Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2010/07/22 Planning Commission Resolution (4)
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2010-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, CALIFORNIA, AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE MAP AND TEXT OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR SONOMA MOUNTAIN VILLAGE LOCATED AT VALLEY HOUSE DRIVE AND BODWAY PARKWAY (APN'S 46-051- 040, 46-051-042, and 46-051-045) IN ROHNERT PARK, CA WHEREAS, the applicant, Sonoma Mountain Village/Codding Enterprises, filed Planning Application No. PL2005-047PD proposing a General Plan Amendment, and related certification of a final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"), in connection with a proposed mixed-use project centered at Valley House Drive and Bodway Parkway (APN'S 46-051-040, 46-051-042, and 46-051-045) (the "Project"), in accordance with the City of Rohnert Park Municipal Code ("RPMC"); and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to General Plan ("Sonoma Mountain Village General Plan Amendments") would designate the Project site from its current designation (Industrial) to a designation providing for Mixed. Use, Public/Instituti.onal, and Parks/Recreation. The proposed Sonoma Mountain Village General Plan Amendments are attached as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Sonoma Mountain Village General Plan Amendments would amend the Land Use Map of the General Plan as provided on the amended General Plan Land Use Diagram attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Final EIR prepared for the Project; recommended its certification by the City Council; and has otherwise carried out all requirements for the Project pursuant to CEQA; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California State Law and the RPMC, public hearing notices were mailed to all property owners within an area exceeding a three hundred foot radius of the subject property and a public hearing was published for a minimum of 10 days prior to the first public hearing in the Community Voice; and WHEREAS, on July 22, 2010, the Planning Commission held a public hearing at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to the proposal; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the General Plan Amendment application for the proposal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Rohnert Park makes the following findings, determinations and recommendations with respect to the proposed General Plan Amendment and amendments to Land Use Map: Section 1. The above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. The Planning Commission recommends City Council approval of the Final EIR for this Project, including adoption of associated CEQA Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as described in Planning Commission Resolution No. 201.0-19, approved on July 22, 2010 concurrently with the Planning Commission's approval of this Resolution. Section 3. Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings concerning the General Plan amendments proposed by Planning Application No. PL2005- 047PD: 1. That the proposed site is appropriate for development under the General Plan's Mixed Use Land U.sv Designation. Criteria Satisfied. The proposed General Plan amendments would diversify the variety of uses permitted within the site, while retaining policies which preserve uses permitted under the previous land use designation. This diversity of uses and preservation of previous land use designations reflects the applicant's current Project plan and retains an 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 establish additional specific policies in the I.,and Use Element of the General Plan specific to the Sonoma Mountain Village area. The policies establish a mixed use land use designation for the site which permits a diversity of uses while retaining policies which preserve uses permitted under the previous land use designation. The proposed development proposes mixed use land designations for the site and includes policies which preserve uses permitted under prior land use designations, and is therefore consistent with such specific policies. 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 July 22, 2010. 4. The General Plan Amendment, and consistency of the Project with the General Plan, are discussed in the application materials, the Final E1R, the Planned Development, staff reports, and submittals by the Project applicant. The City adopts the conclusions and analysis of those documents regarding General Plan consistency. The Project, including the General Plan Amendment, is consistent with the General Plan and will result in an internally consistent General Plan. S. The General Plan Amendment approved for this Project will not cause the General Plan to become internally inconsistent. The General Pian Amendment proposed by the Project Sponsors better implements the General Plan policies and goals than does the land use plan depicted in the General Plan, as explained in the Planned Development and staff reports. The additional refinements achieve all applicable policies and goals, but achieve a different balance in placing more emphasis on mixed use development, sustainability, and pedestrian -friendly policies. The General Plan Amendment and the remainder of the General Plan comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of polices 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 is compatible with and in harmony with the 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 use, protection of open space, standards regarding geology, soils and earthquake risks, hazardous materials, flood hazards and drainage, protection of water duality, protection of biological resources, transportation standards and goals, regional and local housing needs, jobs/housing balance, noise, protection air quality, protection of visual resources, standards for public services and utilities, protection of architectural and historic 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 Pian 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 approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010-19 on July 22, 2010 concurrently with the Planning Commission's approval of this Resolution. 9. The City has carefully considered all comments regarding; consistency and implementation of its General flan, and determines they largely -reflect only disagreement with the decision the City made when it adopted the General flan in 2000 to allow and encourage intense urban development in this area. 10. The Project is an internally -integrated mixed use development providing; a diversity of land uses throughout, including areas for public/institutional uses, recreational uses, parks and open space, and other uses immediately adjacent to or combined with residential uses. The Project surrounds a central plaza or public area creating a vibrant gathering center and more integrated community than would be achieved by the land use configuration indicated in the prior General Plan land use designation. The Project provides pedestrian walkways and bicycle paths throughout, is integrated with planned regional transportation improvements, and is integrated with surrounding neighborhoods so as to maximize pedestrian -friendly connectivity with surrounding areas and enhancing bicycle use and access to public transportation. The design strongly promotes numerous General flan goals, policies and objectives, including; those to transition densities, place housing adjacent to parks and other open space, siting; neighborhood commercial facilities in areas designed to maximize accessibility to residential areas, promote a concentration of activity and continuity of retail uses, promote pedestrian -oriented activity centers that serve as community focal points, promote policies which preserve uses permitted under the area's prior land use designation, and sites facilities and infrastructure to encourage walking?, biking;, and public transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, 'BE JIT FURTHER HER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt the bindings stated hereinabove and approve Application No. PL2005-047PD, General Plan Amendments for a proposed mixed-use project centered at Valley House Drive and Bodway Parkway (APN'S 46- 051-040, 46-051-042, and 46,051-045), as described in the Sonoma Mountain Village General Plan Amendments attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, in its entirety. RE IT FUllt';l'HER RESOLVE that the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council amend the General Plan Land Use Diagram so as to conform with the General Plan Amendments recommended herein by adopting; the amended General flan Lancs Use Diagram attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B. DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED on this 22nd day of July, 2010 by the City of Rohnert Park Planning Commission by the following vote: AYES; 3 NOES: ABSEN'r:2* ABSTAIN: AHANOTU Y ARMSTRONGAB* BORI3A AB NILSON Y NORDIN Y *Armstrong: Absent/Recused Park Planning Commission Attest: " Susan X7,evedo, Recordir sox EXHIBIT A SONOMA MQUNTAEN_VIL &GE PROPOSED GENERAL FLAN AMENDMENTS [AMENDMENTS TO PAGE 2-151 and provide a mixed-use residential and commercial center to meet the needs of students, faculty, visitors, as well as city residents. Increased connectivity between and within neighborhoods. New streets are designated to result in increased connectivity. In addition, policies for locating local streets are included to ensure neighborhood -level connections while providing flexibility to project developers. Designation of mixed-use and pedestrian -oriented activity centers. Threea pedestrian oriented mixed-use centers are designated: the University District, i;ft6 the City Center, and Sonoma Mountain Villa re. In addition, mixed-use or multi -use development is encouraged at three other sites: the northwest growth area, southwest of Adrian Drive/Southwest Boulevard, and a center in the southeast. Variety of housing and mix of housing types in all neighborhoods. The General Plan provides for a variety of housing types, including Estate Residential, a housing type currently not found in Rohnert Park, as well as higher density housing to meet the needs of students, and mobile home subdivisions to provide for affordable housing. The General flan Diagram illustrates neighborhoods with integrated housing types, designed to locate a larger share of residences close to transit and neighborhood centers. Protection of creeksides and provision of a network of trails and parks. The Diagram illustrates a network of open space along creeks that will be realized over time. These open space areas will also facilitate development of a network of bikeways and pedestrian trails. • Land use pattern to maximize accessibility to parks and commercial centers. All high density residential uses are located adjacent to parks/greenways or mixed-use centers to ensure that recreational and everyday shopping facilities are within walking distance of most residents. FUTURE BOUNDARIES The General Plan Diagram shows the proposed future Sphere of Influence for the City; future City limits are proposed to coincide with the Sphere of Influence. Decisions on changes to the City limits and the Sphere of Influence require approval of the Sonoma County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Also shown on the Diagram is the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), which outlines the limits of urban growth under this General Plan. This UGB is entirely within the proposed sphere, and will become operative upon the adoption of this General Plan; UGBs are neither recognized by LAFCO, nor do they require LAFCO approval. Page 1 of 40 SONOMA MOSJNTAIN VILLAGE PROPOSED GENERAL FLAN AMENDMENTS [AMENDMENTS TO PAGE 2-163 DENSITY/INTENSITY STANDARDS The General Plan establishes density/intensity standards for each use classification. Residential density is expressed as housing units per gross (including public streets and other (rights-of-way) acre. Maximum permitted ratio of gross floor area to site area (FAR) is specified for non-residential uses. FAR is a broad measure of building bulls that controls both visual prominence and traffic generation. It can be clearly translated to a limit on building bulk in the Zoning Ordinance and is independent of the type of use occupying the building. Density (housing units per gross acre) and intensity (FAR) standards are for gross developable land (that is, including streets and other rights-of-way), but excluding areas subject to physical or environmental constraints, as well as areas dedicated for creekside/greenways or habitat protection. Exceptions The Zoning Ordinance could provide specific exceptions to the FAR limitations for uses with low employment densities, such as research facilities, or low peak -hour traffic generation, such as hospitals. Intensity standards for non-residential and mixed-use development are for the entire development site, that is, intensities on individual parcels may exceed the maximum, provided the overall development project does not exceed the stipulated intensity. For residential uses, in contrast, density standards shall apply to individual parcels. The Planning Commission may permit, subject to findings, deviations in residential density standards on individual parcels for clustered development with common open space, as stipulated in the policies included later in this chapter, provided overall project density is not exceeded. Additionally, Planned Developments or Specific Plan areas which are subject to fornn-based zoning codes shall be exemptcd from the FAR limitations set forth above. The density standards applicable to such areas shall be the same as that set forth in the applicable form - based code. (Rev.OXIP_A6a) Page 2 of 40 sONOMA MOUNTAIN VILLAGE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS [AMENDMENTS To PAGE 2-171 Table 2.2-1: Standards for Density and Development Intensi Land Use Designation Residential Assumed Average Maximum Density for Buildout Permitted FAR' (units/gross Calculations acre)' Residential Estate up to 2.0 2.0 Low Density 4.6-6.6 6.0 Medium Density 6.1-12.0 12.0 High Density 12.1-24.0 21.0 Office - 1.0 Commercial Neighborhood/Community/ - 0.4 Regional Hotels - 1.5 Industrial 0.53 Mixed-use Development 1.5 for commercial and office mixed use areas, 2.0 for residential uses mixed with office or commercial, 1. 25 percent bonus is available for projects meeting State criteria for bonus for affordable housing (Government Code § 65915). 10 percent discretionary bonus (cannot be combined with 25 percent affordable housing bonus) is available upon Planning Commission approval only, and only for projects undertaking off-site improvements (such as streetscape improvements) that further the City's community design objectives. 2. Parking structures and garages are excluded from FAR calculations for non-residential and mixed-use developments. 3. Discretionary increases may be permitted up to a total FAR of 1.0, subject to review and approval for development meeting specific standards included in the Zoning Ordinance. 4. FARs for mixed-use classifications are for combined residential and non-residential development, no separate residential density limitations are specified. 5 FARs exceeding the specific limits stated above shall be as approved in Planned Development and Specific Plan areas. Source: City of Rohnert Park, Dyett & Bhatia (Rev 83192b6/1 b) Maximum Density/intensity Not Automatic The density/intensity standards do not imply that development projects will be approved only at the maximum density or intensity specified for each use. Zoning regulations consistent with General Plan policies and/or site conditions may reduce development within Page 3 of 40 SONOMA MOUNTAIN VILLAGE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS [AMENDMENTS TO PAGE 2-22, MIRED USE DESCRIPTION] Office This designation is intended to provide sites for administrative, financial, business, professional, medical and public offices, and support commercial uses. Limits on retail activities in the district will be specified in the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance may permit hospitals, extended care and other similar facilities in specific locations. The maximum FAR is 1.0. Industrial This designation accommodates campus -like environments for corporate headquarters, research and development facilities, offices, light manufacturing and assembly, industrial processing, general service, warehousing, storage and distribution, and service commercial uses. Retail is permitted as an ancillary use only. Maximum FAR is 0.5, but discretionary increases may be permitted up to a total FAR of 1.0, subject to review and approval for development meeting specific standards included in the Zoning Ordinance. Mixed -Use This designation accommodates a variety of compatible businesses, stores, institutions, service organizations, and residences in a pedestrian -oriented setting. Allowable uses include multifamily residences, retail shops, financial, business and personal services, and restaurants. Automotive (for example, motor vehicle sales, motor vehicle part sales, and gasoline stations) and drive-through establishments are not permittedybut may be allowed within Planned Development and Specific flan _areas if the governing provisions for such areas expressly provide otherwise. Plan policies and/or the Zoning Ordinance may require certain uses — such as ground -level retail — in some or all portions of a site with this designation. In general, Tthe maximum FAR for developments with a non-residential mix of uses is 1.5 and for residential and non-residential uses combined is 2.0, however, in Planned Developments and Specific Plan areas limitations on maximum FAR shall be as set forth in the applicable zoningdistrict. Separate residential density limitations are not established; however, minimum unit size requirements established in the Zoning Ordinance will result in maximum density limitations. In addition, limitations on the size and location of parking, coupled with building orientation and design standards, as specified in Chapter 3: Community Design and/or the Zoning Ordinance will ensure that a pedestrian -oriented environment is created. Areas on the General Plan Diagram that are striped with two different colors are not considered mixed use, which only applies to the areas with the Mixed Use designation. Striped areas would allow either of the two uses represented by the striping, or a combination of the two, consistent with their separate land use classifications. Public/Institutional To provide for schools, government offices, transit sites, and other facilities that have unique public character, as well as Sonoma State University. Religious facilities are not Page 4 of 40 PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS [AMENDMENTS TO PAGE 2-241 2.3 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT Table 2.3-1 shows the buildout acreage of the General Plan Diagram. Approximately 1,260 net acres would be developed within the UGB, including infill sites. An additional 50 acres would be developed for community fields outside the UGB. The table breaks out acreage by area of the city: areas inside the 1999 City limits and three areas outside the 1999 City limits, the eastside (north of the SSU campus), Canon Manor and southeast (south of the SSU campus), and the westside (west of Dowdell Avenue). Most areas that are planned for new development are residential in use, totaling about 620 acres. Amendments to the General Plan in 2010 have resulted in the designation of certain developed and undeveloped lands from an industrial designation to mixed use and arkslo ens ace. An additional 550 acres outside the UGB and inside the SOI would be used for parks and open space. Figure 2.3-1 compares land uses in 1999 to those resulting from full buildout of the General Plan. Table 2.3-1: General Plan Buildout: Net Acreage of New Development Inside 1999 Eastside Canon Manor Westside Sonoma Total City Limits & Southeast Mountain Villacie Residential Estate 0 60 210 0 03 2:79 Low Density 0 140 70 0 24-8 Medium Density 0 60 20 0 61 go High Density 0 40 0 45 57 95 Mixed Use 20 30 10 0 147 69 Commercial 40 0 0 60' 0' 499 Industrial 120 0 0 55 Os 415 Office 10 0 0 20 51 30 Public/institutional 0 10 0 0 1 40 Parks/Open Space 2 155 30 3 27 430 Total 192 495 340 183 175 449 1. Includes 24 acres in the Wilfred/Dowdett specific plan area. 2. Includes neighborhood parks, linear parks, community fields, and creek corridors. The community fields (approximately 50 acres), are located inside the Sphere of Influence, but outside the Urban Growth Boundary. 3. Various residential, commercial, office and industrial uses are proposed to be integrated throughout the Sonoma Mountain Village Planned Development and such uses are therefore collectively reflected as mixed use in this Table. Note: This table is for informational purposes only, and does not represent adopted City policy related to buildout. Total buildout of the General Plan is neither anticipated by nor s ecifPed in the General Plan. Source: Dyett & Bhatia Page 5 of 40 (Rev.4W� 16/10 Figure 2.3-1 Land Uses: 1999 vs. Buildout' Vacant Public 5% 6% - - Parks/ Recreation o�,: 13%y f � Residential Industrial 53% 13% Commercial 9% office 1% Inside City Limits, 1999 Buildout lKev. vor I ul 1. Acreages do not indude streets. 2. ParkslRecreation acreage kicludes the 50�ocre community fields. Source. Gyett & Bhatla Public Parks/ - . Recreation 14% '- a� �F Industrial 10% Residential 53% Mixed Use 7% �s Commercial 9% office 2% Buildout lKev. vor I ul 1. Acreages do not indude streets. 2. ParkslRecreation acreage kicludes the 50�ocre community fields. Source. Gyett & Bhatla SONOMA MOUNTAIN VILLAGE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS [AMENDMENTS TO PACE 2-261 Table 2.3-2 shoves the total number of housing units estimated at buildout of all General Plan policies. Table 2.3-2: Estimated Housing Units at Buildout Existing Units Inside 1999 City Limits 15,430 Canon Manor 110 Subtotal 15,540 New Units Inside 1999 City Limits 2401,142 Eastside 2,440 Westside 850 Cannon Manor and Southeast 950 Subtotal 474585.382 Grand Total 44-,99920 ,922 Note: This table is for informational purposes only, and does not represent adopted City policy related to buildout. Total buildout of the General Plan is neither anticipated by nor specified in the General Plan. These figures do not include second residential units and reflect anticipated 55% buildout with Sonoma Mountain Village through 2020 _ Source: Dyett & Bhatia Table 2.3-3 summarizes the buildout population and employment under the General Plan. Population and employment are based on estimates of Dousing units and non-residential building floor area, which are derived from the acreage estimates in Table 2.3-1. Population is expected to increase at an average annual rate of 1.0 percent between 1999 and 2020. Approximately 9;48010.332 residents will be added to the city, reaching a total buildout population of approximately 50;4W51,332. Whereas, jobs are planned to increase at a yearly rate of 1.9 percent under the General Plan, reaching a total buildout of 31,60029,479 obs. Because jobs will increase at a faster rate than population, the ratio of jobs to employed residents is expected to increase from 1.04 to 1.22. Page 7 of 40 PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS (AMENDMENTS TO PAIGE 2-271 Table 2.3-3: General Plan Buildout: Pouulation and Jobs' n.a. — not available s.f. — square feet 1. Buildout estimates do not include on -campus population or employment for SSU. 2. California Department of Finance, Official State Estimates (January 1999) for Rohnert Park and estimate for Canon Manor, includes 1,466 mobile home units. 3. Includes commercial, industrial, office, and mixed-use development. Also, includes development in the City Center and Wilfred-Dowdell Specific Plan Area and 55% of the 825.307 non-residentia€ s.f. and 2.54 1.000 residential s.f within the Mixed Use desi nation at Sonoma Mountain Villa -Cie Planned Development Area. 4. Assumes 1999 group quarters population of 660 to stay the same at buildout. Thus, at buildout, the household population will be 474050.672-(50:49051.332-660)_ Note: This table is for informational purposes only, and does not represent adopted City policy related to buildout. Total buildout of the General Plan is neither anticipated by nor specified in the General Plan. Fioures above reflect anticipated 55% buildout with Sonoma Mountain Village through 2020. Source: Dyett & Bhatia (Rev.40/6L-206/10 Page 8 of 40 Estimated 1999 1999 -Increase to Buildout Buildout Population Total 41,000 8;49810.332 5848951,332' Annual Growth 1.0% Ratge Housing Units 15,5402 44585.382 494920.922 Jobs Total 21,900 5;-0887.579 278829.479 Annual Growth 1.9% Rate Building Areaa n.a. 2,74 4.593.469 n.a. (s.f.) Employed 21,200 24.777 2825.977 Residents Jobs/Employed 1.04 1.14 Residents n.a. — not available s.f. — square feet 1. Buildout estimates do not include on -campus population or employment for SSU. 2. California Department of Finance, Official State Estimates (January 1999) for Rohnert Park and estimate for Canon Manor, includes 1,466 mobile home units. 3. Includes commercial, industrial, office, and mixed-use development. Also, includes development in the City Center and Wilfred-Dowdell Specific Plan Area and 55% of the 825.307 non-residentia€ s.f. and 2.54 1.000 residential s.f within the Mixed Use desi nation at Sonoma Mountain Villa -Cie Planned Development Area. 4. Assumes 1999 group quarters population of 660 to stay the same at buildout. Thus, at buildout, the household population will be 474050.672-(50:49051.332-660)_ Note: This table is for informational purposes only, and does not represent adopted City policy related to buildout. Total buildout of the General Plan is neither anticipated by nor specified in the General Plan. Fioures above reflect anticipated 55% buildout with Sonoma Mountain Village through 2020. Source: Dyett & Bhatia (Rev.40/6L-206/10 Page 8 of 40 §QNOMA MOU121AIN.VILLAgg PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS [AMNDME TS TO PAGE 2-301 Land Use Pattern lfmixed use, Commercial, Office, and Industrial Development LU -3 Develop the University District as a mixed-use, pedestrian -oriented center. Permitted uses are stipulated in the land use classifications in Section 2.2, and specific policies and land use program are included later in this section. LU -4 Develop the City Center and the Sonoma M(1111]tain Village I'Ianr,ed Development as ;:--mixed-use, pedestrian -oriented c,�wei:arem. Permitted uses are stipulated in the land use classifications in Section 2.2. LU -5 Encourage development of the northwest growth area along Wilfred Avenue and on the area designated as Mixed Use on Bodway Parkway, south of Canon Manor, as mixed-use centers (that is, with different uses at different levels in a building), while permitting single- or multi -use (that is more than one use on the site, but in separate buildings) development. Encouragement for mixed-use development is built into the General Plan Land Use Classification system, which permits an FAR of 2.0 for mixed-use development that include residential uses, and FAR of 1.5 for projects with a non-residential mix (such as retail and offices). Projects with single use buildings would be subject to the FAR for these individual uses, as included in Section 2.2, which are lower than the FARs stipulated for mixed-use developments. Further incentives would result fi°om reduced parking requirements for mixed-use development that may be included in the City's Zoning Ordinance. LU -6 Locate new Medium and High Density Residential development adjacent to parks, creekways or other open space, in order to maximize residents' access to recreational uses, or adjacent to a Mixed Use or Neighborhood Commercial Center, to maximize access to services. LU -7 Encourage new neighborhood commercial facilities and supermarkets to be located to maximize accessibility to all residential areas. The intent is to ensure that convenience shopping facilities such as supermarkets and drugstores are located close to where people live and facilitate access to these on foot or bicycles. Also, because Rohnert Park's residential population can support only a limited number of supermarkets, this policy will encourage dispersion of supermarkets rather than their clustering in a few locations. Page 9 of 40 SONOMA MOUNTAIN VILLAGE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS [AMENDMENTS TO PAGE 2-321 households, as de anedia Section Solos ofthe flealth aadSafety Codi; or 0 Sopercent ofthe total dwelling units ofa housing developmentfor gualing resident; as defaned in Section Sl 3 ofthe Civil Code. Otherprovisioaa ofthe Government Code, such as those relating to affordability, shall also apply. 10 percent bonus, upon discretionary approval only, and only for projects undertaking elective off-site improvements (such as streetscape improvements) that further the City's community design and/or open space objectives. This bonus shall not be combinable with affordable housing bonus. Off-site improvements directly resulting from a project's impacts, as specified in the Zoning Ordinance, may still be required; the bonus is for improvements that go beyond the required minimum. Specific Plan, Planned Development, and Other Areas The new growth areas of the City have been divided into five specific plan areas — Northwest, Northeast, University District, Canon Manor, and Southeast and one Planned Development area — Sonoma Mountain Village. Policies have been developed that pertain to the individual specific plan/ Tanned develo rnent areas, as well as for the City Center area, for which a Concept Plan exists. ,boundaries for specific planlPlanned development areas are demarcated in Figure 2.4-1. For policies related to design issues, please see Chapter 3: Community Design. LU -10A Coordinate the adoption of each specific plan and planned development in a manner that provides for the systematic implementation of the General Pian, as is consistent with the growth management and public facilities goals and policies of this General Plan. In order to carry out this policy, the City Council may elect to adopt one specific plan and/or planned development at a time, determine priorities for the adoption of each specific plan/planned development, initiate the preparation of a specific plan and/or Tanned develo mens, or otherwise take action to ensure that the adoption of specific plans and planned developments adhere to the growth management and public facilities goals and policies of this General Plan. Require that all specific plans and planned developments prepared pursuant to this General Plan include the following components: A land use program as specified for each Specific Plan and Planned Development area in the General Plan, including the maximum and minimum development for each land use type -.Land • A detailed traffic study, prepared by a City -approved traffic/transportation planner, and reasonable mitigation measures to mitigate traffic impacts resulting from the development; and • The proposed location and capacity of major infrastructure components, including wells, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste, disposal, energy, and Page 10 of 40 SONOMA MOUNT&I VILLAGE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS [A=XDIZNTS TO PAGE 2•-331 other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the Specific Plan -Planned Development; and Policy GM -9 also requires preparation of a Public Facilities Financing Plan. • A site-specific biological assessment of wetlands, habitat areas, and creeksides by a City -approved biologist and a program for conservation/mitigation to the extent feasible; and • Survey for California tiger salamander, both in breeding habitat and adjacent upland estivation habitat, with appropriate mitigation, including avoidance and minimization measures; and Program for conservation of the natural resources along creeks and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources where applicable; and • Park and open space in accordance with the General Plan designation, including access and connections to the bicycle system shown in Figure 4- 3-: and • Hydrology and drainage for the area, with a goal to minimize runoff, and drainage practices to be incorporated as part of individual projects to meet the Specific pPlan/Planned Development objectives; and • Plan to prevent stormwater pollution, including measures to be incorporated as part of development on individual sites:; and • Demonstration of adequate water supplyt_ This demonstration of adequacy should be consistent with policies PF -I1 through PF -14, relating to water supply. LU -10B Include within each sSpecific pPlan_and Planned Development, standards and criteria by which development will be phased and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources. LU -10C Permit hospitals, schools, police and fire stations, parks and other facilities that serve a vital public interest, subject to findings and necessary environmental review, to be located in a eSpecific pPlanl Planned Develo ment area, even if a sSpecific pPlan or Planned Development for the area has not been adopted. LU- lOD As part of development of sSpecific pPlans and Planned Developments, through site planning and other techniques, ensure adequate transitions between incompatible uses, while promoting the General Plan intent of integrated development of compatible uses. Page 11 0140 SONOMA MOUNTAIN VILLAGE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS (AMENDMENTS TO PAGE 2-40 AND ADDITIONAL PAGES (NOT YET NUMBERED)I The City Celmer area is generally defined by mliehauglz Creels orr the raoilh, the railroad tracks to the east the Rohnert Park ,expressway to the south, aria, U.S. Hghway 16V to the west. The City Center would he air area of mixed land uses inclua,ing civic huildkgs commercial businesses, office uses, and molt amily housifzg. It wouldinclude approximately.1&90housingunits LU -31 Allow, but do not require, mixed- or multi -use development. Wilfred-Dowdell LU -32 Ensure development is in accordance with the adopted Specific Plan for the area. LU -33 In preparing and adopting the Wilfred-Dowdell Specific Plan, incorporate provisions which ensure integration of land uses and design concepts with the adjacent Northwest Specific Plan area. Outside the Urban Growth Boundary LU -34 Areas in the City Planning area, outside the Urban Growth Boundary, should be maintained in agricultural and open space uses consistent with the land use designation in the Sonoma County General Plan. Sonoma Mountain Village Planned Development Area LU 35 Require prejaration of a Planned Development_prior to approval of any develo meat in the Sonoma Mountain Village area. LU 36 Ensure that land uses are dispersed in accordance with the _provisions of the Sonoma Mountain Village Planned Development Zoning District: • Encourage infill and redeyelment growth strategies within new neighborhoods. • Ensure that zoning provisions will reserve aLnles ace for commercial industrial, and/or other business-related uses and require development to enhance economic activity with the Sonoma Mountain Village area tbrougb support of business development grog ams, support of business incubator ro rams and mixed-use development. • Include a framework of transit pedestrian and bicycle systems both within the Sonoma Mountain Village area and connecting to the surrounding community, that provide alternatives to the automobile. • Develop neighborhoods that are compact 2edestrian-oriented and contain mixed-use. Page 12 of 40 SONOM A MIOUNTAIN VILLAGE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS • Offer a ranize of housing types and price levels to accommodate diverse ages and incomes. • Provide appropriate building densities_ and land uses within walking distance of transit stoRs. • Provide public, institutional and commercial activities in neighborhoods rather than isolatiniz them in remote single -use com lexes. • Distribute a range of open space including_ narks, squares, and playgrounds within the neighborhood. • Require that buildings and landscaping contribute to the physical definition of thoroughfares as civic places. LU -37 Ensure that the land use progam is within the ranges indicated on Table 2.4-5 including the minimum and maximum number of units for each residential land use classification. Table 2.4-5: Land Use Pro ram: Sonoma Mountain Village Planned Development Area Gross Housing units Building Area (1,000 s.fl Acrea a Minimum -Maximum Minimum -Maximum Mixed Use 147 0-1,694 n.a. Public/Institutional 1 n.a. n.a. 2 Parks/Open Space 27 n.a. Ia. z Total 175 D-1.694 n.a. 1 Various residential commercial office and industrial uses are proposed to be integrated throughout the Sonoma Mountain Village Planned Develo ment and such uses are therefore collectively reflected as mixed use in this Table. 2. Due to the broad range of develo mento tions permitted in the Sonoma Mountain Village Planned Development, fixina a minimum and maximum building area is undesirable, but shall be subiect to the allowances Provided in the Sonoma Mountain Village Planned Develo ment Zoning District. The acreages and housing units in this table reflect buildout of the entire Sonoma Mountain Village Planned Development. Source: Sonoma Mountain Village. Page 13 of 40 SQbIQMA MOUNTAIN YILL6GE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS [AMENDMENTS TO PACE 2-441 obligations for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. This measure establishing a UGB is consistent with the objectives of the City's Housing Element and with the other mandatory elements of the City's General Plan. It is fully expected that the policies and programs in the City's Housing Element, including the sites identified therein for housing, will allow the City of Rohnert Park to meet the requirements of State law to provide housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community. This measure allows the City Council to bring land into the UGB without a public vote for very low and low income housing only, in recognition of the fact that sometimes it is necessary for a local government to take special steps to provide opportunities for very low and low income housing. 1.5 The UGB outlines the area within which the City generally projects that development will occur within the next twenty years. However, the General Pian of the City of Rohnert Park Growth Management Policies prohibit growth from commencing, if the necessary public facilities -- streets, water, wastewater, solid waste, and parks -- are not in place when the growth is completed. In addition, the General Plan of the City of Rohnert Park Specific Plan and Planned Dev�loprnent Policies require that new growth will not be permitted unless and until the specific plan o�anned_ development for the area in which the growth is proposed, has been adopted. Section 2. Establishing the Urban Growth Bounda The following policies shah apply to the Urban Growth Boundary: 2.1 No urban development shall be permitted beyond the Urban Growth Boundary. "Urban development" shall mean development requiring one or more basic municipal services including, but not limited to, water service, sewer, improved storm drainage facilities, fire hydrants and other physical public facilities and services; provided, however, that open space uses, parks, agricultural uses, community fields and golf courses beyond the Urban Growth Boundary that are provided with municipal or public services, shall not be defined as "urban development." 2.2 The Urban Growth Boundary shall be in effect until June 30, 2020, 2.3 The Urban Growth Boundary may be amended only by a vote of the people or as provided for in Section 2.4. 2.4 The Urban Growth Boundary may be amended by a majority vote (three affirmative votes) of the City Council under the following circumstances: Page 14 of 40 SQN!QMA MQUNT&N VILLAGE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS [AMNDMENTS TO PAGE 2-47I In order to manage development within the UGB in a manner that is consistent with these community goals, a growth management program shall be adopted that includes each of the following components: 3.2.1 An annual standard to determine the number of residential development approvals that are consistent with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan. 3.2.2 A requirement to implement the growth management program, including the annual standard in a manner that is consistent with the goals, objectives, obligations and policies of the City's Land Use and Housing Elements, III, An average approximate one percent (1%) annual population growth rate. 3.2.4. An annual review by the City Council to determine the consistency of each of the components of the growth management program with the goals, plans, and policies of the General Plan and State mousing, planning, and zoning law. 3.2.5 A requirement to coordinate the development in each of the specific plan and planned development areas with the growth management ordinance- W) rdinance; a ) , licable. Housing that is affordable to very low and low income households shall be exempt from the growth management program. GM -3 Establish a "trigger cap" on annual residential development approvals with the following characteristics, in order to maintain an average development pace of 225 housing units per year for any three-year period: • If the combined number of residential development approvals in any two successive calendar years exceeds 560 housing units, and if the development pace for the preceding three-year period has exceeded an average of 225 housing units per year, then a cap on development on the following calendar year will be established {"trigger cap"); Based on an average approximate population growth Yate of 1%, General Plan buildout would permit an addition of approximately 4,450 housing units over a 20 year period, or an average of approximately 225 housing units per year. The figure 560 represents 125 percent of the two-year average growth of 450 (225 x 2) housing units. b The,"trigger cap" may be adjusted up or down a maximum of ten (10) percent by the City Council on an annual basis (see GM -4) to accommodate changes in land use program assumptions (for example, vacancy rate factors and household size). Page 15 of 40 SONOMA MOUNTAIN VILLAGE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS [AMENDMENTS TO PAGE 2'-491 GM -7 Encourage applicants to enter into development agreements with the City, which would also grant vested development rights, including against any changes that may result from the City Council annual policy review (GM -4), to develop a site over a multi-year period. Do not enter into any development agreement for a project until a specific plan or planned development has been prepared and adopted by the City. This would permit, but not require, the City to enter into development agreements. Any proposed development agreement shall be consistent with the General Plan, any other relevant plans, policies, programs, regulations, and standards. GM -8 For those residential development approvals that do not require the approval of a tentative subdivision map, or otherwise not vested through a development agreement with the City, approvals shall expire after a 24 -month period, unless extended for special circumstances by the City Council. Page 16 of 40 raQNOMA MOLINTAIN VILLAGg PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS [AMENDMENTS TO PAGE 2-511 ,Adequate Public Facilities GM -9 Require that each specific plan n—d-planned develo inert include. or be sub ect to a Public Facilities Financing Plan that explains how streets, water, wastewater, solid waste, and parks, all meeting City standards, will be provided to the project. The Pian must demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City Manager, based upon criteria developed in the Growth Management Ordinance, that completion of all necessary public facilities concurrently with completion of the specific plan oT_planned develol)znent is economically, physically, and legally feasible. GM -10 Require that economic, physical and legal feasibility (Policy GM -9) include the method of financing or otherwise paying for the facilities and the plan for receiving approval of all regulatory agencies. A Public Facilities Plan that provides for the project's fair share of the financing for the necessary public facilities, but does not provide for the completion of the public facilities prior to completion of the development due to lack of contribution by other responsible parties, will be deemed complete but will not be approved as part of development project approval unless the exceptions included in GM -11 or GM -12 apply. GM -11 Allow, only with the approval of the City Council, some required public facilities (GM -9) to be deferred for a specific time period by adopting a Statement of Public Policy Considerations. The Statement of Public Policy Considerations shall include findings that specific and offsetting community goals and objectives are achieved by the project that balance not meeting the goal of providing necessary public facilities concurrently with development and shall specify a time period in which the improvements must be completed. Such findings shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record of the public hearing. GM -12 As provided in GM -10, the City Council may allow an exception to the requirement that all public facilities must be provided prior to completion of the development for streets/highways/intersections only, for projects subject to a development agreement if it can be demonstrated that although adequate street/higbway/intersections are unable to be provided for the development at the time occupancy is projected, such facilities will be provided within two years of the time occupancy is projected. The determination that such facilities will be provided within two years of the time occupancy is projected shall be based upon the approved Public Facilities Financing Plans submitted by other projects that contribute to the need for the street/highway/intersection improvement. GM -13 Require that new development maintain parkways, creeksides, and open spaces that are part of the development or are required to support it, and consider establishing multi-purpose assessment districts or other financing mechanism in order to assign the cost of infrastructure improvements equitably to benefiting sites. Page 17 of 40 SONOMA MOUNTAIN VILLAGE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS (AMENDMENTS TO PAGE 2-521 .4ssessmenl drslricls include allproperty !hal would receive a special henefrlfr-om a capilal improvement acrd !herr imposes assessments on each parcel ofproperiy: The amounl of the assessment reflects the cost of the proportional special benefit confer i ed on ,(he pay re1. The City already uses assessment drslricls in ceriain areas for roadway improvements, as along RedwoodDfive.-lssessmenl dis,(riels can he considered not onlyforrrradway impove)nenls but alsoforsewer and wafer line improvements and other necessary anfraslrercture. Expansion of sewer lines earl of the existing City limns will prohahy he necessary in order to accolnmodale nervi development Ir addition to irfaslnrclrire improvements assessment di slricls can he used to assign ,(he cosl ofmainlenance ofopen spaces andparkways The cost oi"addilional service ahove exwliag costs can he determined by estimating the amount of addilional personneland egu meal necessary to nmainlairr response limes aridservice levels GM -14 Require new development to dedicate land to the City in the appropriate amount and location for parks and recreational space, in accordance with the General Plan Diagram, the Specific Plan and/or Planned Development for the area, and the City's park dedication requirements. The Open Space, Parks, and Public Facilities Element establishes standards for the amount of parkland per 1,000 residents and discusses the relevant provisions of the Quimby Act. Dedication may be accomplished either by conveyance of land to the Ci or by establishinjzpublic access easements over the land ensuriLig Public use as arks and recreational s ace. GM -15 Prepare, adopt, and implement a Capital Improvement Program (CIP), based on established performance standards, to provide a framework to undertake necessary citywide public facility improvements. Ensure that the program reflects expected ,growth and estimated cost of improvements. As of 1999, the City did not have a CIP, but had considered establishing a program in order to prioritize improvement projects and funding. The City needs both a programming time horizon (such as five or seven years) as well as an update cycle (such as every year or two years). Many cities work with a five-year CIP that is updated every year or two years. The Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) uses a seven-year planning horizon and two-year update cycle for its CIP, which is used by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to prepare the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The CIP's estimate of future growth shall take into account development trends and projects in the development pipeline "trigger cap" and other growth management provisions. Page 18 of 40 u PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS [AMENDMENTS TO PAGE 3-151 3.2 NEIGHBORHOODS AND FOCUS AREAS While policies related to views and edges have implications that extend beyond individual neighborhoods, this section addresses the design and character at a neighborhood scale. Focused policies for certain areas (including specific plan areas) are also included. NEIGHBORHOODS Neighborhoods are Rohnert Park's building blocks. Up until 1999, Rohnert Park's neighborhood structure has been, in many cases, characterized by homes clustered around a school and a park. Neighborhood areas are shown in Figure 3.2-1. Key aspects of Rohnert Park's etiFi-ent t r 99 9) neighborhood structure include: Use Pattern. While Rohnert Park has a defined neighborhood development pattern, design of neighborhoods to be responsive to the context—such as by creating greenways that traverse neighborhoods, locating parks adjacent to creeks, and locating uses and acitivities in relationship to institutions such as SSU and physical conditions such as urban edges—can help in creating neighborhoods that are responsive to the landscape and lead to greater identity and diversity. Street and Block Patterns. Neighborhood A, one of the original Rohnert Park neighborhoods, has the greatest number of through streets, blocks, and access points. it is characterized by long internal blocks, connecting local streets, and few cul-de-sacs, complemented by mature trees and landscaped front yards, making it easy and comfortable to bike or walk. Numerous access points provide connections to adjacent areas. In subsequently developed neighborhoods, fewer street connections and intersections, more cul de sacs, and larger blocks make it difficult to reach destinations via walking or biking. • Canon Manor - a County subdivision originally platted in the 1950s - has rural residential development with rectilinear streets, very large blocks, and large lots, in contrast to Rohnert Park's curvilinear streets and cul-de-sacs. Sonoma Mountain Village - a sustainable communi_, in the southeast area of the Ci1y, is subject to "smartowr�th" development requirements which may differ substantially from the street -and -block pattern of neighborhoods in other areas in the City. Sonoma_ Mountain Village is typified byRedestrian- and bicycle -friendly elements with street widths that may differ from standard Ci streets. Development is governed by a form -based code which seeks to encoura ed mixed use development. • Streets. Rohnert Park has a hierarchical system of streets that separates high-speed through traffic (along arterials and collectors) from low -speed local traffic (along local streets). Chapter 4: Transportation provides a detailed description of the city's street pattern and outlines roadway classifications. Safety, convenience, and comfort for pedestrians and bicycles are an important issue for Rohnert Park residents in 1999. • Streets in Rohnert Park have a distinctive character. Major arterials such as the Rohnert Park Page 19 of 40 SONOM&MOUNTAIN MILLAGQ PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS Expressway as well as recent residential arterials such as Snyder Lane have a planted median strip and flanking greenways with pedestrian paths and bikeways. Such streets contribute to the city's image as a place where residential neighborhoods are integrated with parks and where open space surrounds the city. Some streets also have views of the eastern ridgeline. The visual character of new streets is addressed by goals and policies in this section. Page 20 of 40 ,5_QNOMA MOUNTAIN VlLLAGE PROPOSED GENERAL PIAN AMENDMENTS [AMENDMENTS TO PAGE 3-191 FOCUS AREAS In addition to policies that apply across the city, this section of the General Plan includes policies targeted at design issues specific to certain parts of the city. These are: University District; ® City Center; Northeast Area; Northwest Specific Plan Area; -z+ ,- Fl * Sonoma Mountain Village-, and e Southeast Area. GOALS: NEIGHBORHOODS AND FOCUS AREAS CD -G Encourage development of diverse and distinctive neighborhoods that build on the patterns of the natural landscape and are responsive in their location and context. This General Plan encourages development of neighborhoods to be responsive to their location and context, rather than being based on a uniform design formula. CD -H Promote a mix of uses and a variety of housing types and sizes within residential neighborhoods. The General Plan Diagram establishes a mix of uses within areas of new development and promotes a mix of housing types by allowing a range of residential densities within the same areas. This goal and the subsequent policies build on the overall direction established in the diagram. CD -1 Ensure that neighborhood streets provide an attractive physical environment for motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists. CD -3 Maintain the character of existing neighborhoods while undertaking streetscape and signage improvements in selected areas. POLICIES: NEIGHBORHOODS AND FOCUS AREAS CD -1S Establish thresholds and procedures for review of design of new neighborhoods. CD -16 Require neighborhood design — including components such as land use, development intensity, and street layouts — to be responsive to natural and institutional elements, including: Page 21 of 40 SONOMA MOUNTAIN VILLAGE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS [AMENDNENTS TO PAGE 3-261 • Reduced parking requirements for senior housing; • Reduced off-street parking requirements for residential sites adjacent to the linear park, where on -street parking is more available; • Reduced parking requirements for development with a mix of uses, to account for differences in peak hour parking demand between the uses. • As of 2000, the Zoning Ordinance requires sites with more than one use to provide parking that equals the sum of the number of spaces required for each individual use. • Reduced parking requirements in areas designated as Mixed Use, where mix of uses and compact development favors pedestrian and bicycle access. • Allowing on -street parking to count toward parking requirements for development in mixed use areas. CD -30 Encourage development of parking assessment districts for the mixed-use areas. Upon establishment and participation in such a district, do not require parking on individual sites. This policy allows flexibility in the arrangement of parking within mixed-use areas, On street or off-street parking can be located off-site, allowing more compact development. Specific Plan Planned Development, and City Center Areas Policies in this section refer to the individual specific plan and planned development areas, and to the City Center, as defined in Chapter 2: Land Use and Growth Management. University District Specific Plan Area CD -31 Ensure that the University District is developed as an active, mixed-use pedestrian center, integrated and responsive to the design of the University Concert Hall, sensitive to the existing residential developments to the west, and with transitions to open space to the east. See Figure 3.2-7 for an illustration of the University District urban structure. Figure 3.2- 8 shows an illustrative visual simulation. CD -32 Require development of an appropriately scaled public plaza as the focal point of the mixed use portion of the University District. Ensure that the design of the plaza reflects the following considerations: • Permit maximum accessibility and foster a public orientation; • Protection and emphasis of primary view corridors to the east and the north; • Definition of edges by adjacent buildings and proper landscaping; • Adequate lighting for nighttime use; Page 22 of 40 5ONOMA MOUNIMN VILLAGE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS • Flexibility of space for various programs such as concerts, flea markets, etc.; [AMENDMENTS TO PAGE 3-391 S61,110171alT&Mll/alll Nlla ePlarriredllevela nter�tArea CD -48.A Ensure that Sonoma Mountain Village is developed as a sustainable community typified by pedestrian- and bicycle -friendly elements, compact village -style blocks,,. and intearation of residential commercial and industrial uses. CD -48B Ensure that all development and land use conforms with the Sonoma Mountain Village Zoning Cade. CD -48C Ensure that development includes features which advance energy_ conservation, environmental protection and sustainability, including- • Minimizing demolition of existing structures and encouraging adaptive reuse of buildings. • Providing ample pedestrian and bicycle paths throughout Sonoma Mountain ountain Village and provide appropriate connection points to surrounding areas to integrate_ pedestrian and bicycle access to adjacent portions of the City. • Use of low-water plumbing fixtures and water conservation techniques in building design and construction. • Use of solar wind and other alternative energyforms. CD -48D Require parks open spaces, and recreational facilities to be'distributed throughout the area in a manner that encourages easy and frequent access by residents, employees, and others within Sonoma Mountain Village. CD -48E Require design of streets infrastructure, buildings, and other public and private features to be consistent and complimentary, so as to create a uniform character for all develo ment within Sonoma Mountain Village. Southeast Specific Plan CD -49 Locate the proposed Mixed Use Commercial area along Bodway Parkway to increase accessibility. Require buildings to front on Bodway with parking located behind buildings. CD -50 Provide Medium Density Residential uses adjacent to mixed use/commercial areas. Require the commercial center to provide landscaping to screen parking and provide a buffer between the residential and commercial uses. CD -51 Ensure that the proposed neighborhood park is adjacent to the Medium Density Page 23 of 40 SQNQMA O NTAi EL PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS Residential area. CD -52 Allow only Estate Residential uses along Petaluma Hill Road in order to provide transition between developed and undeveloped areas. While this is the only use along Petaluma Hill Road shown ora the General Plan Diagram, the intent is to ensure that this policy is maintained if the General Plan Diagram were to be amended in the future. Existing Neighborhoods CD -53 Ensure that new development in existing neighborhoods is respectful of the character of existing uses and causes minimal design intrusion. The General Plan does not seek to alter the character of existing neighborhoods, which have played and will continue to play an important role in the future success of Rohnert Park as a community. CD -54 In cooperation with merchants, undertake a streetscape program for Commerce Boulevard that provides high branching trees that permit the stores to be seen but provide a canopy to the street. Provide shrubs to screen parking from the streets. Page 24 of 40 Major Arterial (4-6 lanes) —�—� Minor Arterial (2 lanes) Major Collector (4 lanes) Minor Collector (2 lanes) ------- Sphere of influence 20 -Year Urban Growth Boundary Figure 4.1-1 Master Street Flan UYCTT a BHATIA (Rev.6/16/10) 21- 1" �L - M11- SONOMA MOUNTAINVIL, PROPOSED GENERAL FLAN AMENDMENTS [MaNDMENTS TO PAGE 4-I51 Table 4.1-4 Segment _ From To Improvement Infill Rohnert Park Expwy Commerce Blvd Redwood Dr Widen to 6 lanes us 101 Us 101 Crossing State Farm Dr Business Park Dr New Minor Arterial US 101 Underpass Golf Course Dr Wilfred Dr New Major Arterial Snyder Ln Southwest Blvd Hinebaugh Creek Upgrade to Major Arterial (widen to 4 lanes) Seed Farm Dr Enterprise Dr Rohnert Park Expwy New Minor Collector Commerce Blvd Copeland Creek Arlen Dr Upgrade to Major Arterial (widen to 4. lanes) Golf Course Dr Fairway Dr Country Club Dr Upgrade to Major Arterial (widen to 4 lanes Eastside Snyder Ln North side of Creekside South side of G Section Upgrade to Major Middle school Neighborhood Arterial (widen to 4 lanes) Rohnert Park Expwy Snyder Ln Petaluma Hill Rd Upgrade to Major Arterial (widen to 4 lanes) Petaluma Hill Rd 1,500 feet north of Railroad Avenue Upgrade with Keiser Ave Intersection improvements and turn lanes (remains as 2 lanes, with designation as Minor Arterial). Eleanor Ave 1999 City Limits Rohnert Park Expwy New Minor Collector Keiser Ave Snyder Ln Petaluma Hill Rd Upgrade to Minor Arterial or Major Collector New Linear Park Rd Eleanor Rd North side of SSU New Minor Collector Canon Manor and Southeast East Cotati Ave Bodway Pkwy Petaluma Hill Rd Upgrade to Major Arterial (widen to 4 lanes) -V,3 ey4=!ous,s lei ��,,)dvm -P kw, pe€alu'lli ..l -fill RA Upgi-ad&494,Aajor Ai Fria!-(widen-te- lane-') Bodway Pkwy Camino Collegio Railroad Ave New Major Collector Alice Dr Bodway Pkwy Petaluma Hill Rd Upgrade to Minor Collector Sturdevant Dr Valley House Rd East Cotati Ave Upgrade to Minor Collector (north of Alice Dr) New Minor Collector Page 27 of 40 SONOMA MQUNTAIN._VI PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS Page 28 of 40 south of Alice Dr Westside Wilfred Ave 1999 City Limits Urban Growth Upgrade to Major Boundary Arterial (widen to 4 lanes) Dowdell Ave Business Park Or Millbrae Ave Upgrade to Minor Collector Labath Ave Business Park Dr Urban Growth Upgrade to Minor Boundary Collector (north of Wilfred Ave) New Minor Collector south of Wilfred Ave Page 28 of 40 I Gass I Bike Path noma w Class I Bike Path (proposed) .--- Class II Bike Path Class II Bike Path (proposed) Class III Bike Path DYGTT 6 RHATIA Wwa nM M{bnJ Mnnne.. Parks Schools ------• Sphere of Influence 20 -Year Urban Growth Boundary Figure 4.4-1 Bicycle System (Rev.6/16/10) SONOMA MOLINTAIN VILL4GE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS [AMENDMENTS TO PAGE 5-121 • Hinebaugh Creek Park; • Rainbow Park; • San Simeon Park; and • Sunrise Park. • Senior Citizen Center. The center is currently 10,000 square feet. Neighborhood Recreation Centers. These include: • Benecia Park Recreation Center, 3,024 square foot, at 7450 Santa Barbara Drive; • Burton Avenue Recreation Center, 6,700 square foot, at 7421 Burton Avenue; and • Ladybug Park Recreation Center, 1,145 square foot at 8517 Liman Way. • Pools. Community pools are located in neighborhood parks and are listed above under "Parks." Table 5.2-1: Parks, Recreational Facilities, and Open Space Acreage, Inside 1999 City Limits Acres Total Per 1 UUU res►crents Neighborhood Parks and Mini -parks, 116 2.9 Golf Courses 310 7.8 Other Recreational Facilities 43 1.1 Creekside Open Space 96 2.4 Open Space along Street Rights-of-Way2 26 0.7 Schools' 126 3.2 Total 712 17.8 1. Includes underwater area of Roberts Lake, which is 5 acres in size. 2. Along Rohnert Park Expressway and between US 101 and Commerce Boulevard. 3. Includes 35 -acre Creekside Middle School. Total school acreage is 180. Assuming 30 percent of school sites are covered with structures, the remaining areas are recreational and open space, totaling 126 acres. However, the School District does not allow scheduled public use of the field facilities at Creekside Middle School, as they do at other facilities, as a mitigation measure from the EIR for the project. Monte Vista School, by virtue of fencing and locked gates. is also not available for community use of the playground after school hours. 4. Based on 1999 DOF ,population of 40_032 residents. Source: Dyett $ Bhatia 1Six new neighborhood and linear parks are proposed in the General Plan along with two omen space parks, two special purpose parks Mini parks greenways and plaza parks are not included in this summary. These parks are located in areas where new residential and mixed use development is proposed. The total amount of proposed parkland ranges from -33-44-5 6 to 64 acres, as shown in Table 5.2-2. Existing and proposed parks are shown in Figure 5.2-1. Page 30 of 40 ON MA MOUNTAIN VILLAGE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS [MENDMUTS TO PAGE 5-131 Table 5.2-2: New Parks Under the General Plan, Source: Dyett & 13hatia STANDARDS AND CLASSIFICATION Standards Residential Development Although there are no State standards for paries, the Quimby Act (Government Code §66477) allows local agencies to require dedication standards—at up to three acres per 1,000 residents, or a higher amount snatching existing availability, up to five acres/1,000 residents—for residential subdivisions to provide land or in -lieu fees for developing new or rehabilitating existing neighborhood or community park or recreational facilities to serve the subdivision. Non -a esidential Development In addition to parkland need that stems from residential development, employment - generating uses also have recreation and open space needs. In business park kind of developments, open space on the site often suffices for lunchtime open space needs. However, in more urban settings, plazas and mini -parks may be necessary. Thus, in addition to the residential parkland standards, the City may require plazas, mini -parks, and other appropriate open spaces from non-residential developments in locations such as the University District, subject to a maximum of one acre per 250,000 square feet of nonresidential space. Classification Community and neighborhood parks are defined as follows: Page 31 of 40 Acres University District Linear Parke 12-15 South Eastside Park 5-8 North Eastside Park 8 North Eastside Linear Parke 4 Community Fields 27-50 Westside Park 2-4 Sonoma Mountain gLg_ e 23 Infill Park 2 Total 1. Excluding mini parks, plazas, and greenways 2. Although geographically linear, these would be neighborhood imrks. Source: Dyett & 13hatia STANDARDS AND CLASSIFICATION Standards Residential Development Although there are no State standards for paries, the Quimby Act (Government Code §66477) allows local agencies to require dedication standards—at up to three acres per 1,000 residents, or a higher amount snatching existing availability, up to five acres/1,000 residents—for residential subdivisions to provide land or in -lieu fees for developing new or rehabilitating existing neighborhood or community park or recreational facilities to serve the subdivision. Non -a esidential Development In addition to parkland need that stems from residential development, employment - generating uses also have recreation and open space needs. In business park kind of developments, open space on the site often suffices for lunchtime open space needs. However, in more urban settings, plazas and mini -parks may be necessary. Thus, in addition to the residential parkland standards, the City may require plazas, mini -parks, and other appropriate open spaces from non-residential developments in locations such as the University District, subject to a maximum of one acre per 250,000 square feet of nonresidential space. Classification Community and neighborhood parks are defined as follows: Page 31 of 40 Schools & Community Centers ------ Sphere of Influence —_--- 20 -Year Urban Growth Boundary Parks Open Space -Environmental Conservation Figure 5.2-1 Parks and Schools BYETT s DHATIA (Rev•6/16%10) uro....a SONOMA MQU N16tN VILLA-01F PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS [WZWDMF,NTS TO PAGE 5-1.91 5.3 SCHOOLS FACILITIES, 9999 Rohnert Park schools are under the authority of the Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District (CRPUSD). The District operates 15 schools, including nine elementary schools, three middle schools, and one high school, and two continuation high schools. There are 14 school sites in all, with a combined elementary and middle school program at the Thomas Page School, and eleven sites are found inside Rohnert Park's 1999 City limits. The CRPUSD also runs an alternative secondary program. School sites are shown on Figure 5.2- 1. As in many cities, the District and the City work closely to provide complementary services. The City maintains turf areas and playing fields on school grounds as part of regular park maintenance, and the District reimburses the City for the service. School buildings and recreational facilities are available for community use during non -school hours'. Parks located adjacent to schools provide additional outdoor recreational space for students. The boundaries of the CRPUSD are shown on Figure 5.3-1. The Bellevue Union School District (BUSD) and Santa Rosa High School District (SRHSD) are located on the north side of the CRPUSD. As of 1999, the boundaries of the BUSD-SRHSD include areas planned for new development under this General Plan on both the eastside and the westside. ENROLLMENT AND CAPACITY, 1999 In 1999, approximately 8,120 students were enrolled in the CRPUSD. This number is reduced to 7,970, if Independent Study students are subtracted out? The CRPUSD had excess capacity (7,970 students enrolled, vs. 9,110 capacity). Moreover, all school levels— elementary, middle, and high school ---had some excess capacity (see Table 5.3-1). PROJECTED ENROLLMENT Buildout of the General Plan will result in the addition of approximately 474S05.352 housing units, with a total buildout population of approximately 54:00,, j5 332. According to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Cotati is projected to have a population of 9,400 by 2020. Based on General Plan buildout population, Cotati's 2020 population projection, ABAG age -class projections, and Sonoma County grade -level enrollment projections, decreased enrollment is expected among elementary school students; middle school enrollment is Creekside Middle School is not available for scheduled use of its athletic fields as a mitigation measure of the project MR. Monte Vista School, by virtue of fencing and locked gates, is not available for cottununity use of the playgrounds after school hours. Independent Study students are students involved in home -study, work-study, or other alternative educational programs. Independent Study students spend most of their class time outside the classroom. Page 33 of 40 SONOMA MOUNTAIN VILLAGE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS [AMENDMENTS TO PAGE 5-211 expected to remain about the same as in 1999; and increased enrollment is expected among high school students. Enrollment estimates under General Plan buildout are shown in Table 5.3-1. Enrollment is estimated under two scenarios: with existing CRPUSD boundary and with an enlarged CRPUSD boundary that includes all areas of new development under the General Plan. Table 5.3-1: Estimated Enrollment and Projected School Needs Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District (With Existing CRPUSD Boundary I With Expanded CRPUSD Boundary') Enrollment Buildout Change 1999 Capacity Needs 19993 Enrollment, 1999— Gapasit at Buildout Capacity, Enrollmento, K-5 3,908 3,'o 9M.604 -6151 4,815 -1,626/ 3,662/3,977 /3,66213,977 394246172 11,1531838 6-8 2,067 1,930/2,144 X44/149 2,154 -22-4/-40131153 2,023/2,207 9-12 1,992 2-,&1-4'> 704 522/76-2 2,142 3721 5581798 2,700/2,940 9481418 Total 7,967 ''n ©3t9 472 -2341595 9,111 1,3781639726113 8;385/9 124 41,8/1,157 1. Includes estimated enrollment for the City of Cotati, based on 2020 population in ABA G's Projections '98. 2. With existing CRPUSD boundaries, some Rohnert Park school-age children would attend school in the Bellevue Union and Santa Rosa High School Districts. An expanded boundary change considers the scenario of school enrollment in the CRPUSD if the school district boundaries were redrawn to include all development under the Rohnert Park General Plan. 3. Excludes Independent Study students. 4. Reflects antici ated 55% buildout of Sonoma Mountain Village through 2020. 45. Excludes the two classrooms used for Independent Study students. 56. A negative number means that capacity exceeds enrollment, which means that there would be extra classroom space CRPUSD estimates in the 1997 School Facility Analysis and Justification Report for School Facility Fees are projected only until the 2010-2011 school year. Enrollment projections in that report are based on constant rates of students per - household,3 while current ABAG Projections '98 expect a decrease in household size and children per household. Projected School Needs As shown in Table 5.3-1, the estimated decrease in elementary school enrollment, combined with existing excess capacity in 1999, would generate an excess capacity of about 1,200 under General Plan buildout if the school district boundary is changed. The average capacity of the CRPUSD's nine elementary schools is 550, suggesting than two or three elementary schools could potentially be closed as a result of decreased enrollment. In addition, the elementary school site reserved by CRPUSD on the eastside adjacent to the Creekside 3 The report expresses the rates on a "per home" basis, not specifying whether the unit of measure is "housing unit" or "household." Because the report states that "housing vacancy rates are assumed to remain constant and do not affect [the rates]," households—defined as occupied housing units—are implied. Page 34 of 40 SON!2MA MOUNTAIN VILLAGE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS Table 9.5-1: Residential Development — Current City Limits (from July 1, 2006 onward) Development APN/ Address Zoning Designation Allowable Density (unitslacre) General Plan Designation Acres Realistic Unit Capacity Existing Use Infrastructure Capacity (Y/IV') On -Site Constraints (Y/N) Approved Constructed+ Potential? City Hall 143-061-052 R -H 24 Public Institutional 0.77 55 Old City Hall Y N A 143-380-015 R -H 24 0.86 Old City Hall Y N 143-380-022 to -029 R -H 24 0.77 Old City Hall Y N City Center 143-051-065 M -U 24 Mixed Use 0.35 100 Old Vet Office Y N P 143-051-066 M -U 24 0.32 Vacant Y N 143-051-076 M -U 24 2.29 Parking Lot Y N Creekwood 143-021-036 M -U 24 Mixed Use 8.36 96 Mini -Storage on about 40°x6 of site, rest is vacant Y N A Sonoma Mountain Vile - U:.a P -D — 2z;- Mixed Use 98.06 1.892 -_ buildincis parking lots i are not in use - 046-051-040 P -D P -D 24 VecarV 046-051-042 Southwest Shopping Center 143-150-058 M -U 24 Mixed Use 3.24 143 Retail Y N P 143-150-009 M -U 24 1.27 Y N 143-150-010 M -U - 24 1.7 Y N 143-150-028 M -U 24 0.09 Y N 143-150-012 M -U 24 0.35 Y N 143-150-023 M -U 24 0,09 Y N 143-150-024 M -U 241 1 0.29 Y N Stadium Area 143-040-116 PDDNa Retail! Institutional 14,81 338 Vacant Y N A Page 35 or 40 SONOMA, MOUNTAIN y1Lk1GE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS Table 9.5-1: Residential Development— Current City Limits (from July 1, 2006 onward) Development APN/ Zoning Address Designation Allowable Density (unitslacre) General Plan Designation Acres Realistic Unit Capacity Infrastructure On -Site Capacity Constraints Existing Use (YJN) (YIN) Approved Constructed Potential? Stadium Area 143-040-117 PDD n/a and Residential High Density and Park 19.34 Decommissioned Y N sewer ponds University District 045-253-007 SP Na Rural Estate, Low Density, Medium Density, High Density RandMixal,ed nd Mix Use 3.06 1,771 undeveloped N N A 045-253-009 SP Na 1.74 undeveloped N N 045-253-010 SP n/a 1.73 undeveloped N N 045-253-011 SP nla 1.73 undeveloped N N 045-253-012 SP nla 1.74 undeveloped N N 045-253-018 SP n/a 66.79 undeveloped N N 045-262-001 SP n/a 20 undeveloped N N 045-262-002 SP n/a 20 undeveloped N N 045-262-003 SP n/a 31.5 undeveloped N N 045-262-004 SP n/a 10 undeveloped N N 045-131-019 SP n/a 46.25 undeveloped N N 047-131-024 SP nla 29.06 undeveloped N N 047-131-025 SP Na 70,47 undeveloped N N 047-131-026 SP n/a 27.64 undeveloped N N 047-131-027 SP Na 7 undeveloped N N Vida Nueva 143-391-052 R -H 24 Regional Commercial 5.1 24 Vida Nueva Y N C 143-391-093 R -H 24 Residential High -Density 1.83 Vida Nueva Y N Total I I 1 1 2,527 The parcels below the dotted line are the Brookfield Homes parcels that have already been approved for 1,580 units. The remaining 191 units (above the dotted line) are included in the Specific Plan but not yet approved. Source: City of Rohnert Park Community Development Department, 2049. Page 36 or 40 SONOMA MOUNTAIN VILLAGE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS [AMENDMENTS TO FAGS 9-60 AND 9-611 University District Specific 'Plan Area The University District Specific Plan has already been adopted, but is not yet constructed. Potential residential development within the University District, as shown in the specific plan for the project includes: • A 25-40 acre mixed-use center has been approved for 150 units. • Approximately 35 to 45 acres of High Density residential development is shown immediately adjacent to the district's commercial core or along the linear park. This High Density Residential development need not be in a continuous uniform width band around the commercial core; however, all High Density Residential development in the area shall be adjacent to the core. Land with a High Density Residential designation has been approved for 612 units. • Medium Density Residential development (60 to 70 acres) around the commercial core/High Density Residential uses. Land with a Medium Density Residential designation has been approved for 537 units. • Low Density Residential development (55 to 65 acres) east of the medium density area. Land with a Low Density Residential designation has been approved for 320 units. • Rural Estate Residential development of 30 to 35 acres on the eastern edge of the Specific Plan area. Land with a Rural Estate designation has been approved for 26 units. 0 126 second units have also been approved for the District. Of the total 1,771 units that are permitted in the University District under the Specific Plan, 1,580 are approved as per a development agreement with Brookfield Homes, a developer and majority landowner in the area. These 1,580 units include 55 very low- and 105 low-income units as well as 126 second units, half of which are assumed to be very low- and half to be low- income units. Therefore, the Brookfield Homes.' properties contain a total of 118 very low- and 168 low-income units, for a total of 286 affordable units. It should also be noted that the Brookfield Homes development agreement contains 58 moderate -income units as well. Furthermore, because of the City's 15 percent inclusionary ordinance, the remaining 191 units permitted in the Specific Plan will yield a minimum of 29 additional very low- and low-income units for a minimum grand total of 315 affordable units in the University District. Sonoma Mountain VilFaee Sonoma Mountain Village (SMV) is located at the southwest corner of Bodway Parkway and Camino Cole io. SMV is proposed to be developed as a sustainably -designed community based on the "One -Planet Living" ecological footprint principle. The development area is the former site of the A ilent Cam us and contains several existing buildings. In total the final development plan comes to approximately 175 acres. The land formerly carried an Industrial General Plan land use desi nation but was rezoned to planned development PD with development being a combination of residential,_retail and office/business and commercial uses. SMV lies entirely within the Rohnert Park Redevelopment Project Area. Potential residential develol2ment within SMV as shown in the Planned Development for the project includes: Page 37 of 40 SONOMA MOUNTAIN VILLAGE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 324 single-family detached homes,• • 419 single-family attached homes,• and • 1,149 multi -family homes._ In total, develoRment plans includel 694 primary housing units and 198 second units (that is. total of 1,892 units)about 450 of which will be affordable units (15% of the 1,694 as well as all of the 198 will be affordable to vejy low- and low-income households . Development Outside of the Current City Limits (but within the Sphere of Influence) Over half of the City's regional share of housing for the planning period is to be provided within the current city limits. However, significant residential growth is planned to occur in areas outside of the current City limits, but within the City's Sphere of Influence (SOI). This is an important point, since only annexation approval is needed from LAFCO, not a SOI amendment; the City had specifically initiated SOI amendments at the time of the adoption of the current General Plan in 1999 (with the updated SOI approved by LAFCO in 2002). There are several specific plans that the City and developers are actively engaged in, that are planned to be annexed and adopted by 2011; all of these specific plans are already a part of the City's adopted General Plan and within the SOI. 2002 Sphere of Influence The City's Sphere of Influence is comprised of the area within the current City limits and five areas outside of it: the Northwest, Northeast, and Southeast specific plans, the 25 -acre WilfredfDowdell Specific Plan area (proposed for a commercial center), and the Canon Manor neighborhood. The Canon Manor rural subdivision, an unincorporated area located immediately south of Sonoma State University, was once accessed by graveled roads and supported by individual water wells and septic systems. In the past, the subdivision was plagued by failing sewer systems and contaminated water supplies, however roads have now been paved water and sewer lines have been installed. Potential development of the Canon Manor area as provided for by the General Plan includes approximately 113 Rural Estate Residential infill units and 191 Low Density Residential units south of Alice Drive. Expanded Urban Growth Boundary The Land Use and Growth Management Element of the General Plan provides for potential construction of 2,465 dwelling units outside of the City limits (but within the 2002 SOI), distributed among the various specific plan areas as shown in the following figure and Table 9.5- 2. Page 38 of 40 SONOMA MOUNTAIN VILLAGE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS [AMENDMENTS TO PAGE 9-721 OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION Rohnert Park has taken many actions to reduce its impact on the environment by becoming more sustainable. Highlights of recent efforts include: • Green Building Ordinance 2007-782 (July 2007) • Energy Efficiency Ordinance 2007-779. This ordinance also established Title 14-Sustainablity, in the Municipal Code (March 2007) • City Council adopted resolution 2004-111, which sets a goal for greenhouse gas reductions of 20 percent by the year 2010 for internal City operations (baseline year 2000) (May 2004) • City Council adopted resolution 2005-233, which sets a goal for greenhouse gas reductions of 25 percent by the year 2015 for community -wide use, private and public (baseline year 1990) (July 2005) The City's soon-to-be adopted 'Sustainability Element will further address energy efficiency/green energy and sustainable building techniques. The Cijy approved the Sonoma Mountain Village Development in 2010. This Planned Development features a mixed-use communi1y organized so that homes are within a five-minute walk of a town square jobs, practical services, shopping and entertainment. One hundred percent of the heating cooling, water heating_ lighting and plug loads will be served with on-site renewable power. The City has implemented the provisions of Title 24 of the State Building Code that require new residential buildings to meet a comprehensive set of standards for energy conservation. Builders of these units may achieve compliance either by calculating energy performance in a prescribed manner or by selecting from alternative component packages that prescribe a fixed method of compliance. All proposed residential units are checked by the Building Department to ensure that their design and construction complies with Title 24 energy standards. Additions and alterations must also meet these standards if they increase the heated or cooled floor space of a building. Opportunities for improving energy conservation in the design of residential development include ensuring the consistency of tentative tract maps with Section 66473.1 of the Subdivision Map Act, which requires the designs of subdivisions to provide for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities, and requires the planting of trees along streets and in parking lots to reduce heat. Homes constructed in the City between 1956 and 1975 probably need to be insulated or have supplemental insulation installed. The ownership and rental rehabilitation programs funded by the CDCRP cover such energy conservation retrofitting as insulation and weather-stripping. Page 39 of 40 S0NgMA.M0UN16IN VILLAGE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS [AMENDMENTS TO PAGE 9-1181 Table 9.7-4: Rohnert mark Quantified Objectives (January 1, 2007 to June 30, 2044) Page 40 of 40 Income Category Extreme! y Low (less Very Low Low Moderate Above than (between (between (between Moderate 30% of 30-50% of 50-801 of 80-120% of (over 920% AMI) AMI) AMI) AMI) of AMI) Total New Construction University District 315 1,455 1,771 Creekwood Apartments 14 82 96 Old City Hall Site 55 0 55 Vida Nueva 24 0 24. City Center (mixed use) 15 85 100 Southwest Shopping 15 85 100 Center Southeast Area SIP 71 404 475 Northeast Area SP 164 926 1,090 Northwest Area SP 135 765 900 Stadium Area SP 53 305 358 Sonoma Mountain Village 452 1.440 1,892 Total La -13 55548 6.861 Rehabilitation Owner -Occupied Housing Rehab Program 6 7 18 i 2 0 33 Rebuilding Together 61 66 0 0 0 127 Total 67 73 18 2 0 160 Conservation/Preservation 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total (New Construction, Rehab, and Conservation/ Preservation) 1,471 5,552 7,021 RHNA 2007-2014 602 952 1,554 Source: City of Rohnerf Park, 2008. Page 40 of 40 Appendix C: Rohnert Park Housing Sites City Limits � ^ Sphere of Influence Rohnert Park Housing Sties, Dyett and Bhaita, 2069, 0 as tmom City, County, and Street Base Data, Ctty of Rohnert Park, 2008. CD0 EXHIBIT B Rural Estate Residential (up to 2 un/ac) Low Density Residential (4-6 un/ac) Medium Density Residential (6-12 un/ac) High Density Residential (12-30 un/ac) Owl Commercial N Neighborhood Commercial R Regional Commercial Q Industrial Mixed Use f! Office Pubiic/Institutional Parks Open Space - Environmental Conservation V V ETT a anATrA All maps are intended to be consistent with the General Plan Diagram. wtr. ... Maa=•� M...... Additional adjustments to the other maps may be made for consistency Open Space -Agriculture and Resource Management Community Separator EX nnM9 PP.UPMD ���ErwnE Major Arterial (4-6 lanes) -----�� Minor Arterial (2 lanes) -- Major Collector (4 lanes) ----- Minor Collector (2 lanes) Figure 2.2-I General Plan Diagram June 2010