record, the Findings regarding potentially significant effects of the Project and mitigation measures contained in the attached Exhibit 1, which is incorporated herein by reference, are true and correct and represent the independent judgment of the City; and 3. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) set forth in the attached Exhibit 2, which is incorporated herein by reference, ensures that all mitigation measures relied on in the Findings are fully implemented and adequate to reduce project impact to Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 4 levels below significance, and compliance with the MMRP shall be a condition of any subsequent Project approval; and 4. Each identified mitigation measure that requires the cooperation or action of another agency, adoption and implementation of each such mitigation measure is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the public agency identified, and the measures can and should be adopted and/or implemented by said agency. Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said City. REFERENCE: I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the C'-,ApproVtd as to Council of the City of Petaluma at a Regular meeting on the 3rd day of February f for: 2020, by the following vote: City yAttorney AYES: Healy; Kearney; King; Miller NOES: Mayor Barrett; Vice Mayor Fischer; McDonnell ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 5 EXHIBIT 1 FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the City Council hereby makes the following Findings with respect to the potential for significant environmental impacts of the Sid Commons Apartment Project as Revised (File No. #03 -GPA - 0379) ("Project") and means for mitigating those impacts. For the purpose of these Findings, the term Environmental Impact Report (EIR) means the Draft and Final EIR documents collectively, unless otherwise specified. These Findings do not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environment impact contained in the EIR. Instead, the Findings provide a summary description of each impact, identify the applicable mitigation measures set forth in the EIR and adopted by the City, and state Findings on the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions is in the EIR, and these Findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in those documents supporting the EIR's determinations regarding mitigation measures and the Project's impacts and mitigation measures designed to address those impacts. The facts supporting these Findings are found in the record as a whole for the Project. In making these findings, the City ratifies, adopts and incorporates into these Findings the analysis and explanation in the EIR, and ratifies, adopts and incorporates into these Findings the determination and conclusions of the EIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures, except to the extent that any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these Findings. Many of the impacts and mitigation measures in the following Findings are summarized rather then set forth in full. The text of the Draft and Final EIRs should be consulted for a complete description of the impacts and mitigations. Aesthetics Views Impact Visual -2: The Project could substantially damage scenic resources, including trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Visual -2, Implement Mitigation Bio -10A: Limitations on Improvements within the Petaluma River Plan Corridor (see below Biology section for details) Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: The Project does not contain buildings that encroach into the River Plan Corridor Boundary. The only improvements allowed within the River Plan Corridor include the river trail, terracing and restoration. During the SPAR process, the Planning Commission could allow minor encroachments associated with residential improvements, such as a detention basin and/or segments of sidewalk within the outer buffer management zone, if found to be consistent with the intent of the River Plan and not impactful to the River Plan Corridor. Therefore, after applying these measures, the impact would be less than significant. Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 6 Visual Character Impact Visual -3: The Project could potentially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings due to the removal of mature trees and conflict with the River Plan. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Visual -3A, Inclusion in SPAR: The Site Plan and Architectural Review process for the Project shall include an evaluation and review of the Project for the creation of a lush landscape plan that accommodates significant trees (see also Mitigation Bio -9: Incorporation of Native Plants in Landscaping Plans); adequate setbacks and/or landscaping between existing abutting residential structures; and the creation of linear open space corridors with maximum public accessibility and visibility. Visual -313, Implement Mitigation Bio -1013: River Oriented Development Zone (RODZ) review at SPAR (see Biology section for details) Mitigation Visual -3C, Implement Mitigation Bio -11A: Ensure Preservation of Existing Trees (see Biology section for details) Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: Mitigation requires the architectural and site plan review (which will occur pursuant to Section 24.010 of the IZO prior to the issuance of any building permits) to consider the precise massing and architectural design against required setbacks, height limitations, site coverage and other development standards. These standards, as reviewed pursuant to the SPAR process, will ensure that the proposed development is attractive and consistent with existing development in the vicinity. During SPAR review, specific tree preservation requirements shall also be monitored for compliance, and the SPAR process may consider additional site design modifications to further increase tree preservation. Therefore, after applying these measures, the impact would be less than significant. Light and Glare Impact Visual -4: Development of the Project could create a new source of substantial light or glare, which could adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Visual -4, Glare Minimization Design Standards: Measures (such as fixtures that cast light in a downward direction, lighting designed to minimize glare and direct views of light sources, lighting that does not blink, flash or of unusually high intensity, etc.) shall be applied to reduce light and glare at the site. Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: Mitigation requires compliance with regulatory requirements for glare as found in Section 21.010 of the IZO, as well as lighting fixtures that cast light in a downward Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 7 direction, are designed to minimize glare and direct views of light sources, and that do not blink, flash or produce unusually high intensity light. Therefore, after applying these measures, the impact would be less than significant. Air Quality Construction Period PM 10 Emissions Impact AQ -2: The Project could result in air quality impacts related to fugitive dust (PM10) during construction. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure AQ -2A, Basic Dust Control: The Project shall comply with all `Basic' mitigation measures as recommended by BAAQMD for reducing construction related emissions. Mitigation Measure AQ -2B, Enhanced Dust Control: Because of the size of the site and the proximity of nearby sensitive receptors, the Project shall also comply with "Enhanced" mitigation measures as recommended by BAAQMD for reducing construction related emissions. Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: Implementation of mitigation measures will reduce fugitive dust emissions from grading as recommended by BAAQMD. Exhaust emissions from construction equipment and trucks for criteria pollutants would be below BAAQMD criteria pollutant thresholds as described in the EIR, and would be further minimized through implementation of measures during construction activities. Therefore, after applying these measures, the impact would be less than significant. Construction -Period Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions Impact AQ -4: Use of heavy-duty off-road and on -road construction equipment would produce emissions of toxic air contaminants, including diesel PM2.5. Emissions from these construction activities would exceed the off-site threshold of significance for community risk and hazards. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation AQ -4, Construction -Period DPM Emission Reductions: All off-road construction equipment greater than 25 horsepower shall have engines that meet or exceed either U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) or California Air Resources Board (CARE) Tier 4 Final off-road emission standards. The Contractor may use the next cleanest piece of off-road equipment (i.e., Tier 3 Engine with Level 3 Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategy [VDECS], Tier 3 Engine with Level 2 VDECS or Tier 3 Engine with alternative fuel) only under specified circumstances. Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: Use of Tier 4 off-road construction equipment engines can reduce tailpipe emissions of particulate matter (including PM2.5, or DPM) by as much as 95 to 97 Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 8 percent over tailpipe emission levels from non-regulated engines. A 96% reduction in construction -period emissions would equate to a comparable 96% reduction in annual average DPM concentrations, and a similar 96% reduction in lifetime excess cancer risk, Chronic Health Index, and annual average PM2.5 concentrations. Implementation of these control measures would reduce diesel particulate matter emissions such that health risk impacts related to construction activities would be reduced to below applicable threshold levels. Therefore, after applying these measures, the impact would be less than significant. Biological Resources Special Status Bird and Bat Species Impact Bio -2: Implementation of the Project could result in a substantial adverse effect on candidate, sensitive or special -status bird and bat species, both directly and through habitat modification. Affected species possibly include White -Tailed Kite, Allen's Hummingbird, Loggerhead Shrike, salt marsh common yellowthroat, several raptor species and potential suitable roosting habitat for some bat species such as the pallid bat. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Bio -2a: Pre -Construction Nesting Surveys. If grading operations or construction is scheduled during the nesting season of migratory birds (February I through August 30), trees in the Project site shall be surveyed including call surveys as appropriate for nesting migratory birds. If an active nest is found prior to, or during construction activities, an appropriate buffer zone shall be maintained around all active nest sites until the young have fledged and are foraging independently. In the event that an active nest is found after the completion of preconstruction surveys and after construction begins, all construction activities shall be stopped until a qualified biologist has evaluated the nest and erected the appropriate buffer. Mitigation Measure Bio -2b, Pre -Construction Tree Roost Surveys: For all tree removal and vegetation management activities, pre -construction surveys and measures shall be implemented to protect bats. In the event that an active roost is observed within the work area, then a work exclusion zone shall be established. Work within the exclusion zone shall not be permitted until the maternity roosting season has completed. Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: The required nesting surveys and protection of any identified nests or roost would prevent harm to special status bird and bat species and would prevent harm to common types of birds. Therefore, after applying these measures, the impact would be less than significant. Special Status Reptile, Amphibian and Fish Species Impact Bio -3: Grading and construction activities associated with the Project's terraced grading plan along the banks of the River could result in an adverse effect on candidate, sensitive or special -status reptile, and amphibian and fish species, both directly and through habitat modification. Affected species possibly include California red -legged frog and Western pond Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 9 turtle, and degradation of special status fisheries habitat. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Bio -3A, Limitations on the Grading Period: To the extent feasible, limit grading in the river area to the diy season, between June 15 and October 15, when low flow conditions are present in the River. Limit vegetation removal to the period between June 15 and November 15 to avoid potential impacts to anadromous fish species and nesting birds, and to avoid interfering with adult spawning migrations or the outmigration of smolts. Mitigation Measure Bio -3B, Pre -Construction Surveys: A qualified USFWS-approved biologist shall conduct pre -construction surveys of all ground disturbance areas within suitable habitats in the Project site to determine if California red -legged frogs and Western pond turtles are present prior to the start of grading operations. Mitigation Measure Bio -3C, Relocation: If any special status species are found, they shall be relocated or an exclusion zone shall be established and maintained around the occupied habitat until the biological monitor, in consultation with the resource agencies, determines construction activities can proceed in these zones. Mitigation Measure Bio -31), Implement Best Management Practices: Avoidance and minimization measures shall be employed prior to and during construction, as required and/or approved by the resource agencies, to protect special status species and sensitive habitats. Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: Pursuant to existing regulations, the applicant is required to obtain all required authorizations from the U.S. Army Corps, the RWQCB, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and other regulatory agencies with jurisdiction, for the disturbance of waters of the U.S. and their associated aquatic habitat. In addition to all avoidance and minimization measures as required by these resource agency authorizations, the identified mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts of the Project on special status species and sensitive habitats. With completion of the Project's reconstructed river terrace and implementation of the Project's Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP), habitat for these species will be restored and possibly increased. Therefore, after applying these measures and regulatory requirements, the impact would be less than significant. Seasonal Wetlands Impact Bio -4: Development of the Project will result in the direct removal and fill of approximately 0.34 acres of seasonal wetlands defined by the US Army Corps of Engineers as jurisdictional wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Bio -4, Compensation for Seasonal Wetlands Fill: The Project applicant shall provide on-site compensatory mitigation sufficient to achieve a no -net -loss standard, subject to additional requirements of the permitting agencies. Compensatory mitigation shall be achieved through creation, restoration and enhancement of wetland habitat acreage at appropriate locations within the Project site. The newly created, restored or enhanced wetlands shall provide higher quality wetlands habitat value than the low value habitat lost from Project fill and terrace Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 10 grading. Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With implementation of the identified mitigation measure, the City will ensure that wetland mitigation fully compensates for the loss of wetland acreage and wetland habitat values resulting from the Project, such that there is no net loss of wetland acreage and values. The mitigation measure identified above is the City of Petaluma's baseline mitigation requirements (as lead agency). Subsequent permit requirements may result in different (potentially greater) mitigation obligations, particularly regarding compensatory mitigation ratios, which shall be based on site-specific information and determined through coordination with the Corps and RWQCB. Therefore, after applying these measures and regulatory requirements, the impact would be less than significant. Riparian Habitat Impact Bio -5: The Project's proposed terraced grading plan for the banks of the Petaluma River could result in substantial adverse effects on riparian habitat by removing approximately 1.62 acres of riparian habitat (most of which is considered lower quality non-native Himalayan blackberry vegetation). Approximately 0.30 acres of higher quality native riparian vegetation along the River would be preserved where practical, without severely diminishing the hydraulic flood flow capacity of the terracing project. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Bio -5A, Riparian Preservation Zone: Final grading plans for the Project's proposed terraced grading concept along the Petaluma River shall show a Riparian (Willow) Preservation Zone of a minimum of 0.30 acres in size, where the preservation of existing high-quality riparian vegetation shall be achieved, while still accommodating an overall widened channel design that provides acceptable flood control containment. As the River Plan calls for all development (including grading and flood control alterations) to be severely restricted within the high priority Riparian Preservation Zone, all development, including trails, grading and flood control alterations, shall be prohibited in this Zone. (Minimal intrusions in a carefully selected location could be authorized by the City for interpretive purposes only). Mitigation Measure Bio -513, Riparian Tree Preservation: Special measures (such as temporary fencing) to protect riparian and oak woodland trees within and abutting the riparian zone shall be required for river terracing and riverside path construction. Mitigation Measure Bio -5C, Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan: A final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) shall be submitted for review and approval by the regulatory agencies and the City. The City shall authorize the HMMP prior to issuance of the terrace grading plans. The Final HMMP shall be implemented. Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: Pursuant to existing regulations, the applicant is required to obtain all required authorizations from the CDFW (as applicable) for the loss or disturbance of on-site Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 11 riparian vegetation resulting from development of the property. Any substantial change or use of any material from the bed, channel or bank of the River, or any change that may substantially adversely affect existing fish or wildlife resources will require CDFW issuance of a Streambed Alteration Agreement pursuant to Fish and Game Code 1602. Implementation of required mitigation measures will ensure preservation of the maximum extent of riparian habitat, while balancing the need for expanded floodway capacity within the Petaluma River. The Project's HMMP provides for preservation of existing highest -value habitat along the river, removal of invasive monocultures of Himalayan blackberry patches, creation and restoration of riparian habitat and revegetation of the graded and re-contoured terrace area with native riparian vegetation. Following grading activities, approximately 2.08 acres of graded terraces will be replanted with riparian trees and shrubs, and an additional area of 0.71 acres along the River will be planted with marsh/wetland plants, for a total of 2.79 acres of replanted riparian habitat. With the 0.30 acres of avoided high quality riparian habitat, the result of on-site riparian habitat preservation and restoration will be 3.09 acres, which will be more and higher quality riparian habitat than currently exists. Therefore, after applying these measures, the impact would be less than significant. Waters of the US Impact Bio -6: The Project's terraced grading activity within the Petaluma River floodplain could result in the disturbance of jurisdictional non -wetland waters, and could indirectly affect these waters through hydrological interruption, alteration of bed and bank, increased sedimentation and other construction -related activities. These activities could potentially result in substantial adverse effects on aquatic habitat within the Petaluma River and interference with the movement of native resident and migratory fish. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Bio -6, Terraced Grading Erosion Control/Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: The Project applicant shall prepare and implement a specific Terraced Grading Erosion Control Plan for all terrace grading work and trail construction within and abutting the Petaluma River floodplain. The discharge or creation of potential discharge of any soil material including silts, clay, sand, or any other materials to the waters of the State is prohibited. Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: Pursuant to existing regulations, the applicant is required to obtain all necessary authorizations from the U.S. Army Corps, the RWQCB, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and other regulatory agencies with jurisdiction (as applicable) for the disturbance of waters of the U.S. and their associated aquatic habitat. Mitigation would further reduce and/or avoid indirect effects to aquatic habitat during construction and minimize potential adverse effects to aquatic habitat within the Petaluma River associated with proposed grading along the riverbank. The mitigation measure identified above presents the City of Petaluma's baseline mitigation requirements (as lead agency). Subsequent permit requirements may result in different (potentially greater) mitigation obligations based on site-specific information and determined through agency coordination. Any additional agency requirements will be incorporated as conditions of approval. Therefore, after applying these measures, the impact would be less than significant. Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 12 Native Resident or Migratory Wildlife Corridor Impact Bio -7: The Project could interfere substantially with the movement of native resident or migratory wildlife species, or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors along the Petaluma River. Grading of the floodway terrace and trimming and clearing vegetation next to and within the River may temporarily hinder the migration of aquatic and riparian wildlife species. The increased presence of people as well as outdoor lighting associated with new development may adversely affect the behavior of nocturnal animals using the River's riparian corridor for cover or foraging. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Bio -7A, Hooding or Shielding of Outdoor Lighting Fixtures: All outdoor lighting including any lighting along the river trail shall be focused and directed to the specific location intended (e.g., walkways, sidewalks, paths). Such fixtures shall be hooded or shielded to avoid the production of glare, minimize up -lighting and light spill. All light fixtures shall be located, aimed, or shielded to minimize spill -light into the riparian corridor and associated trees; this shall be demonstrated as a component of SPAR review. The River Plan Design Guidelines states that some portions of the river trail may be lit. Mitigation Measure Bio -713, Pre -Construction Surveys (see Mitigation Measure Bio -2A) Mitigation Measure Bio -7C, Limitations on the Grading Period (see Mitigation Measure Bio -3A) Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: Implementation of mitigation will reduce the environmental impacts of nighttime lighting on native riparian habitat by siting and using light fixtures located, aimed and shielded to minimize light spill into the riparian corridor and associated trees. Mitigation also requires pre -construction surveys and avoidance measures, including restricting grading operations to the dry season (between June 15 and October 15) when low now conditions are present in the River, and restricting vegetation removal to the period of June 15 to November 15 to avoid potential impacts to anadromous fish species and nesting birds. The City will not issue grading permits for work within the Riverbanks prior to the applicant obtaining all necessary resource agency permits and approvals, including the incorporation of all subsequent conditions and requirements of these agency approvals into the proposed grading plans. Therefore, after applying these measures, the impact would be less than significant. Invasive Species Impact Bio -9: The Project could result in a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat through the introduction of invasive, non-native plants with low habitat value, posing an increased threat to native riparian habitats. Invasion by exotic species can severely degrade the value of riparian areas for wildlife. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Bio -9, Incorporation of Native Plants in Landscaping Plans: As part of the Site Plan and Architectural Review process, the applicant shall submit a Landscape Plan for review and approval by the City. The Landscape Plan shall incorporate planting of native trees and ground cover plants consistent with the goals and objectives for this reach of the River as Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 13 described in the River Plan. Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: Mitigation requires planting of native tress and ground cover, consistent with the goals and objectives of the River Plan, thereby reducing the potential degradation of riparian areas from the introduction of non-native species. Additionally, mitigation measure Bio - 5C requires a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan including restoration, removal of invasive and exotic species and replanting and maintenance of native species. Ongoing monitoring associated with the HMMP will include success criteria for establishment of natives, and management to preclude the introduction and spread of invasive/exotic species. Therefore, after applying these measures, the impact would be less than significant. Consistency with Petaluma River Plan Corridor Impact Bio -10: The Project could conflict with local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources, including the City's Petaluma River Plan Corridor. The Project's site plan does not include any residential structures that intrude into the River Plan's designated River Corridor, but does include the riverside trail, terracing and restoration activities within the River Corridor, as well as minor encroachments for a residential sidewalk and a proposed bio -retention basin (if found to be consistent with the River Plan Corridor by Planning Commission). This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Bio -10A, Limitations on Improvements within the Petaluma River Plan Corridor: No residential structures or directly related residential components of the Project shall extend into the Petaluma River Plan Corridor (comprised of the Preservation, Restoration and Buffer Management Zones of the River Plan). The only improvements allowed within the River Plan Corridor include the river trail, terracing and restoration. During the SPAR process, the Planning Commission could allow minor encroachments associated with residential improvements, such as a detention basin and/or segments of sidewalk within the outer buffer management zone, if found to be consistent with the intent of the River Plan and not impactful to the River Plan Corridor. Mitigation Bio -1013, RODZ review at SPAR: The Site Plan and Architectural Review process shall include evaluation and review of the Project for consistency with River Oriented Development Zone (RODZ) policies and design guidelines. (See River Plan page 79-80 and Chapter 9: Design Guidelines.) As the concept plan for the apartment project is fully detailed for Site Plan and Architectural Review, the northern portion of the Project that is within the RODZ (Parcel -009) shall be designed pursuant to the RODZ Guidelines. Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: The Project does not contain buildings that encroach into the River Plan Corridor Boundary and minimizes conflicts with local policies and ordinances of the River Plan for protecting biological resources. The only improvements allowed within the River Plan Corridor include the river trail, terracing and restoration. During the SPAR process, the Planning Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 14 Commission could allow minor encroachments associated with residential improvements, such as a detention basin and/or segments of sidewalk within the outer buffer management zone, if found to be consistent with the intent of the River Plan and not impactful to the River Plan Corridor. Therefore, after applying these measures, the impact would be less than significant. Tree Removal and Tree Protection Impact Bio -11: The Project would retain and protect 58 of the 68 protected trees on the site but would result in removal of 10 protected trees, potentially conflicting with local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources, including the City's tree preservation policies and ordinance. While the Project's proposed tree removal is substantially fewer than the 38 trees proposed for removal under the original Project, this is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Bio -11A, Ensuring Preservation of Existing Trees: The final designs of the residential portion of the Project should be designed to reflect the goal of preserving protected trees to the greatest extent possible, particularly those protected trees located within the Petaluma River Plan Corridor and those isolated oaks in the RODZ. While it is recognized that the preservation of all existing trees on the Project site may conflict with reasonable land development considerations and with creation of the terrace directed by the General Plan, the final design of the Project, to be reviewed at SPAR, shall seek to preserve the most desirable and significant healthy trees on site. Mitigation Measure Bio -1111, Protected Tree Replacements: For all protected trees permitted by the City to be removed, the project applicant shall provide replacement trees. Mitigation Measure Bio -11C, Tree Protection Plan: All trees designated for preservation must have a good chance of long-term survival. Consistent with the River Plan, a tree protection plan for the site shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect, arborist or certified forester, and approved by the City for all trees to be preserved within the site to protect them during on-site grading and construction. Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: The Project's site plan substantially implements Mitigation Measure Bio -1 lA by preserving 58 of the 68 protected trees on the site. However, the Project's site plan is preliminary and subject to design refinement pursuant to the City's Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR) process. During SPAR review, specific tree preservation requirements shall be monitored for compliance, and the SPAR process may consider additional site design modifications to further increase tree preservation. Mitigation will substantially reduce potential conflicts with the City's tree preservation policies and ordinance, will ensure that those trees identified as being protected are ultimately protected during grading and construction, and will provide for the replacement of protected trees to be removed. Therefore, after applying these measures, the impact would be less than significant. Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 15 Spreading Sudden Oak Death Impact Bio -12: Removal of plant materials hosting Phytophora ramorum during tree removal could result in the spread of Sudden Oak Death to the Petaluma River riparian habitat. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Bio -12A, Infected Tree Identification: Pursuant to the City's tree removal permits, all trees of "at -risk" species to be removed shall be surveyed for sudden oak death pathogens, and individual treatment methods shall be identified. Mitigation Measure Bio -1213, Tree Removal Precautions: If a tree needs to be removed, the tree stump should be cut as close to the ground as practical. Stump grinding is not recommended because the equipment may become contaminated by soil and result in pathogen spread when used at another location. The operation of vehicles or heavy equipment in such areas may lead to further disease spread when soil is disturbed and moved around. If at all practical, tree removal should be scheduled between June to October when conditions are warm and diy, and avoid removing diseased trees when moist conditions favor pathogen spread (November to May). Mitigation Measure Bio -12C, Debris Removal Precautions: Proper disposal of infested material is an effective means of limiting the spread of pathogens. In infested areas, leaving infected or dead trees on site has not been shown to increase the risk of infection to adjacent trees. Removal of an infected tree from the property is only recommended if that tree is the first infected tree detected, if the fire risk is high, or if the dead tree is a safety hazard. If debris cannot be left on site, infested material should be disposed of at an approved and permitted dump facility. Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: Implementation of mitigation measures will minimize the spread of Sudden Oak Death to the Petaluma River riparian habitat through accepted best management practices of treatment of at -risk trees, tree removal schedules and proper disposal. Therefore, after applying these measures, the impact would be less than significant. Cultural Resources Historical Resources Impact Cultural -1: The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a known historical resource; however, there is a potential that unidentified resources may be present within the onsite wells. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Cultural -l: Monitoring of Well Abandonment. When the two existing wells on the site are removed, a qualified archaeologist shall be present to record and recover any potentially significant historic -era deposits that may be uncovered. If historic materials are observed, they shall be recorded on the appropriate DPR forms and such forms filed with the CHRIS and the Planning Division. In the event that the onsite wells are abandoned and capped in place, then monitoring would be unnecessary, as no disturbance to potential resources would occur. Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 16 Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: While it is unlikely that either well contains debris and/or historical artifacts in such a concentration as to be of significant historical value, there remains the possibility that any historical artifacts located in the well could yield valuable information. Mitigation requires that any significant historic -era artifacts that may be present within the on- site well be retrieved and evaluate. Therefore, after applying these measures, the impact would be less than significant. Archaeological and Tribal Resources Impact Cultural -2: The Project has the potential to adversely affect the significance of undiscovered archeological or Tribal cultural resources. Prior cultural resource studies prepared in 2003 and 2007 identified the presence of cultural resources. However, none of these resources appeared to be historically or archeologically significant. This does not preclude the potential that the site may still contain as -yet undiscovered archeological artifacts. The Project site is not known to contain tribal cultural resources, as a sacred place, or as -a place that contains objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, but the site is located along the banks of the Petaluma River in an area that is known to have been occupied by the Coast Miwok. The site exhibits heightened potential for such resources to be present below grade. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Cultural -2: Discovery of Unknown Archaeological or Tribal Resources. To reduce potential impacts on prehistoric site deposits and or Tribal cultural resources that may be discovered during construction, the applicant shall retain the services of a qualified archaeological consultant approved by the City of Petaluma and from the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria's list of qualified archaeologists who have also demonstrated the ability to work cooperatively with the Tribe. The archaeological consultant shall monitor ground - disturbing activity near the Petaluma River during the river terrace grading work. If a concentration of artifacts, cultural soils or Tribal cultural resources is encountered during construction anywhere on-site, all soil -disturbing activities within 100 feet of the discovery shall cease; the archaeological monitor shall immediately notify the City of Petaluma Planning Division of resources encountered; the archeological monitor shall present the findings of an assessment to the City; and provide treatment recommendations. Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: Mitigation ensures that any as -yet undiscovered archeological or Tribal cultural resources will be assessed and appropriate treatment of the resources provided. Therefore, after applying these measures, the impact would be less than significant. Paleontological Resources Impact Cultural -3: The Project has the potential to affect adversely the significance of currently undiscovered paleontological resources. Bedrock underlying the site has potential to contain significant paleontological resources. Areas with alluvium soil deposits in close proximity to Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 17 rivers, such as this site, have been known to contain vertebrate fossils. Destruction of such of currently undiscovered paleontological resources would be a potentially significant environmental impact. Mitigation Measure Cultural -3: Discovery of Unknown Paleontological Resources. In the event paleontological resources are encountered, the applicant shall procure a qualified paleontologist approved by the City of Petaluma to document, evaluate and assess the significance of the resource in accordance with the criteria set forth in the guidelines adopted by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. In the event of discovery during construction, excavations within 100 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before earthmoving or grading is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the City determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare and recommend to the City an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the project on the qualities that make the resource significant. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to resuming construction activities. Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: Mitigation ensures that ground -disturbing activities do not adversely affect any as -yet undiscovered paleontological resources, and that any as -yet undiscovered paleontological resources that may be discovered will be assessed and appropriate treatment of the resources provided. Therefore, after applying these measures, the impact would be less than significant. Human Remains Impact Cultural -4: Ground -disturbing activities associated with site preparation, grading, and excavation could disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. The potential to uncover human remains, including Native American human remains, exists throughout California. Although not anticipated, human remains may be encountered during site - preparation and grading activities. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Cultural -4, Discovery of Human Remains: In the event that human remains are uncovered during earthmoving activities, all construction excavation activities shall be suspended, and measures shall be undertaken in accordance with the Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: Ground -disturbing activities associated with site preparation, grading, and excavation could disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Mitigation provides that, in the event that human remains may be encountered on- site, the applicant shall implement measures consistent with the provisions of California Health and Safety Code section 7050.5(b). These measures ensure that any disturbance of human Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 18 remains, including Native American remains, would be handled according to provisions of law. Therefore, after applying these measures and regulatory requirements, the impact would be less than significant. Geology and Soils Exposure to Strong Seismic Ground Shaking Impact Geo -2: The Project could expose people or structures to potentially substantial adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Geo -2A, Compliance with California Building Code: New development on the site shall meet all requirements of the California Building Code, as may be modified by amendments, additions and deletions as adopted by the City of Petaluma. Mitigation Measure Geo -2B, Incorporation of Geotechnical Investigation Recommendations: Consistent with Chapter 18 of the Petaluma Building Code requirements, recommendations included in the RGH Consultants' Geotechnical Engineering Report Update for Sid Commons (January 20, 2015) regarding foundation and structural design measures shall be incorporated in final designs for each structure, contingent upon concurrence by the City's Engineer and Chief Building Official. To ensure that appropriate construction techniques are incorporated, the Project's Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect the construction work and certify to the City, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, that all improvements have been constructed in accordance with the approved Geotechnical Investigation specifications. Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: Mitigation through the incorporation of seismic construction standards as required by the regulatory requirements would reduce the potential for catastrophic effects of ground shaking, such as structural failure. These construction standards will not eliminate the hazard of seismically induced ground shaking but will reduce hazards to a level considered acceptable by the state of California for reducing seismic risks to acceptable levels. Therefore, after applying these measures and regulatory requirements, the impact would be less than significant. Expansive Soils Impact Geo -5: Portions of the Project site contain localized expansive soil, creating substantial risks to property. Expansive clay soils are potentially damaging to foundations as these soil types shrink and swell in response to changes in moisture content. Expansive soils can affect the performance of structures, and this impact is considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measure Geo -5A, Soil Treatment: The detrimental effects of expansive soil movements can be reduced by pre -swelling expansive soils and covering them with a moisture fixing and confining blanket of properly compacted non -expansive engineered fill (select fill). Select fill can consist of approved non -expansive on-site soils, imported non -expansive materials or lime stabilized on-site clay soils. Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 19 Mitigation Measure Geo -513, Foundation Design: New structures shall be supported on either post -tension slab foundations or mat slab foundations. These foundation slabs shall be designed using the expansion characteristics of the soils. Grading to prepare the building pads shall consist of reworking the upper 2 to 3 feet of surface soils by excavating these soils, moisture conditioning them to at least 4 percent above optimum moisture content, and compacting them to at least 90 percent relative compaction, or as otherwise specified by the geotechnical engineer. Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: Mitigation addresses the impacts of expansive soils through grading and/or foundation design measures as specified by the geotechnical engineer. Therefore, after applying these measures, the impact would be less than significant. Soil Erosion Impact Geo 6: The Project could result in the loss of topsoil from development on potentially erodible soils. Grading will be required to provide level surfaces for roads and structures, and excavation of expansive soils at the site will involve disturbing and removing the topsoil. Substantial grading activities will also be necessary to implement the proposed River terracing plan. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Geo -6, Erosion Control Plan: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, an erosion control plan, along with grading and drainage plans, shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review. All earthwork, grading, trenching, backfilling, and compaction operations shall be conducted in accordance with the City of Petaluma's Subdivision Ordinance (#1046, Title 20, Chapter 20.04 of the Petaluma Municipal Code) and Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance #1576, Title 17, Chapter 17.31 of the Petaluma Municipal Code). These plans shall detail erosion control measures such as site watering, sediment capture, equipment staging and laydown pad, and other erosion control measures to be implemented during construction activity on the project site. Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: Mitigation addresses potential erosion impacts by requiring all earthwork, grading, trenching, backfilling and compaction operations to be conducted in accordance with the City of Petaluma's Subdivision Ordinance and the Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance, which were specifically adopted for purposes of mitigating erosion impacts. Therefore, after applying these measures and regulatory requirements, the impact would be less than significant. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Registered Hazardous Materials Sites Impact Haz-l: The Project site is not located on a site included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and a Phase 1 ESA revealed that Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 20 the site has not been adversely impacted by any environmental releases, either off-site or on-site. However, the Phase 1 report did recommend that the surface soil at the site be tested for pesticides prior to development because of its former agriculture use. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Haz-1A, Soil Testing and Regulatory Compliance: Prior to issuance of building or grading permits, the project applicant shall conduct a soil testing program to identify the potential for agricultural chemicals, agriculture -related petroleum hydrocarbon spills, lead- based paint or elevated levels of contaminants near the rail tracks to be present in the soils at levels exceeding recommended health screening levels. Should any impacted soil be discovered that exceeds human health screening levels for residential soil as noted in DTSC's HERO HHRA Note 3 criteria and/or Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs), such soils shall be excavated and removed for appropriate off-site disposal prior to development pursuant to existing regulatory requirements. Mitigation Measure Haz-113, Discovery of Unknown Contaminants: If unknown contamination, underground tanks, containers or stained or odorous soils are discovered during construction activities, appropriate investigation, sampling and comparison of data collected with health -based screening levels and/or consultation with a regulatory oversight agency shall be conducted. Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: Mitigation requires compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements regarding California Human Health Screening Levels for residual pesticides and discovery of unknown contaminants during construction. This may include excavating and removing any contaminated soils that may be discovered for appropriate off-site disposal prior to development. Therefore, after applying these measures, the impact would be less than significant. Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials Impact Haz-3: The Project could 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. The potential for an accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment is considered most likely during the construction phase, when potentially hazardous materials would be stored, used and moved around on the site and in close proximity to the Petaluma River. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Haz-3, SWPPP Requirements (see Mitigation Measure Hydro -1) Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: Construction contractors will be required to comply with all existing federal and state safety regulations related to the transport, use, handling, storage and/or disposal of fuels or other potentially hazardous substances during all phases of construction. Mitigation Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 21 requires the applicant to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that (among other purposes) provide appropriate means for storage, use and cleanup of fuels and hazardous materials, and identifies best management practices (BMPs) to protect stormwater runoff. Therefore, after applying these measures and regulatory requirements, the impact would be less than significant. Hazardous Conditions - Increased Presence along Rail Tracks Impact Haz-5: The Project would result in increased presence along the rail racks. The site's entire westerly boundary is parallel and immediately adjacent to the SMART railroad right-of- way. The increased presence of residents and visitors in an area immediately adjacent to the rail tracks could result in a greater potential for rail -related accidents along this portion of the line. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Haz-5, Fencing: The Project shall include an open -design appropriate fence along the edge of and parallel to the rail tracks, with consideration provided to the protection of existing trees, to limit access onto the railroad right-of-way. The final fence design shall be subject to SPAR review and approval. Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: Mitigation requires fencing along the edge of and parallel to the rail tracks to limit access onto the railroad right-of-way. Landscaping proposed by the project along the rail line will also provide a visual screening and barrier between the new residential development and the railway. Therefore, after applying these measures, the impact would be less than significant. Hydrology and Water Quality Increased Pollution, Erosion and Siltation during Construction Hydro -1: During construction, the Project could alter existing drainage patterns of the site in a manner that could result in substantial erosion or siltation, and provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Hydro -1, SWPPP Requirements: Design requirements and implementation measures for minimizing Project -generated erosion and for controlling fuel/hazardous material spills shall be set forth in the applicant's SWPPP, in accordance with State and RWQCB design standards. Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: To address construction -period erosion and siltation, as well as the introduction of construction -related sources of water pollution, the applicant is required to demonstrate compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements. These regulatory requirements include filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the RWQCB for compliance with the Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 22 NPDES General Construction Activities Permit, preparing and implementing a site-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) per NPDES general construction permit requirements, and preparing and submitting an Erosion Control Plan for review and approval by the City of Petaluma. All of these regulatory requirements are to be met prior to issuance of a grading permit. Mitigation through implementation of a SWPPP represents the City of Petaluma's baseline mitigation requirements, but subsequent permit requirements may result in potentially greater mitigation obligations based on site-specific information as determined through agency coordination. Therefore, after applying these measures and regulatory requirements, the impact would be less than significant. Operational Water Quality Impact Hydro -2: During the Project's operations, the Project would contribute runoff water that could provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff and that could otherwise substantially degrade water quality. The Project could contribute to levels of non -point sources of pollutants and litter entering downstream waters, including the Petaluma River and the San Francisco Bay. An increase in non -point sources of pollutants could have adverse effects on wildlife, vegetation and human health. Parking areas are a source of suspended solids, petroleum hydrocarbons and heavy metals, and the landscaped areas could contribute harmful landscape chemicals, pesticides and fertilizers to runoff leaving the site. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Hydro -2A, SWCP Implementation: The Project shall design, construct and implement appropriate post -construction stoimwater treatment measures to reduce water quality and hydromodification impacts to downstream reaches, as required by the current post - construction control requirements of the Small MS4 General Permit. Upon completion of the final project design, the applicant shall provide documentation of stornwater management measures that show compliance with the Small MS4 General Permit. Mitigation Measure Hydro -211, SWCP Monitoring and Maintenance Agreement: Prior to public improvement plan approval, a mechanism shall be in place to ensure funding of on-going maintenance, inspection, and as needed repair of the Project SWCP, including the maintenance of the proposed Terracing Plan. Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: Mitigation requires that all non -point source pollutants washed from roofs, landscape areas and streets and parking areas be filtered through bioretention areas dispersed throughout the site and/or through self -treating impervious paving blocks (e.g., within walkways). Runoff from these bioretention areas will then be collected in a series of underground storm drains that drain into larger bioretention basins located in the northerly portion of the site before being discharged via new storm drain outlets along the banks of the Petaluma River. The Project will be required to demonstrate compliance with the NPDES General Permit for the Discharge of Storm Water from Small MS4s (SWRCB 2013). This permit requires incorporation of site design measures, source controls, stormwater treatment measures and/or other low impact development (LID) measures to reduce stolmwater runoff and limit the transport of pollutants to receiving waters and requires implementation of source control measures for specific pollution -generating activities. Pursuant to the City of Petaluma's Stormwater Management and Pollution Control Ordinance, the Project will be required to Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 23 demonstrate that appropriate BMPs will be implemented to control the volume and potential pollutant load of stormwater runoff from the site. The selection and the design of the BMPs shall be per the City's Stormwater Policy and Design Standards, and per the applicable NPDES permit issued to the City and other available guidance documents. The regulatory requirements and mitigation are the City of Petaluma's baseline mitigation requirements, and subsequent permit requirements may result in different (potentially greater) mitigation obligations based on site- specific information and determined through agency coordination. Therefore, after applying these measures, the impact would be less than significant. Land Use Conflict with a Conservation Plan Impact LU -1: Development of the Project would result in the filling of areas identified as wetlands within the River Corridor and within the River Oriented Development Zone as defined in the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan, and would result in the removal of mature oak trees at the site. This would be in conflict with objectives, policies and programs identified in the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Bio -4: Compensation for Seasonal Wetlands Fill Mitigation Measure Bio -5A: Riparian Preservation Zone Mitigation Measure Bio -513: Riparian Tree Preservation (as amended) Mitigation Measure Bio -5C: Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan Mitigation Measure Bio -6: Terraced Grading Erosion Control/Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Mitigation Bio -9: Incorporation of Native Plants in Landscaping Plans Mitigation Bio -10A: Limitations on Improvements within the Petaluma River Plan Corridor (also listed as Mitigation Measure Visual -2) Mitigation Bio -1013: RODZ review at SPAR Mitigation Measure Bio -11A: Ensure Preservation of Existing Trees Mitigation Measure Bio -11B: Protected Tree Replacements Mitigation Measure Bio -11C: Tree Protection Plan Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: Mitigation would substantially reduce impacts to biological resources and would serve to minimize conflicts with objectives, policies and programs of the Petaluma Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 24 River Access and Enhancement Plan. Therefore, after applying these measures, the impact would be less than significant. Noise Construction Noise Noise -4: Construction of the Project would result in temporary or periodic noise impacts, especially where grading and construction activities are to be conducted in close proximity to existing and new sensitive receptors, including the existing Oak Creek Apartments and neighbors along Bernice Court, Graylawn Avenue and Jesse Avenue. Construction noise levels would fluctuate depending on the construction phase, equipment type and duration of use, distance between noise source and receptor, and presence or absence of barriers between noise sources and receptors. However, the temporary or periodic impact when grading or construction activities occur within 100 feet of an existing residence would be significant. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Noise 4A, Construction Hours: Due to the proximity of sensitive receptors (residences) to the development areas, construction activities shall be required to comply with following, and shall be noted accordingly on construction contracts. Construction activities for all phases of construction, including servicing of construction equipment shall only be permitted during the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and on all holidays recognized by the City of Petaluma. Delivery of materials or equipment to the site and truck traffic coming to and from the site is restricted to the same construction hours specified above. Mitigation Measure Noise 413, Construction Engine Controls: The Project Applicant shall implement engine controls to minimize disturbance to adjacent residential uses during Project construction. Construction equipment shall utilize the best available noise control techniques (including mufflers, intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds) in order to minimize construction noise impacts. These controls shall be used as necessary to reduce heavy equipment noise to 75 to 80 dBA (Leq) at 50 feet to minimize noise levels at the closest residential receptors. If impact equipment such as jackhammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills is used during construction, hydraulically or electric -powered equipment shall be used to avoid the noise associated with compressed -air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. Where use of pneumatically powered tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed -air exhaust shall be used. External jackets on the tools themselves shall also be used, where feasible. Mitigation Measure Noise 4C, Stationary Equipment and Staging: Locate stationary noise generating equipment that generates noise levels in excess of 65 dBA Leq as far as possible from sensitive receptors. If required to minimize potential noise conflicts, the equipment shall be shielded from noise sensitive receptors by using temporary walls, sound curtains, or other similar devices. The construction contractor shall not stage equipment within 200 feet of the existing residential land uses to the west and south of the project site. Heavy equipment, such as paving and grading equipment, shall be stored on-site whenever possible to minimize the need for extra heavy truck trips on local streets. Mitigation Measure Noise 41), Miscellaneous Construction Noise: The contractor shall minimize use of vehicle backup alarms and other miscellaneous construction noise. A common approach to minimizing the use of backup alarms is to design the construction site with a circular flow pattern that minimizes backing up of trucks and other heavy equipment. Another approach Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 25 to reducing the intrusion of backup alarms is to require all equipment on the site to be equipped with ambient sensitive alarms. With this type of alarm, the alaim sound is automatically adjusted based on the ambient noise. Construction worker's radios shall be controlled to be inaudible beyond the limits of the project site boundaries. Mitigation Measure Noise 4E, Noise Barriers: The construction contractor shall erect temporary walls, sound curtains or other similar devices along the property lines adjacent to the existing Oak Creek Apartments and neighbors along Bernice Court and Graylawn Avenue, to shield these existing sensitive receptors from construction noise. To the extent feasible, the construction contractor shall prioritize construction of buildings nearest to GraylawnBernice Court during the earlier phases of construction, such that new buildings can serve as a noise barrier to dampen construction noise as the site develops. Mitigation Measure Noise 4F, Noise Disturbance Coordinator: The Project applicant / construction contractor shall designate a city -approved Noise Disturbance Coordinator, designated to respond to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and will require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. The construction schedule and telephone number for the Noise Disturbance Coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the Project construction site. Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: The increase in noise levels at nearby locations during construction would be temporary in nature and would not generate continuously high noise levels, although occasional single -event noise disturbances from construction activities are possible. The majority of construction activities would take place at a distance farther than 50 feet from existing residences. In the later phases of construction (i.e., during interior building construction) noise levels are typically reduced due to the newly erected physical structures that interrupt noise transmission. Thus, the highest noise levels that would be experienced by adjacent sensitive receptors would only occur for a limited duration during construction activity. Not all construction activity associated with the Project would occur in immediate proximity to adjacent neighbors, and construction that does occur adjacent to existing neighbors is unlikely to individually last for more than 1 year. Mitigation requires conformity with the City of Petaluma Noise Ordinance, and all reasonable and feasible noise attenuation strategies will be implemented. Therefore, after applying these measures, the impact would be less than significant. Traffic and Transportation Construction Traffic Impact Transp-12: The Project would cause temporary disruption to the transportation network due to construction. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Transp-12: Prepare Construction Management Plan. A construction management plan shall be prepared for review and approval by the City of Petaluma Public Works Department. Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 26 Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: The Construction Management Plan will include a construction truck route that would appear on all construction plans to limit truck and auto traffic on nearby streets, comprehensive traffic control measures, an evaluation of the need to provide flaggers or temporary traffic control at key intersections, notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel, regarding when major deliveries, detours, and lane closures would occur, and documentation of road pavement conditions for all routes that would be used by construction vehicles both before and after proposed project construction. These measures would minimize impacts on vehicular and pedestrian traffic, circulation and safety, and would provide for the monitoring of surface streets used for truck movement so that any damage and debris attributable to the proposed project's construction trucks can be identified and corrected by the project applicant. Therefore, after applying these measures, the impact would be less than significant. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES 1. The City Council finds that changes or alterations to the original Project as evaluated in the Draft EIR have been required of or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the original Project as identified in the Final EIR. The Project would not result in significant and unavoidable impacts that cannot be fully mitigated through implementation of mitigation measures described in the EIR. 2. The EIR evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives to the original Project. The City Council adopts the EIR's analysis and conclusions eliminating a Rainier Connector Access Alternative, an Alternative Site Location and a Different Northerly Access Alternative from further consideration. 3. The five potentially feasible alternatives analyzed in the EIR, including the No Project alternative required by CEQA, represent a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that reduce one or more significant impacts of the original Project. These alternatives include: (1) No Project — No Development; (2) Alternative 2: APN #-006 (Webb Parcel) Development Only; (3) Alternative 3A: Redistributed Density, Single -Family Residential Development; (4) Alternative 313: Redistributed Density, as Apartments; and (5) Alternative 4: Reduced Project. As presented in the EIR, the alternatives were described and compared with each other and with the original Project. 4. The City Council certifies that it has independently reviewed and considered the information on alternatives provided in the EIR and in the record. The EIR reflects the City Council's independent judgment as to alternatives. The City Council finds that the Project provides the best balance between the project sponsor's objectives, the City's goals and objectives, the Project's benefits, and mitigation of environmental impacts. The originally proposed Project and the five CEQA alternatives evaluated in the EIR are rejected for the following reasons. Each individual reason presented below constitutes a separate and independent basis to reject the original Project and alternatives. 5. Original Project: The original Project as analyzed in the Draft EIR would have required a re- zoning and PUD amendment to permit the development of 278 new residential apartment units across the site. The original Project is rejected because it would result in significant and Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 27 unavoidable impacts related to its proposal to construct a Shasta Avenue Extension to Graylawn crossing the SMART rail tracks at -grade. These impacts include increased hazards associated with at -grade rail crossings, a likelihood of blocking emergency vehicle access, exposure of existing and new residents to reasonably foreseeable noise from additional train horns from trains crossing the proposed new Shasta Avenue Extension rail crossing, and safety hazards to traveling motorists, emergency responders and the rail carriers. The at - grade rail crossing was also likely to be infeasible, as it would have required approval by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). CPUC staff comments indicated no support from that agency for such a rail crossing. Based on conclusions of significant environmental impacts as presented in the Draft EIR and lack of support for the original Project as expressed by City Planning Commissioners and City Councilmembers, the Project Applicant withdrew the original Project's conceptual site plan, including its proposed at -grade rail crossing, from consideration. 6. No Project Alternative: Under the No Project Alternative, no project would be undertaken. The only development that could occur at the Project site without any discretionary action, specifically if the provisions of the 1982 PUD that restrict use of the northern majority of the Project site (APN-009) are not lifted, would be limited to development of 1 new single family home with accessory structures on each of the two APNs (006 and 009) and, at APN - 009, those uses permitted in the Agricultural district as specified in the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance. With no new approvals for development of this property, use of the APN-009 site would likely continue much as it is today, as a large and undeveloped private parcel. A separate development application for APN -006 could be submitted consistent with the R4 zoning, but would be a separate action, not a part of the No Project Alternative. This alternative would avoid all of the Project's potentially significant and mitigatable impacts identified in the EIR. The No Project Alternative is rejected because: (a) it would not implement those goals of the Petaluma General Plan which call for efficient development of underutilized infill sites with residential densities that are equal to or higher than that of surrounding land uses; (b) it would not provide a river trail as envisioned by the River Plan and General Plan; (c) it would not result in implementation of terraced grading along the banks of the Petaluma River, and thus would have no effect on lowering the base flood elevations at the site or at other upstream locations; (d) it would not assist in implementation of adopted City-wide ordinances and General Plan policies that seek to reduce flooding and floodplain impacts to the greatest extent feasible; and (e) it would not achieve any of the Project sponsor's objectives for the Project. 7. Alternative# 2 APN #-006 (Webb Parcel) Development Only: Under Alternative #2, the proposed re -zoning and PUD amendment would not be pursued, and use of APN-009 would be limited to only those uses permitted in the City's Agricultural District zoning. The approximately 4.39 -acre property at APN-006 was not a part of the prior 1982 Oak Creek Apartment PUD, and development would occur consistent with the current General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential and Residential 4 (R4) zoning. At a maximum density of 18 units per acre, the 4.39 -acre site could accommodate up to 79 new residential apartment units. Alternative #2 would reduce or avoid many of the biological resource impacts of the original Project (e.g., wetlands fill, tree removal, loss of riparian habitat) and would generate less new traffic and less air quality emissions as compared to the original Project. Alternative #2 would avoid significant and unavoidable impacts related to the original Project's proposal to construct a Shasta Avenue Extension to Graylawn crossing the SMART rail tracks. These impacts include increased hazards associated with at -grade rail crossings, the higher likelihood of blocking emergency vehicle access, exposure of existing Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 28 and new residents to reasonably foreseeable noise from additional train horns from trains crossing the proposed new Shasta Avenue Extension rail crossing and safety hazards to traveling motorists, emergency responders and the rail carriers. Alternative #2 is rejected because: (a) it would not implement those goals of the Petaluma General Plan which call for efficient development of underutilized infill sites with residential densities that are equal to or higher than that of surrounding land uses; (b) it would not provide a river trail as envisioned by the River Plan and General Plan; and (c) it would not achieve any of the Project sponsor's objectives for the Project. Further, Alternative 42 is rejected because it does not achieve a central objective of realizing flood control improvements through terraced grading as directed through the City's General Plan. Parcel - 006 is the only property that would be developed under this Alternative, and it is not within the River Corridor. Thus, Alternative #2 would not implement any of the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan objectives, including expanded river channel capacity improvements, the river trail, river vegetation management and enhancement, or contribute toward lowering flood water surface elevations to help remove properties from the 100 -year flood boundary to the greatest extent possible in accordance with the General Plan. 8. Alternative 3A: Redistributed Density, Single -Family Residential Development: Under Alternative #3, the residential densities as calculated for Alternative #2 (79 units) would be redistributed throughout the entire Project site and developed with lower -density single- family residential lots. A portion of the allowable density from the APN-006 site would be redistributed to the APN-009 site, likely through a new PUD. Subdividing a calculated 12.35 net developable acres (not including new public roadways) into 79 individual single-family residential lots would yield an average lot size of approximately 6,800 square feet and a density of approximately 5.1 unit per acre. As a single-family residential development, Alternative #3A would occupy essentially the same development footprint as the original Project. Alternative #3A would generate less new traffic and less air quality emissions as compared to the original Project and would avoid significant and unavoidable impacts related to the original Project's proposal to construct a Shasta Avenue Extension to Graylawn crossing the SMART rail tracks. These impacts include increased hazards associated with at - grade rail crossings, the higher likelihood of blocking emergency vehicle access, exposure of existing and new residents to reasonably foreseeable noise from additional train horns from trains crossing the proposed new Shasta Avenue Extension rail crossing and safety hazards to traveling motorists, emergency responders and the rail carriers. Alternative #3A is rejected because: (a) it would not implement those goals of the Petaluma General Plan which call for efficient development of underutilized infill sites with residential densities that are equal to or higher than that of surrounding land uses; (b) it would likely not enable design opportunities to arrange new development on the site in a manner that could reduce or avoid many of the biological resource impacts of the original Project (e.g., wetlands fill, tree removal, loss of riparian habitat); (c) would not likely enable design opportunities to arrange new development on the site in a manner that new homes and usable outdoor areas are set back at least 54 feet from the rail line; and (d) it would not achieve any of the Project sponsor's objectives for the Project. 9. Alternative 313: Redistributed Density, as Apartments: Similar to Alternative #3A, under Alternative #3B, the residential densities as calculated for Alternative #2 (79 units) would be redistributed throughout the entire Project site and developed with a lower -density apartment project, likely through a new PUD. The density of up to 79 apartment units spread over the 15.45 net acres of developable portions of APNs -006 and -009 would yield a density of approximately 5.1 units per gross acre. Alternative #3B would generate less new traffic and Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 29 less air quality emissions as compared to the original Project and would avoid significant and unavoidable impacts related to the original Project's proposal to construct a Shasta Avenue Extension to Graylawn crossing the SMART rail tracks. These impacts include increased hazards associated with at -grade rail crossings, the higher likelihood of blocking emergency vehicle access, exposure of existing and new residents to reasonably foreseeable noise from additional train horns from trains crossing the proposed new Shasta Avenue Extension rail crossing and safety hazards to traveling motorists, emergency responders and the rail carriers. Alternative #3B would likely enable design opportunities to arrange new development on the site in a manner that could reduce or avoid many of the biological resource impacts of the original Project (e.g., wetlands fill, tree removal, loss of riparian habitat) and would likely enable an adequate set back from the railway to avoid a potential land use conflict due to siting new sensitive receptors proximate to an noise source with occasionally intrusive noise events. Alternative #3B is rejected because: (a) it would not implement those goals of the Petaluma General Plan which call for efficient development of underutilized infill sites with residential densities that are equal to or higher than that of surrounding land uses; (b) it would not achieve the Project sponsor's objectives for the Project; and (c) based on written comments from the Project Applicant, the limited amount of development under this alternative would make it economically infeasible for this applicant to implement required flood control improvements through terraced grading as directed through the City's General Plan. Thus, Alternative #3B would be unlikely to implement any of the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan objectives including expanded river channel capacity improvements, the river trail, or river vegetation management and enhancement. Alternative #3B would likely be economically incapable of contributing toward the City's flood management policies and regulations intended to lower flood flow water surface elevations and to help remove properties from the 100 -year flood boundary to the greatest extent possible in accordance with the General Plan. 10. Alternative 4: Reduced Project: Alternative #4 is based on the development potential that can be accommodated by the design capacity of Graylawn Avenue under the City's "livable streets" standard, as was defined and calculated in the Draft EIR. Pursuant to the Street Standards for the City of Petaluma, local residential roadways such a Graylawn Avenue are intended to carry up to a maximum of 2,000 average daily tips (ADTs), serving up to 200 dwellings. Based on information presented in the Draft EIR that relied on 2015 data, Graylawn Avenue carried approximately 954 ADTs, and thus had a maximum remaining capacity of 1,046 ADTs before exceeding the design standards. The 1,046 daily trips of remaining capacity on Graylawn Avenue equates to approximately a 152 -unit multi -family residential project, at a trip rate of approximately 7 daily tips per unit. With 152 apartment units spread over the approximately 16 net acres of developable portions of APNs -006 and - 009, Alternative #4 would yield a density of approximately 10 units per acre. Alternative #4, inclusive of the river terrace, would avoid many of the original project's unavoidable impacts (primarily by not including the Shasta Avenue at -grade crossing), would reduce the level of impacts under all other environmental categories as compared to the Project due to reduced density, and would realize a majority of the Project's objectives. Alternative #4 is rejected because: (a) the data supporting the definition of this Alternative is no longer accurate, based on more recent traffic counts. As presented in the Final EIR, traffic counts conducted on Graylawn Avenue in May 2019 indicate a three-day average traffic volume on Graylawn Avenue of 1,142 ADT. The number of additional trips that could be accommodated on Graylawn Avenue such that the ADT would not exceed 2,000 ADT is approximately 858 daily trips, equivalent to approximately 108 residential apartment units; Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 30 (b) this alternative may not be financially feasible as it would add only 29 more units relative to Alterative 3B, which based on written comments from the Project Applicant would potentially make it economically infeasible to implement required flood control improvements through terraced grading as directed through the City's General Plan; and (c) it would not implement those goals of the Petaluma General Plan which call for efficient development of underutilized infill sites with residential densities that are equal to or higher than that of surrounding land uses. 11. Changes or alterations to the original Project that are similar to Alterative #4 have been incorporated into the Project. Similar to Alternative #4, these changes avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the original Project. Like Alternative 44, the Project would result in fewer dwelling units and fewer cars, and traffic and air quality impacts would be reduced as compared to the original project. Similar to Alternative #4, the Project's modified design enables retention of more protected trees, increases development setback from the Petaluma River, and avoids significant and unavoidable impacts related to the original Project's proposal to construct a Shasta Avenue Extension to Graylawn crossing the SMART rail tracks. Similar to Alternative #4, the Project will implement objectives of the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan including capacity improvements to the river channel, the river trail and river vegetation management and enhancement. Also, like Alterative #4, the Project will contribute toward the City's flood management policies and regulations intended to lower water surface elevations of flood flows to help remove properties from the 100 -year flood boundary to the greatest extent possible, in accordance with the General Plan. Although not considered a significant environmental impact, the Project does conflict with the City's 2,000 ADT design standard for Graylawn Avenue as a residential road. To address this condition, the Project will implement a Traffic Calming Plan, which may include bulb outs, street tree planting, pavement marking and other roadway livability improvements and traffic calming features to minimize conflicts with "livability" standards for local streets that exceed the 2,000 ADT design standard for this roadway. The Project would: (a) implement goals of the Petaluma General Plan which call for efficient development of underutilized infill sites with residential densities that are equal to or higher than that of surrounding land uses by introducing 180 units on the approximately 16 net developable parcel (approximately 11 units per acre); (b) provide a river trail as envisioned by the River Plan and General Plan as well as associated amenities such as a publicly accessible play structure and small dog park; (c) achieve a central objective of realizing flood control improvements through terraced grading as directed through the City's General Plan; (d) preserve all protected -status trees both within the River Access and Enhancement Plan's River Plan Corridor and within the RODZ-subject APN-009 (Tree Numbers 39, 59, 60, 61, and 200) and exceed the River Plan Corridor setback identified therein; (e) retain the largest onsite wetland and the two isolated wetlands closest to the river; (f) realize a Zero Net Energy and all -electric development; (g) provide inclusionary housing onsite for 10% of the units at the low income level as authorized by Resolution 2020 -XX; and (h) achieve the objectives for the Project. Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 31 EXHIBIT 2 Sid Commons Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared in conformance with Section 21081.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines. This document has been developed to ensure implementation of mitigation measures and proper and adequate monitoring/reporting of such implementation. CEQA requires that this MMRP be adopted in conjunction with project approval, which relies upon an Environmental Impact Report. The purpose of this MMRP is to: document implementation of required mitigation; ® identify monitoring/reporting responsibility, be it the lead agency (City of Petaluma), other agency (responsible or trustee agency), or a private entity (applicant, contractor, or project manager); establish the frequency and duration of monitoring/reporting; • provide a record of the monitoring/reporting; and o ensure compliance The following table lists each of the mitigation measures adopted by the City in conjunction with project approval, the implementation action, timeframe to which the measure applies, the monitoring/reporting responsibility, reporting requirements and the status of compliance with the mitigation measure. Implementation The responsibilities of implementation include review and approval by City staff including the Engineering, Planning and Building Divisions. Responsibilities include the following: 1. The applicant shall obtain all required surveys and studies and provide a copy to the City prior to issuance of grading permits or approvals of improvements plans. 2. The applicant shall incorporate all applicable code provisions and required mitigation measures and conditions into the design and improvements plans and specifications for the project. 3. The applicant shall notify all employees, contractors, subcontractor, and agents involved in the project implementation of mitigation measures and conditions applicable to the project and shall ensure compliance with such measures and conditions. 4. The applicant shall provide for the cost of monitoring of any condition or mitigation measure that involves on-going operations on the site or long-range improvements. 5. The applicant shall designate a project manager with authority to implement all mitigation measures and conditions of approval and provide name, address, and phone numbers to the City prior to issuance of any grading permits and signed by the contractor responsible for construction. 6. Mitigation measures required during construction shall be listed as conditions on the building or grading permits and signed by the contractor responsible for construction. Sid Commons Apartment Project, MMRP Page I Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 32 7. All mitigation measures shall be incorporated as conditions of project approval. 8. The applicant shall arrange a pre -construction conference with the construction contractor, City staff and responsible agencies to review the mitigation measures and conditions of approval prior to the issuance of grading and building permits. Monitoring and Reporting The responsibilities of monitoring and reporting include the Engineering, Planning and Building Divisions, as well as the Office of the Fire Marshal. Responsibilities include the following: 1. The Building, Planning, and Engineering Divisions and Fire Marshal's Office shall review the improvement and construction plans for conformance with the approved project description and all applicable codes, conditions, mitigation measures, and permit requirements prior to approval of a site design review, improvement plans, grading plans, or building permits. 2. The Planning Division shall ensure that the applicant has obtained applicable required permits from all responsible agencies and that the plans and specifications conform to the permit requirements prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. 3. Prior to acceptance of improvements or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, all improvements shall be subject to inspection by City staff for compliance with the project description, permit conditions, and approved development or improvement plans. 4. City inspectors shall ensure that construction activities occur in a manner that is consistent with the approved plans, mitigation measures, and conditions of approval. MMRP Checklist The following table lists each of the mitigation measures adopted by the City in connection with project approval, the timeframe to which the measure applies, the person/agency/permit responsible for implementing the measure, and the status of compliance with the mitigation measure. Sid Commons Apartment Project, MMRP Page 2 Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 33 E O Q Q bb bb C/) C/) (D O O pcd cd U Q cd +, C/) O U QC/) p-, P�a P, O•� o Qi O O U O N — a' 0 o Cd r, U 7� O p NO to 4N �" cd bp U +� +' v, ' � OU N aD (D a> N PQ L a> � � o P, vz 0 C) o O a� r3 ° A ¢ oUO N tV o vCd `j o ° 1>1 11 ID U 'O O° O O N�� o U bA b��A W b�.A V1 En UCJ vi F-� u Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 34 ON cn 4-4bA o +� Cd Cd o c N bJ) 0 cd ^; N rs s, O Cd O bA +� U d 'LS cd 0 cd 0 c bb i� � >C tiC cid U U U �U, c� t 4 cid 41- C4-4bs A (D 4- O O C,rl 'p O U N bA U m N ., ID 0c� N N 9 U, m cbA �� O t3 C13 N G) Q M 7U S `�✓ 7�� bA' {� 54,Cd bD C��6y U d cd U N bA• bA U ' • U ,� S�, �O c� .' � U C N O U bA ;+ N O Cd c O Pa U O v1 O "�S bA —;j +cn U bA .� QJ O 8,n -, d Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 35 U U N iw bA bf) � O O cd o c� O ¢ p O y' O O '-0 ¢ cd a cd �Ow �Oa o 0 O U Ir- N P,.– ,~h4 ..-i h4 bA ate a �Q cn 4-4bA o +� Cd Cd o c N bJ) 0 cd ^; N rs s, O Cd O bA +� U d 'LS cd 0 cd 0 c bb i� � >C tiC cid U U U �U, c� t 4 cid 41- C4-4bs A (D 4- O O C,rl 'p O U N bA U m N ., ID 0c� N N 9 U, m cbA �� O t3 C13 N G) Q M 7U S `�✓ 7�� bA' {� 54,Cd bD C��6y U d cd U N bA• bA U ' • U ,� S�, �O c� .' � U C N O U bA ;+ N O Cd c O Pa U O v1 O "�S bA —;j +cn U bA .� QJ O 8,n -, d Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 35 0 It ca I ro o Q Q Q U bin bbl) bO U O 4- bA Zj ID UU pIDH p O J ¢ O +' O D U U0 U p o bb bb bp ° .0 .0 �U) U) b)) N o cn M co U H bnbjD O O C) bb O G bbb 0 o En N p 4--1O O Cd O , N t- 1-1 cO O U N (� 4' U O U U by 4- Q N cd zj O cd N E-+ Cd cd I v� p Q, 0 yU U tU N Obb Cj N U N U N d QJ U yO 0 n �p.'0�p N 'CO b�o OO Cd bb bJ) G) bA � U o ' �" bA U sU N 4-4 O cd ~ f� QUJ A U �S�~ . M d O ¢ N — m by y9 A U o U O N cn Cj O o Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 36 r•Q O � CIO a Ocd 0 O pp bA N V O cd ++ N bb O Cd N bO Cd ¢� Cd Q c'Cd N N cd c cd O 'O N w O �O U N -d4-. bAva N — cd V U ° Cd U CIO o �' o cd14 71 O O O cr a� v1 c� ' v cd cn Cd,H 0 o by o o v1 +, 0 Ed" U O v� ° ID 0 cd p - s O O d N r. UCj 0 D Cd 0 0 O N p A bA cO -0 U 4 cd 0cd O N .� 'Ca U 51 °U cd V) .o 0 a� Q 9A 0 O N cd +' N N O rnN Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 37 O O Aj cd O. � Q Q is cd U O cd bA U 0 �4- N O • 4 U vi O C, d cd OUUO ra � b�A c� o o Q (D o O C4 o r <+ `+ N N bp cd U rn Ucd cd 0 '� .d 3 0 cd m cd cd'd cd U U c O� 'd 0 'j � d) � bNA 9 � � �� � U bJ� � s rn N 0, - UD'ted '� -+-<+ cd 'd ' U)~ O 0 S" �" N bbC'jcd bQ '+ N ¢i N cd 0 . U . O 'd N N 4a D U p N N~ d N 0 0� o z3 �' 'd bA o d bb i- 0 bb bb O + U d Q O O O En o � aD (D U `� 0 0 +2 0 (D cd ,Zj bA — 0 " O 0 {cid O NbD — +U; 0 4�� +0 w Q, O cn U S� W& N H c O V1 ;-� O U] cn Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 38 t O 'w U ta. Im U d N N V U cmd V)co —Cd _ Cd ~— ¢(D O a�1 U N Cd O M 0'O I' Cd OU O O —4'7 O QJ U O bA d r, " L O N U U bA v� 'd S� ;:3�" O +� cd s- _ cd 0 U cd + O� +~ Uj E +' 0 O O O21) Z O O UU v N Cj N O '0-)y U f'!' O 0 i CCS ;tom (]� � O O .0 bD U N 6> p N N O v� 4� � U CCj Ucd U to ,d O CCS bA U bA • O U Cd O i O cC3 N r -i O U N U cid, C$ t N '45 ri H .N ;,:)J •O � + C)N bA N �O CC3 S� 1-4 .•moi � ',y', .^-� Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 39 00 a O it in W ME r ii r_ i 10 75 o O O O^ 0 O M 0 o o +' o M N A i o q o cd -tt Q o o U � Ubb U u O �� N p o d cd P.2 �4 c°j a �° O +� z3 cd co b!). U O U b 0 O g W OC o° v� cd O c� v��D �i 8 0 0 Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. G' Page 40 pi bb U U O bD U bj� -Cd ° O sU� O 7g bA Tj L7 +U, ice- •� �� O � 0 •� O S, i- d QJ O Q1 O O COO O d O .0 U+ Q bA bA bb U O t, O bjD .> 10 75 o O O O^ 0 O M 0 o o +' o M N A i o q o cd -tt Q o o U � Ubb U u O �� N p o d cd P.2 �4 c°j a �° O +� z3 cd co b!). U O U b 0 O g W OC o° v� cd O c� v��D �i 8 0 0 Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. G' Page 40 0 0 c� .. � bb � 0 0 0 4 H o U En Cd 0 Ln ZQ. w �U�� w0 ° C/)U amu, Q bA t�. �P bA Un _o 'd Cd o N bA vl �, cd v� �," N s. bA t o • o . o _ a� O cd N d O UCd 'd GO U a � o o o � �, .d i 0 chi) � Q 'dU3� � r. , 1-1 a U N U - 5 S" bA 'd d N p ''d U 'd ' r N Cd ID zj a)0 Q '� bA � 4' o �• ocn0 bb bD Y ° N O d f� o O U c�a �, bb 1,- 0 i ° "d ..d AFI 0 +1 U U cn i O � Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 41 L Cd Ga o Q Q Q bb bb CIO C/) cd 0 7a bD +�O N u ON a O P U U O ,�� U U U O a '� N a �4-+ c�i� Q� N O O O N 5 v (1)+ S� 0 S� N S i SUa U ra � C� 'bl) a O .b) O O +' N O U N N cd U N 0 C/)d N UU v� H cd U O +' �bA �" f +z - bl)U N N o U U c+i1 Q U En O L3 �O bA 5 N - O ,4-, .�'i cd U .�-, •+��-+ • 0 0 O ,�-S U V1 ti N 0 CV bbA cd O� M Q, U O �, 4-, N 0 H � ~ cn N N cd0 cd 4, U ~ U 'd .ate A .+ � bA cn t� cd a� a� + U U +' cd 0cd a> bI �+ a� cn O ca O F-+ O;04 O cd N Q, 0 U) �� bA bQ Q, d O � U Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 42 a 0 .0 0 o � 0 U Q Q Q Q c� bbD C bA 0 m a) cd bj) cd O cd cd 0 U) bD �4 bb bJ) Cd O RS U p U S" p U C C 0 CdbD D cn , cd 0 �- 'C',m0 U O 00 "d U m N 0 a) cd U 0 0 0 i� •'" 'D0 C') U ' O bb O s- sem- cH 0 En cd AU 'fl bA a� U C p b cd cd O O Cd 0N VOi z� z� 0 � O o '0 0 0.1 0 y IDo; o o O O a)°o q'Ivo Q o C G"C3 C) 40cd 4bA bQ -- 0 0 by O 0 5 c� :i U .+ G 'Z " 9bb Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 43 0 0 MW 0 U Q Q Q Q Q bp 9 b C 12 03 4-4 o � Q,o o1�01 0 0 U a� w U cd O 'rJ,zs y, En co p 'r3 by - L�~i �a ' O cn —~ O w•U•U t� d Pa P1 Q ¢ W U40 O � bA N p d bA Oi �' ��- v `° 2 U4 P� -4 ccd bA cd O cn U N (UDI � U N 'd N 4--" 7�+ cd O QJ O N r N ry) bb p + N cd U cn U bb U •fl cdp • -- U va d?cn _ �, �n M �r i-+ CSC •� +' O N(4-4 O p p Ncf) 4 chi O N CC3 N— s ✓ O cd ~ o p o by N U 'Cdm Ca U N O N O •--i � N N U i+ QJ �O N Cd U U) (P4 4O pU Cd O +� OU CO) Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 44 Q IQ P O (D0a) � U 0 o 0 42 0 a� o m U H 0 Pa •� � o � o cd R+ N N 'O Q r. U (~j N O 4 .O ;+~ Q% O 0 H 7^ O 0 p F~ 10 U .r 6 U 75 O GJ •0 . ;a -- Q �Clj CIS O p (tzm)a�. Cd 0 Cd I� Cd O U � � c�d b�A bbA O N cn N N +C� ° N O ? O O U 's'- P N Cj ,-) QJ N CC! O Q IQ P O (D0a) � U 0 o 0 42 0 a� o m U H 0 Pa •� � o � o go �v N N 'O Q r. U (~j N O 4 .O ;+~ Q% O 0 H 7^ O 0 U o O H F~ 10 U .r Q IQ 0 bA O bA O .d .'" N ~ a U cd 4 - cd s] O o U c� o O o •� o � Cd N e 4- 0 0 cn 'U N (1) +J ✓� w bf, o bp O Obb N Mr Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 45 P O U O 4J 0 , H Pa •� � o � o go O ;+~ M � U U •� 6 75 O GJ •0 . ;a -- i-� �Clj CIS O p (tzm)a�. Cd 0 Cd I� Cd 0 bA O bA O .d .'" N ~ a U cd 4 - cd s] O o U c� o O o •� o � Cd N e 4- 0 0 cn 'U N (1) +J ✓� w bf, o bp O Obb N Mr Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 45 0 .-d Ra 6 r� o � � Q cd b�A Cd o � � o U(4-4O U N U .� bA -bj) -bJ)' a°i o Cd D o O ° O U 4� '0a) UU i� — T3 S p } 'd--- U OU v1 �" rp — r3 0 cd p' - cd U CO N U N U `c Z WN Cd N U 0 � a N en N N U1 O �• dj �, ° O UO L j O �y" U j U O O cl O U vii � 4- N 0 O t7 sU O O U N 'd O� O rn 401 '0 N+� +U- rj�ddCd Cd U ` bb bpA ° i� a� q N O �- 4- 4-1 o 0 (D • r Q" ' cd cd U 0O by -0 W Cd +, bA -0 � O � O � � O .0 cd bb 10 V).cn — cd (d cn .� .0 U U U cid cid � .� U ,� p '� A N 'bb N '+ U cd U do N N O U m cd bb p ' U s I O �, o Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 46 0 bb bb D IV) bb o � o ° o � 0 o � o Cj O p N U O O O 5 ¢ U , cd A ( V) � p N 'C3 + Cf) Cd bb w C� Ntz ,-, *9 C)) b' C/O � c'Od 6 'O d y0 v O r" +� N C/) bbCd+ bn C40, ° 40 ° � +- cd °O a� ' U cri U 4-1 4�, O ;+ ° o a' � 41 U + O 0 r� U V) C) O Qn M `+--{ ° o +, s +3 fs U o U N�4- GO U U d) O O F 0 g-, 0, U cd bA v O Cj t3 U + O N U S A ) 0 bA bb bb D IV) bb 71 ;j QbQ O U O p N Rf "t3 , cd A ( V) � p O a U C� Ntz ,-, *9 O c'Od �c O OU+ OP -4 �b�A bA U ° �W4, C) o ° p o .�C/3 �a 03 '41 U N �O 0ID °° ) O 'N O (D +' 45 Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. 0 cd cn Cd 'C) > N o cd Cj O Cd N 0 C cn o c M cd a d) Cd U cd Q) 4+ UO b U 0 O bb N Cd tj ° bA Page 47 10 O na O MW u Cd � ® N U N N U Q Q Q Q iw c� b�A bA bA C/) CA C/) U r ccd bA _ cn U p P, bA m 40, cli O cd a) Cd ¢, o -d a� w _ c p P, �, cn O ° bA cd P, N Q •P,bn-dam S�� ¢:bJD C) �' ¢`3� °� �r o : o ° � a, N o ID 03b°n o Q U a wx -4 42 C/D>U b) 00 o cd tl CA (1) � b�A by t by cn bA C)U bA a P 3 O O p,Qa,U 0 N 4--1 °3 0 rd ° >(D c/) -d cd o Cd o bin cn ' O U ' � ° O ) 0 �, --d cid a ) cd N p p N U �' 0 0 +cd bA -d bb bD cd 0 0 4- `D dm � P, �, � o3 � cn � '� ��^j ° °J a� �d � � 1� 0 O O v' cd U U•- U � U �d O � p co O +� U O O N cd Ctt U U + t� cd N P� U S�, O -- i 4-1 b 9� °' cd cd bA ° cd 10 '� � bA � 10 U d � ID � � Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 48 0 In M 9 bb o ;J (1)5 H bA O bA o`� U bA O ~ U O s cd . S" Cd o pco o � o O b�n�o U to g" >c cd 0 � cd pO O cd Cd U0 id ~ oabQ c U 'd O i'l- 5 o 0"> o ° N cn O p m P, O � cn U bA O cd cd O4-1 N In bA y OCd 'd O U Lz bb cd" cI i "'), P. Cd bb o ;J (1)5 H > 007 O bA o`� U bA O ~ U O s cd . S" Cd p��laU pco O Cd U to g" >c cd 0 � cd pO O cd Cd U0 id ~ oabQ c U 'd O i'l- 5 o 0"> o ° N cn O p m P, O � cn U bA O cd cd O4-1 cd bA y OCd 'd O U N 03 Q IQ Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 49 P P, H O �aa o`� U bA O ~ — td gT4 O O s cd . S" ��P1 p��laU pco O Cd .. (� U Cd +1 N a cd p a) O to g" >c cd 0 � cd pO O cd Cd O oabQ c Q, 'd o'era O U o 0"> o ° N cn O p m P, O � cn O cc3 4 O .) co 3 cd bb cd bA y OCd Cd O Lz bb cd" cI i "'), P. Cd ID pi Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 49 P P, H O U bA O ~ — td gT4 O O s cd . S" ��P1 p��laU Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 49 P P, o C's+ N P, U U — td gT4 O O s cd . S" bA v� (,y cdy C) pco O Rt ° - y 0 ' ' . bD .. (� U Cd +1 N a cd p a) O zi �- g" >c cd 0 � cd pO O cd bA O W) W Cd 4-4 O 10 �+ ' sUi cn 0 O X! C) O N �p� o 0"> o ° N cn O p m P, O p � 5 U NV, +C� 'd U~ j bh O O� O cd +- co 3 p > 'd U cd bA y OCd O Lz bb cd" cI i "'), P. Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 49 P P, O Cd o' O bA O o 'd 0O+ bb O id 0 U QJ 10 O Cd 4- IO bbA bA i O 'i N + s--4 Cd O0 cd , O o U +� W U bA U v� U N O p N CS ro O o PE, Q � R. td O Cd o' O bA O o 'd 0O+ bb O id 0 U QJ 10 O Cd 4- IO bbA bA i O 'i N + s--4 Cd O0 cd , O o U +� W U bA U v� U N O p N CS Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 50 O o PE, Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 50 Le ff 0 E in blo UO CIO IC/) Cd Q� yy t� ~ cd O + p a \ bb bA O 0bp \ bA U O' Og �— a� F%QaU 0� w E, o i� O U1 �i U .. A H Q Q bA bA bA C bA bA bA ren O o \ bb bA O a� \ bA bA o F%QaU W w ��1 H Q Q bA bA bA C I bA bA bA ren .O o bA O bUA 4- O g c� o I Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 51 bA bA bA ren .O o Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 51 0 r� Cd A O O Cd N U ° o O cd bb bO c vi to cn U cq or, �a bA bbD O bb bD cd S- U U '0 0' ° bn — aco � U (D � 4_4 O C) d IDjo qJ by m ° p 0 s -i N U p `° bA.5 ~ JCd N �,•° ° c a °moo W +� 4 N AbD �� �� a� cd O o cd 'd o d 0 - o w H bb P. °, Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. MI Page 52 bIJ � tt 0 o H �, o d o :� ° ' Id Id ° C cd v 0 a by ¢ U O N U cv ) C8 O 0 cd sU rd o ° H °D M `J 0 p U U V� S] v� O iN- d � � 0 MI Page 52 Le, 03 to O O +U O N ~ cd O� O o U° cnCd U a cd oN o U td ID o o o th cd ° N U bA c O .5 O T3 4-1 U O U O. 4_ U bA s O cd O �� U cn � P� 4 O N y cd a N ai '�' bA ' O N U P -q cn ' cd QJ O — Cj .� U i i cd cd �U 6 U cd cd c� cc3 U 0" cd cd : O O Q to Q bA ¢' �" Uj p RS � �'-I S,-1 � .'"_� � �y N O ... .~--I � � ° � •,-I � �-'Y � id . e'--1--1 ~^--I � c�d � v� ^ I Q-1 • rl O r-1 �'i ss..--�� ¢i �1 ¢I Q) i--�--'i i --`i Q� a U U cd P1 C/) �O O V) U)rn O +� Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 53 U bA C/11 I � Q Q y i -i 0 4� 0 Pi 0 P,A rd 'O � rte- a���s� ®P, ao bb 0 � ) o DO o U bA bA bb U O U QJ C w�1wU m p-, bb 60 d N O cd 0 c0 bb bA N O N bA cd � O 4-4 O U Cd �jcd cn w - O U s bA d p cid U O O O cid � bA C/11 I � Q Q y i -i 0 4� 0 Pi 0 P,A rd 'O � rte- a���s� ®P, ao bb 0 � ) o p N 'p U t- + cd 4a +� s , �- • - H bAIDo .. rI1UOU bb O �� ID p p E v Na) �� O OU y O O U O N V N O „� Cd •^! — + cd ^ 'C cd 0 d O cd . r U .. .o O -- F i^ ^ '� O O cn ,��-, ,Z; � by cd C� cd t� 6 s cd bA c1 pt d v O t+ O4,- O s U t4 ID � un0 bA+ U OU - `0 bA N bA N U CJ 40 O 'nbA C13 cd P, ,- cd 'S.-.- -,j N � O bD 41' bA O O +U)a' N �—�'1 cn U O •� O �I U Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 54 � o U bA bA \bn bA w�1wU m p-, o p N 'p U t- + cd 4a +� s , �- • - H bAIDo .. rI1UOU bb O �� ID p p E v Na) �� O OU y O O U O N V N O „� Cd •^! — + cd ^ 'C cd 0 d O cd . r U .. .o O -- F i^ ^ '� O O cn ,��-, ,Z; � by cd C� cd t� 6 s cd bA c1 pt d v O t+ O4,- O s U t4 ID � un0 bA+ U OU - `0 bA N bA N U CJ 40 O 'nbA C13 cd P, ,- cd 'S.-.- -,j N � O bD 41' bA O O +U)a' N �—�'1 cn U O •� O �I U Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 54 t r® V ppc��i C� � bA O 7 U U p by � � 49 cpj A o i o a� ¢ p �, v Q�rdU'4°P�� O U) bp O ID 0 ID U N O {� bA b°A • oj -0 N U U b�A U �Z ) � O bQ O O N �-+ 1 N y� bA U U rJ +'00 U bA O t;- d bUA d. N ° Z°' p O N cd U O `� o d bq cd U �� ti 4•,�� D' cd — N bA U' i" �- O C N O U U U N U —_ cC >N O�5 0 a� O U �, o o O U U U N+' �— UON O r O t- « 3 O cd 474 M N QJ QJ Rr O — O v� 4� �G)En 0 U cd Mm ID U civ ccicd ^� N U U z7 cd p U O O '+ O Pi cn (ncj bA Cd CJ cd N �. 5 U C� U .�, N H U s U ID 0 9 a U o Q Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 55 9 I O Qd ° 10 ° ° OU >� O�10 rn 0 a� a� bbA + N Cd �1N U bb C/1 O 03 U +-' U 4i 60 tjU U i � "d O U ° 'r-, "" U N U �O CCS N U U u � o .Fa cd � Rr o y o �bD'� O � � O U U N Q cd ~ ~ O +, o P4 cet kn 'LS cn N O cd 40 b o -o cd ° a � � U O �C� �a O v7 rn O Qd ° 10 ° ° OU >� O�10 rn 0 a� a� bbA + N Cd �1N U bb C/1 O 03 U +-' U 4i 60 tjU U i � "d O U ° 'r-, "" U N U �O CCS N U U u � o o y o �bD'� O U U N N cd ~ ~ O +, o P4 kn 'LS cn N O cd 40 O Qd ° 10 ° ° OU >� O�10 rn 0 a� a� bbA + N Cd �1N U bb C/1 O 03 U +-' U 4i 60 tjU U i � "d O U ° 'r-, "" U N U �O CCS N U U u � o Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. 0 +� 0 c o o j — aS °ui +- cd � 'cn O UU o N 0 Cd o 4-4 ° N U +� N P -q $ O c s45 Page 56 N bA a a O N bA C cd N lc� 4-r O O Q O O C'JO U O 40, N N Cl) W c~d Q, Cd � U O N o a, o � o O . +; W b o — r. c .� bA U O d 'd O 1) vi i. X! C) bO �a U W o u a Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S � N � U U bA "rs CIO � N C'Sy� o ° 4, M 0 O a o 0 U c N '0 •� Cd ° � O P� U N cd O N O U a ° 0 cn (L) Cd +� CIJ U � � Q Cd Cd N Lj bb o co N � � Page 57 CCi U `C�Cd N 00bp 4, CA .W �N 4J A o � ID 0 N �o o CE, A 'd U +� ID N Ij .o-�� bA Q I d O Q bD O O .. .. — a � w�U�.�° Cd U Q N � N co crj N v 1� cd 3 U c d Rr N° U U � OCd O Ipl a,Ut+ O � � o 0 U O P-4 i � U O+ � O >P1 c�Q, O .� O vi -6b bA a aU � pq � wQ O N bA C cd N lc� 4-r O O Q O O C'JO U O 40, N N Cl) W c~d Q, Cd � U O N o a, o � o O . +; W b o — r. c .� bA U O d 'd O 1) vi i. X! C) bO �a U W o u a Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S � N � U U bA "rs CIO � N C'Sy� o ° 4, M 0 O a o 0 U c N '0 •� Cd ° � O P� U N cd O N O U a ° 0 cn (L) Cd +� CIJ U � � Q Cd Cd N Lj bb o co N � � Page 57 CCi U `C�Cd N 00bp 4, CA �N 4J A o � ID 0 N �o o CE, A 'd U +� ID N Ij .o-�� bA Q I d O Q bD O .. .. — a w�U�.�° Cd O N bA C cd N lc� 4-r O O Q O O C'JO U O 40, N N Cl) W c~d Q, Cd � U O N o a, o � o O . +; W b o — r. c .� bA U O d 'd O 1) vi i. X! C) bO �a U W o u a Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S � N � U U bA "rs CIO � N C'Sy� o ° 4, M 0 O a o 0 U c N '0 •� Cd ° � O P� U N cd O N O U a ° 0 cn (L) Cd +� CIJ U � � Q Cd Cd N Lj bb o co N � � Page 57 E 0 Rr 0 R, o � Q Q cd b�A bbA S� cd I'DbJQ +' Cd a� �•05 +� c� N U bA O U Rr CTJa Ld cd O U ' C O U 1®-I > N cn O O ,bn bA 0 bA cn —bb ' aj on °cn a aQa�U a U pqr-) I o cd o ID U a� U a U O N +PO n4 -U O s- kn (Do O U +O- O N N ¢�U Ocd ch O N ceNfl �W Cd Cd 0 0�NU 0"d 4 cn , 1- N cd1 U 7� d N bA 0 �p .s� cO U 'd cd N O O +-c +� � 't7 cd O U f U Q, + 'di O P ^ bQ O cn cn + H t U p U +� N N cn +� y v� U + v� U O id U s - '� � � Q 'rS U • 5-a � � N �', � � 'is � .'-� N O U�'_,�"'i •--� C� � +-cn GJ N UV) U U �" cCi N O\ cd �� N - Cd O U � N +� - o U QJ to t.4 bA cn 'Cj TS r, O +- ^ U y O p O O sb-A N O U , p 0 O 0 +, 7 bA Q U Cd n H P., bb P1 P - .w Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 58 t Cr klJ ES 0IDN � bA N O O cd CI� � C/1 A U 0 0�-+ � � � O 0 U vi U c� - O N _•+ E O a 0O ~Q a Cd bb cd 50 �, • 'd 'd O ,b cn Ed A ward'- 0 bp]a> Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 59 O 0 O a� CI� � 0 0�-+ � 0 � U c� - _•+ E O a 0O ~Q a 0 cdO 0O Uc ID N O i .04v� 0 : rd U 0 U � N � = .5 ~ � r N vii vii o 0 O to p 0 O -cd 0 Cd -d 0 s .a bbD bb tj �1 Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 59 ¢•I In D —Cd U U bD O O U O m 4 o O cd a� o a� � STs II II II �'D-0 a� ° CJ ID U U (D N t� cid o o x —i (44V O U Ocrj 11, ¢ d d] ° N � a) v] H O Q P • UJT 0 a, U 0 Cd rn 10 O OO a a a , aa, �c3 � cd cd 44 tj • • t O cd to U� cd bA Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S Page 60 V Q �•1 4� O� cd" U O Cd U 't3 O by bQ tD D —Cd U U bD O O U O m 4 o O cd a� o a� � STs II II II �'D-0 a� ° CJ ID U U (D N t� cid o o x —i (44V O U Ocrj 11, ¢ d d] ° N � a) v] H O Q P • UJT 0 a, U 0 Cd rn 10 O OO a a a , aa, �c3 � cd cd 44 tj • • t O cd to U� cd bA Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S Page 60 9 0 o Q Q Q LJ c� bb bb UD CA GOO U d � '0 � o +, o o ° ° U cn �: 'd bb '-0 p 'd � � t � N bb + 'b bp U '� +� N �> cd p O SU -i 3U -i i -i 0 Cd � � � O P- H �° P, a bA U P� o s , �, rr) Q, . bA o C � U bA o bA C") bA bA o 04p. C,Os o �> oU. bb a�l¢�¢�U4P. PL, W P�l�(� °'20 ° o -a0 C) v c v O b°A + VI ¢' Ucri ° O . g N �" U 0 + U ' �A yUy.yy Q � O ., cn + �, O s 3 3-4 > + bA v cd , p, b.0 O cid U 12 Cd O S� s� N O 6 s� '� � � rd � U 4� t3 � cd � mo i+ �? r, ¢ Obl) oo ° �+ U rd O O o +, o o co o o = ° bb o °' ¢o o- o cdbo ° m O Pte-, � ,� ,� U C U cd +3 o N O+, N P1 cd 3 + bA bA i a c� U -+ O N cn s- 7 - Oi� cd d Q, d O Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 61 0 w rl IN Cd 40, p U 3 b,b,O o ^ 'd O � O bD 0 0 - O T) U bUA F t3 N O 'd 0, p ' +� rA p O O O U N U O O1J N bA —00 O Q O U U N N Cd U O O N s� � N U ,� O O O V `� abh °' cd U Q, tj C 3 N N t N by O U _ �-! U U tO s s O 't3 O c�73cd 4--q p cd b�A O Cd 1. 0by . QJ i i " U O C "d i3 U O p' U d U N~ U bA U U N 0 cd P1 U34 d �b+aU ' cn> >E Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 62 O Q O U O4, N U N SJ N �" O �" S cd O U U +cn Q 0O O U O � 'd bA , cd O + O bb bA N U U m d +0, d O ;= vUi - 0 0 cd � 0 O O U cO p Q, � ¢� cn bb coil U - 0Cd O N 'ice O �O c � O O, + - cd O �- U Q, bQ o 0 o O o o¢ o ,., U of Z,-,. N - U O O 4? -A bA v� - cd oi cn O ~ + U Ocd — ,�-+bD U1 aS D " tS cd 't7 UP bD Cd U Cd u +r C7 cd -d bb U 0 3OU 'OO�UB. U N O + U 'p� Id P, , '0 �aOtcd U) U 00 O V 74 4--1 bA O 0 d O NN Oby QO.�O 4 N� US cnEn U xi Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 63 a 0 � O cd ~ 0 U CJ �U ¢ C U O O O - cd 'O P, o •� r p U p +, .0 41 0 O U � �' ' N rd U bQ O 0 o P, o U +� O z �71 Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. N cd O O d p O U U 0O �m CD tj Cd U bA U O 0 O Obb tO- � O b-0 Cd Cd o 0 o�Q' s� O - En t7 0 > U p ° ;-4 cd U Page 64 O O(D , p +1-31 �� C) tj U bA �:3 O gr U o a> g'- N O O cd O 5 U 0" U Ncd vUi O CO s- s + bA U tj + g N O O by bA O �� + bA4t, N U O QU � ° P, � U b�A �cH �p O O U . o U) o (1)O C,j cd O p, �az Cd0 O S- � O cd ~ 0 U CJ �U ¢ C U O O O - cd 'O P, o •� r p U p +, .0 41 0 O U � �' ' N rd U bQ O 0 o P, o U +� O z �71 Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. N cd O O d p O U U 0O �m CD tj Cd U bA U O 0 O Obb tO- � O b-0 Cd Cd o 0 o�Q' s� O - En t7 0 > U p ° ;-4 cd U Page 64 0 0 cd 0 0 0 �! �, O 0 +-' O cd rn Cd tj tib r�i� yip O c�i� v� rA U .� 0 0 bb -J40 ami �+ �`� O 0 bA of;-� +tedO U 0 U �O � 5� O O > o O v' CJ U O n N + U cd 0 o -0 �, +, O U) s o bb 0 bA b0 • p O �N = 0 + p cd" O O '- 0 +- t8cd `� bA bA 0 0 Z 0 ,0 o o s�� - +; O� O O 4 H U� Q, 551 bb Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 65 O O (I.) M cd -cod O P. DC LO �a O (D o�.'..� o 0 d O O C) � o o R 0 t vi C 3 O r. O cd O O +~- A. d C �. m O O +0-• O 3 P, bb Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 65 � nl r® V H iW } a) O ¢ bb s ° o 0 0 cd a� a� O ID C4 O U -- U N GJ a� Cd Cd cd d Q tj -0 a to Q bA tin UO bA ' oCA cdtj cd cid C! .G 'V �d J 0cn Cd 0 ',,3) cin cn 'd N ObA O yU U cd U� Cet bb cd N d U cd O cdU cd ~ cn M(D 0 0 �cid N OU N cd �' C3 'D�ID cd � o C;) U r (D cf) d v) NN ''d ra U �, t3 O N cd +� O cd cn s r -I N U U N U U cn N cd bA r, W i O U ° d . "- cn 0 ami m o �, U o c� O cd (Do cd O US , o (D PLq co O t�� U QJU U O O 'rJ +- +' N ,OID 14,Zi c�U� s-4 v) cn Cd cn bA Cd N 1 O +' cn 0 U N " :� � �" U N O > Cd 'd bA O O U � N �d �" SUCd -i tom" d> � v U cn O '" O 0 � . � N � O 2 1'r cd O 0 �y N U U �WO/ bA' F� H U �cn 1 U r� N J Bj J T� ?SFP. 0 100 L .ai Cd Cd Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 66 O Q Q U b�A +' O bb ~ OU O rn O 'C6 O ani 'd (� U O R+ .V- .� U cd s , cd a) — y O 4 cd by WD o +; O a� o C 0 a� o o a; UCd by a' ° N a) U1 ' U .moi u ' a) L'i o � bbD cd O4.4 O o bn S o o bb N CCl '� O wy O `n 0 �O 0 cd cid N id cd d p ..-COj .Q cd + c3 O bA O cd~ t� c� — +� cd 'd O N0 cdw P c p c 5 p T3 O O � o d 0 P� o o o b o H n +, U) 10 ctj PA <�10� �.r� Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 67 In IF Q Q Q bA b�f�-A in C/) 12 �A bA a0, bD Q ° o 21) C)o `°' Cd 0o d 2 U1 rij & CQ,sp sp sU N H ' cn P, -N g� UO O Cd ° U O bA O � o O -- �+ 0 O Cd p o :� o a U w P1 Q U by U 0 4 ° H ° CJ +' cd �m ' 0 a; o O N O 0 0 bp• O bAbb O cd NN+ O by -d 1 v U. 0 0 t0 ::jbb U N �>y � O t0 O C, F4 cd . ~ U O cn Hbl) bb +' 0 O V U O U -0 H P-4 cd c� a� a� 7,5 .H o cd *31. 0 0 � bD a O U �j Cd b�A [� cn N +, o 4 0 0 4 - • � O . n O r�i cd cn p O -bb 0 O by bA N ¢ O 's U p O Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. ° 03 �+' •oob o by 0 O v� U 0 p o :� o (.± U cd UO U 0 . O bj) 41 O cd O 0 cd bb byiU d C) bA vz S� �E5 - - C) � � cd U t" cd 0 0- H U C6 N � ai 9 Cd oCd U C!US O co O O P~ N U QJ � � . � • .-� d + cd 0 O U i U O 0 65 o O Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 68 03 �+' •oob o 0 Cd 0 P� cd tH 41 0 cd bb byiU C) bA vz S� O bA p cd U N � N ¢ O P~ 0 N U Page 68 IF 0 (D N U N Q Q Q Q bA I bA I by CIO Cn C/) CIO U p p S U O bA 0 cp O rn O U pO cd b y0 N cd C 'CS nJ U N S3� O Q bA sU� o0 N oU U Z Q O 'v� aS H U Q N O \ O ai U O -- UU �� AP-, aa�l h Cd Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S m O N O C,3 Cd U bA � O � U Cd .--� F 1401 C i•�rd '+3 cd C o � co co •� bA'� Page 69 m N 9 P, O O 0 V) d O OU bf O 'i3 N O 4- r. 2.F ,u ., O U UO O p D 0 cd uO o bA o o �� o — r p O �� ZH 3 O O N bi)o � p ¢ .� "L)o O o ° ' � o CS 00 � Cd Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S m O N O C,3 Cd U bA � O � U Cd .--� F 1401 C i•�rd '+3 cd C o � co co •� bA'� Page 69 m N 9 P, Q Q Q Q o � bO cd 4-1 It cd cd ' ~ o `� cd i �' a� ZiSU oU,Z ° U ' s, ' o o ,Q ,o °� hn 00 b o cd o a� vim, U ' W + U c cd 10, CO ID U U 4 v' >, " Z cd 0 bA cd U s ¢ 4 cd cd + U U U OO cd U . r, O cd O � bA U U �O rn O s-, U� rA O v1 p., '0cn N U O O'0 ~O +, O U U (D cz) cdM IDbb Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 70 iz O IN Q 0 O N U Q Q Q b~Q U U),0 i N U U U N bb b�~A °J. U N w •� N �' cd 'd '� U cd 00 N° U ° U 7j O U i" •�.� ice-+ bA � °U o 'd O N '— cn o U x U i, O U O b U U O Q" O cd U U U O N iYi sU- 'd Cd,U O O . �- 0 c bQ Q" '� � •p 'd � � N U .� U � N O U U U i O U— v� O' W �� H U 0 O R N s- ° O W) cd''.,V, —CjO O QJ U U Oa �' O O c�Is CJU a� O1 O N 'd � �d O �N t� U O U c„ a� in a) a> a1 +''a 0 zi U id U �° L7 Opo -d C7 �n r 0a� +, 5,o mrd ° p° O O cn N cd D O vi i7 cn .y vs 4J O Op H O U 1� p bO yO O dN U oW tea, U C's Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S Page 71 bn a U U),0 i N U U U N '� � •p 'd � � N U .� U � N O U U U i O U— v� O' W �� H U 0 O R N s- ° O W) cd''.,V, —CjO O QJ U U Oa �' O O c�Is CJU a� O1 O N 'd � �d O �N t� U O U c„ a� in a) a> a1 +''a 0 zi U id U �° L7 Opo -d C7 �n r 0a� +, 5,o mrd ° p° O O cn N cd D O vi i7 cn .y vs 4J O Op H O U 1� p bO yO O dN U oW tea, U C's Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S Page 71 bn a L, 0 U 0 c� O S~ "- L� p v� wO En Q, U UO� cd101,cd U U Cd p C) .° cn bb cq3 -ID Cd 00 '-0 o o p, U ID ° oo 0 0 cd� ch bA 7, p ° U O 3 — C� � S", U ° ° ri 4 , o cd ` p. p HCJ S v� to +P, UO cd vi U , '0 U CCf O °� tn U + 0 cd N DC by o ° <+, o a; a> rd v y 4 + bA `�' iQ 'v� bb ° 1 o �' " 0 �" O H cn U U o 4-4 P, :--� U 4J N v, nUU �h � ° U o o \ wv1 oN w bn U —o0 ID ID .co +� bA Q ° 0 co� � • �� � ° � � � r ' � a� N � coy � "p N d].0 6 N H bQ CJ cdN cd U U N p U U U co •p �CU i-, J UZH U 10 "0 Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 72 O i� H Q Q Cd �" bA bA bA C/) C/) C/) O o 7� bA CK S� 0 N O C(4:��6� bA U W P W bb U a N U O (D': ° o W cdU 0 +� O Ste' �` U U S� � Raa � � � � W � •� UU��1 bj) Cd�D U �Cd O O N CdCd — N v� ' O c 'd0 (D v � P� �� Oo O N_ �`� p OCd PU p N O N j° -c N P W � by U cn� o � o (L)o O =° OCd S, O0 t� °� bA � d p U cd r. O `- bA '+ bA O N a Cd + ai bA ' cd �, C� [ - JX 0 di • ° NrF�j+ bA }.,� O e--1 p Cd U iO-1 . C°bO Cd CS O U bA N N �U U p N O. O bA vi N p bb U N U O O bA O F- O U bA U U Cd rn ¢ W U s W cd bb • O O O N U Q" P N bA N cd W N O Id U U rd ° V) �> +, ; 4 9 ° rd ' s H d H ,�° C7 �, , m +, Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 73 0 Ca 0 i Q IQ bA O O bA cn p U) V5 cd O U cd" cd bf)U } 4--( ,--, U N ccd0 N O U O cn cd ;-� ;� t, b -I m 9 p o � 0 U rij .- .� O O s-' bA c� > `o 4--4 U bA s U cd 45 t3 U s -- 0 cf) U m (D 0 0 O cid O � P1 z3 — 'd U � O75 U 0 va cd v cd 811, 0 ami U t7 cOi U ` � b�A U cU) d U 0 40 cd U U M vii 0O U 0 U TJ V] � r� � 0 'T3 O vl y U p O 0 4 ,.S cd U r `, O bJJ — U U bA b bb 0 O cd C) � cd OU i Q IQ bA O O bA cn p U) V5 cd O U cd" cd bf)U } 4--( ,--, U N ccd0 N O U O cn cd ;-� ;� t, b -I m 9 p o (1)o .- .� O O — ¢ U' cd(D bA bb c� > `o 4--4 U Ts cd s -- 0 cf) U m (D 0 cd O � P1 z3 — 'd U � O75 U cn cd v cd 811, 0 ami U t7 cOi U ` � b�A U cU) d U 0 40 cd U U M vii O Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 74 m bA a 0 �a IN � Cr O b�A bbjD ® p U 0 O O N N 0bID Cd pq • �, 'd O O c�", U c� U N vii bA O 0 0 bA � \bA a) opq O ~ U�U c� a WQ C55) '.o aQaU a� cd bb -, O bp a�U 7� o c q a� o ID o I--, 4- U �� rail r� 10 vi 4�O LS O O �" �" p Q Cd O¢ vi N Cd T3 ° U ° O ~ r, bA v) cd U + ° + o cA+,j . o A 'O H ++ cd y� m m cc N d cn a U 4-4 cd cd •� ri U U bA �U ~ ~ N N +' O x 0 Cd Cj bO x U -cn cd d 0 cd +' ° (1i bO 0C'j o U � p,., � � -,b+, bon :�eI o ~ T' Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. O Q bbD i� Page 75 M 0 c� o � o Q Q Q U b�A bbA bb C/) C/) bD U cdbb O bb O R U N O '0 4-1O bA O0ti— cd {� N p �A �' O Cd O O -• 0 -15 p S- ' a cd cdP, O O 4� cd r. cn 0 N + bA (DU O P� U bA a N bA O U U O co cn bb o o a o o N U o o a" bb "" cn U N P� P� O .7 O N � sO Cd `�' tO bA O r Cd O bb 0 0 ID 0 ID d 'd ' 7U SU yU v� U N v1 U O0 'd O p ti N C O bA 0 O cd cn P� 2 � g — x cd cH bNA P, bb 0 N bb O bA' C) cid cd 'A U rn U 'd v: U U P bA p `n cd c�03 Q a O +cn °� N s- V O 4J c U O U o (DO U v1 O cd �. a �C's7 M 'O U (D�D, v, p � bio 0 bb Cd 4! -E- , P � c� � P I� Q � � cid "d Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 76 E 0 1401 U v1 - 4�¢ bA N rn N U p _p er, O '8 O cd C) O b.00 O 'o � bA a? cd bf cf) bb Cd bj) '+, N '7j Cd bA '"d U ¢ o' cd O U cd U p 'Cd U p ° bb s- W+ O 0 Ed U p N U b�O O ,:,I cd bJQ co S.y O O cd O^� 'dg j bb v U 70 cd c C,J c 9 N U�� d U Ic,� U bA N U ¢a N v� U U O b U bQ cN p aj c� by cd +, U N`n R3 co N CO N En °Ud U U O p ° �"OO A-, - U U " N 4� Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 77 ID w t O Im PC Q CC! Ca IF Cei Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 78 bA Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 78 t O .N �i II ° CC3 bA U O U U UIQ ~ 0 nZI .--I cd p d zn 'fl N Ca Q) Ci --1 P-� -�-� O cd ', N 0 O 'd d ijj U) ty't cd 0 U 0 bb 0 � +1 � �� o n ~ o cn U � +21 O + M a) 0 U —O 4] 'd O R by rn a) �bA O N bb L1 - U a) Q) cn Cd o °¢ O y, ° ¢ - N tj CN d N bA �" (D ° U U 0 cd U bl)U v «i U vi c cd p N U C, a) O U U CC (D �' 't S Q) " U N U Cd cT� bA 0 �3 v) N 4-4 o bA a cd Q +2 O U ° H ° O O `n U U O U U O r O 00 by a) d bD + � v� +� 'd o a� U P1 cd i c� . � U a� bD U N cd v' b – 0M Cd b))P, ¢ U U UO n H P1 �n C', o Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 79 0 0 0 C13 4-4 C) 4- o Uc 4 v bJO -0 -C� o O U 'tv°i 4U{ N hA En En 6 O ^ T1 cd Ord m v bA bjO U p Q O d cd d R.0 A � cd d cn U o 3 0 Own z3 0 sx+ 0 0 a O ' bA c~d �O cn rdbA ccd ° V 10 c"d O bA cn U a Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. I U U d U 4-� O Cd 'd ,0 0 Cd 40, o 0 a� U �.y a� bO N O ¢ O v d O +� Q cd o cd cd cn bp ;:' 4 � 0 0 O ° cn U N Page 80 a 0 O.� 0 -w bA C� O O � R•� a W C o CdU oA 0 � '° 03 ° v o N C) W o A + bA o -c3 0 0 o U r d a 5 W rw H p O O +C� 0 0 F� 9 U Q� O o o 0 a o � 0. N 0 N � N O� O � o N cO N bB o 0 0 -o o o o� o o 0 0 o 0 cd b -d cd cd O cd cd � � bAb cd bA bb bb bA bA by bA a cd bA b' bb bA Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 81 0 a t 0 as Im 0 00 C�6y O N •U -0 � N •� O N � i� O cdN O O ;Zcd ' cd i• 'C7 N O O a 'd4.-( b�A O N cd L3 N �+ d O �-" O cd p cd 10), V vi cid Ln LnP 9ID N N O O Sr O— bb '+ ^� O U cd (D N +�N O O +, to O p m � ,� Ti by O � N cd O U O bAcn cd N U Q cis O Cd U U') 11-dU Cd �d O U U"0. cd .9 Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 82 0 9a, o0 0 .� CS CdU p ' 0 OU O S4 O O cd 0 cn cd p U O N �O 00 bA cn y s cd O - O U bA by O .. O � cd ~ 'd T? b r% 0 -I o ,0 cn N +� O v bA C/1 bA o O U O U U U . '0 o �•.moiI / OU cd 0 00 C�6y O N •U -0 � N •� O N � i� O cdN O O ;Zcd ' cd i• 'C7 N O O a 'd4.-( b�A O N cd L3 N �+ d O �-" O cd p cd 10), V vi cid Ln LnP 9ID N N O O Sr O— bb '+ ^� O U cd (D N +�N O O +, to O p m � ,� Ti by O � N cd O U O bAcn cd N U Q cis O Cd U U') 11-dU Cd �d O U U"0. cd .9 Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 82 0 9a, t Im IS O OCd ID U U ��3 vUi m p U + cj p Cd U cd ¢ O O O cd pO O O � bQ a UCd 8 x + +' NV1 4p� N O a) .moi r' s � O O U— bb 4-i OCd Cd t� U ct cdd' r U¢ 'ted p 0• 'p Cd(1) d' O p O U U WU N U �, «3 U p U U p U N U N d Q" U +� i .. N +' N co cd N �� • �� �O O N N �" O cd •,,:j Cd QJ ' " QJ 0 U 4� O S� m Z Cd Cd 'd '3 V > O p O a NCn cn O a U N O vi O vUi O t a O cais �Ocd N L+ vi 5 U cd v) cd O cn _ •r O Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 83 A Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 84 0 0 U S4 �c 0 0 p Cd g O 'c C ,--� .cd •.��-! ,may Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 84 O Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 85 bb a 0 =G 0 A °Cd o cn 4- cd N O U d U N cd cp 0 by bUQ U vUi `J Q ° cd U N .� bb O ' d� U 10 "d 0 U O O U c0 0� o °•oma 4- o o bA o Cn d rn in U U (DO U 0 O 0 0 o 0 0 aJ " 0 i U O r, a) c a) 4° ° o +C� cd U 00 N cd L-' �O SO-� *, cd" f� Q co N bA ^� Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 86 t 0 0 U U Q p Q c� bb bb)) C/) C/� bb +, N o O O U O O U O O bb 0 cd W � 9b.�� a� .Q O a) 0 bA bA cin bp bp" o e� p' 0 o U gyp, CII W c 0 C) d U 0 O O w cd +, U 0 0a '00 CSU v o r� p +; U W O U v� g4, p by U N O ID b))W Z U (D �' U o W Z -d O �4 4 y +� p �O cpj a p •.�. p cd �4 U U I--! cd + 4-a Lr) U �C bA 00 O .O bQ UO O cd U N U p 11 bj) N ZC) cd p O 1 F ., C) C) Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 87 w 0 Ra 012 o Q Q Q s� nen O ® o o 75 .. +� 0 ID �O +, O + -- cli (D (Dcd .°� o C 9 O cd p •-� O U . 40D� M � a P~-iQaaU pq aQ �� �U U O D ID 1 " o N ¢' c~i� s p QJ U �d 0 0 4 cc O bA g CO) bA 0')d Q C/)�+ U O a> U ' x �"' vi O 0 O P� �� ° N+ Om 0 0 17- . N O D U O O H Ocd U N �' -- cqj dQJ '0 i 4 '� i- �p O j Z bb 4-i (D U • r S +, ( d p 03 Rj O cl 9 U U U O Ol N ~— O O 0�-1 cdO U O N +' Li 7 N .i — � 1 0cd' o o .� >— o ma ' o cd G o WId a ` C/) Q ID °v'' cid �, i �, °' ° s� o -d0 Cd 0 cd Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 88 t - w t z i bA U O U 0 c� O cd cd � + r� U cn o C� � Q z i bb bA �. � aQ O U bbl) 9) 0 b�A rs bb O O � O cd o� cd U U + bA" bA p U O O iU p 0 P P+ o N U. U Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 89 00 a, bA U O U 0 c� O cd Q +° N + r� U cn bb bA �. � aQ O U bbl) 9) 0 b�A rs bb O O � O cd o� cd U U + bA" bA p U O O iU p 0 P P+ o N U. U Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 89 00 a, w 0 0 -w td b b�7jA bbl) bb bb C U .F, Ob i. s�'Od'o �+;���a�� sus cd bA bA +' U P U U En cd o U cd � � a� • ~ � � o 03 CJ bA bb bA bQ bp vi bA Pi��1P U aQa,U U o CO) Cd ° p Cd d `0 �--I bA P1 Cj O O ¢ 0 v�-d0 ' U S o cd Pb1A U "d cd :~ (D 0 U OU PbAcd bb U'�1-2ai m .,. •!4 P, O U bA� pUO`+aU ,1) �I +� U �cd N s bA cOi p N N U O -d .F, 6 U 0bA �0 4td N — N 7 i QJ � p W F� � '� O �-j N : U- � U O � O H r O +� cn -0 U s U l a U .� 4) Q F U O ¢i '' U 4� 4- i ai c� � U P, • � � � P-� cd' � � '� Q, � Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 90 f� O IF bA m Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 91