2006/05/23 City Council Resolution (13)RESOLUTION NO. 2006-142
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE MAP AND TEXT
OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON EACH SIDE OF
HINEBAUGH CREEK, EAST OF THE CURRENT CITY LIMITS, SOUTH OF KEISER
AVENUE, WEST OF PETALUMA HILL ROAD, AND NORTH OF COPELAND
CREEK (APN 045- 253 -007, 045- 253 -009 THROUGH —012, PORTION OF 045- 253 -018,
045- 262 -001 THROUGH -004,047-131-019, AND 047 - 131 -024 THROUGH -027)
(U.D.LLC and Vast Oak Properties)
WHEREAS, the applicant, U.D.LLC and Vast Oak Properties, has submitted an
application for General Plan Amendments for an approximately 297 acre property located on
each side of Hinebaugh Creek, east of the current city limits, south of Keiser Avenue, west of
Petaluma Hill Road, and north of Copeland Creek (APN 045- 253 -007, 045- 253 -009 through —
012, a Portion of 045- 253 -018, 045- 262 -001 through -004, 047 - 131 -019, and 047 -131 -024
through -027); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report
prepared for the project; recommended its certification by the City Council; and has otherwise
carried out all requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California State Law and the Rohnert Park Municipal Code,
public hearing notices were mailed to all property owners within an area exceeding a 300 foot
radius of the subject property, public hearing notice signs were posted on the property, and a
public hearing was published for a minimum of 10 days prior to the first public hearing in the
Press Democrat; and
WHEREAS, on April 13, 2006 and April 27, 2006, the Planning Commission held
public hearings at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or
opposition to the proposal, with the Planning Commission discussion continued to May 11,
2006; and,
WHEREAS, on May 23, 2006, the City Council held a public hearing at which time
interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to the proposal;
and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park has certified the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the proposal in Resolution2oob -M ; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park
have reviewed and considered the information contained in the General Plan Amendment
application for the proposal; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park makes the following findings:
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT
PARK DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. The City Council has certified the Final EIR for this Project in Resolution
Section 3. That pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA
Guidelines sections 15091 - 15093, the City Council hereby adopts the CEQA Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations relating to the environmental impact of the Project as set
forth in Exhibit A of this resolution and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 3. That pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council
approves the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit B to this
resolution and requires the Project to comply with the mitigation measures contained therein.
Section 4. That pursuant to the City's Water Supply Resolution 2004 -0095, the City
Council adopts the findings set forth in Exhibit C of this resolution and incorporated herein by
this reference.
Section 5. Findings. The City Council, in approving Planning Application PL2003-
002GP (General Plan Amendment) makes the following findings; to wit:
General Plan Amendments PL2003 -002GP
1. That the proposed site is appropriate for development under the General Plan Land Use
Designations of Mixed Use, High Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Low
Density Residential, Estate Residential, Open Space, Park, Public /Institutional.
Criteria Satisfied. The proposed General Plan amendments would not eliminate the existing
General Plan designations, rather they would redistribute the designation throughout the site
in a more effective manner that reflects the applicant's current plan, retaining the appropriate
level of development.
2. That the proposed General Plan Amendments would be consistent with specific policies in
the Land Use Element of the General Plan relative to the proposed development.
Criteria Satisfied. The proposed amendments would meet the intent of the General Plan for
this Area, which is to create a pedestri an- friendly, mixed use community with a varied
inventory of residential housing.
3. That a duly noticed public hearing has been held to receive and consider public testimony
regarding the proposed amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map.
Criteria Satisfied. A duly noticed public hearing on the proposed General Plan
Amendments was held on May 23, 2006.
4. The General Plan Amendment, and the consistency of the Project with the General Plan, are
discussed in the application materials, the EIR, the Specific Plan, staff reports, and submittals
by the Project Sponsors. The City adopts the conclusions and analysis of those documents
regarding General Plan consistency. The Project, including the General Plan Amendment,
Specific Plan, Prezoning, each subdivision map and development plan, and the application
for annexation are consistent with the General Plan and will result in an internally consistent
General Plan.
5. The General Plan Amendment approved for this Project will not cause the General Plan to
become internally inconsistent. The General Plan Amendment proposed by the Project
Sponsors better implements the General Plan policies and goals than does the land use plan
2
depicted in the General Plan, as explained in the Specific Plan and staff reports. The
additional refinements proposed later continue to achieve all applicable policies and goals,
but achieve a different balance in placing more emphasis on affordable housing and the
pedestrian - friendly location of residential uses above retail. The General Plan Amendment
and the remainder of the General Plan comprise an integrated, internally consistent and
compatible statement of policies for the City. The various land uses authorized for the
Project are compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs
specified in the General Plan, as amended. The Project is compatible with and conforms to
the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan. The
Project furthers the objectives and policies of the General Plan and does not obstruct their
attainment. The Project, as conditioned through conditions of approval, is compatible with,
and in harmony with, General Plan goals and policies. The Project is in harmony with
surrounding neighborhoods, and the site is physically suitable for the development proposed.
6 The General Plan comprises many objectives, policies, principles, programs, standards,
proposals and action plans (collectively "policies "), as well as performance standards. The
City recognizes that the policies necessarily compete with each other. The City has
considered all applicable General Plan policies and the extent to which the Project conforms
to and potentially competes with each of those policies.
7. The City has fully evaluated the extent to which the Project achieves each policy, including
those pertaining to compatibility of land uses, protection of open space, standards regarding
geology, soils and earthquake risks, hazardous materials, flood hazards and drainage,
protection of water quality, protection of biological resources, transportation standards and
goals, regional and local housing needs, jobs/housing balance, noise, protection of air quality,
protection of visual resources, standards for public services and utilities, protection of
archeological and historical resources, the provision of housing for all sectors of the
economic community, and the provision of employment opportunities for residents of the
City. The City has also fully considered the Project's compliance with all goals, policies and
objectives in the General Plan, and finds the Project in compliance with the General Plan.
8. The City finds that the balance achieved by the Project among competing General Plan
policies is acceptable. The Project achieves each applicable policy to some extent, and
represents a reasonable accommodation of all applicable competing policies in the General
Plan. The Project promotes the General Plan goals referenced in the CEQA statement of
overriding considerations (Exhibit A).
9. The City has carefully considered all comments regarding consistency and implementation of
its General Plan, and determines they largely reflect only disagreement with the decision the
City made when it adopted the General Plan in 2000 to allow and encourage intense urban
development in this area. Specifically, the City finds consistency with General Plan goals
and policies LU -B, LU- l OD, CD -F, and CD -9, regarding transitioning and feathering
densities, and compatibility with the open space across Petaluma Hill Road from the Project.
The Project provides a 200 -foot buffer on the west side adjacent to Redwood Park Estates, a
100 -foot buffer next to the J section, and a 60 foot buffer next to the Kisco Wellness Center.
It provides a 500 foot structural buffer on the east side, with housing adjacent to the buffer
comprised of estate residential, low density, and medium density limited to single story
buildings. These buffers meet or exceed the buffer widths referenced in the General Plan.
3
They transition density from commercial and high density uses at its core to less dense uses
on the eastern side.
10. The Project relocated the mixed use area of the Project so that is surrounds the central plaza
leading to Twin Creeks Park, thereby creating a vibrant gathering center and more integrated
community that would be achieved by the land use configuration indicated in the General
Plan before this amendment is adopted. The configuration represented by the Project also
allows for more feathering of density emanating outwards from the plaza and commercial
core than would the unamended General Plan. As noted in the Specific Plan, the
configuration allows the Project to associate the commercial center with the public plaza,
public trails and the linear park system, thereby directing pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular
traffic through the commercial center, rather than around it. This will reinforce the role of
the commercial center as the core of the Specific Plan. The design strongly promotes
numerous General Plan goals, policies and objectives, including those to transition densities,
place housing adjacent to parks, creekways and other open space, siting neighborhood
commercial facilities in areas designed to maximize accessibility to all residential areas,
promote a concentration of activity and continuity of retail uses, make the plaza the focal
point, or center of the commercial core, promote pedestrian- oriented activity centers that
serve as community focal points, and site facilities to encourage walking and biking.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council does
hereby approve Application No. PL2003- 002GP: General Plan Amendments for an
approximately 297 acre property located on each side of Hinebaugh Creek, east of the current
city limits, south of Keiser Avenue, west of Petaluma Hill Road, and north of Copeland Creek
(APN 045- 253 -007, 045- 253 -009 through —012, a Portion of 045- 253 -018, 045- 262 -001 through
-004, 047 - 131 -019, and 047 -131 -024 through -027), as follows:
Amendments to the General Plan Land Use Dia am (Figure 2.2-1 of the General Plan):
1. The Mixed Use, High- Density Residential, Medium - Density Residential, Low - Density
Residential, Estate Residential, Open Space, Park, and Public /Institutional designations shall
be redistributed throughout the University District Specific Plan Area to reflect the
applicant's plan in accordance with Exhibit "D" to this Resolution, which is attached and
incorporated by reference.
2. The one -way couplet extending from Keiser Avenue south to the U.D.LLC property is
eliminated and replaced with a two -way "spine" street with only one vehicle bridge spanning
Hinebaugh Creek in accordance with Exhibit "D" to this Resolution, which is attached and
incorporated by reference.
3. The linear park shall be reconfigured to provide a smaller park on the U.D.LLC property, a
plaza area adjacent to Rohnert Park Expressway that is in the center of the mixed use area,
the "Twin Creeks Park" to the north of the plaza, the "Notch Park" on the south side of
Hinebaugh Creek, the "Oak Grove Park" south of Keiser Avenue, and a linear park
separating the Vast Oak and CRPUSD properties north of Hinebaugh Creek in accordance
with Exhibit "D" to this Resolution, which is attached and incorporated by reference.
4. An east -west open space "promenade" shall be added to the high density residential area
north of the commercial /mixed use core.
4
Amendments to the General Plan Text:
1. Table 2.4 -1: "Land Use Program: University District Specific Plan Area" shall be amended
as follows:
a. The range of Rural Estate Residential Housing Units shall be changed from "20 -25"
to "20 -26 ";
b. The range of Low Density Residential Housing Units shall be changed from "245-
295" to "245-320";
c. The range of Mixed Use Residential Housing Units shall be changed from "70 -100"
to "70 -150 ";
d. The range for Total Housing Units shall be changed from "1,415- 1,610" units to
"1,415- 1,645" units;
e. The range for the Building Area (1,000 s.f.) for the commercial component of the
Mixed Use area shall be changed from "250 -350" to "Maximum of 175 "; and
f. The range for Total Building Area (1,000 s.f.) shall be changed from "250 -350" to
"Maximum of 175."
2. Policy LU -15 shall be amended as follows:
a. The sixth bullet point shall be amended to read as follows: "A 12 -15 acre north -south
linear park, in the general location shown in Figure 2.2 -1. This linear park may be
configured to be a series of separate park sites, provided pedestrian/bicycle
connections are provided throughout to maintain continuity."
b. The tenth bullet point shall be amended to read as follows: "Along the western
specific plan boundary, between Hinebaugh and Copeland Creeks, a buffer setback of
100 feet shall be maintained and new residential development adjacent to and east of
the buffer shall be single - story. Two -story residences may be considered within this
area if the buffer is increased to a minimum of 200 feet."
3. Figure 3.1 -2: "Urban Form and Structure" shall be revised to reflect the applicant's plan in
accordance with Exhibit "D" to this Resolution, which is attached and incorporated by
reference.
4. Figure 3.2 -7: "University District Urban Structure" shall be revised to reflect the applicant's
plamn accordance with Exhibit "D" to this Resolution, which is attached and incorporated by
reference.
5. Figure 3.2 -9: "Section of Rohnert Park Expressway at Sonoma State University Concert
Hall" shall be amended to reflect the revised configuration for Rohnert Park Expressway in
accordance with Exhibit `B" to this Resolution, which is attached and incorporated by
reference.
6. Policy CD -35: the first sentence shall be amended to remove the words "fully accessible to
the public."
7. Policy CD -35: the seventh bullet point shall be amended to read as follows: "A minimum
150 -foot width from curb -to -curb (with no maximums established as part of this General
Plan). As an alternative, the linear park may be configured to be a series of separate parks, in
5
which case this minimum width would not apply;" The italicized text following this shall be
eliminated.
8. Policy CD -35: the thirteenth bullet point shall be amended to read as follows: "A minimum
of 100 -foot development setback from the centerline of Hinebaugh Creek, with a minimum
30 -foot wide open space on the south side of the creek. Streets can be constructed within the
100 foot setback (but not within 30 foot wide publicly accessible open space)."
9. Policy CD -38 shall be amended as follows: "The two -way spine road shall be designed so
that parking is provided on each side of this street. Allow half of this parking located
immediately adjacent to the Medium - and High- Density Residential areas to count towards
off - street parking for these uses."
10. Figure 3.2 -10 shall be eliminated.
11. Figure 3.2 -11 shall be eliminated.
12. Figure 3.2 -12 shall be eliminated.
13. Table 4.1 -4: "Roadway Improvements" shall be revised to rename the "New Linear Park Rd"
as the "North - South Spine Road."
14. Figure 4.1 -1: "Master Street Plan" shall be revised to reflect the elimination of the one -way
couplet within the University District Specific Plan Area and its replacement with the north -
south "spine road."
15. Policy TR -8 shall be amended to read as follows: "Require a central north -south `spine road'
through the University District Specific Plan, as shown in Figure 4.1 -1." The italicized text
following this shall be eliminated.
16. Policy TR -9 shall be amended to read as follows: "Design the Rohnert Park Expressway as a
pedestrian - friendly boulevard between the 1999 City limits and Petaluma Hill Road. A
pedestrian friendly environment would be created through provision of pedestrian amenities,
as called for in Policy TR -38. Chapter 3 contains additional policies to promote a
pedestrian - oriented environment in the University District specific plan area and to create
attractive streetscapes throughout the city. "
17. Policy TR -38 shall be amended to eliminate the following language: "Policy TR -9 calls for
frontage streets along the SSU segment of the Expressway, to create a more pedestrian -
friendly environment."
18. Figure 5.2 -1: "Parks and Schools" shall be revised to reflect the applicant's plan in
accordance with Exhibit "D" to this Resolution, which is attached and incorporated by
reference
19. Table 9.4 -213: "Potential Residential Development — Growth Areas" shall amended as
follows:
a. The range of Rural Estate Residential Housing Units for the University District
Specific Plan shall be changed from "20 -25" to "20 -26 ";
b. The range of Low Density Residential Housing Units for the University District
Specific Plan shall be changed from "245 -295" to "245- 320 ";
6
c. The range of Mixed Use Residential Housing Units for the University District
Specific Plan shall be changed from "70 -100" to "70- 150 ";
d. The range for Total Housing Units for the University District Specific Plan shall be
changed from "1,415- 1,610" units to "1,415- 1,645" units;
e. The range of Total Rural Estate Residential Housing Units shall be changed from
"90 -135" to "90- 136 ";
f. The range of Total Low Density Residential Housing Units shall be changed from
"965- 1095" to "965 - 1120 ";
g. The range of Total Mixed Use Residential Housing Units shall be changed from
"123 -175" to "123- 225';
h. The range for Total Housing Units shall be changed from "3540- 4105" units to
"3540- 4140" units;
20. On page 9 -59, the first bullet point in the discussion of the University District Specific Plan
Area shall be amended to read as follows: "A 25 -40 acre mixed -use center, located directly
adjacent to Sonoma State University, which could include between 70 and 150 units."
DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED on this 23rd day of May, 2006, by the City of
Rohnert Park City Council.
Attest:
City Clerk
CITY OF ROHNERT P.ARK-- "`~_
Mayor
19
,R,OHNERT
BREEZE: AYE F'L.ORES: AYE MACKENZIE: AYE VIIDAK- MARTINEZ: AYE SMITH: AYE
AYES: (5) NOES: (0) ABSENT: (0) ABSTAIN: (0)
7
EXHIBIT A
CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
RELATED TO THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT PROJECT
A. INTRODUCTION
1. These CEQA findings are adopted for the University District Project
described below. For ease of reference, the agency adopting these findings is referred to as the
"City." These findings pertain to the Environmental Impact Report prepared for that project,
SCH #2003122014 ( "EIR ").
2. These CEQA findings are attached as Exhibit A and incorporated by
reference into the resolution certifying the EIR for the Project and adopting General Plan
consistency findings. That resolution also includes an Exhibit B, which contains the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program ( "MMRP "), and which references impacts, mitigation
measures, levels of significance before mitigation and resulting levels of significance after
mitigation. All Exhibits are incorporated by reference into each other, and into the resolution to
which they are attached.
3. These findings are based upon the entire record, described below, and
some findings are based on specific references, as noted below. References to specific reports
and specific pages of documents are not intended to identify those sources as the exclusive basis
for the finding.
B. THE PROJECT
4. "Project" as used in these findings refers to the University District Project
as it has been approved by this Council. The Project is proposed to guide the development of a
mixed -use pedestrian oriented community within an area east of the City and within the City's
Local Agency Formation Commission ( "LAFCO ")- approved Sphere of Influence. The Project
encompasses approximately 297 acres located on each side of Hinebaugh Creek, east of the
current City limits, south of Keiser Avenue, west of Petaluma Hill Road, and north of Copeland
Creek. The Project is comprised of a total 1,645 residential units, plus 126 second units, for a
total of 1,771 dwelling units; up to 175,000 sq -ft of commercial building area; and 21 acres of
public parks and private recreation areas, and 64 acres of open space, wetland areas, creek and
creek buffer areas and structural buffer areas. The Project encompasses five subdivisions: the
University District LLC subdivision, the Vast Oak subdivision, the future subdivision of the land
referenced in the EIR as the Cotati- Rohnert Park property, the future subdivision of the land
referenced in the EIR as the Gee property, and the future subdivision of the land referenced in
the EIR as the Abu - Halawa property.
5. The Project includes a mixed -use center with a commercial core. This
core surrounds a central plaza, and has ground level retail, personal services, eating and drinking
establishments, and other operations that are pedestrian oriented. Residential, office, and other
compatible uses are permitted on upper floors. The remainder of the Project area includes
medium and high - density residential uses around the commercial core, a variety of housing
925300x180078/0016
EXHIBIT A
CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
RELATED TO APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE
UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN
types, including single- family residences and estate residential uses, and extensive open space,
buffer and parkland areas.
6. The Project is slightly smaller than the project studied in the Draft EIR.
Residential uses have been substituted for some commercial uses, substantial portions of the
commercial square footage have been eliminated, and some refinements have been implemented
to accommodate concerns of City staff and resource agencies. The Project encompasses the
whole of the development and operation of the Project, and all approvals referenced in the EIR.
These include a General Plan Amendment, a Specific Plan, prezoning, subdivision maps and
development plans for the Vast Oak and University District LLC subdivisions, and a resolution
of application to annex the Project site to the City.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE PROJECT
7. Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (collectively "CEQA "), the
City determined that an EIR would be prepared. The City issued a Notice of Preparation, which
was circulated to responsible agencies and interested groups and individuals for review and
comment. A copy of the Notice of Preparation and comments thereon are included in the
appendices to the Draft EIR
8. A Draft EIR was prepared for the project described in the Notice of
Preparation and Draft EIR to analyze its environmental effects. The DEIR was circulated for
public review and comment from July 27, 2005 through September 9, 2005. The Planning
Commission held public hearings on the DEIR and received,oral comments on August 25, 2005.
9. The City then circulated Additional Analysis in Response to Comments on
the University District Specific Plan Draft EIR by Caltrans Related to U.S. 101 Mainline
Freeway Operation ( "Additional Analysis ") from November 28, 2005 through January 11, 2006.
10. The City received numerous written and oral comments on the DEIR and
on the recirculated Additional Analysis. The City prepared responses that describe the
disposition of significant environmental issued raised by the comments, and made changes to the
DEIR. The comments, responses to comments, changes to the DEIR and additional information
were published in a Final EIR that was received by the City on April 3, 2006. The City also
received a letter report from its envirommental consultants dated April 27, 2006 ( "Letter
Report"). The Letter Report reflects a peer review of analyses conducted by the Project
Sponsors' consultants regarding the environmental implications of the reduction in the Project
from the project studied in the Draft EIR. The Letter Report concludes that the Project would
not produce any new or more severe significant impacts than were studied in the DEIR,
Additional Analysis and FEIR, and that the impacts of the Project were adequately addressed in
the EIR. The consultants presented an errata sheet for the May 23, 2006 Council hearing, which
confinned that annexation of adjacent properties would not cause any physical changes to the
environment.
9253000 80078/0016
EXHIBIT A
CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
RELATED TO APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE
UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN
11. The DEIR, the Additional Analysis, the FEIR, the Letter Report, the
Errata and all the appendices comprise the "EIR" referenced in these findings.
D. THE RECORD
12. The record upon which all findings and determinations related to the
Project are based includes the following:
a. The EIR, and all documents referenced in or relied upon by the
EIR.
b. All information (including written evidence and testimony)
provided by City staff to the Planning Commission or the City Council
relating to the EIR, the proposed approvals for the Project, the Project or
its alternatives.
C. All information (including written evidence and testimony)
presented to the Planning Commission or the City Council by the
environmental consultant and sub consultants who prepared the EIR, and
all information incorporated into reports presented to any of those bodies.
d. All information (including written evidence and testimony)
presented to the City from other public agencies relating to the Project or
the EIR.
e. All applications, letters, testimony and hearing presentations given
by any of the project sponsors or their consultants to the City in
connection with the Project.
f. All information (including written evidence and testimony)
presented to the City regarding the Project or the EIR, before the close of
the last public hearing related to the Project.
g. For documentary and information purposes, all locally- adopted
land use plans and ordinances, including, without limitation, general plans,
specific plans, redevelopment plans and ordinances, together with
environmental review documents, findings, mitigation monitoring
programs and other documentation relevant to planned growth in the area.
h. All other documents comprising the record pursuant to Public
Resources Code section 21167.6(e).
13. The City concludes that all the evidence supporting these findings was
presented in a timely fashion, and early enough to allow adequate consideration by the City. The
custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings on
which the City's decision is based is Ron Bendorff, Director of Community Development,
925300v1 80078/0016
EXHIBIT A
CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
RELATED TO APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE
UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN
Planning Department, or designee. Such documents and other materials are located at Planning
Department, City of Rohnert Park, 6750 Commerce Boulevard, Rohnert Park, California 94928.
14. These findings are based upon substantial evidence in the entire record
before the City. The reference to certain pages or sections of documents set forth in these
findings are for ease of reference and are not intended to provide an exhaustive list of the
evidence relied upon for these findings.
E. CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR
15. In accordance with CEQA, the City certifies that the EIR has been
completed in compliance with CEQA, that the EIR was presented to the decision making body
and that the decision making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR
prior to approving any aspect of the Project. Preparation of the EIR has been overseen by The
Director of Community Development, and the conclusions and recommendations in the
document represent the independent conclusions and recommendations of the City. The EIR and
these findings represent the independent judgment and analysis of the City. By these findings,
the City confirms, ratifies and adopts the findings and conclusions of the EIR, as supplemented
and modified by these findings.
16. The City recognizes that the EIR contains clerical errors. The City has
reviewed the entirety of the EIR and bases its determinations on the substance of the information
it contains.
17. The City certifies that the EIR is adequate to support the approval of the
Project, each alternative in the EIR, and variations within the range of alternatives in the EIR.
The EIR is adequate for the General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Prezoning, Development
Agreement, application for annexation for the Project, and all responsible agency approvals
referenced in the EIR. The EIR is adequate for each entitlement or approval (including those
from responsible agencies) required for all aspects of construction and operation of the Vast Oak
and University District LLC subdivisions within the Project, and the EIR comprises a project -
level EIR for all those entitlements and approvals. With respect to the proposed future
development of the properties referred to in the EIR as the Abu- Halawa, Gee and Cotati - Rohnert
Park Unified School District properties, the EIR is adequate as a program EIR, and the City will
determine at the time subsequent development applications for those properties are submitted,
whether additional environmental review will be required.
F. ABSENCE OF SIGNIFICANT NEW INFORMATION
18. The City recognizes that the EIR incorporates information obtained and
produced after the Draft EIR was circulated, and after the Additional Information was
recirculated, and that it contains additions, clarifications, and modifications. The City has
reviewed and considered the entire EIR and all of this information. The EIR does not include
significant new information that would require additional recirculation under CEQA. The new
information added to the Draft EIR and to the Additional Analysis does not involve a new
925300v1 80078/0016
EXHIBIT A
CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
RELATED TO APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE
UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN
significant environmental impact, a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental
impact, or a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others
previously analyzed that the project sponsor declines to adopt and that would clearly lessen the
significant environmental impacts of the Project. No information indicates that the Draft EIR or
the Additional Analysis was inadequate or conclusory.
19. Accordingly, information added to the Draft EIR and the Additional
Analysis reveals that none of the following are present: (1) a significant new environmental
impact that would result from the Project or an adopted mitigation measure; (2) a substantial
increase in the severity of an environmental impact; (3) a feasible project alternative or
mitigation measure not adopted that is considerably different from others analyzed in the Draft
EIR and Additional Analysis that would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of
the Project; or (4) information that indicates that the public was deprived of a meaningful
opportunity to review and comment on the Draft EIR or Additional Analysis. The City finds that
the additions, changes and modifications made to the EIR do not collectively or individually
constitute significant new information within the meaning of Public Resources Code section
21092.1 or CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5.
G. MITIGATION MEASURES, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND MMRP
20. Public Resources Code section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines section
15097 require the City to adopt a monitoring or reporting program to ensure that the mitigation
measures and revisions to the Project identified in the EIR are implemented. The Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program ( "MMRP ") is included in Exhibit B, and is adopted by the
City. The MMRP satisfies CEQA's requirements.
21. The mitigation measures recommended by the EIR and reflected in the
conditions of approval are specific and enforceable. As appropriate, some mitigation measures
define performance standards to ensure no significant environmental impacts. The MMRP
adequately describes conditions, implementation, verification, a compliance schedule and
reporting requirements to ensure the Project complies with the adopted mitigation measures. The
MMRP ensures that the mitigation measures are in place, as appropriate, throughout the life of
the Project.
22. The mitigation measures set forth in Exhibit B and corresponding
conditions of approval in Exhibit C are derived from the mitigation measures set forth in the
EIR. The City has modified the language of some of the mitigation measures and corresponding
conditions for purposes of clarification and consistency, to enhance enforceability, to defer more
to the expertise of other agencies with jurisdiction over the affected resources, to summarize or
strengthen their provisions, and /or to make the mitigation measures more precise and effective,
all without making any substantive changes to the mitigation measures.
23. The City adopts and imposes the mitigation measures recommended in the
EIR, as modified, as enforceable conditions of the Project, except to the extent and as noted
below. In the event a feasible mitigation measure, which the EIR concludes would mitigate a
925300v1 80078/0016
EXHIBIT A
CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
RELATED TO APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE
UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN
potentially significant impact, has been inadvertently omitted from the conditions of approval or
the MMRP, that mitigation measure is adopted and incorporated from the EIR into the MMRP
by reference and adopted as a condition of approval. These mitigation measures comprise the
measures to reduce potentially significant impacts whenever it is feasible to do so. Whenever it
is feasibly to do so, potentially significant impacts have been reduced to a level less than
significant. Where mitigation measures have been imposed, but they do not reduce the impact to
a level less than significant, it is because it is not feasible to reduce impacts further. The City has
substantially lessened or eliminated all significant environmental effects where feasible. The
mitigation measures incorporated into and imposed upon the Project will not have new
significant environmental impacts that were not analyzed in the Draft EIR or Additional
Analysis.
24. All feasible mitigation measures proposed in the EIR to mitigate
potentially significant impacts are incorporated into conditions of approval. Mitigation measures
are included in conditions of approval according to the level of detail of the condition and
mitigation measure. Thus, mitigation measures appropriate for the level of detail of a
subdivision map are imposed as conditions of the subdivision map, while those appropriate for
the more general, planning level of the Specific Plan are imposed as conditions of approval of
the Specific Plan.
25. To ensure that all feasible mitigation measures are made enforceable
through conditions of approval or contractual obligations, the General Plan Amendment for the
Project is adopted with a condition of approval requiring that each of the conditions and
mitigation measures referenced in the MMRP be imposed upon the approval of at least one
subordinate approval of development within each subdivision within the University District
Specific Plan. Any mitigation measure that will feasibly mitigate a potentially significant
impact, which has not been already been imposed as a condition of approval of the Specific Plan,
or which has not already been incorporated as an obligation of a Development Agreement, shall
be imposed as a condition of either tentative map approval or development plan approval.
26. The City determines that all mitigation measures the EIR concludes would
mitigate potentially significant impacts are feasible, for the reasons stated in the EIR and in
materials presented by staff and by the applicants, with the exceptions set forth the remaining
paragraphs of this Section VII of these CEQA Findings.
27. Sonoma County requested funding of a fair share of certain regional traffic
improvements, in its letter of September 12, 2005. However, the City does not have the ability
to impose a region -wide impact fee to fund regional improvements, and no such fee has been
adopted by the County or the Sonoma County Transportation Authority, the two entities with
regional jurisdiction to address regional traffic issues. The City accordingly determines that it is
not reasonable to project that payment of any fee would result in construction of improvements
needed to address regional traffic problems to which the Project contributes, making mitigation
of the significant and unavoidable regional traffic impacts identified in the EIR through payment
of a regional fee infeasible. Nonetheless, the City has proposed and the Project Sponsors have,
in the Development Agreement, agreed to pay any future regional traffic improvement impact
925300v180078/0016
EXHIBIT A
CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
RELATED TO APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE
UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN
fee enacted by City, other area municipalities and /or the County of Sonoma by the time of
building permit issuance, and pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act that is consistently applied on a
city -wide basis to all substantially similar types of development projects. Further, the City has
proposed and the Project Sponsors have, in the Development Agreement, agreed that if no
regional traffic impact fee has been enacted at the time of issuance of a building permit, then
they will pay a fee of $3,500 for each market rate residential unit to mitigate the regional traffic
impacts of the Project. While these provisions are not found to feasibly mitigate impacts, they
will make funds available to be used in the event a program is adopted that would likely result in
the construction of traffic improvements.
28. Caltrans requested that the Project be required to pay its fair share of
improvements to mitigate the Project's contribution towards impacts on mainline U.S. 101
freeway operation. The City has no jurisdiction over or ability to construct mainline freeway
improvements. The City adopts the EIR's analysis and conclusion that there are no known
freeway capacity projects that would improve the facility to acceptable operations, let alone a
program by which individual development projects fund those freeway capacity projects or a
program that would allow the City to determine a fair share contribution. Accordingly,
mitigation is not feasible. Nonetheless, the Project will fund a share of mainline improvement to
U.S. 101. Sales tax revenues are to be used by the Sonoma County Transportation Authority to
fund such improvements as set forth in Measure M, approved by the voters of Sonoma County in
the November 2004 election. Residents of the Project will pay sales taxes and thus will pay the
same share as all other projects and existing development towards such improvements. In
addition, the Project's commercial sector will generate additional sales tax revenues, which
would not be realized but for the Project.
29. The mitigation measures adopted for the Project implement all applicable
mitigation measures from the EIR the City certified for its General Plan adopted in July 2000.
These include mitigation measures requiring further study to determine that projects do not cause
a substantial lowering of groundwater levels in certain areas. That further study has been
conducted, and has revealed no potentially significant impacts. Pursuant to Water Code section
10911(c), the City determines, based upon the entire record, that projected water supplies, even
without additional recycled water, will be sufficient to satisfy the demands of the Project, in
addition to existing and planned future uses. The pendency of litigation regarding the Water
Supply Assessment the City adopted for the Project and other projects does not affect this
determination, as there has been no judgment or formal court order issued in that proceeding.
The City's determination is supported voluminous evidence, including the Final Water Supply
Assessment (WSA), technical memoranda, power point presentations and oral reports presented
by the City's water supply consultants, discussions in the EIR (especially master responses t
through 14, and responses to comments submitted by the OWL Foundation, John King, the
Northern California Carpenters Regional Council, and Steven Carle), staff reports, and materials
presented by the Project Sponsors, including information from John Nelson and Richard Slade
regarding water supply, groundwater issues and water demands, and information from ENGEO
regarding the impermeability of soils to recharge. The City adopts the reasoning and
explanations set forth in these materials.
925300v1 80078/0016
EXHIBIT A
CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
RELATED TO APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE
UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN
30. Evidence in the WSA and from Mr. Nelson also establishes that the
amount of surface water available in the Russian River system, even in dry years, far exceeds the
Agency's entitlement of 75,000 acre -feet per year, and that interim shortages caused by
constraints in the physical delivery system or environmental issues can be accommodated
through the conjunctive use program the City employs to best manage joint use of surface water
and groundwater.
31. The City acknowledges the disagreements, and claims of disagreements,
among experts and various lay persons regarding the conclusions the City has reached regarding
water supplies and impacts. The City rejects contrary opinions and conclusions, and reaches the
determination that supplies will be sufficient, resulting in no potentially significant impacts,
based upon the evidence and analysis referenced above. In particular, the City determines that
actual water level measurements taken in recent years cannot be reconciled with the projections
made in the PES analysis conducted for the General Plan EIR.
32. Upon determining that any particular condition of approval has become
infeasible, the Director of Community Development may permit substitution of equivalent
measures that achieve the same level of environmental protection as the listed measure, as
determined by staff or consultants with expertise in the relevant area.
H. FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS
33. In accordance with Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA
Guidelines sections 15091 and 15092, the City adopts the findings and conclusions regarding
impacts and mitigation measures that are set forth in the EIR, and summarized in Exhibit B.
These findings do not repeat the full discussions of environmental impacts contained in the EIR,
The City ratifies, adopts and incorporates the analysis, explanation, findings, responses to
comments and conclusions of the EIR. The City adopts the reasoning of the EIR, of staff reports,
and of staff and the presentations provided by the project sponsors.
34. The City recognizes that the environmental analysis of the Project raises
several controversial environmental issues, and that a range of technical and scientific opinion
exists with respect to those issues. The City acknowledges that there are differing and
conflicting expert and other opinions regarding the Project, its alternatives, its impacts, the
feasibility of mitigation and the most suitable mitigation, with regard to many aspects of the
Project, especially the areas of controversy identified in the EIR, with especially heavy emphasis
placed by commenters on water, traffic and air quality. The City has, by its review of the
evidence and analysis presented in the EIR and in the record, acquired a better understanding of
the breadth of this technical, scientific and lay opinion and facts regarding the full scope of the
environmental issues presented by the Project. In turn, this understanding has enabled the City
to make fully informed, thoroughly considered decisions after taking account of the various
viewpoints on these important issues. These findings are based on full appraisal of all
viewpoints expressed in the EIR and in the record, as well as other relevant information in the
record of proceedings for the Project.
9253000 80078/0016
EXHIBIT A
CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
RELATED TO APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE
UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN
35. Under Public Resources Code section 21081(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines
section 15091(a)(2) and 15092(b)(2)(A), the City recognizes that some mitigation measures
require action by, or cooperation from, other agencies. Similarly, mitigation measures requiring
the project sponsor to contribute towards improvements planned by other agencies will require
the relevant agencies to receive the funds and spend them appropriately. The City also
recognizes that some cumulative impacts will be feasibly mitigated when other agencies build
the relevant improvements, which also required action by these other agencies. For each
mitigation measure that requires the cooperation or action of another agency, the City finds that
adoption and /or implementation of each of those mitigation measures is within the responsibility
and jurisdiction of another public agency, and that the measures can and should be adopted
and /or implemented by that other agency. If the other agency fails to implement these measures,
then the impacts remain significant and unavoidable, and are overridden as noted below.
36. Under Public Resources Code section 21081(a)(3) and (b), and CEQA
Guidelines sections 15091(a)(3), 15092(b)(2)(B) and 15093, the City determines that the
remaining significant effects on the environment, as reflected in the EIR and in Exhibit B, are
unavoidable and are acceptable due to the overriding considerations described below.
I. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
37. The City finds that specific economic, social, environmental,
technological, legal or other considerations make infeasible the alternatives to the Project as
discussed in the EIR, and justify approval of the Project despite remaining impacts, as more fully
discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
38. The City adopts the EIR's analysis and conclusions regarding alternatives
eliminated from further consideration, both during the scoping process and in response to
comments. These include off site alternatives as discussed in Chapter 5 of the Draft EIR.
39. The EIR evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives to the original
project that was described in the Draft EIR. These alternatives include (1) a No Project
Alternative; (2) a Reduced Project Alternative; and (3) a Minimum Density Project Alternative.
The analysis examined the feasibility of each alternative, the environmental impacts of each
alternative, and the ability of each alternative to meet the project objectives.
40. The City 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's
independent judgment as to alternatives. The City finds that the Project provides the best
balance between satisfaction of the project objectives and mitigation of environmental impacts to
the extent feasible, as described and analyzed in the EIR. The City's goal in pursuing the
Project, and the Project objectives, are to implement its General Plan policies and goals to
provide for land use densities that present an intense, urban level of development just outside the
eastern side of the City, within the voter - approved growth boundary, in a manner that represents
a pedestrian - friendly, mixed -use project that provides the amenities listed on pages 2 -1 and 2 -2
9253000 80078/0016
EXHIBIT A
CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
RELATED TO APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE
UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN
of the Draft EIR. The alternatives simply do not achieve most of these goals, and in some
circumstances achieve none of them.
41. The project as proposed in the Draft EIR and all the remaining alternatives
are rejected as infeasible, for the reasons stated in the EIR and for the following reasons.
42. Reduced Project Alternative This alternative proposes 384 unit, plus 322
second units, and no commercial square footage. It was included in the EIR to demonstrate that
approximately three quarters of the project would need to be eliminated to eliminate most of the
significant and unavoidable impacts of the project. This alternative is environmentally superior
to the Project. However, this alternative does not meet project objectives, as it does not
implement General Plan goals and policies, and is therefore infeasible. This alternative would
also have an impact on housing in that it would reducing housing availability below that
identified in the General Plan, thus interfering with the City's ability to meet its fair share
housing needs.
43. Medium Density Project Alternative. This alternate proposes development
at minimum General Plan Densities. This project would result in significant impacts similar to
those of the Project, and thus would not achieve a substantial reduction in any significant or
potentially significant environmental impacts.
44. No Project Alternative. This project involves continuation of existing
property uses. The No Project Alternative is rejected as infeasible because it would not meet the
objectives of the project.
45. The City also notes that the determination whether a proposal is feasible
involves consideration of whether it is capable of being accomplished in a successful manner
within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social
and technological factors. These factors involve a weighing and balancing of social, economic,
technical, General Plan and project goals and objectives, which in turn involves a balancing of
policy - related issues. The City finds that the combination of benefits and impacts presented by
the Project, as conditioned and mitigated, comprises a feasible, economic and rational method of
achieving General Plan goals and policies, and promoting the vision for development of areas
outside current city limits that was adopted in the General Plan in 2000, but which is only now
being realized. The combination presented by the Project provides a realistic opportunity to
provide substantial affordable housing opportunities, in a pedestrian - friendly environment that
will decrease dependence on vehicle travel, exhibit smart growth principles through thoughtful
and create design, all in a manner that will result in a first class, integrated and connected series
of neighborhoods and commercial centers that will be an asset to this community. The.Project
has already been reduced below that envisioned in the General Plan, in order to provide greater
opportunities for affordable housing, to allow housing to be more closely integrated with the
commercial core, and allow implementation of a residential- over - retail design the City finds
desirable as promoting smart growth principles and other General Plan goals as policies.
Reducing the density and intensity of development below that proposed by the Project would
10
925300v1 80078/0016
EXHIBIT A
CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
RELATED TO APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE
UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN
lessen these achievements, and could be characterized as urban sprawl that would be wasteful of
the land and other resources in the area.
46. The combination of attributes presented by the Project thus comprises a
rational accommodation of the social, economic and environmental interests with which this City
must concern itself. The City therefore finds that other proposals are not feasible because they
provide no or less assurance that most project objectives will be achieved, and because they are
not capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time,
taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors.
47. The City also bases its determinations regarding alternatives on Public
Resources Code section 21085 and CEQA Guidelines section 15092(c). These sections preclude
a public agency from reducing the proposed number of housing units as a mitigation measure or
project alternative for a particular significant effect on the environment if the agency determines
that there is another feasible specific mitigation measure or project alternative that would provide
a comparable level of mitigation.
J. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
•48. The City finds that each of the following specific economic, legal, social,
technological, environmental and other considerations and benefits of the Project independently
outweighs the significant, adverse impacts and is an overriding consideration independently
warranting approval. Each of the overriding considerations constitutes a separate and
independent ground for finding that the.benefits of the Project outweigh the significant and
avoidable impacts. The remaining significant adverse impacts of the Project are acceptable in
light of each of these overriding considerations.
49. The Project promotes General Plan goals and policies, as demonstrated in
the discussions in the Specific Plan and in the EIR. The Council adopts the conclusions and
analysis presented in those documents. The Project meets objectives and goals of keeping a
small town feel, providing for a extensive range of housing types, increasing the open space
ratios in the city, constructing infrastructure in anticipation of development, and providing a
pedestrian- friendly environment. The Project will provide much - needed rt�trb� housing --
near Sonoma State University, with convenient access to public transit anct existing major
arterials, promoting smart growth principles. It is especially important to this Council to
implement the General Plan, since the Project presents the first opportunity to approve
development in one of the Specific Plan areas since those areas were identified in the General
Plan when it was adopted in 2000. The Project is proposed by a known group of Project
Sponsors who have indicated an interest, backed up by a substantial investment in processing, in
pursuing development of the Project Area within a reasonable time frame. This makes the
realization of General Plan goals, policies and objective more cerLain and more likely to occur
sooner. In addition, approval of the Project will set a rec an create a model for processing
and designing other Specific Plan project contemplated y the General Plan, making it more
likely that all General Plan goals, policies and objectiv will be realized.
925300v 1 80078/0016
EXHIBIT A
CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
RELATED TO APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE
UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN
50. The Project will promote housing for all sectors of the economic
community, help the City meet its fair share housing needs, and provide more affordable housing
opportunities than are required by the City's inclusionary ordinance. Letters from the California
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) confirm this. A letter from HCD
dated December 3, 2001, expressly finds the City's housing element to be in compliance with the
housing laws "conditioned on the City's successful annexation of the University [District
Project] ...."
51. The Project provides benefits to the City that exceed nexus, as set forth in
the Development Agreement. These include the trail on the Anderson property, provision of
parkland and improvements that exceed the City's parkland requirements, and affordable housing
that exceeds the City's inclusionary ordinance. By entering into the Development Agreement,
the Project Sponsors have voluntarily agreed to provide these benefits.
52. The water conservation measures the Project includes will help implement
statewide and regional water use goals, as reflected in the California Water Plan 2005 Update
(DWR Bulletin 160 -05). The Water Plan directs water managers such as the City to increase
recycled municipal water and expand its uses, to increase levels of urban water use efficiency,
and to reoperate water facilities to improve their operation and efficiency. The project further
Promotes California Water Plan goals to adopt and implement regional water planning efforts:
the use of recycled water is part of an ongoing regional effort, led by the Santa Rosa Board of
Public Utilities, to achieve greater use and availability of recycled water; and the project's
implementation of water - conserving measures helps the City implement the policies of the
Sonoma County Water Agency, as reflected in the letter from John Nelson dated April 17, 2006.
The Project implements and complies with the water supply policies and goals, as stated in the
General Plan and the Water Policy Resolution.
12
925300v1 80078/0016
EXHIBIT B
CEQA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
CONCLUSIONS RELATED TO THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PROJECT
This chart sets forth the City's conclusions regarding the level of severity of impacts before and after mitigation is
applied, identifies which conditions of approval implement which mitigation measures, and comprises the mitigation monitoring and
reporting program. "S" means the impact is significant. "LTS" means less than significant. Conditions of approval are identified by
both resolution number and condition number. The first number in the Condition of Approval column, before the dash, identifies the
Resolution that contains the condition. Resolutions 2006 -21 and 2006 -22 (identified as "21 -" and "222") pertain to the subdivision
maps. Resolutions 2006 -23 and 2006 -24 (identified as "232" and "24 - ") pertain to the development plans. The resolution approving
the specific plan is referenced as "SP." Measures that are obligations of the Development Agreement are referenced as "DA ". The
second number in that column, after the dash, is the condition number within that particular document. In addition, as determined in
paragraph 25 of the CEQA findings (Exhibit A), the General Plan Amendment for the Project is adopted subject to a condition
requiring imposition of feasible mitigation measures on subordinate project approvals.
Whenever the Monitoring Responsibility column references an agency other than the City, the City finds that adoption
and /or implementation of each of those mitigation measures is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency, and
that the measures can and should be adopted and /or implemented by that other agency. The result listed in the Significance with
Mitigation column assumes that the other agency has cooperated and implemented the mitigation measure. If the other agency did not
do so, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
925300v1 80078/0016
EXHIBIT B
CEQA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
CONCLUSIONS RELATED TO THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PROJECT
Impact and Level of Significance Prior
Mitigation Measure
Condition of
with Significance
Monitoring
Monitoring
To Mitigation.
Approval Nos.
Mitigation
Responsibility
Timeframes
Aesthetics
AES -1: Obstructor Adversely Affect
AES -la: Install Temporary Visual Barriers
24 - 12g
Less than
Public Works
Prior to
Scenic Vistas or Change Visual
between Construction Zones and Residences
significant
(PW)
Construction of
Character during Construction (S)
at Redwood Park Estates
Inspector
Vol
AES -2: Obstruct or Adversely Affect
No mitigation is required.
—
Scenic Vistas or Change Visual
Character during Operation (LTS)
AES -3: Substantially Damage Scenic
No further mitigation is feasible.
Significant
Resources, Including, but Not Limited
and
to, Trees, Rock Outcroppings, and
unavoidable
Historic Buildings along a Scenic
Highway During Construction and
Operation (S)
AES -4: Create Temporary. Sources of
No mitigation is required.
—
Light and Glare during Construction
(LTS)
AES -5: Create Permanent Sources of
AES -5a: Require Lighting Design to be
21 -36
Less than
Community
During plan
Light and Glare (S)
Shielded and Directed Downward in
22-39
significant
Development
check of
Compliance with City Standards
23-9
respective phase
24 -9
AES -6: Conflict with Local Policies
No mitigation is required.
—
(LTS)
14
925300v 1 80078/0016
EXHIBIT B
CEQA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
CONCLUSIONS RELATED TO THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PROJECT
Impact and Level of Significance Prior
Mitigation Measure
Condition of
Significance
With
Monitoring
Monitoring
To Mitigation.
Approval Nos.
Mitigation
Responsibility
Timeframes
Agricultural Resources, Land Use and
Planning
AG -1: Convert Prime Farmland,
No mitigation is required.
–
Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance to Non -
Agricultural Use (NI)
AG -2: Conflict with Existing Zoning
No mitigation is required.
for Agricultural Use or a Williamson
Act Contract— University District
Specific Plan Area (NI)
AG -3: Conflict with Existing Zoning
AG -3a: File Notices of Non - Renewal for
21-40
Less than
Community
Following
for Agricultural Use or a Williamson
Williamson Act Contracts
22-43
significant
Development
entitlements
Act Contract— Offsite Water Tank Site
(PS)
AG -4: Conversion of Farmland to Non-
No mitigation is feasible.
Significant
Agricultural Use (S)
and
unavoidable
LUP -1: Loss of Community Cohesion
No mitigation is required.
–
(LTS)
LUP -2: Conflict with Relevant Plans
No mitigation is required.
–
and Policies (LTS)
LUP -3: Conflict with Conservation
No mitigation is required.
–
Plans (NI)
LUP -4: Construction- Related Effects
No mitigation is required.
–
on Existing Land Uses (LTS)
LUP -5: Compatibility with Existing or
No mitigation is required.
–
Future Adjacent Land Uses (LTS)
15
925300v1 80078/0016
EXHIBIT B
CEQA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
CONCLUSIONS RELATED TO THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PROJECT
Impact and Level of Significance Prior
Mitigation Measure
Condition of
Significance
With
Monitoring
Monitoring
To Mitigation.
Approval Nos.
Mitigation
Responsibility
Timeframes
Air Quality
Impact AQ -1: Significant Emissions of
Mitigation Measure AQ -1a: Minimize Dust
23 - l lj -k
Less than
PW Inspector
During
Pollutants from Construction of
Emissions and Ensure Consistency with Bay
24 - l lj -k
significant
construction
Buildings (Residential and
Area Air Quality Management District
Commercial) for Proposed
Guidelines for Reducing Construction
Development of the University District
Impacts
Specific Plan (S)
Mitigation Measure AQ -lb: Implement
23 - l lj -k
Additional Control Measures to Minimize
24 - l lj -k
Construction- Related Emissions of Criteria
Pollutants
Impact AQ -2: Operational Increases in
Mitigation Measure AQ -2a: Utilize Measures
21-14
Significant
Community
Plan check
Emissions beyond Bay Area Air
Identified in URBEMIS 2002 Model to
22- 17
and
Development,
phase
Quality Management District Threshold
Minimize Air Pollutant Emissions Associated
unavoidable
Engineering
Levels (S)
with the Proposed Projects
Impact AQ -3: Localized Increases in
No mitigation is required.
—
Carbon Monoxide Concentrations at
Intersections Affected by the University
District Specific Plan Development
(LTS)
Impact AQ -4: Creation of
No mitigation is required.
—
Objectionable Odors by Sources
Associated with the University District
Specific Plan (LTS)
Impact AQ -5: Inconsistency with the
No mitigation is available.
Significant
2000 Clean Air Plan Caused by Growth
and
Associated with the University District
unavoidable
Specific Plan (S)
16
925300v1 80078/0016
EXHIBIT B
CEQA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
CONCLUSIONS RELATED TO THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PROJECT
Impact and Level of Significance Prior
Mitigation Measure
Condition of
Significance
With
Monitoring
Monitoring
To Mitigation.
Approval Nos.
Mitigation
Responsibility
Timeframes
Biological Resources
Impact BIO -1: Direct Loss of
No mitigation is required.
—
Approximately 17.69 Acres of Waters
of the United States (Including
Wetlands) and 6.68 Acres of Waters of
the State (LTS)
[Impact BIO -2 was deleted from the
final EIR and incorporated into BIO -1.]
BIO -3: Potential Loss of Waters of the
BIO -3a: Conduct a Wetlands Evaluation Prior
SP - ld
Less than
Community
Prior to
United States, Including Wetlands, on
to Development of the Abu - Halawa, Gee, and
significant
Development,
entitlements for
the Abu - Halawa, Gee, and Cotati-
Cotati - Rohnert Park Unified School District
RWQCB,
these properties
Rohnert Park Unified School District
Properties
Army Corps
Properties (PS)
of Engineers
BIO -4: Disturbance of Riparian
No mitigation is required.
—
Vegetation (LTS)
BIO -5: Potential Disturbance of
BIO -5a: Install Construction Barrier Fencing
21 - 15
Less than.
PW Inspector
Prior to
Riparian Habitat during Construction
to Protect Sensitive Biological Resources
22-18
significant
construction
(PS)
Adjacent to the Construction Zone
23 - 12g
adjacent to these
24 - 12h
areas
BIO -6: Potential Disturbance of Oak
BIO -6a: Protect Oak Trees to be Preserved.
22-65
Less than
PW Inspector
Prior to
Woodland (S)
significant
construction
adjacent to these
areas
BIO -7: Potential Disturbance of Oak
BIO -5a: Install Construction Barrier Fencing
21-15
Less than
PW Inspector
Prior to
Woodland for Construction of the
to Protect Sensitive Biological Resources
22-18
significant
construction
Potable Water Pipeline and Tank (S)
Adjacent to the Construction Zone
23 - 12g
adjacent to these
BIO -6a: Protect Oak Trees to be Preserved.
24 - 12h
areas
17
925300v1 80078/0016
EXHIBIT B
CEQA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
CONCLUSIONS RELATED TO THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PROJECT
Impact and Level of Significance Prior
Mitigation Measure
g
Condition of
Significance
Sig with
Monitoring
Monitoring
To Mitigation.
Approval Nos.
Mitigation
Responsibility
Timeframes
BI0-8: Potential Loss of Special - Status
BI0-8a: Conduct Special- Status Plant
SP - le
Less than
Community
Prior to
Plants (PS)
Surveys in the Cotati - Rohnert Park Unified
significant
Development,
entitlements for
School District, Gee, and Abu - Halawa
US Fish &
these properties
Portions of the Study Area
Wildlife
Service
BIO -9: Disturbance of Central
BIO -9a: Restrict Construction within
21-61
Less than
PW Inspector
Prior to
California Coast Steelhead and
Copeland Creek to the Summer Low- or No-
significant
construction
Degradation of Habitat (S)
Flow Period
adjacent to these
areas
BIO -10: Potential Disturbance of
BIO -10a: Contact U.S. Fish and Wildlife
SP - if
Less than
Community
Prior to
California Tiger Salamanders and Their
Service to Determine whether Protocol -Level
significant
Development,
entitlements for
Habitat (S)
Upland Surveys for California Tiger
US Fish &
these properties
Salamander on the Abu - Halawa, Gee, and
Wildlife
Cotati- Rohnert Park Unified School District
Service
Properties Are Warranted
13I0-11: Potential Disturbance or
BIO -5a: Install Construction Barrier Fencing
21 - 15
Less than
PW Inspector
Prior to
Mortality of Foothill Yellow- Legged
to Protect Sensitive Biological Resources
22-18
significant
construction
Frogs (PS)
Adjacent to the Construction Zone
23 - 12g
adjacent to these
24 - 12h
areas
BI0-9a: Restrict Construction within
Copeland Creek to the Summer Low- or No-
21-61
Flow Period
BIO -12: Potential Disturbance or
BIO -12a: Conduct a Preconstruction Survey
21 -62
Less than
PW Inspector
Prior to
Mortality of Northwestern Pond Turtles
for Northwestern Pond Turtles in Suitable
22-66
significant
construction in
(PS)
Uplands.
these areas
18
925300v1 80078/0016
EXHIBIT B
CEQA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
CONCLUSIONS RELATED TO THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PROJECT
Impact and Level of Significance Prior
Mitigation Measure
Condition of
Significance
With
Monitoring
Monitoring
To Mitigation.
Approval Nos.
Mitigation
Responsibility
Timeframes
BIO -13: Potential Loss or Disturbance
1310- 13a: Conduct Preconstruction Surveys
21 -63
Less than
PW Inspector
Prior to
of Breeding or Wintering Burrowing
for Active Burrowing Owl Burrows and
22-64
significant
construction in
Owl (S)
Implement the California Department of Fish
these areas
and Game Guidelines for Burrowing Owl
Mitigation, if Necessary
BIO -14: Potential Disturbance of
BIO -5a: Install Construction Barrier Fencing
21-15
Less than
PW Inspector
Prior to
Special - Status and Non - Special - Status
to Protect Sensitive Biological Resources
22-18
significant
construction
Tree -, Shrub -, and Ground - Nesting
Adjacent to the Construction Zone
23 - 12g
adjacent to and
Migratory Birds and Raptors (PS)
24 - 12h
in these areas
BIO -14a: Avoid Disturbance of Tree -, Shrub -,
21-64
and Ground- Nesting Special - Status and Non—
22-68
Special- Status Migratory Birds
BIO -15: Introduction or Spread of
BIO -15a: Avoid the Introduction or Spread of
21 -65
Less than
PW Inspector
During
Noxious Weeds (S)
Noxious Weeds into Previously Uninfested
22-69
significant
construction
Areas
Cultural Resources
C -1: Adverse Impacts on P -49 -3158 (S)
C -1a: Establish a Monitoring Plan for P -49-
21-26
Less than
Community
Prior to
3158
22-29,30
significant
Development
construction in
area
C -2: Adverse Impacts on P -49 -3157, P-
C -2a: Conduct a Full Data Recovery Program
21 -27
Less than
Community
Prior to
49 -3159, and P -49 -2796 (S)
22-31
significant
Development
construction in
area
C -3: Potential Adverse Impacts on
C -3a: Historic American Building Survey
SP- Ig
Potentially
Community
Prior to
Historic Structures within the
Recordation, Relocation, and Sympathetic
significant and
Development,
construction in
University District Specific Plan Area
Project Design
unavoidable
SHPO
area
(PS)
19
925300v1 80078/0016
EXHIBIT B
CEQA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
CONCLUSIONS RELATED TO THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PROJECT
Impact and Level of Significance Prior
Mitigation Measure -
Condition of
Significance
With
Monitoring
Monitoring
To Mitigation.
Approval Nos.
Mitigation
Responsibility
Timeframes
C -4: Potential Impacts on
C -4a: Identify Archaeological Sites in the
SP - lh
Less than
Community
Prior to
Archaeological Sites (S)
University District Specific Plan Area and
significant
Development
construction in
Implement Further Measures
area
C -5: Potential Impacts on Unidentified
C -5a: Implement a Monitoring Program for
21-26
Less than
Community
During
Buried Cultural Resources (S)
Buried Cultural Resources
22-29
significant
Development
construction if
located
Geology and Soils
GEO -1: Substantial Adverse Effects
No mitigation is required.
–
Resulting from Surface Fault Rupture
(LTS)
GEO -2: Substantial Adverse Effects
GEO -2a: Comply with Applicable Uniform
23 - 7r
Less than
Community
During plan
Resulting from Seismic Ground
Building Code Standards
24 - 7r
significant
Development,
check and
Shaking — University District Specific
Building
building
Plan Area (PS)
Inspector
inspections
GEO -3: Substantial Adverse Effects
No mitigation is required.
–
Resulting from Liquefaction (NI)
GEO -4: Substantial Adverse Effects
No mitigation is required.
–
Resulting from Landslides and Other
Types of Slope Failures (NI)
GEO -5: Substantial Adverse Effects
GEO -5a: Comply with Recommendations of
SP - li
Less than
Engineering
Prior to and
Resulting from Geologic Hazards—
Geotechnical Report for the Offsite Water
significant
during
Offsite Water Tank Site (PS)
Tank Site
construction of
tank
GEO -6: Construction- Related Soil
No mitigation is required.
Less than
Erosion and Sedimentation (LTS)
significant
20
925300v1 80078/0016
EXHIBIT B
CEQA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
CONCLUSIONS RELATED TO THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PROJECT
Impact and Level of Significance Prior
Mitigation Measure
Condition of
Significance
with
Monitoring
Monitoring
To Mitigation.
Approval Nos.
Mitigation
Responsibility
Timeframes
GEO -7: Substantial Adverse Effects
GEO -7a: Process Native Topsoil Prior to
21 -77
Less than
PW Inspector
During
Resulting from Ground Settlement—
Construction
22-81
significant
construction
University District Specific Plan Area
(S)
GEO -8: Substantial Adverse Effects
GEO -8a. Design Foundations to Account for
23-7s
Less than
Community
Reviewed
Resulting from Expansive Soils—
Expansive Soil Conditions
24-7s
significant
Development
during plan
University District Specific Plan Area
check
(PS)
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZ -1: Create a Significant Hazard to
No mitigation is required.
–
the Public or the Environment through
the Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal
of Hazardous Materials (LTS)
21
925300vl 80078/0016
EXHIBIT B
CEQA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
CONCLUSIONS RELATED TO THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PROJECT
Impact and Level of Significance Prior
To Mitigation.
Mitigation Measure
Condition of
Approval Nos.
Significance
with
Mitigation
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
Timeframes
HAZ -2: Create a Significant Hazard to
HAZ -2a: Follow City of Rohnert Park Fire
21 -78
Less than
Department
Prior to and
the Public or the Environment through
Department and Other Guidelines for Storage
22-82
significant
of Public
during
Reasonably Foreseeable Upset and
and Handling of Hazardous Materials
Safety (DPS)
construction
Accident Conditions Involving the
Release of Hazardous Materials into the
HAZ -2b: Immediately Contain Spills,
21 -79
Environment (PS)
Excavate Spill- Contaminated Soil, and
22-83
Dispose of It at an Approved Facility
HAZ -2c: Develop and Implement Plans to
21 -80
Reduce Exposure of People and the
22-84
Environment to Hazardous Conditions during
Construction Activities
HAZ -2d: Screen Surface Soils in the Project
Area for Residuals from Agricultural
21-81
Chemicals (Fertilizers and Pesticides)
22-85
HAZ -2e: Stockpile and Sample Excavated
21-82
Soils
22-86
22
925300vl 80078/0016
EXHIBIT B
CEQA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
CONCLUSIONS RELATED TO THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PROJECT
Impact and Level of Significance Prior
Mitigation Measure
Condition of
Significance
with
Monitoring
Monitoring
To Mitigation.
Approval Nos.
Mitigation
Responsibility
Timeframes
HAZ -3: Emit Hazardous Emissions or
HAZ -2a: Follow City of Rohnert Park Fire
21-78
Less than
Department
Prior to and
Handle Hazardous or Acutely
Department and Other Guidelines for Storage
22-82
significant
of Public
during
Hazardous Materials, Substances, or
and Handling of Hazardous Materials
Safety (DPS)
construction
Waste within 0.25 Mile of an Existing
or Proposed School (PS)
HAZ -2b: Immediately Contain Spills,
21 -79
Excavate Spill- Contaminated Soil, and
22-83
Dispose of It at an Approved Facility
HAZ -2c: Develop and Implement Plans to
21-80
Reduce Exposure of People and the
22-84
Environment to Hazardous Conditions during
Construction Activities
HAZ -2d: Screen Surface Soils in the Project
21 - 81
Area for Residuals from Agricultural
22-85
Chemicals (Fertilizers and Pesticides)
HAZ -2e: Stockpile and Sample Excavated
21-82
Soils
22-86
HAZ -4: Located on a Site Included on a
No mitigation is required.
List of Hazardous Materials Sites
Compiled Pursuant to California
Government Code Section 65962.5
(LTS) .
HAZ -5: Impair Implementation of, or
No mitigation is required.
—
Physically Interfere with an Adopted
Emergency Response Plan or
Emergency Evacuation Plan (LTS)
23
925300v1 80078/0016
EXHIBIT B
CEQA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
CONCLUSIONS RELATED TO THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PROJECT
Impact and Level of Significance Prior
Mitigation Measure
Condition of
Significance
with
Monitoring
Monitoring
To Mitigation.
Approval Nos.
Mitigation
Responsibility
Timeframes
HAZ -6: Expose People or Structures to
HAZ -6a: Before Construction Begins, Clear
21-66
Less than
PW Inspector
Prior to
a Significant Risk of Loss, Injury or
Materials That Could Serve as Fire Fuel from
22-70
significant
construction
Death Involving Wildland Fires (PS)
Areas Slated for Construction Activities
HAZ -6b: Require that Spark- Generating
21-67
Construction Equipment be Equipped with
22-71
Manufacturers' Recommended Spark
Arresters
Noise''
N -1. Exposure of Existing Residential
N -1a: Restrict Hours of Construction Activity
21-83
Less than
PW Inspector
Prior to and
Uses and Future Residential Uses on
N -lb: Disseminate Essential Information to
22-87
significant
during
the Project Site from Grading and
Residences and Implement a
construction
Building Construction Activities (S)
Complaint/Response Tracking Program
N -lc: Locate Construction Equipment as Far
Away from Residences as Feasible
N -2: Exposure of Existing Residential
No mitigation is required.
—
Uses and Future Residential Uses on
the Project Site from Construction-
Period Groundborne Vibration (LTS)
N -3. Exposure of Offsite, Noise-
No mitigation is required.
—
Sensitive Land Uses to Increased
Traffic Noise (LTS)
N -4 Exposure of New Noise - Sensitive
N -4a: Ensure that Noise Levels at Residential
21-84
Less than
Community
During plan
Land Uses to Noise (S)
Outdoor Activity Areas Do Not Exceed 60 dB
22-88
significant
Development
check
Ldn
23 - 7t
24 -7t
N -4b: Apply Acoustical Insulation
Treatments to Residential Units
24
925300v 1 80078/0016
EXHIBIT B
CEQA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
CONCLUSIONS RELATED TO THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PROJECT
Impact and Level of Significance Prior
Mitigation Measure
Condition of
Significance
with
Monitoring
Monitoring
To Mitigation.
Approval Nos.
Mitigation
Responsibility
Timeframes
N -5: Exposure of Existing Offsite
Available mitigation is not feasible.
Significant
Noise - Sensitive Land Uses to
and
Cumulative Traffic Noise (S)
unavoidable
Population and Housing
POP -1: Directly Induce Substantial
No mitigation is required.
—
Population Growth (LTS)
POP -2: Indirectly Induce Substantial
No mitigation is required.
—
Population Growth (LTS)
POP -3: Displace Substantial Numbers
No mitigation is required.
of Existing Housing (LTS)
POP -4: Displace Substantial Numbers
No mitigation is required.
of People (LTS)
POP -5: Increase Availability of
No mitigation is required.
—
Housing (B)
Public 'Services
PS -1: Increased Need for Police and
No mitigation is required.
Fire Facilities and Service (LTS)
PS -2: Increased School Enrollment
PS -2a: Payment of School Fees by Developer
23-5
Less than
Applicable
Building permit
Associated with Buildout of University
24-5
significant
School
issuance
District Specific Plan (S)
District
PS -3: Increased Demand For
No mitigation is required.
Recreational Facilities Resulting in
Substantial Adverse Environmental
Impacts or Result in Substantially
Accelerated Physical Deterioration
(LTS)
25
925300v1 80078/0016
EXHIBIT B
CEQA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
CONCLUSIONS RELATED TO THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PROJECT
Impact and Level of Significance Prior
Mitigation Measure
Condition of
Significance
with
Monitoring
Monitoring
To Mitigation.
Approval Nos.
Mitigation
Responsibility
Timeframes
Transportation and Traffic
2007 Plus Early Project Phase
TRA -1: Increased Congestion at
TRA -la: Add a Center Turn Lane on Rohnert
DA § 4.09A
Less than
Engineering,
Improvement
Sonoma State University Access upon
Park Expressway Adjacent to Sonoma State
(PFFP)
significant
PW Inspector
plan review and
Addition of Early Phase Project Traffic
University Access
during
(PS)
construction
TRA -2: Impede Emergency Access in
No mitigation is required.
—
Early Phase (LTS)
TRA -3: Disruption of Alternative
No mitigation is required.
—
Transportation Modes (LTS)
2012 Plus Project Buildout
TRA -4: Unacceptable Level of Service
TRA -4a: Install Traffic Signal at Snyder
DA § 4.09B
Less than
Engineering,
Improvement
at Snyder Lane /Keiser Avenue
Lane /Keiser Avenue Intersection
significant
PW Inspector
plan review and
Intersection (PS)
TRA -4b: Widen Keiser Avenue Westbound
DA § 4.09B
during
Approach and Snyder Lane
construction
TRA -5: Unacceptable Level of Service
TRA -5a: Add Separate Left and Right Turn
DA § 4.09B
Less than
Engineering,
Improvement
at Petaluma Hill Road/Keiser Avenue
Lanes on Eastbound Keiser Avenue
significant
PW Inspector
plan review and
Intersection (PS)
Approach.
DA § 4.09B
during
TRA -5b: Add a Center Turn Lane on
construction
Petaluma Hill Road Adjacent to Keiser
Avenue
TRA -6: Unacceptable Level of Service
TRA -6a: Widen Snyder Lane between Keiser
PFFP
Less than
Engineering,
Improvement
at Rohnert Park Expressway /Snyder
Avenue and Southwest Boulevard.
significant
PW Inspector
plan review and
Lane Intersection (PS)
TRA -6b: Reconfigure Rohnert Park
DA § 4.09A
during
Expressway /Snyder Lane Intersection
(PFFP)
construction
26
925300v1 80078/0016
EXHIBIT B
CEQA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
CONCLUSIONS RELATED TO THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PROJECT
Impact and Level of Significance Prior
Mitigation Measure
Condition of
Significance
With
Monitoring
Monitoring
To Mitigation.
Approval Nos.
Mitigation
Responsibility
Timeframes
TRA -7: Unacceptable Level of Service
TRA -7a: Install Traffic Signal or Roundabout
DA § 4.09A
Less than
Engineering,
Improvement
at Rohnert Park Expressway /Sonoma
at Rohnert Park Expressway /Sonoma State
(PFFP)
significant
PW Inspector
plan review and
State University Access Intersection
University Access Intersection
during
(PS)
construction
TRA -8: Unacceptable Level of Service
TRA -8a: Add Southbound Right Turn Lane
DA § 4.09A
Less than
Engineering,
Improvement
at Rohnert Park Expressway /Petaluma
and Separate Eastbound Left and Right Turn
(PFFP)
significant
PW Inspector
plan review and
Hill Road Intersection (PS)
Lanes at Rohnert Park Expressway/Petaluma
during
Hill Road Intersection
construction
TRA -9: Increased Congestion at Adobe
TRA -9a: City of Rohnert Park Coordination
DA
Significant
Community
Ongoing
Road/Petaluma Hill Road in Penngrove
with Sonoma County Transportation
and
Development;
(S)
Authority and Sonoma County
unavoidable
SCTA
TRA -10: Impede Emergency Access at
No mitigation is required.
2012 Buildout (LTS)
TRA -11: Provision of Access Control
TRA -11 a: Prepare Plans Showing Access
21 - 11
Less than
Engineering,
Improvement
on Rohnert Park Expressway at 2012
Strategy for Each of the University District
21-72
significant
PW Inspector
plan review
Scenario (PS)
Specific Plan Area Intersections on Rohnert
22-76
Park Expressway
*these
conditions
generally
address
circulation
TRA -12: Disruption of Alternative
No mitigation is required.
—
Transportation Modes at 2012 Buildout
(LTS)
27
925300v 1 80078/0016
EXHIBIT B
CEQA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
CONCLUSIONS RELATED TO THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PROJECT
Impact and Level of Significance Prior
Mitigation Measure
Condition of
Significance
with
Monitoring
Monitoring
To Mitigation.
Approval Nos.
Mitigation
Responsibility
Timeframes
2020 Plus Project Buildout
TRA -13: Unacceptable Level of
TRA -4a: Install Traffic Signal at Snyder
DA § 4.09B
Less than
Engineering,
Improvement
Service at Snyder Lane /Keiser Avenue
Lane/Keiser Avenue Intersection
significant
PW Inspector
plan review and
Intersection (S)
TRA -4b: Widen Keiser Avenue Approach
DA § 4.09B
during
and Snyder Lane
construction
TRA -14: Unacceptable Level of
TRA -14a: Signalize Petaluma Hill
DA § 4.09B
Less than
Engineering,
Improvement
Service at Petaluma Hill Road/Keiser
Road/Keiser Avenue Intersection
significant
PW Inspector
plan review and
Avenue Intersection (S)
during
construction
TRA -15: Unacceptable Level of
TRA -6a: Widen Snyder Lane between Keiser
PFFP
Less than
Engineering,
Improvement
Service at Rohnert Park
Avenue and Southwest Boulevard.
significant
PW Inspector
plan review and
Expressway /Snyder Lane Intersection
TRA -6b: Reconfigure Rohnert Park
during
(S)
Expressway /Snyder Lane Intersection
construction
TRA -16: Unacceptable Level of
TRA -7a: Install Traffic Signal or Roundabout
DA § 4.09A
Less than
Engineering,
Improvement
Service at Rohnert Park
at Rohnert Park Expressway /Sonoma State
(PFFP)
significant
PW Inspector
plan review and
Expressway /Sonoma State University
University Access Intersection
during
Access Intersection (S)
construction
TRA -17: Unacceptable Level of
TRA -8a: Add Southbound Right Turn Lane
DA § 4.09A
Less than
Engineering,
Improvement
Service at Rohnert Park
and Separate Eastbound Left and Right Turn
(PFFP)
significant
PW Inspector
plan review and
Expressway /Petaluma Hill Road
Lanes at Rohnert Park Expressway /Petaluma
during
Intersection (S)
Hill Road Intersection
construction
TRA -18: Increased Congestion at East
TRA -18a: City of Rohnert Park Coordination
DA § 4.02A
Significant
Community
Ongoing
Cotati Avenue /Old Redwood Highway
with City of Cotati
and
Development;
Intersection (S)
unavoidable
City of Cotati
TRA -19: Increased Congestion at
TRA -9a: City of Rohnert Park Coordination
DA § 4.02A
Significant
Community
Ongoing
Adobe Road/Petaluma Hill Road and
with Sonoma County Transportation
and
Development;
Main Street/Old Redwood Highway
Authority and Sonoma County
unavoidable
SCTA
Intersections in Penngrove (S) .
28
925300vl 80078/0016
EXHIBIT B
CEQA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
CONCLUSIONS RELATED TO THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PROJECT
Impact and Level of Significance Prior
Mitigation Measure
Condition of
Significance
with
Monitoring
.Monitoring
To Mitigation.
Approval Nos.
Mitigation
Responsibility
Timeframes
TRA -20: Impede Emergency Access at
No mitigation is required.
—
2020 Buildout (LTS)
TRA -21: Disruption of Alternative
No mitigation is required.
—
Transportation Modes at 2020 Buildout
(LTS)
TRA -22: Unacceptable Level of
No mitigation is feasible.
Significant
Service on U.S. 101 (Significant and
and .
Unavoidable) (S)
unavoidable
Utilities and Service Systems'
UT-1: Temporary Increase in Solid
No mitigation is required.
—
Waste Generation (LTS)
UT -2: Increase in Solid Waste
No mitigation is required.
—
Generation Associated with University
District Specific Plan Implementation
(LTS)
UT -3: Increased Demand for Energy
No mitigation is required.
—
Associated with University District
Specific Plan Implementation (LTS)
UT -4: Increased Demand for
No mitigation is required.
—
Communications Associated with
University District Specific Plan
Implementation (LTS)
UT -5: Increased Wastewater
No mitigation is required.
—
Generation Associated with University
District Specific Plan Implementation
(LTS)
29
925300v1 80078/0016
EXHIBIT B
CEQA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
CONCLUSIONS RELATED TO THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PROJECT
Impact and Level of Significance Prior
Mitigation Measure
Condition of
Significance
with
Monitoring
Monitoring
To Mitigation.
Approval Nos.
Mitigation
Responsibility
Timeframes
Water Resources
WR -1: Change in Drainage Patterns
WR -1a: Implement Recommendations of
21 - 19 -21, 46-
Less than
Engineering,
Improvement
(PS)
Storm Water Quality Management Plan and
48
significant
PW Inspector
plan review and
Storm Drainage Detention Analysis
22 - 22 -25, 50-
during
51
construction
WR -2: Water Quality Impacts from
WR -la: Implement Recommendations of
21 - 19 -21, 46-
Less than
Engineering,
Improvement
Increased Runoff (PS)
Storm Water Quality Management Plan and
48
significant
PW Inspector
plan review and
Storm Drainage Detention Analysis
22 - 22 -25, 50-
during
51
construction
WR -2a: Street Sweeping
21-49
22 -52
WR -2b: Best Management Practices to
21 -50
Maximize Storm Water Quality
22-53
WR -3: Construction- Related Water
WR -2b: Best Management Practices to
21-50
Less than
Engineering,
Improvement
Quality Effects (S)
Maximize Storm Water Quality
22-53
significant
PW Inspector
plan review and
during
construction
WR -4: Potential Contamination from
WR -4a: Implement a Spill Prevention and
21-51
Less than
Engineering,
Improvement
Construction Vehicles and Equipment
Control Program
22-54
significant
PW Inspector
plan review and
Spills (PS)
during
WR -4b: Implement Measures to Maintain
21 -81
construction
Groundwater or Surface Water Quality
22 -85
WR -5: Flood Hazard (S)
WR -5a: Construct Structures Outside of the
21 -68
Less than
Engineering,
Improvement
100 -Year Floodplain
22-72
significant
PW Inspector
plan review and
during
construction
30
925300v1 80078/0016
EXHIBIT B
CEQA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
CONCLUSIONS RELATED TO THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PROJECT
Impact and Level of Significance Prior
Mitigation Measure
Condition of
Significance
With
Monitoring
Monitoring
To Mitigation.
Approval Nos.
Mitigation
Responsibility
Timeframes
WR -6: Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow
No mitigation is required.
—
Hazards (LTS)
WR -7: Groundwater Quantity (LTS)
No mitigation is required.
—
WR -8: Insufficient Surface Water
No mitigation is required.
—
Quantity (LTS)
WR -9: Use of Recycled Water (LTS)
No mitigation is required.
Growth-Inducing Impacts
GI -1: Induce Indirect or Direct Growth
No mitigation is required.
—
(LTS)
GI -2: Removal of a Potential Obstacle
No mitigation is required.
—
to Growth (LTS)
GI -3: Tax Community Services or
No mitigation is required.
—
Facilities to an Extent that New
Services or Facilities Would Be
Necessary (LTS)
Cumulative Impacts
CE -1: Cumulative Loss of Open Space
No additional mitigation is available.
Significant
Lands(S)
and
unavoidable
CE -2: Cumulative Effect on Aesthetic
No mitigation is required.
and Visual Resources (LTS)
CE -3: Cumulative Effect of Conversion
No feasible mitigation is available.
Significant
of Agricultural Lands (S)
and
unavoidable
31
925300v1 80078/0016
EXHIBIT B
CEQA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
CONCLUSIONS RELATED TO THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PROJECT
Impact and Level of Significance Prior
Mitigation Measure
Condition of
with Significance
Monitoring
Monitoring
To Mitigation.
Approval Nos.
Mitigation
Responsibility
Timeframes
CE -4: Cumulative Effect on Air Quality
No further mitigation is feasible.
Significant
(S)
and
unavoidable
CE -5: Cumulative Effect on Biological
Mitigation Measures BIO -2a, BIO -4a, BIO-
Significant
Resources (S)
5a, BIO -6a, BIO -7a, BIO -8a, BIO -9a, BIO-
and
10a, BIO -12a, and BIO -13a
unavoidable
CE -6: Cumulative Effect on Cultural
No mitigation is required.
—
Resources (NI)
CE -7: Cumulative Land Use Impacts
No mitigation is required.
—
(LTS)
CE -8: Cumulative Land Use Impacts
No additional mitigation is available.
Significant
Related to Loss of Open Space (S)
and
unavoidable
CE -9: Cumulative Effect on Noise (S)
No feasible mitigation is available.
Significant
and
unavoidable
CE -10: Cumulative Effect of
No mitigation is required.
—
Population Growth in the City of
Rohnert Park (LTS)
CE -11: Cumulative Effect on Public
No mitigation is required.
—
Services and Utilities (LTS)
CE -12: Cumulative Effect on
Roadways and Intersections in the
Study Area (for significance and
mitigation, see Impacts TRA -4 to TRA-
21 above)
CE -13: Cumulative Increase in Water
No mitigation is required.
—
Supply Demand (LTS)
32
925300v1 80078/0016
EXHIBIT B
CEQA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
CONCLUSIONS RELATED TO THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PROJECT
Impact and Level of Significance Prior
Mitigation Measure
Condition of
with Significance
Monitoring
Monitoring
To Mitigation.
Approval Nos.
Mitigation
Responsibility
Timeframes
CE -14: Cumulative Increase in
No mitigation is required.
—
Stormwater Runoff from the Proposed
Project and Related Projects (LTS)
33
9253000 80078/0016
Memorandum
To: Rohnert Park City Council Members
From: Darrin Jenkins P.E., City Engineer
Re: University District Specific Plan Area
Compliance with Resolution 2004 -95 and Senate Bill 221
Date: May 16, 2006
Introduction
On April 27, 2004, the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park (City) adopted Resolution 2004 -95 - A
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park Implementing Requirements Imposed on
Specific Plan Areas Outside the City's 1999 Boundaries (Water Policy Resolution). The Water Policy
Resolution outlines information regarding water use that must be submitted by any developer proposing a
project or projects within the Specific Plan Areas designated in the General Plan. The Water Policy
Resolution also directs the City Engineer to review this information and reach a determination as to
whether or not the proposed new water uses will cause the City's Average Annual Groundwater Pumping
Rate (as defined in Section 4.a of the Water Policy Resolution) to exceed 2.3 million gallons per day
(mgd). The City Engineer must make this determination, and the Council must consider this
determination, prior to the first discretionary approval for a project.
The City. Council is considering the approval of the University District Environmental Impact Report,
Specific Plan, General Plan Amendments and Tentative Maps. Together this package of approvals
constitutes the first discretionary approval for the University District Project. The City's Final Water
Supply Assessment, January 2005 (WSA), included the University District Specific Plan Area in its
analysis and concluded that the City's total water supplies available during normal, single -dry, and
multiple -dry years could meet the projected demand associated with the University District's proposed
buildout.
The Water Policy Resolution requires specific documentation and analysis for areas outside of the City's
1999 boundaries. The University District proponent (Applicant) has submitted the project specific
documentation which is attached. This memorandum summarizes the information provided by the
Applicant and provides my conclusions.
Findings in Accordance with the Water Policy Resolution
1. Section 1 of the Water Policy Resolution states that it applies to the Specific Plan Areas outside
of the City's 1999 boundaries that are identified in the General Plan. The University District
Specific Plan Area is outside the City's 1999 boundaries, identified in the General Plan and
subject to the Water Policy Resolution.
2. Section 2 of the Water Policy Resolution requires that the CEQA document for any project
subject to the Water Policy Resolution include information on water demands, water supplies and
water supply sufficiency under a range of hydrologic conditions. The environmental impact
report (EIR) for the University District included the City's Water Supply Assessment which
provided this information in a comprehensive fashion suitable for cumulative impact analysis.
Table 1, below, summarizes the WSA sufficiency analysis.
6750 Commerce Boulevard Rohnert Park, CA 94928 -2486 •.(707) 588 -2232 • Fax (707) 588 -2238 • www.rpeity.org
Rohnert Park City Council Members Page 2
University District Specific Plan Area - Compliance with Resolution 2004 -95
May 16, 2006
Table 1
Summary Sufficiency Findings
Dry Year Supply Demand Comparison
Normal
Single Dry
Multiple Dry
1 2 3
Water Demand in AFY
Customer Use
Unit/Acre Per
Total Non - Irrigation Demands
8,112
6,490
7,301
7,301
7,301
Irrigation from the Potable System
85
68
76
76
76
Irrigation from the Recycled Water System
1,302
1,302
1,302
1,302
1,302
Total
9,499
7,859
8,679
8,679
8,679
Water Supplies in AFY
Attached (a)
228
Agency Supply*
6,476
5,250
6,000
6,000
6,000
Groundwater Supply
2,577
2,577
2,577
2,577
2,577
Recycled Water Supply
1,302
1,302
1,302
1,302
1,302
Total
10,355
9,129
9,879
9,879
9,879
Sufficiency (Supply Less Demand)
856
1,269
1,200
1,200
1,200
3. Section 3 of the Water Policy Resolution requires that any tentative map "be conditioned upon
identification, before final map approval, of the water supply that is projected to serve the
Project." Section 3 also states that groundwater may not be pumped from any new or existing
private wells within the boundaries of zip code 94951.
The Tentative Map for the proposed University District Project is conditioned as required by the
Water Policy Resolution. The City does not and is not proposing to pump water from wells within
the boundaries of zip code 94951.
4. Section 4.b.1 of the Water Policy Resolution requires that the Applicant submit its projected
potable water demand without any water conservation or water use offsets. The Applicant has
determined the projected water demand using reasonable information and methodologies. Table
2 below summarizes the Applicant's submittal.
Table 2
Demand Projections Proposed University District Specific Plan
Gallons per
Customer Use
Unit/Acre Per
Dwelling
Gallons Per
Acre Feet Per
Category
Day
Units
Acres
Day
Year
Single Family
Detached (a)
342
883
-
302,272
339
Single Family'
Attached (a)
228
214
48,851
55
Multi Family (a)
183
548
100,206
112
Second Units
84
126
, ,
10,527
12
Commercial /Retail (a)
1,934
7.2
13,925
16
Irrigation-potable b
2,234
20.3
1 45,440
51
Totals
1 521,220 584
Notes:
UDSP Project is the project described in the UDSP EIR, March 2006.
(a) Includes all associated irrigation demand.
(b) Includes Parks, Private Recreation Areas and Irrigated Trail and Buffer Areas
Rohnert Park City Council Members Page 3
University District Specific Plan Area — Compliance with Resolution 2004 -95
May 16, 2006
5. Section 4.b.2 of the Water Policy Resolution requires that the Applicant submit a list of water
conservation practices and estimated water savings from these practices. The Applicant has
identified water conservation practices that are acceptable and consistent with the City's Water
Conservation Program. Additionally, the Applicant has determined projected water savings using
reasonable information and methodologies. Table 3, below summarizes the Applicant's submittal.
Table 3
Water Conservation Practices
Savin s Parameter Applied
Gallons Gallons Per % of
Per Dwelling % of Potable
Capita Unit per Potable Inside
Customer Use Category Per Day Dav Irri ation Use
Recycled Water Irrigation (Parks, Private Recreation)*
Residential
2.5
17.3
44
On -site Recycled Water Use:
Low Flush Toilet ( <1.6 gpo
10.4
Residential
ac- ft/yr /ac
3.2
Low Flow Faucets w. Aerators (<2.2 gpm)
1.6
Commercial
ac-ft/ r/ac
1.8
2.9
Low Flow Shower Heads ( <2.5 gpm)
2.4
50.0
144
High Efficiency Clothes Washers
5.5
ET Controllers *
18%
Submeter Multi Family units
21.8
Sub -total — Residential
19.8
21.8
Commercial and Potable Irrigation Only Areas:
Commercial - Inside **
15%
ET Controllers - Irrigation Only Meters
26%
Sub -total — Commercial
Evapo- transpiration Controllers for Dwelling Units with Greater than 2,500 square feet of permeable
* area.
** When appropriate commercial development additional features will include Water Conserving
Faucets, Air - cooled Non -Self Cleaning Icemakers, High Efficiency Commercial Clothes Washers,
High Efficiency Commercial Dishwashers, Air - cooled Air Conditioners, Air - cooled Refrigerators, Air -
cooled Condensers, Self- contained connectionless type Food Steamers, Self- closing valve type
Pre -rinse Spray Valves, Recirculating Filter Fountains
6. Section 4.b.3 of the Water Policy Resolution requires that the Applicant identify recycled water
use that is proposed for the project. Applicant has identified proposed recycle water use. Table 4
below summarizes city staffs determination of recycled water use for the project based upon the
Applicant's submittal, with adjustments made by city staff.
Table 4
University District Specific Plan Recycled Water Use
Customer Use Category
Units
Rate
Acres
ac-ft/ r
Recycled Water Irrigation (Parks, Private Recreation)*
ac- ft/yr /ac
2.5
17.3
44
On -site Recycled Water Use:
Residential
ac- ft/yr /ac
3.2
29.8
95
Commercial
ac-ft/ r/ac
1.8
2.9
5
Totals
50.0
144
* Includes trails and buffer areas with the exception of buffer areas located near creeks.
Rohnert Park City Council Members Page 4
University District Specific Plan Area - Compliance with Resolution 2004 -95
May 16, 2006
Section 4.b.4 of the Water Policy Resolution requires that the Applicant identify any Water Use
Offsets - defined as water conservation or recycling outside the limits of its development. The
Applicant is not proposing water use offsets outside the limits of its development project.
8. Section 4.b.5 of the Water Policy Resolution requires that the Applicant estimate the Project's Net
Consumptive Use Impact taking into account water conservation, water recycling and offsets. Table 5
summarizes three comparative scenarios (WSA, Applicant's, and Applicant's less recycled water use).
The table illustrates that the Applicant's proposal, even without recycled water use, results in less Net
Consumptive Use than was anticipated by the WSA.
Table 5
Comparison of UDSP Project with WSA Projections
UDSP without
WSA UDSP Recycled Water
Gallons
Acre Feet
Gallons
Acre Feet
Gallons
Acre Feet
Category
Da
Per Year
Per Da
Per Year
Per Da
Per Year
Single Family Detached
[Per
195,480
219.0
302,272
338.6
302,272
338.6
Single Family Attached
97,730
109.5
48,851
54.7
48,851
54.7
Multi- family
116,800
130.8
100,206
112.2
100,206
112.2
Second Units
N.I.
N.I.
10,527
11.8
10,527
11.8
Sub -Total
410,010
459.3
461,856
517.3
461,856
517.3
Commercial /Retail
48,800
54.7
13,925
15.6
13,925
15.6
Irrigation - potable
N.I.
N.I.
6,264
7.0
6,264
7.0
Irrigation - Parks
50,819
56.9
39,170
43.9
39,170
43.9
Gross Water Demand
509,629
571
521,215
584
521,215
584
Water Conservation Practices
Included
Above
98,030
110
98,030
110
Gross Demand less Conservation Practices
509,629
570.9
423,185
474.0
423,185
474.0
Irrigation - recycled (Parks)
50,819
56.9
On -site Recycled Water Use:
Residential
N.I.
N.I.
84,558
94.7
N.I.
N.I.
Commercial
N.I.
N.I.
4,657
5.2
N.I.
N.I.
Parks, Private Recreation and Other
N.I.
N.I.
39,170
43.9
N.I.
N.I.
Total Recycled Water Use
50,819
57
128,385
144
0
0
Net Potable Consumptive Use
458,810
514
294,800
330
423,185
474
Notes:
N.L. Means "not identified"
Section 4.b.6 of the Water Policy Resolution requires that the Applicant provide an estimate of the
"buildout year" defined as the year when 80 percent of the commercial and residential development have
been constructed and occupied. The Applicant has indicated that 2010 is its "buildout year ".
Additional Analysis Supporting Conclusions
The Applicant's analysis clearly indicates that its water demands will be less than the projections set forth in
the WSA.
However the WSA's sufficiency analysis is also premised on the additional analysis of the water demand
trends of existing water customers and an analysis of the effects of City pumping on groundwater levels. Data
on existing customer demands and groundwater levels has been collected and analyzed since the completion of
the WSA to verify that the conclusions of the WSA remain valid. While this analysis is not required by the
Rohnert Park City Council Members Page 5
University District Specific Plan Area — Compliance with Resolution 2004 -95
May 16, 2006
Water Policy Resolution, it is a helpful check on the City's water management strategy and provides the
Council with additional information related to supply sufficiency.
1. Current water demands remain below the projections of the WSA. The figure below illustrates the
average potable water demand projected in the WSA for 2005 and actual metered readings for 2004
and 2005. Both 2004 and 2005 were below the WSA projections. In fact, 2005 actual use was 15%
below the WSA projections, further validating the conclusions of the WSA.
8,000
7,000
8,000
5,000
m
m
N
a
Z 4,000
CD
m
U
a 3,000
2,000
1,000
Total Potable Water Use
WSA 2005 Actual 2004 Actual 2005
2. Groundwater levels continue to rise as a result of the City's re- operation strategy. The attached chart
(Figure 2) updates Figure 3 -32 of the WSA with two additional years of water level monitoring data.
The figure shows water levels are higher than they have ever been measured in those wells. Rising
groundwater levels remain a clear indication that the groundwater basin is not in a state of overdraft.
Senate Bill 221
Senate Bill 221 (SB 22 1) is a companion to Senate Bill 610, the law that required the City to prepare its Water
Supply Assessment. SB 221 applies to developments of 500 residential units or more and to commercial or
mixed use developments that have water use equivalent to 500 residential units (this is the same trigger as
imposed by Senate Bill 610). The University District development does need SB 221 findings.
SB 221 is intended to provide a "fail- safe" check on the Water Supply Assessment by requiring written water
supply verification prior to approval of a subdivision's Final Map. SB 221 imposes two requirements that the
City must meet. These are:
Rohnert Park City Council Members Page 6
University District Specific Plan Area — Compliance with Resolution 2004 -95
May 16, 2006
Any Development Agreement that covers a "subdivision" subject to SB 221 shall include a provision
that the Tentative Map for the Subdivision will be conditioned to comply with SB 221.
2. Approval of a Final Map for the "subdivision" will be subject to formal written verification supported
by substantial evidence that sufficient water supply can be provided to meet the projected demand
associated with the subdivision.
The proposed Development Agreement for the University District includes the required SB 221 provisions
within Section 3.09 Vesting Tentative Maps. In addition, as noted under Findings in Compliance with the
Water Policy Resolution, above, the proposed Tentative Map is conditioned upon identification, before Final
Map approval, of the water supply that is projected to serve the project. This condition satisfies both the Water
Policy Resolution and the requirements of SB 221 for issuance of the tentative map approval.
The proposed Final Maps for the University District have not been submitted to the City for consideration.
Therefore, it is not necessary to make the specific SB 221 required written verification of water supply. The
Council will have the opportunity to consider additional information related to water supply prior to Final Map
approval and will, at that time, have another opportunity to review the proposed development with respect to
water supply.
The City's Water Policy Resolution effectively supplements SB 221 by requiring a review at the "first
discretionary approval ". SB 221 will require a subsequent review at Final Map approvals.
Conclusions
1. The Applicant's proposed water conservation and offset practices are reasonable based on industry
standards and the City's experience with implementation of plumbing code and the California Urban
Water Conservation Council Best Management Practices.
The Applicant's proposed long -term operational strategy is reasonable, provides funding to assure that
water conservation savings are maintained, and can be supported by the City's own Water
Conservation Program.
Based upon review of the Applicant's submittal, review of existing City customers' water use patterns,
and review of the City's water supply management since 2003, the proposed development will not
exceed the water demand projections outlined in the Citywide Water Supply Assessment dated
January 2005.
4. Because the projected demands will not exceed those outlined in the WSA, the City will be able to
manage the new Net Consumptive Use under all hydrologic conditions using the mix of water supplies
outlined in the WSA.
5. The mix of water supplies outlined in the WSA included groundwater use at 2,577 acre -feet per year
or an average of 2.3 mgd. Based on the information submitted and the City Engineer's analysis, the
project will not cause the City to exceed an Average Annual Groundwater Pumping Rate of 2.3 mgd.
6. Because the Project will not cause the Average Annual Groundwater Pumping Rate to exceed 2.3
mgd, even without the use of recycled water for irrigation (see Table 5), the constraints imposed in
Section 4.d of the Water Policy Resolution do not apply and the City Council is not precluded from
approving the Project for reasons related to water supply.
7. The project will not impact industrial or agricultural water demands or supplies as those were
accounted for in the WSA.
Rohnert Park City Council Members Page 7
University District Specific Plan Area — Compliance with Resolution 2004 -95
May 16, 2006
�j IN�
r.
0' 250- N 500' i000l
O
LEGEND
ESTATE DENSITY HICH DENSITY
LAND USE PLAN LOW DENSITY Ccv"ERCIAL/mlxED- USE
UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN D MEDIUM DENSITY OPEN SPACE /WC TI-ANOS/SASIN
ROHNERT PARK, CA MEDIUM DENSITY-AILLEY PARK/REC AREAS
EXHIBIT I'D"
EXHIBIT "E11
< South'
North>
GREEN MUSIC - RESIDENTIAL/
CENTER 90.0' IMPROVED RIGHT OF WAY COMMERCIAL -
OPEN
73.0' BACK OF CURB TO BACK OF CURD 11.0' 6.0' SPACE
5.0' 11.0' LEFT
28.0' TRAVEL WAY EDI TURN LANE 28.0' TRAVEL WAY -
--
NOT A PART OF I CONCRETE
THE SPECIFIC-./ SIDEWALK
PLAN ROHNERT PARK EXPRESSWAY LANDSCAPE AT GREEN MUSIC CENTER /RESIDENTIAL /COMMERCIAL �4
Figure 3.2 -9
Section of Rohnert Park Expressway
At Sonoma State University Concert Hall