HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023/07/13 Planning Commission Agenda Packet
4874-7505-6239 v1
City of Rohnert Park
Planning Commission
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A REGULAR AND ADJOURNED REGULAR
MEETING
will be held on Thursday, July 13, 2023 6:00 P.M.
CITY HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBER
130 Avram Avenue, Rohnert Park, California
To any member of the audience desiring to address the Planning Commission:
For public comment on items listed or not listed on the agenda, or on agenda items if unable to
speak at the scheduled time, you may do so upon recognition from the Chairperson.
Please fill out a speaker card prior to speaking.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
(Austin-Dillon_____ Epstein____ Lam____ Orloff____ Striplen____)
3. READING OF THE LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The City of Rohnert Park acknowledges Indigenous Peoples as the traditional stewards
of the land. Let it be acknowledged that the City of Rohnert Park is located within the
traditional homeland of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, comprised of Coast
Miwok and Southern Pomo peoples.
4. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
5. PUBLIC COMMENT – Persons who wish to speak to the Commission regarding an
item that is not on the agenda may do so at this time. Please see above for details on how
to submit public comments.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR - ADOPTION OF MINUTES
6.1 Approval of the Draft Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of
June 22, 2023.
Commissioner Motion/Roll Call Vote:
(Austin-Dillon_____ Epstein ____ Lam ____ Orloff _____ Striplen _____)
4874-7505-6239 v1
7. AGENDA ITEMS
7.1 PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED FROM THE JUNE 22, 2023
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) – GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT
AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
AMENDMENT, AND APPROVAL OF AN AMENDED TENTATIVE MAP
- PROJ22-0003, Ben VanZutphen/Penn Grove Mountain Willowglen –
Consideration of the following Resolutions recommending to the City Council
amendments to the Southeast Specific Plan Project. The project is located south
of the Canon Manor Specific Plan Area, west of Petaluma Hill Road, east of
Bodway Parkway, and north of Valley House (Various APNS):
1. Resolution No. 2023-13 recommending City Council approval of amendments to
the General Plan for the Southeast Specific Plan Project.
2. Resolution No. 2023-14 recommending City Council approval of an amended
Specific Plan for the Southeast Specific Plan Project.
3. Resolution No. 2023-15 recommending City Council approval of an amended
Development Area Plan for the Southeast Specific Plan Project.
4. Resolution No. 2023-16 recommending adoption of an ordinance approving an
amendment to the Development Agreement between the City of Rohnert Park and
Penn Grove Mountain LLC for the Southeast Specific Plan Project.
5. Resolution No. 2023-17 recommending City Council approval of an amended
Tentative Map and Conditions
CEQA: The City prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to address the
potentially significant adverse environmental impacts associated with the
planning, construction, or operation of the SESP and to identify appropriate
and feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that may be adopted to
significantly reduce or avoid the impacts identified in the EIR. On December 7,
2010, the City Council certified the Final EIR for the SESP, including adoption
of associated CEQA Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as described in City Council
Resolution No. 2010-134 (2010 EIR). For these amendments, the City has
prepared the Southeast Rohnert Park Phase 4 Southeast Specific Plan EIR
Consistency Review dated June 2023, which is incorporated herein by
reference, and determines that the proposed amendments will not result in new
environmental impacts not previously evaluated in a previously certified EIR, or
a substantial increase in previously identified impacts (“Consistency Analysis”).
Commissioner Motion/Roll Call Vote:
(Austin-Dillon_____ Epstein ____ Lam ____ Orloff _____ Striplen _____)
4874-7505-6239 v1
8. ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION
9. ITEMS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF
10. ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: If you challenge the nature of the proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Rohnert Park at, or prior to the public hearing(s).
AMERICAN DISABILITY ACT ACCOMMODATIONS: Any member of the public who needs
accommodations should email the ADA Coordinator at jcannon@rpcity.org or by calling 707-588-2221.
The ADA Coordinator will use their best efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to provide as
much accessibility as possible while also maintaining public safety in accordance with the City procedure
for resolving reasonable accommodation requests. Information about reasonable accommodations is
available on the City website at:
https://www.rpcity.org/city_hall/departments/human_resources/a_d_a_and_accessibility_resources
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA
I, Clotile Blanks, Community Development Technician, for the City of Rohnert Park, declare that the
foregoing notice and agenda for July 13, 2023, Planning Commission Meeting of the City of Rohnert
Park was posted and available for review on July 7, 2023, at Rohnert Park City Hall, 130 Avram Avenue,
Rohnert Park, California 94928. The agenda is available on the City of Rohnert Park’s website at
www.rpcity.org.
Signed this 7th day of July 2023 at Rohnert Park, California.
Clotile Blanks
Appeals of any decisions made tonight must be received by the Planning Division within 10
days and no later than 5:00 p.m. on July 24, 2023.
Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting
of the City of Rohnert Park
Thursday, June 22, 2023
6:00 P.M.
130 Avram Avenue, Rohnert Park
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Austin-Dillion called the regular meeting to order at 6:19 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Led by Chairperson Austin-Dillion.
3. READING OF THE LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The City of Rohnert Park acknowledges Indigenous Peoples as the traditional stewards
of the land. Let it be acknowledged that the City of Rohnert Park is located within the
traditional homeland of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, comprised of Coast
Miwok and Southern Pomo peoples.
4. ROLL CALL
Present: Tramaine Austin-Dillion, Chairperson
Matt Epstein, Vice Chairperson
Charles Striplen, Commissioner
Absent: Fanny Lam, Commissioner
Marc Orloff, Commissioner
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR - ADOPTION OF MINUTES
6.1 Approval of the Draft Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of June 8, 2023.
ACTION: Moved/Seconded (Epstein/Striplen) to adopt the Minutes of the Planning
Commission Meeting of June 8, 2023.
Motion carried by the following (3-0-2) roll call vote: AYES: Austin-Dillion, Epstein, Striplen;
and; NOES: None; ABSENT: Orloff, Lam; ABSTAIN: None.
7. AGENDA ITEMS
7.1 PUBLIC HEARING – GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT AMENDMENT, AND APPROVAL OF AN AMENDED TENTATIVE
MAP - PROJ22-0003, Ben VanZutphen/Penn Grove Mountain Willowglen – Consideration of
the following Resolutions recommending to the City Council amendments to the Southeast
Specific Plan Project. The project is located south of the Canon Manor Specific Plan Area, west
of Petaluma Hill Road, east of Bodway Parkway and north of Valley House (Various APNS):
1. Resolution No. 2023-13 recommending City Council approval of amendments to the General
Plan for the Southeast Specific Plan Project.
2. Resolution No. 2023-14 recommending City Council approval of an amended Specific Plan for
the Southeast Specific Plan Project.
3. Resolution No. 2023-15 recommending City Council approval of an amended Development Area
Plan for the Southeast Specific Plan Project.
4. Resolution No. 2023-16 recommending adoption of an ordinance approving an amendment to
the Development Agreement between the City of Rohnert Park and Penn Grove Mountain LLC
for the Southeast Specific Plan Project.
5. Resolution No. 2023-17 recommending City Council approval of an amended Tentative Map and
Conditions
Commissioner Epstein declared abstension from this item due to a conflict of interest as he resides
within 500ft of the project area.
Given the absence of Commissioners Lam and Orloff and the abstension of Commissioner Epstein, there
was no quorum for action or hearing on this item. There being a lack of a quorum, the Planning
Commission Meeting of June 22, 2023, approved by Commissioner Epstein and Commissioner Orloff,
was adjourned by Chairperson Austin-Dillion until July 13, 2023.
8. ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION
None
9. ITEMS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF
None
7. ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Austin-Dillion adjourned the regular meeting at 6:24 p.m.
________________________________ ___________________________________
Chairperson Recording Secretary – Clotile Blanks
1
City of Rohnert Park
Planning Commission Staff Report
Meeting Date: July 13, 2023 (Item continued from the June 22, 2023 meeting)
Item No: 7.1
Prepared By: Elliott Pickett, Associate Planner
Agenda Title: PROJ22-0003, Willowglen Phase 4, Amendments to the General Plan,
Southeast Specific Plan (SESP), Development Area Plan, Development
Agreement, and Tentative Map (CEQA: Consistent with SESP 2010 EIR)
Location: Property bounded by Bodway Parkway to the west, Valley House Drive to
the south, Petaluma Hill Road to the east, and Canon Manor Specific Plan
Area to the north (Various APNs)
GP/Zoning: Low-Density Residential, Rural Estate Residential/ SP: Specific Plan
Applicant/Owner: Ben van Zutphen for Penn Grove Mountain LLC
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolutions to recommend that the City Council amend
entitlements for the WillowGlen project, as follows:
1. Recommend approval of amendments to the General Plan;
2. Recommend approval of an amended Specific Plan;
3. Recommend approval of an amended Development Area Plan;
4. Recommend approval of an ordinance approving a Sixth Amendment to the Development
Agreement between the City of Rohnert Park and Penn Grove Mountain LLC; and
5. Recommend approval of an amended Tentative Map and Conditions;
BACKGROUND: The Southeast Specific Plan Area (SESP) is one of five specific plan areas
designated in the City’s General Plan. The SESP includes approximately 80 acres of land located
south of Canon Manor, north of Valley House Drive, and between Bodway Parkway to the west
and Petaluma Hill Road to the east (see Figure 1 – Project Location Map). In 2010, the City
approved an Environmental Impact Report, a Specific Plan, associated General Plan amendments,
a Final Development Plan, a Tentative Map, a Development Area Plan, and a Development
Agreement for the SESP. Together these documents provided specific guidance on and mitigation
for the development, including illustrations of the various housing types, landscaping, lighting,
entry features, and other design elements and requirements for project phasing. The plans approved
for WillowGlen called for the construction of 475 residential units, 10,000 square feet of
2
commercial uses, and a 5.0-acre park. Based on the City’s approvals, the Sonoma County Local
Agency Formation Commission approved the annexation of the SESP to the City in 2011.
Figure 1 – Project Location Map
In 2014, based on a recommendation from the Planning Commission, the City Council approved
amendments to the Specific Plan, Tentative Map, and Development Agreement. These
amendments allowed for the replacement of alley lot homes with motor court homes; the
3
replacement of duplex lots with duet homes (two attached units separated by a common lot line);
and some changes in the requirements for an onsite water tank.
In 2018, based on a recommendation from the Planning Commission, the City Council approved
a second amendment to the Development Agreement, which deferred the requirement for water
tank construction and allowed housing construction to proceed in response to the regional need for
housing.
In 2019, based on a recommendation from the Planning Commission, the City Council approved
amendments to the adopted Specific Plan and Development Area Plan, Development Agreement,
phasing plans (for Phases 2, 3, and 4), and supporting General Plan revisions, as well as changes
to the existing Tentative Map conditions of approval removing conditions requiring water tank
construction. These amendments increased the total number of residential units in the SESP from
475 to 477.
Additional amendments to the Development Agreement in 2019 and 2020 redistributed the number
of income-restricted units available at each income level for the 36-unit affordable housing
apartment complex.
At this point in time, Penn Grove Mountain LLC (applicant), is completing its third phase of
development, which includes 106 single family homes, including detached units and attached units
(duets).
PROPOSED PROJECT: Penn Grove Mountain LLC and Willowglen Homes are proposing to
modify Phase 4 of the Southeast Specific Plan project to introduce an intermediate lot size called
Executive Estates. The previously approved project included 25 Low Density units and 29 Rural
Estate units (see Figure 2 – Phase 4 of Existing Conceptual Development Plan). The proposed
project would include 25 Low Density units, 32 Executive Estate units (within the Low Density
Residential (LDR) land use category), and 19 Rural Estate units.
Figure 2 – Phase 4 of Existing Conceptual Development Plan (2010)
4
The 32 proposed Executive Estate lots would average 8,000 sq. ft and provide a transition from
the 5,000 sq. ft. Low Density Conventional lots to the much larger 17,000 sq. ft. Rural Estate
lots. These changes would result in an updated lot and street configuration, shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3 – Proposed Phase 4 Conceptual Site Plan
The applicant’s proposal would increase the total number of residential units in the Southeast
Specific Plan (SESP) by 22 units (4.6%) from 477 to 499 and increase the number of on-site
affordable units from 72 to 76. All of the remaining affordable units would be built as townhomes.
The number of affordable townhomes would increase from 8 to 12. The proposed adjustments to
Phase 4 are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1 - Southeast Specific Plan – Proposed Changes
Approved Number of Units Proposed Number of Units
Phase 4- Low Density 25 25
Phase 4- Executive Estates 0 32
Phase 4- Rural Estates 29 19
Phase 4 Total 54 76
Townhomes – Market Rate 37 33
Townhomes – Affordable* 8 12
Townhomes Total 45 45
Market Rate Units 405 423
Affordable Units* 72 76
Project Total 477 499
*Timing milestones for construction of the affordable townhomes would be specific in the Development
Agreement.
5
These changes, while relatively modest in scope, require revisions to the adopted Specific Plan,
Development Area Plan, Development Agreement, Tentative Map, and supporting General Plan
revisions, including changes to the General Plan Land Use Diagram. The revised documents are
included with Attachments 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Proposed changes needed to implement the
applicant’s proposal are shown in strikethrough (deletions) or colored text (additions) for the
General Plan amendments (Attachment 3) and Southeast Specific Plan amendments (Attachment
4).
ANALYSIS: Staff believes the proposed changes are reasonable modifications to the Southeast
Specific Plan that reflect an improved understanding of how the General Plan buildout will take
place in Rohnert Park. The addition of 22 new units, along with an updated lot and street
configuration, is a feasible proposal that is consistent with the overall intent of the City’s General
Plan, including its Housing, Community Development, and Land Use Elements. Changes to the
number, type, and affordability of units within the SESP are also consistent with the City’s long-
term goals as it will better meet the City’s regional housing needs while also providing a more
gradual transition in density.
The details of the various entitlement changes necessary to effect the SESP’s request are discussed
below.
Amendments to the General Plan
Amending the Southeast Specific Plan to add 22 lots and change the land use designation on a
portion of the Phase 4 site requires that the General Plan be amended to update the unit and
acreage totals described in the Land Use Element. These changes include the following:
• Figures 2.2-1 and 3.2-13 will be updated to reflect the proposed land use changes and lot
configuration;
• Tables 2.4-3 will be updated to indicate the increased number of total units and acreage
within the Low-Density Residential land use; and
Attachment C of the Southeast Specific Plan provides extensive details on how General Plan
compatibility is achieved through adherence to numerous General Plan goals and policies for
housing diversity, infrastructure, phasing, parks, maintenance, funding of infrastructure and
services, drainage, open space, walkable site planning with bicycle and pedestrian trails, and
accessibility to the neighborhood park. The proposed amendments do not change this analysis and
in fact, the modifications enhance consistency with General Plan goals, as described in Attachment
3.
Revised Specific Plan
The inclusion of twenty-two additional lots, the addition of a new residential land use
designation subcategory, and the revisions to the affordable housing plan require amendments
throughout the existing Southeast Specific Plan. Revisions to the Specific Plan include the
following.
• Adding twenty-two low-density residential units to Phase 4 of the project which increases
the total number of approved residential units from 477 to 499 units;
6
• Dividing the Low-Density residential designation into two subcategories (Low Density-
Conventional and Low Density- Executive Estate) to provide a transition from the 5,000
sq. ft. Low Density Conventional lots to the much larger 17,000 sq. ft. Rural Estate Lots;
• Amending figures and tables throughout the Plan to reflect the revised land uses, lots, and
configuration; and
• Updating information throughout the Plan where conditions have changed.
In addition to the revisions necessary to implement the applicant’s proposal, the Specific Plan
document has been updated throughout to reflect the current state of the project and provide clearer
direction on remaining implementation actions.
When considering a Specific Plan amendment, the Planning Commission needs to make findings
with respect to General Plan consistency, no adverse effect on the public health and safety or
incompatible land uses, phasing and pace of growth to ensure completion of necessary public
facilities concurrently with the completion of the Specific Plan; and adequate financing
mechanisms for the infrastructure and public facilities.
The proposed Southeast Specific Plan amendment is consistent with the planned uses for this site
in the General Plan and is compatible with adjacent uses. The Southeast Specific Plan changes
comply with the City’s Growth Management policies and will be beneficial to the financing of
infrastructure and public facilities by bringing more fee revenue to the City. The Specific Plan
phasing ensures that development will not outpace the City’s ability to serve this area nor impact
existing residents.
Revised Development Area Plan
The purpose of the Development Area Plan is to provide a summary of the total dwelling units by
plan type, a list of the non-residential uses, and descriptions of open space, streets, preliminary
infrastructure, and bikeways. The Development Area Plan describes the preliminary floor plans,
landscaping plans, and typical elevations, including conceptual materials and the appearance of
the structures. Updates to the approved Development Area Plan include:
• The Summary Table on Page 2 reflects the updated number of units and acreages and
clarifies consistency with Density Bonus parking requirements;
• The Land Use, Affordable Housing, Streets, Pedestrian Ways and Bike Ways, Illustrative
Landscape Plan, and Estate View Corridors figures have been updated to reflect the revised
land use, lots, and configuration;
• Affordable Housing text has been included on page 5;
• A Low Density- Executive Estate residential type has been added with Pages 14 through
17 for Preliminary Elevations, Typical Plot Plan & Preliminary Floor Plans – First Floor,
Preliminary Floor Plans – Second Floor, and Preliminary Homeowner Options;
• A residential subtype has been added on Low Density- Conventional on Pages 18 through
22 for Preliminary Elevations, Typical Plot Plan & Preliminary Floor Plans – First Floor,
and Preliminary Floor Plans – Second Floor; and
• Preliminary Floor Plans for Apartments (Building A and Building B) have been updated,
including the addition of new ADA floor plans.
7
The changes to the Development Area Plan are consistent with the proposed revisions to the
Specific Plan.
Development Agreement Amendment
As part of the current Project approvals, the applicant has requested the adoption of an ordinance
authorizing the execution of a Sixth Amendment to the Development Agreement (DA) between
the City and Penn Grove Mountain LLC pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65865, which
establishes the benefits and commitments connected with the entitlement to and build out of the
SESP Project. The original DA was entered into on December 7, 2010. The DA has been amended
five times, most recently in November 2020 to redistribute the number of income-restricted units
available at each income level for the 36-unit affordable housing apartment complex. The proposed
amendment to the Development Agreement makes the changes described below, as well as
additional minor changes to reflect the changes to the project, and extend the term of the
Development Agreement.
• The Project description is amended to add 22 single-family homes to Phase 4 and modify
the unit types to 25 low-density conventional single-family residential, 32 low-density
executive estate single-family homes, 19 rural estate single-family homes, and Accessory
Dwelling Units as allowed by state and local law;
• Section 2.05, which defines the terms of the development agreement, is amended to extend
the term of the Development Agreement for an additional 10 years;
• Section 4.15, addressing park payment, is added to require a payment of $180,000 from
the developer to City for park purposes; and
• Exhibit D to the Development Agreement, which contains the Affordable Housing
Plan, is amended to update the number of required affordable units from 8 to 12,
increase the affordability term of ownership units from 45 to 99 years, or such other
term as required by a third-party administrator, and set forth a timeline for
construction of the affordable units to ensure the affordable townhome units are
constructed along with the end of Phase 4.
The proposed amendments to Exhibit D to the Development Agreement maintain consistency with
the City’s Inclusionary Ordinance (RPMC Section 17.07.020(N)).
Under state law, the Planning Commission is required to determine whether a Development
Agreement is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City’s General Plan and related
planning and zoning documents. The proposed amendments to the Development Agreement are
necessary to implement the City’s goals with respect to housing.
Tentative Map Amendments
A tentative map application was approved with the Southeast Specific Plan project in 2010 to
subdivide the approximately 80-acre site. The tentative map was updated with the same number
of lots in a slightly different configuration and was approved in 2014 with an updated Specific
Plan. The current proposal includes amendments to the tentative map (increase of 22 lots,
updated lot and street configuration, and the addition of a new land use subcategory).
The Parks and Recreation Commission met on June 5, 2023, and recommended approval of the
park payment to meet the needs of the residents of the additional 22 units. On this date, the
8
Commission found that there is no park or recreation facility designated within Phase 4 of the
Willowglen project, the dedication of land is not necessary, feasible, or compatible with the general
plan, the city is in the process of acquiring the necessary park property, the subdivider shall pay a
fee instead of land dedication, and that the proposed payment of $180,000.00 is consistent with
the Subdivision Ordinance. The recommended resolution is included in Attachment 1.
Specific updates to the approved Tentative Map, associated Conceptual Site Plan, and Conditions
of Approval include:
• Lot and street configuration have been updated, with 22 new lots added;
• A proposed emergency vehicle access (EVA) connection has been added with a proposed
“hammerhead” design for vehicle turnabout access and with a continuous public sidewalk
connection;
• Rural Estate lots and berm along Petaluma Hill Road have been reconfigured to allow for
a functionally usable backyard;
• Estate lot layouts modified to preserve view corridors to the eastern ridges across
Petaluma Hill Road;
• Private access easements included where a driveway must cross another property;
• Easement included along the rear of lots 32-33 for the extension of the storm drain
constructed in Phase 3;
• Landscape easement along the berm on Petaluma Hill Road will be relocated to the same
location as the fence;
• Rear yard grading includes retaining walls;
• Bio-Retention Beds are to be maintained be the HOA;
• Conditions of approval require in-lieu dedication of $180,000 to meet the parkland
dedication requirements of the additional 22 units as provided in RPMC Section 16.14.020;
and
• Conditions of approval require 4 additional affordable units, as provided in RPMC
Section 17.07.020(N) and within the Southeast Specific Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City prepared an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) to address the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts associated with the
planning, construction, or operation of the SESP and to identify appropriate and feasible mitigation
measures and alternatives that may be adopted to significantly reduce or avoid the impacts
identified in the EIR. On December 7, 2010, the City Council certified the Final EIR for the SESP,
including adoption of associated CEQA Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as described in City Council Resolution No.
2010-134 (2010 EIR). For these amendments, the City has prepared the Southeast Rohnert Park
Phase 4 Southeast Specific Plan EIR Consistency Review dated June 2023, which is incorporated
herein by reference, and determines that the proposed amendments will not result in new
environmental impacts not previously evaluated in a previously certified EIR, or a substantial
increase in previously identified impacts (“Consistency Analysis”).
9
CEQA Guidelines section 15162 provides that “no subsequent EIR shall be prepared” for a project
unless the lead agency determines that (1) “substantial changes are proposed in the project which
will require major revisions of the previous EIR”; or (2) “substantial changes occur with respect
to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken”; or (3) “new information of substantial
importance … shows” one or more significant effects not discussed in the original EIR, greater
severity to previously-identified substantial effects, or newly-found feasible mitigation measures
that would substantially reduce significant effects. As described in the Consistency Analysis, the
proposed amendments will not result in new environmental impacts not previously evaluated in
the 2010 EIR, or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts. The proposed
amendments (addition of twenty-two lots, alterations to the lot and street configuration, and
amending the land use designation from Rural Estate Residential to Low-Density Residential), are
minor and will not result in any changes to the proposed project not previously analyzed in the
2010 EIR and no new information of substantial importance shows any significant effects or newly
found feasible mitigation measures that would substantially reduce significant effects. Further,
the amendments are consistent with the project analyzed in the 2010 EIR. Therefore, no additional
environmental review is necessary.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
The mitigation measures required to reduce the impacts to a less than significant level have been
included as part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in the Final EIR. The
program identifies the required mitigation measures, the responsibility for ensuring compliance,
and the timing of the measure implementation. City staff is actively monitoring compliance with
the adopted mitigation measures as construction proceeds in the SESP.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: A public hearing notice denoting the time, date, and location of this
hearing was published in the Community Voice on June 9, 2023. Property owners within 300 feet
of the Project site and interested parties requesting notification were also mailed notices, and the
notice was posted pursuant to State law.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the
resolutions outlined below that collectively recommend to the City Council approval of the
requested amendments to the entitlements for the Southeast Specific Plan Area and associated
General Plan updates. The exhibits to recommended resolutions included the changes to the
General Plan and Specific Plan in strikethrough (deletions) or colored text (additions).
1. Resolution recommending City Council approval of amendments to the General Plan for
the Southeast Specific Plan Project located south of the Canon Manor Specific Plan Area,
west of Petaluma Hill Road, east of Bodway Parkway, and north of Valley House Drive
(various APNs)
2. Resolution recommending City Council approval of an amended Specific Plan for the
Southeast Specific Plan Project located south of the Canon Manor Specific Plan Area, west
of Petaluma Hill Road, east of Bodway Parkway, and north of Valley House Drive (various
APNs)
3. Resolution recommending City Council approval of an amended Development Area Plan
for the Southeast Specific Plan Project located south of the Canon Manor Specific Plan
Area, west of Petaluma Hill Road, east of Bodway Parkway, and north of Valley House
Drive (various APNs)
10
4. Resolution recommending City Council adoption of an ordinance approving a Sixth
Amendment to the Development Agreement between the City of Rohnert Park and Penn
Grove Mountain LLC for development of the property located south of the Canon Manor
Specific Plan Area, west of Petaluma Hill Road, east of Bodway Parkway and north of
Valley House Drive (various APNs)
5. Resolution recommending City Council approval of a tentative map to allow for the
subdivision of property located south of the Canon Manor Specific Plan Area, west of
Petaluma Hill Road, east of Bodway Parkway, and north of Valley House Drive (various
APNs)
Planning Manager Approval Date: June 15, 2023
Attachments :
1. Parks and Recreation Commission Resolution 2023-01
2. Southeast Specific Plan EIR Consistency Review
3. Resolution No. 2023-13 (General Plan)
Exhibit 1 – Recommended General Plan Amendments
Exhibit 2 – Amendment to Figure 2.2-1 (General Plan Diagram)
4. Resolution No. 2023-14 (Specific Plan)
Exhibit 1 – Proposed Specific Plan
5. Resolution No. 2023-15 (Development Area Plan)
Exhibit 1 – Proposed Development Area Plan
Exhibit 2 – Recommended Conditions of Approval
6. Resolution No. 2023-16 (Development Agreement)
Exhibit 1 – Recommended Development Agreement
7. Resolution No. 2023-17 (Tentative Map)
Exhibit 1 – Proposed Tentative Map
Exhibit 2 – Recommended Conditions of Approval
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
Southeast Specific Plan EIR Consistency Review
City of Rohnert Park
Development Services
130 Avram Avenue
Rohnert Park, CA 94928-2486
JUNE 2023
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
June 2023
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE NO.
I.Introduction and Overview ................................................................................................................... 3
II.Southeast Rohnert Park Phase 4 – Project Description ........................................................................ 5
III.SESP EIR Impact Analysis Consistency Review ...................................................................................... 7
IV.Consistency Determination ................................................................................................................ 38
V.References .......................................................................................................................................... 39
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Residential Development 7279 Petaluma
Hill Road, December 2002, prepared by Michelucci & Associates, Inc.
Attachment B: A Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Southeast Specific Plan Area, January
2002, prepared by Arcaeological Resource Service
Attachment C: Southeast Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Monitiring and Reporting Program
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
3 June 2023
I.Introduction and Overview
The following analysis demonstrates that the proposed Southeast Rohnert Park Phase 4 project
(“proposed project” or “project”) located within the City of Rohnert Park (City) is consistent with what
was evaluated in the City of Rohnert Park Southeast Specific Plan Project Final EIR (SCH
#2003112011).
Background
The 80-acre Southeast Specific Plan (“SESP”) area is bounded to the north by the Canon Manor
Specific Plan Area, to the east by Petaluma Hill Road and undeveloped land, to the south by Valley
House Drive and undeveloped land, and to the west by Bodway Parkway and land in the Sonoma
Mountain Village Planned Development.
The Southeast Specific Plan EIR was originally released for public review in December 2005 (2005
EIR). The City did not take action to certify the EIR because at that time the City had received an
application for the adjacent Sonoma Mountain Village (SMV) project. Due to the proximity of the SMV
project the City determined this was significant new information that affected the SESP project and
decided to update and recirculate the EIR.
In June 2009, the City released the Recirculated SESP Draft EIR (2010 REIR) for public review which
included information about the SMV project and changes to the land uses proposed in the SESP.
The 2005 EIR evaluated buildout of the SESP as follows:
•499 total residential units
•20,000 sf of retail space
•36 live/work units
•5.8-acre neighborhood-scale park
The 2010 REIR evaluated the following modifications to the 2005 EIR:
•475 total residential units
•10,000 sf of retail space
•5.8-acre neighborhood scale park
•A revised land use and circulation plan
•A revised cumulative context that includes the development of the Agilent (Sonoma Mountain
Village) site
The 2005 EIR analyzed the following 12 environmental resource areas:
•Aesthetics
•Air Quality
•Biological Resources
•Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
•Hydrology and Water Quality
•Land Use
•Noise
•Public Services
•Relationships to Plans and Planning
Policy
•Traffic and Circulation
•Utilities
•Growth Inducement
The 2005 EIR determined that the SESP would not have the potential to create significant impacts
associated with the following resource areas:
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
4 June 2023
Aesthetics
•Air Quality
•Land Use (Agricultural Resources)
•Noise
•Traffic and Circulation
It was determined that the 2005 EIR provided an analysis of a “worst case” development scenario for
most resource topic areas. However, the 2010 REIR updated the following resource area impact
sections of the 2005 EIR to address changes to the SESP:
•Aesthetics
•Traffic and Circulation
•Climate Change
Based on the environmental analyses included in the 2005 EIR and 2010 REIR, the City determined
that in conjunction with cumulative development within the City, the SESP would result in a significant
and unavoidable impacts associated with aesthetics, impacting scenic vistas and visual character;
land use, impacting farmlands of local importance; traffic, impacting level of service and traffic
congestion; and climate change, conflicting with greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals. All other
environmental impacts were determined to be less than significant or less than significant with
implementation of mitigation measures in the 2005 EIR and 2010 REIR. In December 2010, the City
certified the 2010 REIR, which also included the 2005 Draft EIR. In compliance with CEQA and to
ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of adopted mitigation measures, the City
adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) with the SESP EIR (see Appendix C).
Note: The 2005 EIR and 2010 REIR are available for review during normal business hours at City Hall,
130 Avram Avenue, Rohnert Park, CA 94928, and on the City’s website:
https://www.rpcity.org/city_hall/departments/development_services/Planning/general_plan___special_ar
ea_plans/specific_plans
The Southeast Specific Plan, itself, was prepared in accordance with City’s Municipal Code Chapter
17.06, Article VIII, Sections 17.06.290-450, SP-Specific Plan District which outlines the requirements
for the preparation, adoption and implementation of Specific Plans in certain areas of the city. The
purpose of the Plan, consistent with the intent of Chapter 17.06, is to provide a vehicle for ensuring
that this area of the city is master planned. It is also to ensure that the phasing and ultimate
development of the property is consistent with a vision that is both compatible with the existing
community and responsive to the vision of the General Plan. Since the SESP there have been several
revisions to the development plan, including the removal of a water tank and the addition of two
additional residential lots, which the City has determined are consistent with the certified EIR, and
three phases of the SESP project have been developed.
The proposed project would include the development of 76 residential lots located within the eastern
portion of the SESP on a 20.32-acre parcel (APN 047-111-030) as the fourth phase of the project.
This Consistency Analysis has been prepared to determine whether the proposed project is within the
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
5 June 2023
scope of the EIR (2005 EIR and 2010 REIR), or whether subsequent environmental review is needed
to examine any potentially significant environmental impacts of the project.
Since the 2010 REIR was certified, the CEQA Guidelines have been updated and three resource areas
have been added: Energy, Tribal Cultural Resources and Wildfire. In addition, the CEQA Guidelines
were updated in 2018 and now require the transportation analysis evaluate a project’s vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) in lieu of level of service (CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3). A brief discussion that
addresses these issue areas is included at the end of Section III, Impact Analysis Consistency Review.
II.Southeast Rohnert Park Phase 4 Project – Project Description
Penn Grove Mountain, LLC (Applicant) is proposing to amend the fourth phase of the SESP (Phase 4)
to increase the number of residential units from 54 to 76, the total number of residential lots in the
project from 477 to 499 and the total number of affordable units from 72 to 76. These lots would
include 25 low density (conventional) lots, 32 executive estates and 19 rural estates. The 25
conventional lots would average 5,000 square feet (sf); the 32 proposed executive estate lots would
average 8,000 square feet sf; and the rural estate lots would average 17,000 sf. The project would
include new utility lines and connections for water, sewer, and storm drain to serve the proposed lots
consistent with the SESP. The modified fourth phase would occur on a predominately vacant,
approximately 20.32-acre site. The development of this site was previously evaluated in the SESP EIR.
The proposed project includes the application for a Development Area Plan Amendment, General Plan
Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Tentative Subdivision Map Amendment, and Development
Agreement Amendment. The underlying roadway system and infrastructure for the proposed project is
unchanged as compared to what was included in the originally approved SESP.
Project Location and Land Use
As shown in Figure 1, Project Location, the approximately 20.32-acre project site is located in the SESP
and comprised of a single parcel (APN 047-111-030) bound by Valley House Drive to the south, single-
family, rural residences to the north, recently constructed single-family residences (Phase 3 of the
SESP) to the west, and Petaluma Hill Road to the east. The majority of the project site is cleared and
consists of some shrubs and non-native grasses. While the majority of the site is void of trees and
vegetation, the perimeter of the project site along Petaluma Hill Road contains a landscaped berm
and trees which have been constructed as part of the approved project. The northeastern portion of
the project site contains a single-family residence, several appurtenant structures and residential
landscaping. The existing residence would remain on the site on a parcel created for the building, but
all other structures on the site would be removed to accommodate the project. All of these buildings
were constructed in the last 30 years.
Project Improvements
The proposed project involves the development of 76 new residential lots, roadways, and supporting
utility infrastructure (54 residential lots and the roadways and supporting utility infrastructure have
been analyzed in the certified EIR). As described above, the proposed project includes 25 low density
conventional lots, 32 executive estates, and 19 rural estates which vary in size. As shown in Figure 2,
Site Plan, low density lots are proposed along the western portion of the project site, executive estates
are proposed in the center of the project site, and rural estates are proposed along the southern,
eastern, and northern perimeter of the project site. Executive estates would have a minimum lot depth
of 120 feet, minimum lot width of 50 feet, and maximum lot coverage of 50%; low density conventional
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
June 2023
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Madison Ave
Middlebrook Way
ManchesterAveH
a
h
nWay
L in colnAveM a u r i c e Ave
Myr tle Ave
B o n n ie A veBurtonAveLords
M
a
n
o
r
WayPetalumaHillRdMercedes WayB
o
n
it
a
Av
e
La
Sa
ll
e
AveRoberts Rd
L
i
ma
n
Wa
y Johnies WayVero nda Ave
Lichau Rd
Li la c W a y
L
a
k
e
wo
o
d
AveB rettA
v
e
Roberts Ranch LnBrandLnWill
o
wA
v
e
Eucalyptus Ave
Cota ti Ave
Weiss Ln
Mag nolia AveVarda StV i n e StDavis LnS
a
n
t
e
r
o
Wa
y
Fern Ave
Railroad Ave
Project Location
Southeast Rohnert Park Phase 4
SOURCE: ESRI 2023Date: 5/26/2023 - Last saved by: uavteam - Path: Z:\Projects\j1423507\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Cultural\Figure 1 Project Location.mxdn
FIGURE 1
!^
Calistoga
Clearlake
Cloverdale
CorteMadera
Cotati
El Cerrito
Fairfield
Healdsburg
Hercules
Lakeport
Moraga
Napa
Novato
Petaluma
Pinole
Point Arena
Rohnert Park
SanAnselmo
Santa Rosa
Sebastopol
Sonoma
St.Helena
SuisunCity
Ukiah
Vacaville
Vallejo
WalnutCreek
Williams
Windsor
Yountville
C o l u s aC o u n t y
L a k eC o u n t y
M e n d o c i n oC o u n t y
N a p a C o u n t y
Yo l o C o u n t y
M a r i n C o u n t y
£¤101
ÄÆ24
ÄÆ116
ÄÆ12
ÄÆ221
ÄÆ281ÄÆ128
ÄÆ29 ÄÆ16
ÄÆ53
ÄÆ253
ÄÆ121
ÄÆ4
ÄÆ175
ÄÆ128
ÄÆ20
ÄÆ1
§¨¦780
§¨¦680§¨¦80
§¨¦5
Project Site
S O N O M A
C O U N T Y
0 1,500750
Feet
Southeast Specific
Plan (SESP)
SESP Phase 4
(Project Site)
Site Plan
Southeast Rohnert Park Phase 4
FIGURE 2Path: \\dudek.int\data\GISData\Projects\j1423507\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\CulturalSOURCE: Civil Design Consultants, INC., 2023
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
June 2023
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
6 June 2023
lots have a minimum lot depth of 90 feet, minimum lot width of 50 feet, and a maximum lot coverage
of 50%; rural estates would have a minimum lot depth of 100 feet, minimum lot width of 90 feet, and
a maximum lot coverage of 30%.
Access and Parking
Vehicles would access the site from two new roadway connections to the west and one new driveway
connection to the south, consistent with the approved SESP circulation plan. The two new connections
to the west would both connect to Wendy Drive along new extensions of Warmstone Way and
Wildflower Way. The new driveway to the south would connect Valley House Drive to the project’s
proposed roadway system. The project’s internal roadway system is depicted in Figure 3, Circulation
Plan and would include a circular access pattern as well as an emergency vehicular access (EVA) from
Willowglen Drive at Valley House Drive with a “hammerhead” turn-around installed adjacent to the
EVA. Pedestrian sidewalks would be provided throughout the project site along the proposed new
roadways. Vehicle parking would be provided at each lot and would also be permitted along residential
streets.
The existing house in the northeast corner of the site is accessed off of Petaluma Hill Road. The house
would remain, but access would be relocated to Woodbridge Drive, internal to the project. This access
is currently used for a temporary construction area with a trailer and construction materials storage
and would be terminated, the curb-cut and driveway removed, and the berm completed prior to the
completion of Phase 4.
Landscaping
The proposed project would include a variety of new landscaping consisting of trees, shrubs, grasses,
and groundcovers to be installed along the frontages of the residential lots and around the perimeter
of the site, consistent with the previously approved SESP landscaping plan.
Utilities
The project developer would install new water and sewer mains, storm drainpipes, and bio-retention
areas to serve each residential parcel. The project would be all-electric and therefore would not require
natural gas. The City provides water, sewer, and drainage service to the SESP. Electricity can be
provided by either Pacific Gas & Electricity (PG&E) or Sonoma Clean Power (SCP) at residents’ choice.
Construction
Project construction is anticipated to begin in late 2023 and be completed within five years.
Construction activities would be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., consistent with Section
9.44.120 of the City’s Municipal Code (the “Noise Ordinance”). Staging of construction equipment
would occur onsite.
Construction equipment would include, but not necessarily be limited to excavators, backhoes, front
end loaders, scrapers, graders, concrete saws, small cranes, jackhammers, chainsaws, rollers, asphalt
road pavers, compactors, air compressors, generator sets, and pneumatic tools. A variety of trucks
including cement mixers, haul trucks, and water trucks would also be required.
Site preparation and clearing and grading of the project site would include the removal and off-haul of
materials. This would include, but not necessarily be limited to, vegetation/soil, concrete, and asphalt.
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
June 2023
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Streets
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 '$"3:Development Area Plan - Southeast Area6Circulation Plan
Southeast Rohnert Park Phase 4
FIGURE 3Path: \\dudek.int\data\GISData\Projects\j1423507\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\CulturalSOURCE: WHA, 2023
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
June 2023
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
7 June 2023
Vegetation removed from the project site would be off-hauled for recycling or composting. Construction
debris would be recycled where feasible. Much of the cut on the site for roadways would be reused on
site to construct home pads and to enhance the berm along Petaluma Hill Road. Earthwork would
involve the cut of approximately 41,000 cubic yards of soil to level the site and create the base for
roadways. Approximately 27,500 cubic yards of soil will be used to establish pads for home sites and
approximately 13,500 cubic yards of soil will be used to enhance the berm along Petaluma Hill
Road. Therefore, zero cubic yards will be hauled off-site.
III. SESP EIR Impact Analysis Consistency Review
This section discusses each of the environmental impacts included in the (2005 and 2010) SESP EIR,
by resource topic, and new impacts that have been added to the CEQA analysis since the SESP EIR
was certified followed by a brief analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with each of the impact
conclusions and applicability of SESP EIR mitigation measures. As described in the Section I, the 2005
EIR analyzed the originally proposed SESP which included up to 499 residential units, 20,000 sf of
retail space, 36 live/work units, and 5.8-acre neighborhood-scale park. Due to a change in
circumstances and updates to the SESP the City revised and recirculated the 2005 EIR. The
recirculated Draft EIR analyzed proposed changes to the SESP including the number of units, provision
of additional internal connecting roads, elimination of previously planned cul-de-sacs, elimination of
the live/work component in the mixed-use plan area, reduction of retail area from 20,000 sf to 10,000
sf, and the development of a park area with a 1.8-acre storm water detention basin.
In December 2010, the City approved the SESP and certified the Recirculated EIR (2010 REIR) The
2010 REIR updated the following resource area sections: Aesthetics, Traffic and Circulation, and
Climate Change. The remaining sections from the 2005 EIR were not changed and were still
determined applicable to the analysis of SESP impacts.
The analysis provided below either references the 2005 EIR or the 2010 REIR, shown in parenthesis.
However, any references to the SESP EIR includes the certified 2010 REIR, which incorporated the
2005 EIR.
Project-specific cultural resource and geotechnical/soils reports were prepared for the proposed
project to determine if the project would result in any significant environmental impacts that were not
identified in the prior 2005 EIR or 2010 REIR. For a list of the technical studies referenced in the
discussion of environmental impacts of the proposed project, refer to Section V, References. These
studies are also included as attachments to this document.
The applicable SESP EIR mitigation measures are provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP) and also appended to this document (see Appendix C).
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
8 June 2023
AESTHETICS (2010 REIR)
Impact 3.1-1(a). The proposed project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified impact, on a scenic vista. (Mitigation Incorporated from
SESP EIR)
The project site has not changed from that analyzed in the SESP EIR. As described in the SESP EIR,
the project site is not considered a scenic vista nor does it contain scenic resources as defined by the
Sonoma County General Plan (2010 REIR, pp. 3.1-10 thru 3.1-18). There are no scenic vistas in the
vicinity of the project area that might be significantly visually affected by development of the SESP.
Furthermore, as noted in the SESP EIR, Petaluma Hill Road would be maintained as a County
designated Scenic Corridor, through implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.1-1, which requires
compliance with the City’s Design Review process prior to the issuance of grading and construction
permits. Implementation of this mitigation measure would also reduce the potential for significant and
adverse blockage of views to the Sonoma Mountains to the east of the SESP area from public vantage
points on surrounding roadways; implementation of this mitigation measure would be consistent with
the City’s design guidelines which require views of the Sonoma Mountains be maintained though road
design and location of buildings. As a result, the SESP EIR concluded that no substantial adverse effect
on a scenic vista would occur due to development of the SESP with mitigation.
The proposed project would be located within Phase 4 of the SESP which is not considered a scenic
vista nor contain any scenic resources. The proposed project would also implement Mitigation
Measure 3.1-1 which would maintain Petaluma Hill Road as Scenic Corridor by requiring to undergo
conformance review with the City’s Design Review process. For these reasons, implementation of the
proposed project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in the severity
of previously identified impacts in the SESP EIR.
Impact 3.1-1(b). The proposed project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified impacts on the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings. (Mitigation Incorporated from SESP EIR).
The SESP EIR notes that development of the SESP would be in accordance with the provisions of the
City’s General Plan; the buildout pattern would tend to repeat the residential development profile and
development density found elsewhere to the northwest of the SESP area, and throughout much of
eastern Rohnert Park (2010 REIR, pp. 3.1-10 thru 3.1-17).
The project is proposing to increase the number of residential units in Phase 4 from 54 to 76 on the
project site evaluated in the SESP EIR, consistent with the 499 units evaluated in the 2005 EIR. Project
buildout assumes a density of between 2 to 24 residential units per acre, consistent with the City’s
General Plan and much of Rohnert Park’s suburban residential development pattern. Consis tent with
the SESP and the City’s General Plan Goal LU B, the project encourages the development of a range
of residential densities. Furthermore, as described in the SESP EIR, implementation of Mitigation
Measure 3.1-1, ensures that development of the SESP would be in conformance with the goals and
policies of the General Plan pertaining to community design. Specifically, compliance with Mitigation
Measure 3.1-1 requires the project to undergo the City’s Design Review process prior to the issuance
of grading and construction permits; this process would further ensure the proposed project is
consistent with the provisions of City’s General Plan Community Design Element which address the
project’s visual impacts in terms of visual character and quality of the project site and its surroundings.
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
9 June 2023
As noted in the SESP EIR, Mitigation Measure 3.1-1 would regulate building density and setbacks, limit
tree planting, and otherwise ensure the enforcement of Community Design Goal CD-D of the General
Plan. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the potential for significant and adverse
blockage of views to the Sonoma Mountains. The SESP EIR also concluded that implementation of
Mitigation Measure 3.1-1 would ensure that an urban edge is maintained (Goal CD-F), that road edge
landscape treatments would not obstruct views (Policies CD-5 and CD-6), that street setbacks would
be maintained (Policy CD-7), that a transition in density would be maintained from west to east (Policy
CD-9), that minimal density rural estate residential uses would be located nearest Petaluma Hill Road
(Policies CD-13 and CD-52), and that solid walls would not be constructed around the project site
(Policy CD-14). For these reasons, the SESP EIR concluded that development of the SESP would remain
consistent with the City’s existing land use and design review goals, plans, and policies that oversee
development.
However, as described in the SESP EIR, ultimately the project would result in the conversion of an
undeveloped open field, to urban development. This change in visual appearance would be highly
visible and noticeable to passers-by who travel along any of the abutting roads, and to those residents
whose homes maintain views of the existing open space; as concluded in the SESP EIR, this would
constitute a degradation of the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings. For these
reasons, the SESP EIR concluded that this impact to visual and aesthetic resources is a significant and
unavoidable impact.
The proposed project would develop an additional 22 residential units with a similar development
pattern, density, and design on the same project site as analyzed in the SESP EIR. The proposed project
would also be required to comply with Mitigation Measure 3.1-1 which would ensure the project
conforms with the City’s General Plan goals and policies pertaining to community design. For these
reasons, implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts in the SESP EIR including the
significant and unavoidable impact.
Impact 3.1-2. Project construction would require site grading, construction materials stockpiling and
storage, and the use of construction equipment, which would not result in new impacts, nor result in
a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts on the character with the setting.
(Mitigation Incorporated from SESP EIR)
As described in the SESP EIR, project construction would lead to a temporary change in the
appearance of the site. As this could change views of the site from Petaluma Hill Road, which is a
County designated Scenic Corridor, this impact was determined to be potentially significant in the SESP
EIR. However, the SESP EIR concluded that this impact is less than significant due its short-term nature
through the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.1-2, which requires that construction materials
and equipment be staged in areas away from Petaluma Hill Road and as close to construction areas
as possible (2010 REIR, p. 3.1-19).
The proposed project would involve similar construction activities and would be required to implement
Mitigation Measure 3.1-2 to ensure construction materials and equipment are located away from
Petaluma Hill Road. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in new
impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified aesthetic impacts
related to the storage and use of construction materials and equipment in the SESP EIR.
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
10 June 2023
Impact 3.1-3. The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified impacts, on lighting. (Mitigation Incorporated from SESP EIR)
As described in the SESP EIR, project lighting would be required to be designed and implemented
consistent with the City’s Design Review process, as discussed under Impact 3.1-1. The EIR evaluated
the potential for the project to increase nighttime light in the area and determined the impact was
potentially significant. Compliance with Mitigation Measure 3.1-3, which requires that night lighting
be provided along the streets, parking areas, and public spaces be downward focused and shielded ;
and a lighting specialist be consulted during project design to determine light sources, intensities, and
type of light sources would reduce the effects of light sources in this area. The SESP EIR concluded
the project would lead to a less-than-significant lighting impact through compliance with the City’s
Design Review process and implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.1-3 (2010 REIR, pp. 3.1-19 thru
3.1-20).
The proposed project involves similar uses as analyzed in the SESP EIR and the addition of 22
residences would be subject to the City Design Review process and would be required to implement
Mitigation Measure 3.1-2. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in new
impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified aesthetic impacts
related to lighting in the SESP EIR.
Cumulative Impacts
The SESP EIR concluded that the proposed project would have a cumulatively considerable impact
resulting from the project’s substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings [Impact 3.1-1(b)]. This impact cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant
level and would therefore remain significant and unavoidable (2010 REIR, p. 3.1-20). The proposed
project would also contribute to this existing significant and unavoidable impact which was addressed
in the Statement of Overriding Considerations prepared for the SESP EIR. The proposed project is
consistent with the level of development evaluated in the SESP EIR and would not result in a new
cumulative impact, nor result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts
related to the cumulative change in visual character and quality of the site.
AIR QUALITY (2005 EIR)
Impact 3.2-1(a). The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified impacts due to a conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan.
The SESP EIR notes that the SESP would implement various transportation control and trip reduction
measures consistent with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMDs) goals for
reducing regional air pollutants. Implementation of these measures would be consistent with
BAAQMDs 2000 Clean Air Plan which is intended to reduce major sources of pollution and reduce the
pollutant level in the Bay Area and meet federal and state ambient air quality standards (2005 EIR, p.
3.2-11). Specific measures recommended in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines include the following:
• Provide on-site shops and services for employees, such as cafeteria, bank/ATM, dry cleaners,
convenience market, etc. (each of these are permitted under the proposed mixed-use land
uses and could provide services for local residents, and employees);
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
11 June 2023
• Provide safe, direct access for bicyclists to adjacent bicycle routes;
• Provide direct, safe, attractive pedestrian access from project to transit stops and adjacent
development;
• Provide neighborhood-serving shops and services within or adjacent to residential project; and
• Provide interconnected street network, with regular grid or similar interconnected street
pattern.
Additionally, consistent with the BAAQMD goals and Clean Air Plan, the SESP would also provide
amenities that would encourage non-motor vehicle transportation by future residents, customers, and
employees.
• Sidewalks and walking paths to most destinations in the surrounding area;
• Street trees that provide moderate coverage of the sidewalks and pedestrian paths;
• Most destinations within the vicinity accessible by pedestrians;
• Some streets have enhanced safety for pedestrians (e.g., separations between streets and
pedestrian paths);
• A moderate amount of visually interesting walking paths;
• Existing transit service within walking distance of the project area;
• A few bicycle routes have paved shoulders to provide increased safety;
• Safe bicycle routes to educational facilities in close proximity to the project area.
Based on the implementation of these measures and amenities, the SESP EIR concluded that the
SESP would be consistent with the BAAQMDs goals for reducing regional air pollutants. Therefore, the
project would not conflict or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan (2005 EIR, p.
3.2-12). Because the proposed project would develop the same uses with the same number of
residential units studied in the 2005 EIR and implement the same BAAQMD recommendations and
amenities that were analyzed in the SESP EIR, implementation of the project would not result in new
impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts in the SESP
EIR.
Impact 3.2-1(b). Construction activities associated with development of the project would not result
in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts
regarding the generation of dust emissions and contribution to an existing or projected air quality
violation. (Mitigation Incorporated from SESP EIR)
As noted in the SESP EIR, construction-related activities are generally short-term in duration and the
BAAQMD did not recommend any thresholds of significance for construction-related emissions at the
time the SESP EIR was prepared. Instead, the BAAQMD based the determination of significance on a
consideration of the control measures to be implemented. As the SESP EIR notes at the time it was
prepared, the BAAQMD control measures only applied to emissions of fugitive dust. Control measures
at the time were not required for the emissions generated by construction vehicle engines.
Furthermore, the SESP EIR also explains that construction-level air quality emissions were not
compared with a quantified threshold because the construction industry is considered an existing
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
12 June 2023
source of emissions within the Bay Area, and the entire state; and, in general, construction equipment
operates at one site for a short time, and when finished, moves on to a new cons truction site. The
SESP EIR concluded that if all appropriate emissions control measures recommended by the BAAQMD
CEQA Guidelines relating to dust are implemented for a project, then construction emissions are not
considered significant (2005 EIR, p. 3.2-12).
The SESP EIR includes Mitigation Measure 3.2-1A which requires the project to implement all
appropriate dust control measures recommended by the BAAQMD. Mitigation Measure 3.2-1B would
also provide a resource (dust control coordinator) for local residents to address air quality issues that
may occur during construction. The project would also implement Mitigation Measure 3.2-1C which
would reduce even further the emissions generated by heavy-duty diesel-powered construction
equipment operating at the project site. The SESP EIR concluded that implementation of Mitigation
Measures 3.2-1A through 3.2-1C would reduce construction-related air quality impacts to less-than-
significant levels (2005 EIR, pp. 3.2-12 thru 3.2-14).
The proposed project would involve similar construction activities, on the same land area and
implement the mitigation measures described in the SESP EIR. The additional construction of 22 units
was previously evaluated in the 2005 EIR, which assumed up to 499 residential units. In addition,
since the 2005 EIR was prepared, construction equipment has improved and is cleaner and emits
fewer pollutants than the older equipment. The project would also be subject to comply with any
current City requirements or conditions that pertain to grading or other construction activities specific
to dust control. For these reasons, implementation of the proposed project would not result in new
impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts in the SESP
EIR.
Impact 3.2-1(c). The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified impacts on the cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors).
The SESP EIR analyzed and modeled the project’s daily operational emissions using the project’s
vehicle trip rates and vehicle trip reduction characteristics and amenities discussed under Impact 3.2-
1(a). The EIR concluded, based on modeling results, that the average daily emissions associated with
buildout of the SESP would not exceed the thresholds of significance recommended by the BAAQMD
(2005 EIR, p. 3.2-14).
Although the operational impacts of the SESP would not exceed the thresholds of significance
recommended by the BAAQMD, and would not be considered significant, the following enhancements
were recommended to further reduce stationary and area source emissions associated with the
project and further the BAAQMDs efforts to reduce such emissions. According to the SESP EIR, the
project sponsor should include the following requirements or measures shown to be equally effective
in contracts with developers (2005 EIR, pp. 3.2-15 thru 3.2-16).
• Use solar or low-emission water heaters in the residential and retail buildings;
• Provide energy-efficient heating, cooling, and other appliances, such as cooking equipment,
refrigerators, and dishwashers;
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
13 June 2023
• Provide energy-efficient and automated controls for air conditioning;
• Install ozone destruction catalyst on air conditioning systems, in consultation with the
BAAQMD;
• Use light colored roof materials to reflect heat;
• Where feasible and appropriate, use light colored parking surface materials;
• Plant shade trees in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from parked vehicles;
• If fireplaces are provided in new residential uses, install the low-emitting commercial fireplaces
available at the time of development; and
• Require that commercial landscapers providing services at the project site use electric or
battery-powered equipment, or other internal combustion equipment that is either certified by
the California Air Resources Board or is three years old or less at the time of use, to the extent
that such equipment is reasonably available and competitively priced in the San Francisco Bay
Area.
The proposed project would involve similar operations and land uses and would implement the
recommendations described in the SESP EIR. In addition, the project would be subject to comply with
the 2022 California Building Code that includes additional energy conservation features to ensure new
development conserves energy and minimizes pollutants and requires solar panels on all new
residential construction. Finally, consistent with state and local goals for air quality and greenhouse
gas reduction, Phase 4 would include all electric homes and would not use natural gas.
As the proposed project is consistent with the project analyzed in the 2005 EIR and will implement
applicable mitigation measures contained in the SESP EIR, the project therefore would not significantly
contribute to cumulative air quality impacts and would not result in new cumulative impacts.
Impact 3.2-1(d). The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified impacts regarding the exposure of sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations.
The SESP EIR assessed Carbon Monoxide (CO) concentrations using the CALINE4 screening procedure
to predict future CO concentrations in the vicinity of the SESP area. As noted in the SESP EIR, future
CO concentrations would not exceed the national or state ambient air quality standards for CO.
Therefore, the SESP EIR concluded that the project would not expose any sensitive receptors to
substantial CO concentrations (2005 EIR, p. 3.2-17).
The SESP EIR also concluded that toxic or carcinogenic air pollutants are not expected to occur in any
meaningful amounts in conjunction with operation of the proposed land uses within the SESP area.
Only small quantities of common forms of hazardous or toxic substances, such as cleaning agents,
which are typically used or stored in conjunction with residential and commercial uses, are anticipated
(2005 EIR, p. 3.2-17).
The proposed project would involve similar operations and land uses analyzed in the SESP EIR.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified pollutant exposure impacts in the SESP EIR.
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
14 June 2023
Impact 3.2-1(e). The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified impacts on the creation of objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people.
The SESP EIR notes that project construction activities would generate airborne odors associated with
the operation of construction vehicles (i.e., diesel exhaust) and the application of architectural
coatings. The EIR concluded that these emissions would occur during daytime hours only and would
be isolated to the immediate vicinity of the construction site and activity; as such, they would not affect
a substantial number of people (2005 EIR, p. 3.2-18).
The SESP EIR also concluded that new operational odors associated with the SESP would be similar
to existing residential uses in the City and would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the new
buildings. The proposed project would involve similar operations and land uses analyzed in the SESP
EIR and residential uses typically do not generate potential sources of objectionable odors. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to odor from those analyzed in the
SESP EIR.
Cumulative Impacts
The SESP EIR concluded that, with implementation of applicable mitigation measures, the project
would not significantly contribute to cumulative air quality impacts (2005 EIR, pp. 3.2-18 thru 3.2-20).
The proposed project is consistent with the SESP and the SESP EIR, as described above, and will
implement applicable mitigation measures prescribed in the SESP EIR. In addition, because the
proposed project would be subject to 2022 building codes and utilize all electric construction, air
quality impacts would be lower than estimated in the SESP EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would
not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
impacts on the contribution to cumulative air quality impacts.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (2005 EIR)
Impact 3.3-1(a). The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified impacts, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies
or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The project site originally contained grassland considered suitable as foraging habitat by birds of prey
that include special-status species (at the current time, the site has been graded and is highly
disturbed). As discussed in the SESP EIR, approximately 80 acres of grassland habitat would be
removed to allow for project construction that is suitable for foraging by species such as the white
tailed kite, loggerhead shrike, northern harrier and red-tail hawk. However, as concluded in the SESP
EIR, this is considered a less-than-significant impact because it was determined that birds of prey
which could occur within the project site are not substantially dependent on the site for foraging (2005
EIR, p. 3.3-7). The SESP EIR also found that the loss of this community would not constitute a
significant impact to biotic resources due to its relative abundance locally and regionally, and to the
degraded nature of much of this community on the project site and presence of non-native species.
The proposed project would disturb the same habitat footprint that was analyzed in the SESP EIR. The
site has been historically disked and currently is routinely cleared of vegetation. Therefore, the project
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
15 June 2023
would not result in new impacts nor a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
impacts from those analyzed in the SESP EIR with respect to special-status species.
Impact 3.3-1 (b-c). The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified impacts on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The project would not result in new impacts, nor
result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts on federally-protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
As described in the SESP EIR, there are no wetlands located on the project site, including within the
Phase 4 portion of the SESP. No construction activities would occur within streams or associated
riparian habits because the project site does not contain any creeks, streams or riparian habitat. The
SESP EIR concluded that the project would therefore not have a substantial adverse effect on riparian
habitat or federally-protected wetlands (2005 EIR, pp. 3.3-7 thru 3.3-8).
The proposed project would develop on the same project site that was analyzed in the SESP EIR.
Therefore, the project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified impacts from those analyzed in the SESP EIR, on riparian habitat or federally-
protected wetlands.
Impact 3.3-1 (d-f). The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified impacts on the movement of any native resident or migratory fish
or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites. The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified impacts regarding a conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. The project
would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified impacts regarding a conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation
plan.
As described in the SESP EIR, no development activities would occur within any perennial stream
wildlife corridors because none exist and the project site does not function as an important migratory
corridor between larger open space wildlife areas. The SESP EIR concluded that project development
would not cause populations of local migratory species to drop below self-sustaining levels. Further,
the SESP EIR explains that the project site is currently separated from undeveloped habitat in the area
by Petaluma Hill Road, Valley House Drive, and from more urbanized areas to the west by Bodway
Parkway. For these reasons, the SESP EIR concluded that the project would not adversely affect wildlife
movement (2005 EIR, p. 3.3-8).
The SESP EIR also notes that there are no specimen trees on the project site that would need to be
removed prior to site development; therefore, the project would not conflict with the City’s tree
preservation policy or ordinance. The project site is not included within a habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan or other regional or state conservation plan and therefore would
not conflict with any of these plans. The majority of the project site has been graded and/or disked on
routine basis and does not contain any trees.
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
16 June 2023
The proposed project would occupy the same project site that was analyzed in the SESP EIR; therefore,
the project would not result in new impacts nor a substantial increase in the severity of previous ly
identified impacts from those analyzed in the SESP EIR regarding wildlife movement and local policies
and plans.
Cumulative Impacts
The SESP EIR concluded that the SESP would not significantly contribute to cumulative impacts related
to biological resources (2005 EIR, p. 3.3-8 thru 3.3.9). The proposed project is consistent with the
SESP for the reasons stated above under Impacts 3.3-1(a-f); therefore, the project would not result in
new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts on any
significant cumulative impacts related to biological resources.
GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY (2005 EIR)
Impact 3.4-1 (a). The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified impacts regarding the exposure of people or structures to
potentially substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
- Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the areas or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault;
- Strong seismic groundshaking;
- Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction or landslides.
No significant adverse geology, soils, and seismicity impacts have been identified for the SESP EIR. As
noted in the SESP EIR, the SESP would be constructed consistent with the California Building Code
and the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. The SESP EIR states the project site is approximately 1.5 miles
from the closest known traces of any potentially active fault and is approximately 2.5 miles from known
traces of the nearest zoned active fault (the Rodgers Creek fault). The SESP EIR concludes that a fault-
line surface rupture would not represent a substantial hazard for the project site (2005 EIR, p. 3.4-9).
A geotechnical investigation was prepared for the proposed project which indicates the site contains
some artificial fill along 5 to 8 acres of the eastern edge of the site which consists of silty or sandy clay
with wood and concrete debris, varying from 0 to 5 feet thick. The geotechnical investigation also
indicates the remainder of site’s natural surface soil consists of silty clay with a thickness of 4 to 8
feet. Soil borings were also taken that found alluvial deposits; these borings were taken at a maximum
depth of 26.5 feet and no groundwater was encountered (Attachment A).
In the City, all new development and associated infrastructure is required to reduce the exposure to
potentially damaging seismic vibrations through seismic-resistant design, in conformance with
Chapter 16, Structural Design Requirements, Division IV, Earthquake Design, of the California Building
Code. Because the project site is in the “near-source” area of the Rodgers Creek fault, Section 1629,
Criteria Selection, of the Building Code requires special seismic design factors be applied to the
project. These regulations, as well as City policies and regulations, provide significant protection
against risks resulting from poor soil conditions and seismic groundshaking. The project would be
required to comply with the most current version of the California Building Code, as amended by
Rohnert Park Municipal Code Chapter 15.08.010.
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
17 June 2023
The project site, as noted in the SESP EIR, is nearly level and flat. Therefore, landslides would not pose
a significant impact on the project site (2005 EIR, p. 3.4-9).
For these reasons, the SESP EIR concluded impacts would be less than significant related to fault
rupture, seismic groundshaking, or ground failure. Because the proposed project would be located on
the same site analyzed in the SESP EIR, implementation of the project would not result in new impacts,
nor result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified in the SESP EIR.
Impact 3-4-1 (b). The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified impacts on substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
The SESP EIR concluded that buildout of the SESP would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss
of topsoil because it would be compliant with applicable erosion and sediment regulations required by
the City, County, and Regional Water Quality Control Board (2005 EIR, p. 3.4-10). In addition, because
the SESP would involve grading of an area that is greater than one acre, it would be subject to the
conditions of the General Construction Activity National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. This permit requires preparation of a
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to identify the sources of sediment and other
pollutants on-site, and to ensure sediment and other pollutants in stormwater discharged from the
site does not adversely affect local waterways. A monitoring program is required to aid the
implementation of, and assure compliance with, the SWPPP. The permit requirements of the RWQCB
must be satisfied prior to project construction (2005 EIR, p. 3.4-10).
As part of the SWPPP, an Erosion and Sediment Transport Control Plan would be prepared prior to the
commencement of grading. An erosion control professional, or landscape architect or civil engineer
specializing in erosion control, would be required to design the plan to include erosion and sediment
transport control structures and to supervise the implementation of the designs and the maintenance
of facilities throughout the site clearing, grading and construction periods.
Following construction, the permit requires the implementation of long-term measures to manage
runoff throughout the operational period of the project. Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent
on- or off-site erosion would be required in the stormwater management program. The permit also
requires a monitoring and reporting program to ensure adequate long-term operation and
maintenance of the BMPs. For these reasons, the SESP EIR concludes buildout of the SESP would not
cause significant impacts related to soil erosion or loss of topsoil.
The proposed project would be required to comply with the most current version of the California
Building Code, as amended by Rohnert Park Municipal Code Chapter 15.08.010 in addition to the
current requirements of the construction general permit. Because the proposed project would be
subject to the same regulations and involve a similar level of ground disturbance and grading as the
SESP analyzed under the SESP EIR, implementation of the project would not result in new impacts,
nor result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts in the SESP EIR.
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
18 June 2023
Impact 3-4-1 (c-d). The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified impacts regarding its location on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-
site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse, or on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18 1 A of the California Building Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or property.
As noted in the SESP EIR, as part of the construction permitting process, the City requires a report that
documents soil conditions at specific construction sites to identify potentially unsuitable soil
conditions. The report must be conducted by registered soil professionals, and measures to eliminate
inappropriate soil conditions must be applied, depending on the soil conditions (2005 EIR, p. 3.4-11).
For these reasons, the SESP EIR concludes the SESP would not cause significant impacts related
unstable soils.
A geotechnical investigation (Attachment A) prepared for the proposed project concludes that site
soils, as described under Impact 3.4-1(a), are suitable for the proposed residential construction and
provides design recommendations specific to the site and soil conditions that would ensure proposed
buildings would be stable and not pose substantial risks to life or property. The report provides building
foundation recommendations to account for expansive soils, the use of lime treatment to reduce
expansion potential, and excavation of soil surrounding removed tree stumps and old foundations (if
any) to be replaced with engineered fill. The report also recommends that the project’s residential
structures are supported by either post-tensioned concrete slab-on-grade foundations or drilled, cast-
in-place, reinforced concrete piers and concrete grade beams for foundation support.
The proposed project would be constructed on the same project site analyzed in the SESP EIR and
would be subject to the most current version of the California Building Code, as amended by Rohnert
Park Municipal Code Chapter 15.08.010. The project would also implement the recommendations of
the geotechnical report; therefore, implementation of the project would not result in new impacts, nor
result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts in the SESP EIR.
Cumulative Impacts
The SESP EIR concluded that the SESP would not significantly contribute to cumulative impacts related
to geology, soils, and seismicity. The proposed project is consistent with the SESP for the reasons
described above and therefore would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified impacts regarding the contribution to any significant cumulative
impacts related to geology, soils, and seismicity.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY (2005 EIR)
Impact 3.5-1 (a, h, and i). The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified impacts, regarding the violation of any water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements; discharge, directly or through a storm drain system, into
surface waters; or the alteration of ground water or surface water quality, temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity.
The SESP EIR concluded that development would have a less than significant potential to violate
existing water quality standards or waste discharge requirements (2005 EIR, p. 3.5-12). Each
hydrologic-related aspect of SESP development would be covered by regional or local regulations or
policies that monitor and limit potential project effects on runoff volume and rate, erosion, flooding,
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
19 June 2023
groundwater recharge, and surface/groundwater quality linked to chemical contaminants or
sedimentation. The SESP EIR evaluated each of the City’s thresholds of significance to substantiate
this conclusion based on hydrologic conditions as documented in the SESP EIR and as further
addressed and documented in the 2005 Final Water Supply Assessment (WSA) (Appendix C of the
SESP 2005 EIR) as well as subsequent Urban Water Management Plans.
Implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with the project analyzed in the SEPS EIR
and would be required to comply with all current City, state and regional requirements that monitor
and limit potential project effects on runoff volume and rate, erosion, flooding, groundwater recharge,
and surface/groundwater quality linked to chemical contaminants or sedimentation, including
preparation of a SWPPP and Erosion Control Plan, consistent with the SESP EIR findings. The proposed
project would not result in new impacts nor result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified impacts in the SESP EIR.
Impact 3.5-1 (b). The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified impacts, regarding the substantial depletion of groundwater
supplies or substantial interference with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table.
As described in the SESP EIR, construction of impervious surfaces would reduce infiltration to the
water table which has been identified as having minor potential as a groundwater recharge zone
because of the underlying alluvial fan (2005 EIR, p. 3.5-12). The City, Sonoma County Water Agency
and California Department of Water Resources all acknowledge that the high clay content of the
surface soils and subsurface geologic materials reduces the permeability of the area, and that high
water table conditions in the shallow aquifer slow the downward migration of groundwater to the
deeper alluvial aquifers which provide potable water in the vicinity of the plan area. Consequently, the
SESP EIR concludes that the project site is not considered a major or important recharge zone.
Nonetheless, the SESP EIR notes that some recharge does occur to the shallow water table of the
surface aquifer. Although implementation of the SESP would not reduce groundwater recharge
significantly, there exists some potential, however small, for adverse effects on groundwater quality
and reserves in the long-term, although not for the potable water supply. This potential effect would
remain less than significant through the application of stormwater runoff management (both quality
and rate) and erosion/sedimentation control.
The SESP EIR also notes that most of the City’s potable water supply wells draw from the intermediate
aquifer, with a few wells drawing from the deep and lower aquifers (2005 EIR, p. 3.5-12). Due to the
delay of recharge to the shallow aquifer that underlies the project site there would be a less-than-
significant effect on the amount of groundwater available to the City in the other three aquifers
throughout the groundwater basin. For these reasons, the SESP EIR concluded there would be a less-
than-significant impact related to groundwater supply or recharge.
In 2004, the City adopted its Water Policy Resolution (Resolution 2004-095) which generally commits
the City to limiting groundwater pumping to 2,577 acre-feet per year. The City has managed to this
pumping limit since 2004 and regularly monitors groundwater levels and submits the monitoring to
the Department of Water Resources. The observed groundwater level trends indicate stable to
continued increasing levels during 2012-2013. Groundwater levels between 2014 and 2020 have
been relatively stable with slight lowering during the drought period of 2014 and 2015, recovery from
2016 through 2019 and slight lowering during 2020 when the City increased groundwater pumping
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
20 June 2023
in response to the need from reduced diversions from Sonoma Water’s Russian River System (City of
Rohnert Park 2021).
Because the proposed project would be subject to the same regulations and is located within the same
project site, there would be no change to groundwater recharge analyzed under the SESP EIR. In
addition, follow-up monitoring since 2005 has documented stable groundwater levels under a range
of hydrologic conditions. Implementation of the project would not result in new impacts, nor result in
a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts in the SESP EIR.
Impact 3.5-1 (c, h, and i). The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified impacts on the substantial alteration of the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,
in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; discharge, directly or
through a storm drain system, into surface waters; or alteration of ground water or surface water
quality, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity.
As discussed under Geology and Soils Impact 3-4-1(b), the SESP EIR noted that because development
would involve grading of an area greater than one acre, it would be subject to the conditions of a
General Construction Activity NPDES permit (2005 EIR, p. 3.5-13). These requirements, which are
described under Impact 3-4-1(b) and in the SESP EIR, would address potential changes to the on-site
drainage and off-site erosion and sedimentation; these impacts were determined to be less than
significant. In addition, since 2005, the project applicant has constructed a large water
quality/detention basin to serve the entire SESP . All drainage from the development is detained and
filtered prior to release into the City’s stormwater system, which is consistent with the City’s Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit from the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control
Board.
Because the proposed project would be subject to the same permit requirements and is located within
the same project site analyzed under the SESP EIR, it would benefit from the existing stormwater best
management facilities that are in place and implementation of the project would not result in new
impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts in the SESP
EIR.
Impact 3.5-1 (d, e, and g). The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified impacts regarding substantially altering the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,
or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding
on- or off-site; the creation or contribution of runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage systems; or a substantially increase in the amount of impervious
surface coverage.
The SESP EIR noted that the SESP would create approximately 37.5 acres of new impervious surface
area, covered by residential and commercial buildings, roads, sidewalks, driveways, and parking lots;
this new area would more than double stormwater runoff (2005 EIR, p. 3.5-14 thru 3.5-15). Analysis
in the SESP EIR calculates that the rate of runoff from the site would increase f rom 16.2 cubic feet per
second (cfs) to 37.5 cfs. However, the SESP EIR concludes that the inclusion of a 1.8-acre stormwater
detention basin would minimize the potential for on- and off-site flooding impacts to occur. The SESP
EIR concludes that implementation of this basin would minimize development runoff to
predevelopment levels (16.2 cfs or lower). The proposed project would be located within the same
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
21 June 2023
project site and create approximately the same amount of new impervious surface analyzed as under
the SESP EIR. Development of the SESP also includes a stormwater detention basin that would serve
the entire project site (as constructed under Phase 1 of the SESP). Therefore, implementation of the
project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified impacts in the SESP EIR.
Impact 3.5-1 (f and i). The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase
in the severity of previously identified impacts regarding the introduction of typical stormwater
pollution into ground or surface water in substantial quantities; or the alteration of ground water or
surface water quality, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity.
The analysis of erosion and sedimentation control and the SESP’s storm-drainage design under Impact
3.5-1 (a-c) above provides an overview of the requirements to address water quality and runoff
capacity effects. The SESP EIRs analysis of stormwater pollutants indicates that potentially adverse
water quality conditions would be less-than-significant due to compliance with existing regulatory
requirements to be imposed on the SESP prior to project implementation. Furthermore, the City’s
General Plan Policy HS-5 encourages the use of environmentally sensitive drainage improvements to
ensure the protection of surface water quality and stream integrity. As discussed in the SESP EIR, the
SESP includes guidelines for the use of such systems as easily cleanable sediment catch b asins,
debris screens, and grease separators or similar water quality protection devices in the drainage
facilities serving the project (i.e., vegetated swales, buffer strips, a detention pond), labeling storm
drain inlets to educate the public about the water quality implications associated with dumping
hazardous liquids and debris into receiving waters, and cleaning and/or sweeping of roadways on a
regular and frequent basis (2005 EIR, p. 3.5-17). In addition, since 2005, the project applicant has
constructed a large water quality/detention basin to serve the SESP. All drainage from the
development is detained and filtered prior to release into the City’s stormwater system, which is
consistent with the City’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit from the North Coast
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
For these reasons, the SESP EIR concluded, there would be no significant adverse impact regarding
pollution and drainage system capacity. The proposed project would be subject to the same regulatory
requirements as discussed above, is located within the same project site, and benefits from the
stormwater best management facilities that were analyzed under the SESP EIR and which have been
installed. Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts in the SESP EIR.
Impact 3.5-1 (j and k). The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase
in the severity of previously identified impacts, regarding the placement of housing within a 100-year
flood hazard are as mapped on the federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map; or, within 100-year flood hazard area, structures that would
impede or redirect flood flows.
As discussed in the SESP EIR, Panel Number 060375 0860 B of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency’s (FEMAs) Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Sonoma County place the project site outside the
500-year flood hazard zone area (2005 EIR, p. 3.5-18). Therefore, the SESP plan area would also be
outside of the 100-year flood hazard zone area. The SESP EIR concluded there would be no significant
impact related to placing housing within flood hazard areas. Because the proposed project would be
located within the same project site, which is not located in a flood hazard zone, implementation of
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
22 June 2023
the project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified impacts in the SESP EIR.
Cumulative Impacts
The SESP EIR concluded that the SESP would not significantly contribute to cumulative impacts to
hydrology and water quality. The proposed project is consistent with the SESP for the reasons
described above and therefore would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified impacts on the contribution to any significant cumulative impacts
related to hydrology and water quality.
LAND USE (2005 EIR)
Impact 3.6-1. Cultural Resources. The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts regarding cultural resources under
existing plans and policies. (Mitigation Incorporated from SESP EIR)
As noted in the SESP EIR, the City’s General Plan Historic and Archaeological Resources Element states
that portions of the city are considered to have the potential to contain archaeological resources and
that measures for the protection of unknown archaeological resources may need to be incorporated
in construction plans (2005 EIR, p. 3.6-6). A cultural resources evaluation of the site was performed
in 2002 that indicated archaeological monitoring of future proposed development was not warranted,
and no impacts to cultural resources were identified (see Attachment B). However, the SESP EIR
includes Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 which ensures the protection of any archaeological resources that
may be discovered during grading and excavation of the project site in accordance with the City’s
General Plan. As noted in the SESP EIR, an existing residence with associated outbuildings is located
in the northeastern portion of the plan area, within Phase 4. The existing residence would remain and
be incorporated within the residential area as part of the proposed project. However, the outbuildings
would be removed to accommodate residential development, as noted in the SESP EIR. All of these
buildings were constructed in the 1990s so would not meet the threshold for evaluation as a potential
historic resource (50 years or older). Additionally, the 2002 cultural resources evaluation concluded
that the structures are not considered historic resources under CEQA (Attachment B).
The proposed project would develop the same project site that was analyzed in the SESP EIR and
would implement Mitigation Measure 3.6-1. Therefore, the project would not result in new impacts nor
a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts from those analyzed in the SESP
EIR related to cultural resources.
Impact 3.6-2 (a). Agricultural Resources. The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts, regarding farmland.
As described in the SESP EIR, the project site is designated as Farmland of Local Importance by the
State Department of Conservation and Sonoma County (2005 EIR, pp. 3.6-7 thru 3.6-8). The SESP EIR
determined that the SESP would be not consistent with the County’s planned long-term agricultural
activity. The Sonoma County General Plan policies and Zoning Ordinance are intended to protect
Diverse Agriculture lands to protect a full range of agricultural uses and to limit further residential
intrusion consistent with the policies of the County’s Agricultural Resources Element.
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
23 June 2023
The SESP EIR determined that the conversion of approximately 80 acres of Farmland of Local
Importance is considered a significant and unavoidable impact and no feasible mitigation would be
available to reduce this impact to less than significant. The proposed project is located within the same
area as analyzed under the SESP and would not increase the amount of Farmland to be conve rted.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a new or more significant contribution to the
identified significant and unavoidable cumulative impact in relation to that evaluated in the SESP EIR.
Impact 3.6-2 (b). The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified impacts, regarding conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan.
As described in the SESP EIR under Impact 3.3-1(d-f), the SESP is not located within a habitat
conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Therefore, the SESP EIR concluded that
there would be no conflict with a habitat or community conservation plan and that impacts would be
less than significant (2005 EIR, p. 3.6-8). The proposed project is within the same project site that was
analyzed in the SESP EIR and would not conflict with a habitat or community conservation plan;
therefore, the proposed project would not result in new impacts nor a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified impacts.
Impact 3.6-2 (c). The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified impacts, regarding physically dividing an established community.
The SESP EIR notes that the project site is surrounded by existing streets to the east, west, and south
and that off-site land uses would not be affected the SESP. Project development would not require off-
site land acquisition for the construction of new streets or require the reconfiguration of land parcels
to facilitate site development or circulation systems. The SESP would provide for a connection to
Sturtevant Drive through the Canon Manor Specific Plan site immediately to the north. The SESP EIR
concludes that site development, other than certain utility extensions, would be contained within the
project site and the project would not require the disruption, division, or substantial alteration of
existing land uses. For these reasons, the SESP EIR concluded that the SESP would not physically
divide an established community (2005 EIR, pp. 3.6-8 thru 3.6-9). The proposed project is within the
same project site and proposes the same utility extensions that were analyzed in the SESP EIR.
Therefore, the project would not result in new impacts nor a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified impacts from those analyzed in the SESP EIR related to physical division of an
established community.
Cumulative Impacts
The SESP EIR concluded that the proposed project would have a cumulatively considerable impact
due to an inconsistency with Sonoma County’s policies for the protection of agriculturally suitable land
and determined the cumulative loss of agricultural land is considered a significant and unavoidable
impact. The proposed project would also contribute to this existing significant and unavoidable impact
which has been discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted with the SESP EIR.
The proposed project is consistent with the area evaluated in the SESP EIR and would not result in a
new cumulative impact, nor result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
impacts related to the cumulative loss of Farmland.
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
24 June 2023
NOISE (2005 EIR)
Impact 3.7-1 (a). The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified impacts regarding the exposure of residents to exterior traffic noise
levels that exceed City standards. (Mitigation Incorporated from SESP EIR)
The SESP EIR notes that future noise levels at the project site would primarily be from vehicular traffic
on Petaluma Hill Road, Valley House Drive, and Bodway Parkway. Other sources of noise would include
new stationary sources such as outdoor ventilation and air conditioning equipment (HVAC). The SESP
EIR concluded that noise from onsite HVAC systems average between 40 and 50 dBA at 50 feet from
the equipment and would therefore not exceed the City’s exterior noise standards and impacts were
less than significant (2005 EIR, p. 3.7-9).
However, exterior noise levels in the outdoor activity areas of the homes could exceed City standards.
The SESP EIR includes Mitigation Measure 3.7-1 to ensure sufficient setbacks are provided so that
outdoor activity areas would be outside the 60 dBA Ldn roadway noise contour. With implementation
of Mitigation Measure 3.7-1 the SESP EIR concluded exterior noise impacts would be reduced to less-
than-significant levels (2005 EIR, pp. 3.7-9 thru 3.7-12).
The proposed project would be located within same project site and would implement the same noise
mitigation measure described in the SESP EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project
would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified impacts related to exterior noise exposure.
Impact 3.7-1 (b). The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified impacts, regarding the exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or groundbourne noise levels.
According to the SESP EIR, construction activities have the potential to generate low levels of ground
borne vibration. Residences adjacent to the SESP plan area are located more than 50 feet from the
edge of the proposed construction areas. However, construction could occur within 25 feet of the
homes within the SESP for short periods of time. The SESP EIR notes that vibration levels could reach
up to 87 vibration decibels (VdB) at newly constructed residences within the SESP exceeding the 80
VdB threshold for places where people normally sleep. However, as noted in the SESP EIR, construction
activities would be limited to daytime hours between 8:00 A.M. through 6:00 P.M. in accordance with
Section 9.44.120 of the Rohnert Park Municipal Code and would not occur during nighttime hours.
Therefore, the SESP EIR concludes that impacts related excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels would be less than significant (2005 EIR, pp. 3.7-12 thru 3.7-13).
For operation, the SESP EIR concluded that once the project is constructed and operational,
background vibration levels would be expected to average around 50 VdB. This is substantially less
than the 80 VdB threshold for residential buildings (2005 EIR, p. 3.7-13). For these reasons, the SESP
EIR determined impacts would be less than significant related to the exposure of persons to or
generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.
The proposed project would be located within same project site and involve similar construction and
operational activities as those analyzed in the SESP EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed
project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified impacts related to groundborne vibration.
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
25 June 2023
Impact 3.7-1 (c). The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified impacts on the generation of a substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
The SESP EIR concluded that the project would increase local noise levels by a maximum of 1.2 dBA,
which is inaudible/imperceptible to most people and would not exceed the identified thresholds of
significance related to ambient noise (2005 EIR, p. 3.7-13). The proposed project would be located
within the same project site and include the same land uses analyzed in the SESP EIR. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to ambient noise.
Impact 3.7-2. The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified impacts, on the generation of substantial temporary or periodic
increases in noise levels. (Mitigation Incorporated from SESP EIR)
The SESP EIR notes that project construction would require the use of heavy equipment as well as
smaller power tools and generators. The nearest sensitive receptor is the existing residence located
in the northeastern corner of the project site (that would remain as part of the project) and the
residential neighborhood located northwest of the intersection of Bodway Parkway and Camino
Colegio. The SESP EIR notes that construction could potentially affect new residential uses within the
Canon Manor Specific Plan area if they are constructed prior to development of the SESP. Future
residents of the project site could also be exposed to construction related noise if the units are
occupied prior to the completion of other phases within the Specific Plan area (2005 EIR, pp. 3.7-14
thru 3.7-16).
According to the SESP EIR, construction activities would generate typical noise levels of between 82
dBA Leq to 86 dBA Leq at the closest sensitive receptors during ground clearing, excavation, grading.
Most exterior construction activities would not generate continuously high noise level s, although
occasional single-event disturbances from grading and construction are possible. Construction
activities and their associated noise levels would be limited to daytime hours between 8:00 A.M.
through 6:00 P.M. in accordance with Section 9.44.120 of the Rohnert Park Municipal Code and would
be temporary in nature. As a result, construction noise would be considered a potentially significant
impact due to the potential for a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels to
occur within the project vicinity.
In accordance with Policy NS-4 of the Rohnert Park General Plan, the SESP EIR includes Mitigation
Measure 3.7-2 to reduce the potential construction noise impacts to less-than-significant levels. The
mitigation measure requires construction contractors to implement measures to reduce noise levels
of construction equipment during the grading and construction phases of the project. Specifically, the
contractors would be required to locate and/or shield construction equipment generating noise levels
over 65 dBA; heavy-duty vehicle storage and start-up areas would be required to be located at last
150 feet form occupied residences; and informational signage levels would be required to be posted
at the entrance of each construction site that identifies permitted hours of construction and provides
a telephone number to call and receive information about the construction project or to report
complaints regarding excessive noise levels. The SESP EIR concluded that implementation of
Mitigation Measure 3.7-2 would reduce construction noise impacts to less-than-significant levels.
The proposed project would be located within the same project site, involve similar construction
activities, and would implement the same noise mitigation measure described in the SESP EIR.
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
26 June 2023
Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to construction noise.
Cumulative Impacts
The SESP EIR concluded that, with implementation of applicable mitigation measures, the project
would not significantly contribute to cumulative noise impacts (2005 EIR, pp. 3.7-16 thru 3.7-20). The
proposed project is consistent with the SESP, as described above, and would implement applicable
mitigation measures included in the SESP EIR; therefore the proposed project would not result in new
impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts on
cumulative noise impacts.
PUBLIC SERVICES (2005 EIR)
Impact 3.8-1 (a). The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified impacts regarding substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically-
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental
impacts in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance
objectives for fire and police protection, schools, or other public facilities.
Police and Fire Services
As described in the 2005 EIR, the SESP would result in the construction of a maximum of 499 dwelling
units. Based on a population of 2.66 persons per household and 100% occupancy, the SESP would
add 1,327 residents to the City. The SESP area would be served by the Rohnert Park Police Station
approximately 2.4 miles from the project site. Based on the ratio of Public Safety Officers per 1,000
population, two additional Public Safety Officers would be needed. However, annexation of the project
site into the City limits would necessitate the creation of an additional beat (for a total of 4 beats). A
new beat would require six new Public Safety Officers, one Sergeant, one Community Safety Officer
and additional support staff. Corresponding auxiliary vehicles and equipment would also need to be
provided. According to the SESP EIR, while the SESP would result in a need to create an additional
beat and hire more police personnel, it would not necessitate the construction of new or expansion of
existing police facilities (2005 EIR, pp. 3.8-6 thru 3.8-7).
The SESP area would be served by Fire Station 4 located at East Cotati Avenue and Snyder Lane,
approximately 0.6 miles from the project site. The SESP EIR concluded that the construction of an
additional fire station or the expansion of the existing fire station would not be warranted (2005 EIR,
pp. 3.8-6 thru 3.8-7).
Schools
According to the SESP EIR, the 499 dwelling units would produce a maximum of 200 elementary
school students, 50 middle school students, and 100 high school students, for a total of 350 students.
The schools that would serve the SESP include Monte Vista Elementary, Mountain Shadows Middle
School, Rancho Cotate High School, and Technology High School. At the time of the EIR preparation,
these schools had a student deficit ranging from 61 to 232 students. The SESP EIR concluded that
surplus capacity would enable Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District (CRPUSD) to accommodate
additional students generated by the project within its existing facilities. However, Section 65996 of
the State Government Code requires that payment of school impact fees is deemed to constitute full
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
27 June 2023
and complete mitigation for school impacts (2005 EIR, pp. 3.8-7 thru 3.8-8). The proposed project
developer would pay all required school impact fees and the project would not result in new impacts,
nor result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts as those identified
in the SESP EIR.
Emergency Response Services
The SESP EIR notes that annexation of the project site would require an improvement of response time
standards. The SESP EIR explains that improved response times and the increase in population would
generate an additional demand on emergency medical services and personnel. However, the SESP
EIR concludes that a new facility to accommodate the additional ambulances and trained personnel
would not be needed as there are crew quarters and emergency response facilities located in close
proximity to the project site.
For these reasons, the SESP EIR concluded that the project would not necessitate new or physically-
altered governmental facilities related to police and fire services, schools, and emergency response
services; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Since the approval of the SESP EIR, the
80-acre specific plan area has been annexed to the City. Under the development agreement between
the City and the project applicant, the applicant has formed a Community Facilities District (CFD) that
levies taxes to support additional public safety resources and the project area now benefits from the
funding mechanism and the additional resources.
The proposed project includes an additional 22 residential units, bringing the total number of approved
residential units up to the 499, which were already analyzed in the 2005 EIR. The proposed project
would be located within the same project site, would not exceed the 499 units previously evaluated,
and would be served by the same public services as those analyzed in the SESP EIR and benefits from
the funding mechanism and additional staff resources that have been put in place. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to the provision of new or physically
altered public service facilities.
Impact 3.8-1 (b-c). The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified impacts on recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment, or
increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.
As described in the SESP EIR, the additional residents from the SESP would not require an expansion
of the Senior Center, public pools, Fitness Center, or other recreational centers in Rohnert Park.
Although new residents generated by the SESP would increase the demand for recreational facilities,
the increased use in comparison to the existing use would not significantly accelerate deterioration of
existing recreational facilities. The SESP EIR concluded that because the SESP would not require the
construction of new recreational facilities there would be no adverse significant environmental impact
on recreational facilities (2005 EIR, p. 3.8-9). The proposed project would not exceed the 499 units
evaluated in the SESP EIR and would be supported by similar recreational facilities as those analyzed
in the SESP EIR. In addition, the community park included in the approved SESP has been constructed
and is available to serve residents, including the residents associated with the 22 proposed units.
Finally, as part of the project, the City and project applicant will be amending the Development
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
28 June 2023
Agreement to secure an additional $180,000 contribution from the applicant for park resources in the
City.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to recreational facilities.
Cumulative Impacts
The SESP EIR concluded that the SESP would not significantly contribute to cumulative impacts related
to public services. The proposed project is consistent with the SESP as described above and therefore
would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified cumulative impacts related to public services.
RELATIONSHIPS TO PLANS AND PLANNING POLICIES (2005 EIR)
Impact 3.9-1. The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified impacts, regarding consistency with the Goals and Policies of the
Rohnert Park General Plan.
The SESP EIR provides analysis that supports conclusions that the SESP is consistent with the goals
and policies of the City’s General Plan. The SESP was approved in 2010 and the plan area has
subsequently annexed into the city. The proposed project is located within the same project site and
proposes the same residential uses as analyzed under the SESP EIR (2005 EIR, pp. 3.9-2 thru 3.9-
14). The proposed project would also implement mitigation measures listed in the SESP EIR that
would ensure the project is consistent with provisions of the General Plan. In addition, a number of
facilities that mitigate potential impacts, including stormwater detention and park facilities, have been
constructed. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts, nor
result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to its
relationships with plans and planning policies.
Cumulative Impacts
The SESP EIR concluded that the SESP would not significantly contribute to cumulative impacts related
to relationships to plans and planning policies. The proposed project is consistent with the SESP and
therefore would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified cumulative impacts, related to relationships with plans and planning policies.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION (2010 REIR)
Impact 3.10-1. The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified impacts, regarding intersection levels of service at or worse than the
applicable level of service threshold at the intersections of Adobe Road & Petaluma Hill Road (Sonoma
County), East Cotati Avenue & Old Redwood Highway (Cotati), East Cotati Avenue & LaSalle Avenue
(Cotati), Railroad Avenue & Petaluma Hill Road (Sonoma County), and Railroad Avenue & Old Redwood
Highway (Sonoma County). (Mitigation Incorporated from SESP EIR)
According to the traffic analysis contained in the SESP EIR, traffic generated by the proposed project
would cause delay to the following intersections (2010 REIR, pp. 3.10-25 thru 3.10-28):
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
29 June 2023
• Adobe Road and Petaluma Hill Road. The intersection operates at a Level of Service (LOS) F
condition without the proposed project. The traffic delay due to the project would increase by
more than five seconds in the PM peak hour.
• East Cotati Avenue and Old Redwood Highway. The intersection operates at LOS F level without
the addition of project trips. The traffic delay due to the project would worsen this condition.
• East Cotati Avenue and LaSalle Avenue. The project would degrade the intersection’s traffic
condition from LOS E to LOS F in the PM peak hour.
• Railroad Avenue and Petaluma Hill Road. The intersection currently operates at LOS E or LOS
F during both peak periods on the eastbound and westbound minor street approaches . The
proposed project would cause the delays on these approaches to increase by more than fi ve
seconds.
• Railroad Avenue and Old Redwood Highway. The intersection operates at a LOS D condition
without the proposed project. The traffic delay due to the project would degrade the condition
to LOS E.
Mitigation Measure 3.10-1 provides roadway improvements, including approach widening and lane
dedications, as well as intersection signalization at the impacted intersections listed above. However,
as noted in the SESP EIR, all of the significantly impacted intersections (listed above), are located
outside the City. Therefore, as the SESP EIR explains, a regional approach to mitigation requiring the
participation of more than one jurisdiction would be required and would be beyond the sole control of
the City. At the time the SESP EIR was prepared, specific infrastructure improvements and costs were
unknown for traffic mitigation projects in the Town of Cotati and in Sonoma County, and
correspondingly, the feasibility and effectiveness of such mitigation measures also remain ed
unknown. Therefore, the SESP EIR concluded that no feasible mitigation would be available to reduce
this impact to a less-than-significant level, and the impact would be significant and unavoidable.
This impact was considered prior to the adoption of the SESP and the City Council adopted a Statement
of Overriding Considerations. The proposed project would develop residential uses that would not
exceed the 499 residential units evaluated in the SESP EIR and would generate the same number of
vehicle trips as analyzed in the SESP EIR. Further, the SESP EIR relied on the conservative assumption
that 499 residential units and 20,000 sf of commercial space would be developed to calculate the trip
generation and impacts for the project. In addition, the Development Agreement between the City and
project applicant provides for the applicant to make a regional traffic mitigation contribution for each
new residence in order to ensure that the City would be able to make its “fair share” contribution to
identified regional traffic improvements. This regional traffic mitigation contribution is currently set at
$4,433.08 and the 22 proposed new lots would be required to make this contribution. The City keeps
regional traffic mitigation revenue in a dedicated fund that can be made available to support the
projects identified in the SESP EIR.
For these reasons, implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts, nor result
in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified traffic level of service impacts in the
SESP EIR.
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
30 June 2023
Impact 3.10-2 (a). The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified impacts, regarding an increased demand for transit services , or
hazards to vehicles and pedestrians. (Mitigation Incorporated from SESP EIR)
The SESP EIR notes that development of the SESP would generate an estimated demand of 45 to 68
person trips per day on transit. Increased demand for transit services at the site would potentially
increase the frequency of bus times for Route 44 bus stops (located at the intersection of Valley House
Drive and Petaluma Hill Road) which could potentially block traffic along Petaluma Hill Road. The
current lack of curb and gutters along Petaluma Hill Road could also present difficulties for patrons
using buses, adding to safety concerns. The SESP EIR considered this impact potentially significant
(2010 REIR, pp. 3.10-28 thru 3.10-29). However, the SESP EIR concluded that the impact would be
reduced to less than significant through the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.10-2. This
measure requires that bus pullouts with appropriate curb and gutters, as well as adequate pedestrian
access/sidewalk to bus stops be constructed along Petaluma Hill Road. These facilities have been
installed and are available to mitigate the potential identified impact.
The proposed project would cause a similar increase in transit ridership as analyzed in the SESP EIR
and would also be required to implement Mitigation Measure 3.10-2 to ensure improvements are
made to address potential safety hazards for bus patrons along Petaluma Hill Road. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified safety impacts for bus patrons in the SESP EIR.
Impact 3.10-2 (b). The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified impacts on emergency access or access to nearby uses.
As described in the SESP EIR, the SESP would be designed in compliance with the City’s General Plan
Policy HS-24 which requires adequate access for emergency vehicles. The SESP has been designed in
accordance with the City’s Street Standard Emergency Management Plan prepared by the City’s
Department of Public Safety. The SESP EIR concludes that development of the SESP would not lead
to a significant impact related to emergency access due to compliance with City standards (2010 REIR,
pp. 3.10-29). The proposed project would comply with the same General Plan Policy and Street
Standard Emergency Plan pertaining to emergency access, as analyzed in the SESP EIR. Specifically,
the proposed project has been designed to include a circular access pattern as well as emergency
vehicular access (EVA) from Willowglen Drive at Valley House Drive and a “hammerhead” turn-around
installed adjacent to the EVA. Therefore, the project would not result in new impacts nor a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified impacts from those analyzed in the SESP EIR, related
to emergency access.
Impact 3.10-2 (c). The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified impacts on parking or capacity on-site or off-site.
As noted in the SESP EIR, the SESP would provide parking interior to the project site in accordance
with the City’s parking requirements (2010 REIR, pp. 3.10-29). Therefore, the SESP EIR concluded the
impact related to parking would be less than significant. Because the proposed project would also
comply with the City’s parking requirements, consistent with the SESP EIR, it would not result in a new
impact nor a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified parking impacts.
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
31 June 2023
Impact 3.10-2 (d). The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified impacts regarding hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists.
According to the SESP EIR, the SESP would provide pedestrian and bicycle access through a network
of sidewalks and bicycle lanes. The SESP EIR concluded there would be no significant impacts related
to pedestrian or bicyclist hazards (2010 REIR, pp. 3.10-29). The proposed project would construct the
same pedestrian and bicycle facilities included in the SESP and would be subject to the City’s design
review process identified in the SESP EIR. Therefore, the project would not result in a new impact nor
a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified pedestrian or bicyclist safety impacts.
Impact 3.10-2 (e). The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified impacts regarding a conflict with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks).
According to the SESP EIR, implementation of the SESP would not conflict with policies supporting
alternative transportation modes. The SESP EIR notes that it is anticipated that an increase in demand
for transit services would encourage greater ridership on existing transit facilities, resulting in greater
use and effectiveness of existing transit resources. It also notes that pedestrian and bicycle circulation
within the SESP site would be improved by a network of sidewalks and bicycle lanes to be developed
along with the roadway system (2010 REIR, pp. 3.10-30). Because the proposed project would
generate similar demand for transit services and would construct a network of pedestrian and bicycle
network consistent with the SESP circulation plan, it would not result in a new impact nor a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to alternative transportation in the
SESP EIR.
Impact 3.10-2 (f). The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified impacts regarding the generation of rail, waterborne or air traffic
impacts.
As described in the SESP EIR, the SESP proposes residential and commercial uses that are not
associated with manufacturing or transportation facilities. Therefore, the SESP EIR concluded that the
project would not generate large quantities of goods requiring transport to consumer destinations by
rail, waterborne, or air traffic (2010 REIR, pp. 3.10-30). Also, the project site is not located adjacent
to a railroad facility, water body, or airport. For these reasons, impacts related to rail, waterborne, or
air traffic were determined to be less than significant. Because the proposed project is located within
the same project site and would involve the same uses analyzed in the SESP EIR, it would not result
in a new impact nor a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to
rail, waterborne, or air traffic in the SESP EIR.
Cumulative Impacts
The SESP EIR concluded that the SESP would have a cumulatively considerable traffic impact resulting
in intersection LOS levels at or worse than applicable LOS thresholds; this impact is considered a
significant and unavoidable traffic impact (Impact 3.10-1). This impact cannot be mitigated to a less
than significant level and would therefore remain significant and unavoidable. The proposed project
would also contribute to this existing significant and unavoidable impact which has been addressed
in the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted with the SESP EIR. As noted above, the project
applicant and the City have negotiated a Development Agreement that provides for the collection of
regional traffic mitigation fees. The City has been and will continue to collect these fees and the
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
32 June 2023
revenue can be made available to ensure that the project contributes its fair share to mitigation
projects. The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in the severity
of previously identified cumulative traffic impacts.
UTILITIES (2005 EIR)
Impact 3.11-1 (a). The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified impacts regarding wastewater treatment capacity the construction
of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects.
The 2005 EIR analyzed the construction of a maximum of 499 dwelling units and 20,000 sf of
commercial space. The SESP EIR projects that the total wastewater generation associated with
buildout of the project would be approximately 0.10 mgd, which is about 2.8 % of the City’s total
contribution of average dry weather flows at the time the EIR was prepared (2005 EIR, p. 3.11-13). To
accommodate wastewater flows generated by new residents in the southeast portion of the City, a
sewer lift station has been constructed on Camino Colegio near Bodway Parkway. The sewer lift station
has been designed to handle ultimate effluent flows from the SESP area and the Canon Manor
Subdivision to the north and the SMV project area. In addition, the SESP EIR notes that the City’s
General Plan indicates that the City will be expanding its sewer infrastructure, including an east side
trunk sewer line, which has also been complete.
Wastewater from the City, including wastewater from the project area is treated and recycled or
disposed of through the City of Santa Rosa’s Laguna Treatment Plant. The Laguna Treatment Plant
has the capacity to treat 21.3 mgd of average dry weather flow, but currently treats approximately
13.6 mgd of average dry weather flow (City of Santa Rosa 2021; North Coast RWQCB 2020). The City
currently uses approximately 3 mgd of this capacity. The City has rights to 3.43 mgd of current capacity,
has an agreement with the City of Santa Rosa for 4.46 mgd of capacity and has an option to purchase
up to 5.15 mgd of capacity. As such the City has capacity to treat wastewater from the proposed project
and it will not result in a determination by the regional treatment plan operator that the plant needs to
be expanded.
For these reasons, the SESP EIR concluded that there would be no requirement for additional
treatment facilities resulting from the SESP. The proposed project would be located within the same
project site, would not exceed the 499 units evaluated in the 2005 EIR and would be served by the
wastewater treatment infrastructure as analyzed in the SESP EIR. Therefore, implementation of the
proposed project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in the severity
of previously identified impacts related to the capacity of wastewater treatment infrastructure.
Impact 3.11-1 (b). The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified impacts regarding the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects.
As described under Impact 3.5-1 (d, e, and g) in the SESP EIR on pages 3.5-14 thru 3.5-15, the SESP
EIR concluded that with an on-site detention basin, there would be no net increase in the peak runoff
rate over predevelopment levels. The increased runoff volume resulting from development would be
controlled through evaporation and infiltration from the basin and by metering stormwater outflows.
Therefore, the SESP would not require new or expanded drainage facilities resulting in significant
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
33 June 2023
impacts. Because the proposed project would generate a similar amount of stormwater that has
already been accounted for in the onsite detention basin and would create approximately the same
amount of new impervious surface as the SESP analyzed under the SESP EIR, implementation of the
project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified impacts in the SESP EIR.
Impact 3.11-1 (c). The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified impacts on water supplies.
The 2005 EIR conservatively estimated that all of the proposed 499 residential units would consume
360 gallons of water per day; this equates to 0.18 mgd of water demand. The SESP EIR concluded,
based on a 2005 Water Supply Assessment, which included the SESP, that the City has access to
sufficient water supplies under all hydrologic cycles to accommodate development anticipated in the
City’s General Plan, including the SESP. Furthermore, the SESP EIR notes that the project sponsor
would be required to pay fair share fees towards the City’s water supply infrastructure, pursuant to the
City’s Public Facilities Finance Plan. In order to serve project residents, new water mains and
connections to Sonoma Water’s regional aqueduct to allow the regional water supply to be more
efficiently distributed through the City. In order to determine the availability of water for fire flows in
the SESP, a preliminary hydraulic analysis of the proposed water system was prepared which
determined adequate water pressure and flows are available to serve the SESP (2005 EIR, pp. 3.11-
14 thru 3.11-16).
For these reasons, the SESP EIR concluded that the City has sufficient water supply and water delivery
infrastructure to serve the SESP and no impacts related to the need for new or expanded entitlements
or resources for water supplies would be required.
Since the adoption of the SESP EIR, the City has constructed the new connection to the Sonoma Water
aqueduct as well as a million gallons of new water storage, as necessary, to manage the demands of
new development. In addition, because of changes to state law, including the building and plumbing
codes, the City’s projected water demands have been reduced significantly with current buildout water
demands estimated at approximately 7,230 acre-feet annually, compared to the build out demands
of nearly 10,000 acre-feet projected in the 2005 Water Supply Assessment. As required by state law,
the City prepared an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) every five years that illustrates the
relationship between the City’s water supplies and planned demand. The City’s most current UWMP
(the 2020 UWMP) was adopted in 2021 and reviews supply and demand projections through 2045.
The 2020 UWMP continues to document that the City’s water supplies are sufficient to meet demands,
including project demands, under all hydrologic conditions.
The proposed project involves similar water demand and would not exceed the 499 units evaluated in
the 2005 Water Supply Assessment and 2005 EIR; and would be served by the water infrastructure
analyzed in the SESP EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in new
impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to
the capacity of water supply entitlements or resources.
Impact 3.11-1 (d). The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified impacts regarding landfill capacity and solid waste disposal needs.
The 2005 EIR calculated that the SESP would generate approximately 1,994 pounds of solid waste
per day or 364 tons of solid waste per year. The SESP EIR concluded that growth associated with the
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
34 June 2023
SESP is included in the growth rates, and landfill capacities set forth in the City’s General Plan.
Furthermore, the SESP EIR notes that AB 2176 prohibits local agencies from issuing building permits
to a development project unless it provides adequate areas for collecting and loading recyclable
materials (2005 EIR, p. 3.11-17). Accordingly, the SESP would be required to provide adequate areas
for collecting and loading recyclables and a recycling plan.
For these reasons, the SESP EIR concluded there would be no significant impact related to insufficient
landfill capacity and solid waste disposal needs. The proposed project would generate approximately
the same amount of solid waste per year as analyzed in the SESP EIR. Therefore, implementation of
the proposed project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in the severity
of previously identified impacts related to landfill capacity and solid waste disposal needs.
Impact 3.11-1 (e). The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified impacts regarding a conflict with federal, state, or local statutes
and regulations related to hazardous waste disposal.
As described in the SESP EIR, residential and commercial uses within the SESP would not be expected
to create substantial public or environmental hazards through the use, handling, storage and disposal
of hazardous wastes. Thus, SESP residences and commercial uses would not be expected to generate
substantial conflicts with hazardous waste disposal regulations (2005 EIR, p. 3.11-18). The SESP EIR
therefore concluded that the SESP would not conflict with statutes and regulations related to
hazardous waste disposal. Because the proposed project would include the same residential uses
analyzed in the SESP EIR, it is not expected to create hazards through the disposal of hazardous
wastes. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts, nor result
in a substantial severity of previously identified impacts related to hazardous waste disposal.
Impact 3.11-1 (f). The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified impacts regarding the construction of new energy facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects.
The energy consumption demands generated by the SESP and future City development would be
required to adhere to the state’s Title 24 energy conservation standards with respect to new
construction. Consequently, the SESP EIR concluded that the SESP, in combination with other
cumulative development in the City would not be expected to wastefully use natural gas and electricity
and would not directly require the construction of new energy generation or supply facilities directly
attributable to growth in the City. Therefore, the SESP EIR concludes that no impacts would occur
related to the need for new or expanded energy facilities to provide local service (2005 EIR, pp. 3.11-
18 thru 3.11-19). The proposed project would require a similar amount of energy, from the same
sources, as analyzed in the SESP EIR and would be required to comply with the most recent version of
Title 24 (which further reduces the demand for energy). Therefore, implementation of the proposed
project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial severity of previously identified
impacts related the construction or expansion of energy facilities.
Cumulative Impacts
The SESP EIR concluded that the SESP would not significantly contribute to cumulative impacts related
to utilities or energy. The proposed project is consistent with the SESP, as described above, and
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
35 June 2023
therefore would not result in new cumulative impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified cumulative impacts related to utilities.
CLIMATE CHANGE (2010 REIR)
Impact 3.12-1. The project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified impacts on climate change, or a conflict with or obstruction of the
implementation of the GHG emissions reduction goals under AB 32, Sonoma County CCAP, or other
State and City regulations. (Mitigation Incorporated from SESP EIR)
The SESP EIR notes that the SESP would increase population, employment, and development in the
area which would result in a corresponding increase in greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). The SESP
EIR calculated GHG emissions associated with direct area sources, mobile emissions, indirect
electricity generation, and solid waste decomposition and estimated the SESP would contribute
approximately 9,991 metric tons of CO2e, not including emissions from construction activities (2010
REIR, p. 3.12-15 thru 3.12-17). The 2010 REIR assumed that the SESP would be developed with 475
total residential units and 10,000 sf of retail space, a reduction of 24 units and 10,000 sf of
commercial uses as compared to the 2005 EIR.
As described in the SESP EIR, the state goals, per AB 32, include a reduction of GHG emissions to
1990 levels or below by the year 2020, and 80% of 1990 levels by the year 2050. Sonoma County
and the nine incorporated cities, including Rohnert Park, adopted a goal of reducing GHG emissions
to 25% of 1990 levels by the year 2015, which would require more reductions than under the state
goal. As noted in the SESP EIR, the Sonoma County Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP) identifies
steps to be taken to reduce GHG emissions to reach the County’s goal. These steps include improving
energy and water efficiency, reducing vehicle trips through land use and transportation planning,
improving agriculture and forest areas, and reducing solid waste generation.
The SESP EIR concluded that the SESP would generally be in compliance with the goals and measures
contained in the County CCAP (2010 REIR, p. 3.12-15 thru 3.12-17). However, even with compliance
with the CCAP, the SESP is calculated to result in a net increase of approximately 9,991 metric tons
of CO2e at buildout not including emissions from construction activities. At the time of the SESP EIR
preparation, neither the County, City or state had established quantitative thresholds regarding
whether project-level emissions would interfere with achievement of each of their respective
established GHG reduction goals. Therefore, without quantitative project-specific thresholds in place,
the SESP EIR determined that it would be too speculative to make a determination related to the
SESP’s contribution to physical effects caused by climate change based on the information available.
As a result, the SESP EIR conservatively determined that development under the SESP would result in
a potentially significant impact.
As explained in the SESP EIR, the SESP is also required to comply with the City’s Green Building and
Energy Efficiency Ordinance, which requires energy and water conservation measures. The SESP
included a bicycle and pedestrian network along with landscaping that would comply with the City’s
recommended measures. Furthermore, the SESP EIR includes Mitigation Measure 3.12-1 which
requires additional energy efficiency measures be added to off-site improvements (traffic lights) and
improvements to better access public transportation. However, as noted above, there would still be an
increase in GHG emissions as a result of the SESP, and no quantitative thresholds have been
established to determine what level of increase is considered significant. For these reasons, the SESP
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
36 June 2023
EIR determined that SESP’s climate change impacts are conservatively assumed to be significant and
unavoidable and no feasible mitigation would be available to reduce the impact to a less-than-
significant level, and the impact would be significant and unavoidable.
This impact was considered prior to the adoption of the SESP and the City Council adopted a Statement
of Overriding Considerations. The proposed project includes an additional 22 residential units (note:
the SESP was amended to include an additional two units bringing the total to 477 units) more than
what was previously evaluated. However, given the increase in energy efficient requirements set forth
in the current version of the state building code (CalGreen) new construction is far more efficient and
generates less GHG emissions as was previously evaluated. The same is true for mobile emissions.
Since 2010 the vehicle fleet has become more fuel efficient and includes more alternate fuel vehicles
(e.g., electric, hybrid) further reducing GHG emissions. Finally, the project proposes all new homes
would be all electric and no natural gas facilities would be installed, consistent with the regional GHG
reduction strategies.
The proposed project includes residential uses that would contribute a similar amount of GHGs as
analyzed in the 2010 REIR. As such, the proposed project would not result in a new or more significant
contribution to the significant and unavoidable climate change impact identified in the SESP EIR.
Cumulative Impacts
Climate change impacts are cumulative in nature. Therefore, as noted in the SESP EIR, the SESP’s
cumulative climate change impacts are captured under Impact 3.12-1 and were determined to be
significant and unavoidable. The proposed project is consistent with the SESP and would not result in
new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts
regarding climate change.
OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
Updated Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines
The following information is provided for informational purposes only because the updates to the
CEQA Guidelines occurred after the SESP was certified.
ENERGY
Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
The proposed project would be subject to and would comply with, at a minimum, the California Building
Energy Efficiency Standards (24 CCR, Part 6) Title 24 standards. Part 6 of Title 24 establishes energy
efficiency standards for residential buildings constructed in California designed to reduce energy
demand and consumption. Part 11 of Title 24 sets forth voluntary and mandatory energy measures
that are applicable to the proposed project under the California Green Building Standards Code.
Because the project would comply with and exceed the existing energy standards and regulations, the
project would result in a less-than-significant impact associated with the potential to conflict with
energy standards and regulations.
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
37 June 2023
In addition, as noted in the SESP EIR, the Sonoma County Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP)
identifies steps to be taken to reduce GHG emissions to reach the County’s goal (2010 REIR, p. 3.12-
15). These steps include improving energy and water efficiency, reducing vehicle trips through land
use and transportation planning, improving agriculture and forest areas, and reducing solid waste
generation. As discussed under Impact 3.12-1, the SESP is also required to comply with the City’s
Green Building and Energy Efficiency Ordinance, which requires energy conservation measures. The
SESP included a bicycle and pedestrian network along with landscaping that would comply with the
City’s recommended measures. Furthermore, the SESP EIR includes Mitigation Measure 3.12-1 which
requires additional energy efficiency measures be added to off-site improvements (traffic lights) and
improvements to better access public transportation. For these reasons, the project would not result
in in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources and would comply with
existing energy standards and regulations and would not result in any new significant impacts.
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape
that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object
with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
(a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
(b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.
As noted in the SESP EIR and under Impact 3.6-1, a cultural resources evaluation of the site was
performed in 2002 that indicated cultural resource monitoring for future site development was not
warranted, and no impacts to cultural resources were identified (see Attachment B). However, the
SESP EIR requires Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 which ensures the protection of any subsurface resources
(including tribal cultural resources) that may be discovered during grading and excavation in
accordance with the City’s General Plan. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Sections
21084.3 (a) and (b), this mitigation measure avoids damage to the find and minimizes significant
adverse impacts through expert evaluation, reporting, and consulting protocols. For these reasons, the
proposed project would not result in any new significant impacts regarding tribal resources.
WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones,
would the project:
(a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
(b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
(c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk
or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
38 June 2023
According to fire hazard severity zone maps prepared by California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection, the proposed project site is not located in a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or includes
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zone. The project site is within a Local Responsibility
Area because it is within the City of Rohnert Park. While land directly to the east, across Petaluma Hill
Road, is included within a SRA it is not designated as a very high fire severity zone; it is designated as
a moderate or high severity zone. The nearest area designated as a very high fire hazard severity zone
is located adjacent to Sonoma Valley Regional Park, approximately 8 miles east of the project site.
Therefore, the project would not result in a new significant impact due to wildfire.
Growth Inducement
As described in the SESP EIR (2005), the SESP would accommodate up to 499 residential units and
up to 20,000 gross square feet of commercial/retail space. At buildout the SESP would accommodate
an increase of about 1,327 persons. Project construction would generate jobs in the construction,
materials fabrication and supply industry fields up until the time construction is completed. However,
as noted in the SESP EIR, it is not expected that appreciable numbers of construction-related workers
would establish primary residence in the Rohnert Park area or that new businesses would be created
as a result of project construction activities given the relatively standard and short-term nature of
construction work. Project construction would be expected to employ construction workers already
living and working in the larger Bay Area region. No significant labor pool from outside the Bay Area
region would be expected to temporarily or permanently relocate or commute long distances as a
result of SESP construction activities.
The City’s General Plan identifies future growth in the City and highlights the needed expansion or
updating of the various infrastructure systems to maintain adequate services be provided throughout
the planning horizon of the General Plan. Without such growth management practices, any expansion
of an infrastructure system could be considered growth inducing. Unplanned and uncontrolled growth
is generally considered to have significant adverse impacts on the environment. However, as
concluded in the SESP EIR, development of the SESP as well as other Specific Plan projects in City are
part of an ongoing and coordinated area-wide planning program that anticipates the demands of
projected population growth and accompanying land use changes. For these reasons, the SESP EIR
concluded that the SESP, and other similar specific plan projects, can be considered to be growth
accommodating rather than growth inducing.
Therefore, new infrastructure provided for in the SESP and its development components, while
reducing potential obstacles to growth, is considered growth accommodating and not directly growth
inducing. As noted is the SESP EIR, new water and sewer infrastructure would be provided to serve the
needs of the SESP which has been completed consistent with the goals and policies of the General
Plan.
The proposed project is within the development envelope analyzed in the SESP EIR and is part of an
ongoing and coordinated area-wide planning program that anticipates the demands of projected
population growth and accompanying land use changes. Therefore, implementation of the proposed
project would not result in new impacts, nor result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified impacts related to growth inducement.
IV. Consistency Determination
As demonstrated in the analysis included in Section III of this document, the proposed project is
consistent with the SESP analyzed in the SESP EIR. Impacts associated with the project are consistent
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
39 June 2023
with those previously identified and analyzed in the SESP EIR and implementation of applicable
mitigation measures, as identified throughout this consistency analysis, would ensure that all project-
related impacts remain less than significant, consistent with the SESP EIR. Impacts that were
significant and unavoidable in the SESP EIR remain significant and unavoidable and were considered
prior to adoption of the SESP and Statement of Overriding Considerations by the Rohnert Park City
Council. To ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of applicable SESP EIR mitigation
measures, the project would be required to adhere to the MMRP for the SESP EIR, as included as
Attachment C to this document.
Conclusion:
• The proposed project is consistent with the type of development established for the project
site included in the SESP EIR;
• The proposed project would not result in impacts on the environment that are peculiar to the
project or the project site that were not identified as impacts in the SESP EIR;
• The proposed project would not result in potentially significant off -site or cumulative impacts
that were not identified in the SESP EIR;
• The proposed project would not result in significant impacts, which, as a result of substantial
new information that was not known at the time the SESP EIR was certified, would be more
severe than were already analyzed and disclosed in the SESP EIR; and
• The project sponsor will undertake feasible mitigation measures specified in the SESP EIR to
mitigate project-related significant impacts.
V. References
City of Rohnert Park, 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, page 44. Available at:
https://cdnsm5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_3037789/File/Engineering/WaterSupplyDocumenta
tion/UWMP_2020_Document.pdf
Technical studies referenced in the consistency analysis and prepared specifically for the proposed
project include:
• Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Residential Development 7279 Petaluma Hill Road,
December 2002, prepared by Michelucci & Associates, Inc. (Attachment A)
• A Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Southeast Specific Plan Area, January 2002, prepared
by Archaeological Resource Service (Attachment B)
These documents, along with the full text of the SESP EIR mitigation measures, are included as
Attachment C of this document. The SESP EIR is available for review during normal business hours at
City Hall, 130 Avram Avenue, Rohnert Park, CA 94928 and on-line on the City’s website:
https://www.rpcity.org/city_hall/departments/development_services/Planning/general_plan___spe
cial_area_plans/specific_plans
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK PHASE 4
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN EIR CONSISTENCY REVIEW
June 2023
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ATTACHMENT A – Geotechnical investigation
ATTACHMENT B – Cultural Resource Evaluation
ATTACHMENT C – SESP EIR MMRP
Rohnert Park Southeast Specific Plan EIR — Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-1
P:\Projects - WP Only\40852.00 SE SP\!FEIR 2010\SESP Final EIR.doc
Section 4
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the adoption of feasible mitigation
measures to reduce the severity and magnitude of significant environmental impacts associated with
project development. The Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Southeast Specific Plan
Project (proposed project) includes mitigation measures to reduce the potential environmental effects of
the proposed project.
CEQA also requires reporting on and monitoring of mitigation measures adopted as part of the
environmental review process (Public Resources Code section 21081.6). This Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program (MMRP) is designed to aid the City of Rohnert Park in its implementation and
monitoring of measures adopted from the Southeast Specific Plan Draft EIR and Draft Recirculated
EIR (Draft REIR).
The mitigation measures are taken from the Southeast Specific Plan Draft EIR and Draft REIR, as
revised in the Final EIR. Mitigation measures in this MMRP are assigned the same number they had
in the Draft EIR and Draft REIR. The MMRP is presented in table format and it describes the actions
that must take place to implement each mitigation measure, the timing of those actions, the entities
responsible for implementing and monitoring the actions, and verification of compliance.
RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES
The City’s Development Services Department (DSD) would be responsible for ensuring that design and
construction contracts contain the relevant mitigation measures included in the EIR, and that mitigation
measures are implemented during the design and construction phases of the project. The Public Works
Department (PW) will be responsible for monitoring compliance with measures related to
transportation and the City’s Utilities Department is responsible for monitoring compliance with
measures related to hydrology and water quality and public services and utilities (except for sewer).
Individual project applicants and contractors shall be responsible for implementation of all mitigation
measures, unless otherwise noted.
In general, monitoring will consist of verifying that mitigation measures are implemented and ensuring
that the following occurs:
Specific issues are considered in the design development phase
Construction contracts include the specified provisions
Certain actions occur prior to construction
Rohnert Park Southeast Specific Plan EIR — Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-2
P:\Projects - WP Only\40852.00 SE SP\!FEIR 2010\SESP Final EIR.doc
The required measures are implemented during construction of the project
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX
All project-specific mitigation measures included in the EIR would be monitored to ensure consistency
with the MMRP for the proposed project. The following MMRP Matrix includes all of the applicable
mitigation and monitoring information for the proposed project.
Notes: PW = Public Works – Engineering & Transportation SWCA = Sonoma County Water Agency DA = Development Agreement BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District DSD = Development Services Department CDFG = California Department of Fish & Game SCDHS = Sonoma County Department of Health Services Rohnert Park Southeast Specific Plan EIR — Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-3 P:\Projects - WP Only\40852.00 SE SP\!FEIR 2010\SESP Final EIR.doc Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Southeast Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure Action Implementing Party Timing Monitoring Party 3.1 Aesthetics 3.1-1 Planning and design of the Southeast Specific Plan project shall conform to the provisions regarding neighborhood and community design as contained within the City of Rohnert Park General Plan Community Design Element. The purpose of the Community Design Element is to provide a clear set of design goals and policies to project sponsors and project designers to be considered by Planning Department staff, the Planning Commission in its review of community design under the Site Plan and Architectural Review section of the Zoning Ordinance and the City Council in the evaluation of the project proposal. Considerations include concepts of overall neighborhood design and structure; block and street patterns; transitions in development densities from urban to rural lands; increased setbacks along scenic corridors; off-street parking configurations; pedestrian and bicycle circulation; building design variety, form and materials; open space areas, landscaping and lighting; and other features of community design. Conformance review during the City's Design Review process prior to the issuance of grading and construction permits shall be used to reduce the overall change in visual conditions in the area, but this impact would remain significant and unavoidable for Impact Criterion #2. Conform to the provisions of the City of Rohnert Park General Plan Community Design Element Project sponsor During project design/prior to the issuance of grading and construction permits DSD 3.1-2 The stockpiling and storage of construction materials and equipment prior to use and installation shall be minimized to the extent practicable. Although construction staging areas have not been designated at this time, such staging areas shall be located away from Petaluma Hill Road and as close to or within the areas of construction as possible, out of the way of community traffic and pedestrian use. Mitigation Measure 3.1-2 applies to the installation of roads and utility services as well as the construction of building structures and would reduce Impact 3.1-2 to a less-than-significant level. Minimize on-site construction equipment storage. Project sponsor Onsite contractors On-going during demolition, grading and construction DSD 3.1-3 Night lighting along Southeast Specific Plan streets, parking areas and any public spaces should be focused downward and/or shielded to avoid glare and point sources of light interfering with the vision of on- and off-site residents and motorists on local roadways. Night lighting for streets would need to minimally conform with City standards regarding street lighting. Lighting elements should be recessed within their fixtures to prevent glare. A specialist in lighting design should be consulted during project design to determine light source locations, light intensities and type of light source. Light fixtures shall be designed to cast low angle illumination and shield spillover. Use non-reflective materials where possible. Project sponsor Project sponsor Prior to construction Prior to construction DSD DSD
Notes: PW = Public Works – Engineering & Transportation SWCA = Sonoma County Water Agency DA = Development Agreement BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District DSD = Development Services Department CDFG = California Department of Fish & Game SCDHS = Sonoma County Department of Health Services Rohnert Park Southeast Specific Plan EIR — Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-4 P:\Projects - WP Only\40852.00 SE SP\!FEIR 2010\SESP Final EIR.doc Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Southeast Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure Action Implementing Party Timing Monitoring Party New lighting levels provided should be compatible with general illumination levels in existing areas to avoid a noticeable contrast in light emissions, consistent with the need to provide for safety and security. The overall objective would be to establish area lighting that would be adequate for safety and surveillance, but minimize the potential effects on nighttime views from locations around and within the Specific Plan site area. Regardless of this mitigation, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. 3.2 Air Quality 3.2-1A Implement recommended dust control measures. To reduce particulate matter emissions during project excavation and construction phases, the project contractor(s) should comply with the dust control strategies developed by the BAAQMD. The project sponsor should include in construction contracts the following requirements or measures shown to be equally effective. Implement listed dust control measures. Contractor On-going during demolition, grading, and construction PW Cover all truck hauling soil, sand, and other loose construction and demolition debris from the site, or require all such trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard; Water all exposed or disturbed soil surfaces in active construction areas at least twice daily; Use watering to control dust generation during demolition of structures or break-up of pavement; Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved parking areas and staging areas; Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved parking areas and staging areas; Provide daily clean-up of mud and dirt carried onto paved streets from the site; Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.); Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph; Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways; Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible;
Notes: PW = Public Works – Engineering & Transportation SWCA = Sonoma County Water Agency DA = Development Agreement BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District DSD = Development Services Department CDFG = California Department of Fish & Game SCDHS = Sonoma County Department of Health Services Rohnert Park Southeast Specific Plan EIR — Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-5 P:\Projects - WP Only\40852.00 SE SP\!FEIR 2010\SESP Final EIR.doc Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Southeast Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure Action Implementing Party Timing Monitoring Party Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more); Install wheel washers for all existing trucks, or wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the site; Install wind breaks at the windward side(s) of construction areas; Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour over a 30-minute period or more; and To the extent possible, limit the area subject to excavation, grading, and other dust-generating construction activity at any one time. 3.2-1B Designate a dust control coordinator. To facilitate control of dust during construction and demolition phases, the project sponsor should include a dust control coordinator in construction contracts. All construction sites should have posted in a conspicuous location the name and phone number of a designated construction dust control coordinator who can respond to complaints by suspending dust-producing activities or providing additional personnel or equipment for dust control. Designate a dust control coordinator. Post contact information for dust control coordinator. Project sponsor On-going during demolition, grading, and construction PW 3.2-1C Reduce emissions from heavy-duty diesel-powered equipment. The project contractor(s) should implement measures to reduce the emissions of pollutants generated by heavy-duty diesel-powered equipment operating at the project site during project excavation and construction phases. The project sponsor should include in construction contracts the following requirements or measures shown to be equally effective. Implement listed measures identified to reduce diesel powered equipment emissions. Contractor Ongoing during grading, demolition, and construction. PW Keep all construction equipment in proper tune in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications; Use late model heavy-duty diesel-powered equipment at the project site to the extent that it is readily available in the San Francisco Bay Area; Use diesel-powered equipment that has been retrofitted with after-treatment products (e.g., engine catalysts) to the extent that it is readily available in the San Francisco Bay Area; Use low-emission diesel fuel for all heavy-duty diesel-powered equipment operating and refueling at the project site to the extent that it is readily available and cost effective in the San Francisco Bay Area (this does not apply to diesel-powered trucks traveling to and from the site);
Notes: PW = Public Works – Engineering & Transportation SWCA = Sonoma County Water Agency DA = Development Agreement BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District DSD = Development Services Department CDFG = California Department of Fish & Game SCDHS = Sonoma County Department of Health Services Rohnert Park Southeast Specific Plan EIR — Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-6 P:\Projects - WP Only\40852.00 SE SP\!FEIR 2010\SESP Final EIR.doc Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Southeast Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure Action Implementing Party Timing Monitoring Party Utilize alternative fuel construction equipment (i.e., compressed natural gas, liquid petroleum gas, and unleaded gasoline) to the extent that the equipment is readily available and cost effective in the San Francisco Bay Area; Limit truck and equipment idling time to five minutes or less; Rely on the electricity infrastructure surrounding the construction sites rather than electrical generators powered by internal combustion engines to the extent feasible. 3.3 Biological Resources - There are no significant impacts on Biological Resources. 3.4 Geology, Soils and Seismicity - There are no significant impacts related to Geology, Soils and/or Seismicity. 3.5 Hydrology and Water Quality – There are no significant impacts related to Hydrology and/or Water Quality. 3.6 Land Use 3.6-1 Construction specifications, inclusive of all utilities required for the project, should note that operators of site grading and excavation equipment be instructed to be observant for unusual or suspect archaeological materials that may surface from below during site grading and excavation operations. Instruct equipment operators to observe for archaeological materials. Contractor Ongoing during grading, demolition, and construction. DSD In the event that unknown archaeological remains are discovered during subsurface excavation and construction, land alteration work in the vicinity of the find should be halted and a qualified archeologist consulted. Prompt evaluations could then be made regarding the find and a resource management plan that is consistent with CEQA requirements could then be implemented. If prehistoric archeological deposits are discovered, local Native American organizations should be consulted and involved in making resource management decisions. All applicable State and local legal requirements concerning the treatment of cultural materials and Native American burials should be enforced. Consult archeologist in the event of a find. Contractor Ongoing during grading, demolition, and construction. DSD If subsequent investigations result in the recording of prehistoric archeological sites that cannot be avoided and preserved, and the importance of the cultural deposits cannot be determined from surface evidence, then subsurface testing programs should take place to make such determinations. Testing procedures should be designed to specifically determine the boundaries of sites, the depositional integrity and the cultural importance of the resources, as per CEQA criteria. These investigations should be conducted by qualified professionals knowledgeable in regional prehistory. The testing programs In the event of a find, determine the integrity and importance of the resource(s). Project sponsor Ongoing during grading, demolition, and construction. DSD
Notes: PW = Public Works – Engineering & Transportation SWCA = Sonoma County Water Agency DA = Development Agreement BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District DSD = Development Services Department CDFG = California Department of Fish & Game SCDHS = Sonoma County Department of Health Services Rohnert Park Southeast Specific Plan EIR — Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-7 P:\Projects - WP Only\40852.00 SE SP\!FEIR 2010\SESP Final EIR.doc Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Southeast Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure Action Implementing Party Timing Monitoring Party should be conducted within the context of appropriate research considerations and should result in detailed technical reports that define the exact disturbance implications for important resources and present comprehensive programs for addressing such disturbances. Measures similar to the ones described below would also apply: Avoidance of an archaeological site through modification of the roadway plan line that would allow for the preservation of the resource. Covering or “capping” sites with a protective layer of fill. This could be a good way of mitigating situations where public access may be increased as a result of development. Archaeological monitoring during the filling process would be recommended. Protect important resources by listed methods. Project sponsor Ongoing during grading, demolition, and construction. DSD Covering or “capping” sites with a protective layer of fill. This could be a good way of mitigating situations where public access may be increased as a result of development. Archaeological monitoring during the filling process would be recommended. In considering subsurface testing and excavations of prehistoric archaeological sites, consultation with the local Native American community is essential; all aspects of the programs, including the treatment of cultural materials and particularly the removal, study and reinternment of Native American burials should be addressed. All applicable State and local legal requirements concerning these issues should be strictly adhered to. 3.7 Noise 3.7-1 Outdoor activity areas and the residences beyond shall be set back a minimum of 199 feet from the centerline of Petaluma Hill Road, 73 feet from the centerline of Valley House Drive east of Bodway Parkway extending to the site entry on Valley House Drive, 63 feet from the centerline of Valley House Drive west of Petaluma Hill Road extending to the site entry on Valley House Drive, and 64 feet from the centerline of Bodway Parkway. Locate outdoor activity areas away from listed noise sources. Project sponsor During project design/ prior to the issuance of grading and construction permits DSD/PW 3.7-2 Reduce noise levels associated with construction activities and heavy-duty construction equipment. The project contractor(s) should implement measures to reduce the noise levels generated by construction equipment operating at the project site during project grading and construction phases. The project sponsor should include in construction contracts the following requirements or measures shown to be equally effective. Include listed measures to reduce construction noise. Project sponsor Ongoing during project construction DSD/PW
Notes: PW = Public Works – Engineering & Transportation SWCA = Sonoma County Water Agency DA = Development Agreement BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District DSD = Development Services Department CDFG = California Department of Fish & Game SCDHS = Sonoma County Department of Health Services Rohnert Park Southeast Specific Plan EIR — Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-8 P:\Projects - WP Only\40852.00 SE SP\!FEIR 2010\SESP Final EIR.doc Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Southeast Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure Action Implementing Party Timing Monitoring Party Stationary construction equipment that generates noise levels in excess of 65 dBA Leq shall be located as far away from existing residential areas as possible. If required to minimize potential noise conflicts, the equipment shall be shielded from noise sensitive receptors by using temporary walls, sound curtains, or other similar devices; Heavy-duty vehicle storage and start-up areas shall be located a minimum of 150 feet from occupied residences where feasible; An information sign shall be posted at the entrance to each construction site that identifies the permitted construction hours and provides a telephone number to call and receive information about the construction project or to report complaints regarding excessive noise levels. 3.8 Public Services 3.8-1 The City would be responsible for implementing General Plan Open Space Element goals and policies regarding the maintenance and management of parks and related facilities. Specifically, Goal OS-H calls for adequate funding for the maintenance of parks and recreation facilities, Policy OS-10 through preparation of the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan calls for the maintenance of existing facilities, and Policy OS-14 requires cooperation with the Cotati-Rohnert Park School District for the maintenance and management of park/school sites. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce Impact 3.8-1 to a less than significant level under Impact Criterion #3. Implement General Plan Open Space Element goals and policies City of Rohnert Park Ongoing during project development DSD 3.10 Traffic and Circulation 3.10-1 #1 Adobe Road and Petaluma Hill Road (Sonoma County). Widen the northbound approach to provide one shared-left-through lane and one shared through-right lane; widen the eastbound approach to provide one dedicated left-turn lane and one shared through-right lane; widen the westbound approach to provide one shared left-through lane and one dedicated right-turn lane with overlap signal. With these measures, the intersection of Adobe Road and Petaluma Hill Road would function within the acceptable County LOS A-D range during the PM peak hour. However, as this intersection is not under the jurisdiction of the City of Rohnert Park, the feasibility of these measures is unknown; therefore, the project impact remains significant and unavoidable. The City of Rohnert Park shall work with the Sonoma County Transportation Authority, Sonoma County, and other jurisdictions as Coordinate with Sonoma County Transportation Authority, Sonoma County, and participating jurisdictions to determine the appropriate fair-share cost of improvements. Project sponsor/City of Rohnert Park/ participating jurisdictions Prior to issuance of grading permit DSD/PW
Notes: PW = Public Works – Engineering & Transportation SWCA = Sonoma County Water Agency DA = Development Agreement BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District DSD = Development Services Department CDFG = California Department of Fish & Game SCDHS = Sonoma County Department of Health Services Rohnert Park Southeast Specific Plan EIR — Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-9 P:\Projects - WP Only\40852.00 SE SP\!FEIR 2010\SESP Final EIR.doc Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Southeast Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure Action Implementing Party Timing Monitoring Party applicable to determine a fair-share portion of funds to alleviate congestion at this location. This fair-share allocation would be collected from the developers of the Southeast Area Specific Plan once all participating jurisdictions have entered into the necessary agreement(s) related to the collection of these fair-share funds. #3 East Cotati Avenue and Old Redwood Highway (Cotati). Re-stripe the southbound approach to provide two left-turn lanes and one shared through-right lane and convert the westbound through-right lane to a dedicated right-turn lane with overlap signal. These measures would improve the operation at the East Cotati Avenue and Old Redwood Highway intersection to achieve the City of Cotati’s standard of LOS D or better. However, as this intersection is not under the jurisdiction of the City of Rohnert Park, the feasibility of these measures is unknown; therefore, the project impact remains significant and unavoidable. The City of Rohnert Park shall work with the Sonoma County Transportation Authority, the City of Cotati, and other jurisdictions as applicable to determine a fair-share portion of funds to alleviate congestion at this location. This fair-share allocation would be collected from the developers of the Southeast Area Specific Plan once all participating jurisdictions have entered into the necessary agreement(s) related to the collection of these fair-share funds. Coordinate with Sonoma County Transportation Authority, the City of Cotati, and participating jurisdictions to determine the appropriate fair-share cost of improvements. Project sponsor/City of Rohnert Park/ City of Cotati/participating jurisdictions Prior to issuance of grading permit DSD/PW #10 Railroad Avenue and Petaluma Hill Road (Sonoma County). This intersection would meet the MUTCD peak hour signal warrant with and without the addition of project-generated traffic. Signalization would improve the operations to within County standard of LOS D or better. Note that the Policy CT-6w of the Planning Commission Recommended Draft of the Sonoma County General Plan 2020 has identified potential realignment of the Railroad Avenue and Petaluma Hill Road intersection. Specific details of this improvement are yet to be determined. Nonetheless, this intersection is not under the jurisdiction of the City of Rohnert Park, the feasibility of these measures is unknown; therefore, the project impact remains significant and unavoidable. The City of Rohnert Park shall work with the Sonoma County Transportation Authority, Sonoma County, and other jurisdictions as applicable to determine a fair-share portion of funds to alleviate congestion at this location. This fair-share allocation would be collected from the developers of the Southeast Area Specific Plan once all participating jurisdictions have entered into the necessary agreement(s) related to the collection of these fair-share funds. Coordinate with Sonoma County Transportation Authority, Sonoma County, and participating jurisdictions to determine the appropriate fair-share cost of improvements. Project sponsor/City of Rohnert Park/ Sonoma County/ participating jurisdictions Prior to issuance of grading permit DSD/PW
Notes: PW = Public Works – Engineering & Transportation SWCA = Sonoma County Water Agency DA = Development Agreement BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District DSD = Development Services Department CDFG = California Department of Fish & Game SCDHS = Sonoma County Department of Health Services Rohnert Park Southeast Specific Plan EIR — Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-10 P:\Projects - WP Only\40852.00 SE SP\!FEIR 2010\SESP Final EIR.doc Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Southeast Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure Action Implementing Party Timing Monitoring Party #11 East Cotati Avenue and LaSalle Avenue (Cotati). The Cotati Avenue and LaSalle Avenue intersection would also meet MUTCD peak hour signal warrant with and without the addition of project-generated traffic. Signalization would improve the intersection operation to meet City of Rohnert Park standard of LOS C or better. However, as this intersection is not under the jurisdiction of the City of Rohnert Park, the feasibility of these measures is unknown; therefore, the project impact remains significant and unavoidable. The City of Rohnert Park shall work with the Sonoma County Transportation Authority, the City of Cotati, and other jurisdictions as applicable to determine a fair-share portion of funds to alleviate congestion at this location. This fair-share allocation would be collected from the developers of the Southeast Area Specific Plan once all participating jurisdictions have entered into the necessary agreement(s) related to the collection of these fair-share funds. Coordinate with Sonoma County Transportation Authority, the City of Cotati, and participating jurisdictions to determine the appropriate fair-share cost of improvements. Project sponsor/City of Rohnert Park/City of Cotati/participating jurisdictions Prior to issuance of grading permit DSD/PW #13 Railroad Avenue and Old Redwood Highway (Sonoma County). With the addition of project generated trips, the Railroad Avenue and Old Redwood Highway intersection would meet MUTCD peak hour signal warrant during the PM peak hour. Signalization would improve the operations of the intersection to within County standard of LOS D or better. However, as this intersection is not under the jurisdiction of the City of Rohnert Park, the feasibility of these measures is unknown; therefore, the project impact remains significant and unavoidable. The City of Rohnert Park shall work with the Sonoma County Transportation Authority, Sonoma County, and other jurisdictions as applicable to determine a fair-share portion of funds to alleviate congestion at this location. This fair-share allocation would be collected from the developers of the Southeast Area Specific Plan once all participating jurisdictions have entered into the necessary agreement(s) related to the collection of these fair-share funds. Coordinate with Sonoma County Transportation Authority, Sonoma County, and participating jurisdictions to determine the appropriate fair-share cost of improvements. Project sponsor/City of Rohnert Park/ Sonoma County/ participating jurisdictions Prior to issuance of grading permit DSD/PW 3.10-2 Bus pullouts with appropriate curbs and gutters for bus stops along Petaluma Hill Road or near the project site as well as adequate pedestrian access paths/sidewalks to the bus stops from the project site should be constructed. The project sponsor should be responsible for paying the cost of implementing the above mitigation measure. With mitigation as indicated above, Impact 3.10-2 would be reduced to a less than significant level. Construct bus pullouts along Petaluma Hill Road or near the project site and provide adequate pedestrian access to the bus stop. Project sponsor During construction DSD/PW
Notes: PW = Public Works – Engineering & Transportation SWCA = Sonoma County Water Agency DA = Development Agreement BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District DSD = Development Services Department CDFG = California Department of Fish & Game SCDHS = Sonoma County Department of Health Services Rohnert Park Southeast Specific Plan EIR — Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-11 P:\Projects - WP Only\40852.00 SE SP\!FEIR 2010\SESP Final EIR.doc Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Southeast Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure Action Implementing Party Timing Monitoring Party 3.10-3 #1 Adobe Road and Petaluma Hill Road (Sonoma County). Implementation of measures identified under Baseline Conditions would improve the operations to within the acceptable County LOS A-D range. However, as this intersection is not under the jurisdiction of the City of Rohnert Park, the feasibility of these measures is unknown; therefore, the project impact remains significant and unavoidable. The City of Rohnert Park shall work with the Sonoma County Transportation Authority, Sonoma County, and other jurisdictions as applicable to determine a fair-share portion of funds to alleviate congestion at this location. This fair-share allocation would be collected from the developers of the Southeast Area Specific Plan once all participating jurisdictions have entered into the necessary agreement(s) related to the collection of these fair-share funds. Implement Mitigation Measure 3.10-1. Project sponsor/City of Rohnert Park/ Sonoma County/ participating jurisdictions Prior to issuance of grading permit DSD/PW #3 East Cotati Avenue and Old Redwood Highway (Cotati). Implementation of measures identified under Baseline Conditions would improve the operations to achieve the City of Cotati’s standard of LOS D or better. However, as this intersection is not under the jurisdiction of the City of Rohnert Park, the feasibility of these measures is unknown; therefore, the project impact remains significant and unavoidable. The City of Rohnert Park shall work with the Sonoma County Transportation Authority, the City of Cotati, and other jurisdictions as applicable to determine a fair-share portion of funds to alleviate congestion at this location. This fair-share allocation would be collected from the developers of the Southeast Area Specific Plan once all participating jurisdictions have entered into the necessary agreement(s) related to the collection of these fair-share funds. Implement Mitigation Measure 3.10-1. Project sponsor/City of Rohnert Park/City of Cotati/participating jurisdictions Prior to issuance of grading permit DSD/PW #4 East Cotati Avenue and Camino Colegio (Rohnert Park). The intersection can be brought into acceptable range by converting the existing eastbound shared through-right to a dedicated right-turn lane and provide overlap signal. Upon implementation of this measure, the project impact would be less than significant. The project sponsor should make a fair share contribution towards the implementation of this measure. Pay fair share for converting existing eastbound shared through-right to a dedicated right-turn lane and provide overlap signal at East Cotati Ave and Camino Colegio. Project sponsor Prior to issuance of grading permit DSD/PW
Notes: PW = Public Works – Engineering & Transportation SWCA = Sonoma County Water Agency DA = Development Agreement BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District DSD = Development Services Department CDFG = California Department of Fish & Game SCDHS = Sonoma County Department of Health Services Rohnert Park Southeast Specific Plan EIR — Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-12 P:\Projects - WP Only\40852.00 SE SP\!FEIR 2010\SESP Final EIR.doc Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Southeast Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure Action Implementing Party Timing Monitoring Party #10 Railroad Avenue and Petaluma Hill Road (Sonoma County). Signalize the intersection and widen Petaluma Hill Road to provide one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one shared through-right lane on both the northbound and southbound approaches. These measures would improve the operations to meet County standard of LOS D or better. Note that the Policy CT-6w of the Planning Commission Recommended Draft of the Sonoma County General Plan 2020 has identified potential realignment of the Railroad Avenue and Petaluma Hill Road intersection. Specific details of this improvement are yet to be determined. Nonetheless, this intersection is not under the jurisdiction of the City of Rohnert Park, the feasibility of these measures is unknown; therefore, the project impact remains significant and unavoidable. The City of Rohnert Park shall work with the Sonoma County Transportation Authority, Sonoma County, and other jurisdictions as applicable to determine a fair-share portion of funds to alleviate congestion at this location. This fair-share allocation would be collected from the developers of the Southeast Area Specific Plan once all participating jurisdictions have entered into the necessary agreement(s) related to the collection of these fair-share funds. Implement Mitigation Measure 3.10-1. Project sponsor/City of Rohnert Park/ Sonoma County/ participating jurisdictions Prior to issuance of grading permit DSD/PW #11 East Cotati Avenue and LaSalle Avenue (Cotati). Implementation of measures identified under Baseline Conditions by signalizing the intersection would improve the operations to achieve the City of Rohnert Park’s standard of LOS C or better. However, as this intersection is not under the jurisdiction of the City of Rohnert Park, the feasibility of these measures is unknown; therefore, the project impact remains significant and unavoidable. The City of Rohnert Park shall work with the Sonoma County Transportation Authority, the City of Cotati, and other jurisdictions as applicable to determine a fair-share portion of funds to alleviate congestion at this location. This fair-share allocation would be collected from the developers of the Southeast Area Specific Plan once all participating jurisdictions have entered into the necessary agreement(s) related to the collection of these fair-share funds. Implement Mitigation Measure 3.10-1. Project sponsor/City of Rohnert Park/City of Cotati/participating jurisdictions Prior to issuance of grading permit DSD/PW 3.11 Utilities – There are no significant impacts related to Utilities.
Notes: PW = Public Works – Engineering & Transportation SWCA = Sonoma County Water Agency DA = Development Agreement BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District DSD = Development Services Department CDFG = California Department of Fish & Game SCDHS = Sonoma County Department of Health Services Rohnert Park Southeast Specific Plan EIR — Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-13 P:\Projects - WP Only\40852.00 SE SP\!FEIR 2010\SESP Final EIR.doc Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Southeast Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure Action Implementing Party Timing Monitoring Party 3.12 Climate Change 3.12-1 The project applicant shall coordinate with the appropriate lead agency to ensure adequate fair share payment for the installation of LED traffic lights at required intersections within the proposed project boundaries, or required as a result of development of the proposed project. Also, the project applicant shall coordinate with the local transportation agencies, including Sonoma County Transit Agency and the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) District, to improve access to public transportation to the Specific Plan area. Coordinate with the affected agencies regarding payment for LED traffic lights and improved access to public transportation. Project sponsor Prior to issuance of grading permit DSD/PW
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2023-13
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT
PARK, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF
AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE MAP AND TEXT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
FOR SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT LOCATED SOUTH OF THE CANON
MANOR SPECIFIC PLAN AREA, WEST OF PETALUMA HILL ROAD, EAST OF
BODWAY PARKWAY AND NORTH OF VALLEY HOUSE DRIVE (VARIOUS APNS)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Penn Grove Mountain LLC filed Planning Applications
proposing amendments to the General Plan (PLGP22-0001), an amended Specific Plan (PLSP22-
0001), a revised Development Area Plan (PLDP22-0001), an amendment to the Development
Agreement (PLDA22-0001), and approval of an amended Tentative Map (PLSD22-0001), for
the Southeast Specific Plan (“Project”) located south of the Canon Manor Specific Plan Area,
west of Petaluma Hill Road, east of Bodway Parkway and north of Valley House Drive (various
APNs), in accordance with the City of Rohnert Park Municipal Code (“RPMC”); and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the proposed amendments is to allow for a more gradual
transition of densities and for the addition of twenty-two single-family residential lots within the
fourth phase of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments require changes to the Land Use and Community
Design elements of the General Plan, attached to and incorporated in this Resolution as Exhibit
1, which include alterations to the lot and street configuration, amending the land use designation
from Rural Estate Residential to Low-Density Residential, and adding twenty-two lots to the
Project;
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments would also amend the Land Use Map of the
General Plan as provided on the amended General Plan Land Use Diagram, also attached to and
incorporated in this Resolution in Exhibit 2; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared the Southeast Rohnert Park Phase 4 Southeast
Specific Plan EIR Consistency Review dated June 2023, which is incorporated herein by
reference, and determines that the proposed amendments will not result in new environmental
impacts not previously evaluated in a previously certified EIR, or a substantial increase in
previously identified impacts (“Consistency Analysis”) and the City has otherwise carried out all
requirements for the Project pursuant to CEQA; 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 encompassing a 300-
foot radius of the subject property and a public hearing was published for a minimum of 10 days
prior to the public hearing in the Community Voice; and
WHEREAS, on July 13, 2023, 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 and determinations with respect to the proposed
General Plan Amendment and amendments to Land Use Map:
Section 1. Recitals. The above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. CEQA Review.
On December 7, 2010, the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park certified the Final
EIR for the Southeast Specific Plan Project, including adoption of associated CEQA Findings,
Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,
as described in City Council Resolution No. 2010-134 (2010 EIR). CEQA Guidelines section
15162 provides that “no subsequent EIR shall be prepared” for a project unless the lead agency
determines that (1) “substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major
revisions of the previous EIR”; or (2) “substantial changes occur with respect to the
circumstances under which the project is undertaken”; or (3) “new information of substantial
importance … shows” one or more significant effects not discussed in the original EIR, greater
severity to previously-identified substantial effects, or newly-found feasible mitigation measures
that would substantially reduce significant effects. As described in the Consistency Analysis, the
proposed amendments will not result in new environmental impacts not previously evaluated in
the 2010 EIR, or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts. The proposed
amendments (addition of twenty-two lots, alterations to the lot and street configuration, and
amending the land use designation from Rural Estate Residential to Low-Density Residential),
are minor and will not result in any changes to the proposed project not previously analyzed in
the 2010 EIR and no new information of substantial importance shows any significant effects or
newly found feasible mitigation measures that would substantially reduce significant effects.
Further, the amendments are consistent with the project analyzed in the 2010 EIR. Therefore, no
additional environmental review is necessary.
Section 3. Findings. Planning Commission makes the following findings concerning the
General Plan amendments proposed by Planning Application No. PLGP22-0001:
1. That the proposed site is appropriate for development under the General Plan’s
Land Use Designations for the site.
The proposed General Plan amendments would decrease the number of lots
designated Rural Estate Residential, increase lots designated Low-Density
Residential, and add twenty-two lots within the Southeast Specific Plan. These
land uses are consistent with proposed uses and the land use designations in the
General Plan and compatible with existing, ongoing development in the area.
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.
The proposed amendments are consistent with specific policies, as amended, in
the Land Use and Community Design Elements of the General Plan applicable to
the Southeast Specific Plan area. The policies establish a primarily residential
development transitioning gradually from urban to open space uses on the city’s
east side. The proposed development is consistent with such 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.
A duly noticed public hearing on the proposed General Plan Amendments was
held on July 13, 2023.
4. That the proposed Project with the proposed General Plan amendments is
consistent with the General Plan.
The Specific Plan, as originally adopted, contains an extensive analysis of
General Plan consistency. The proposed amendments do not change this analysis.
In fact, the proposed amendments enhance the Project’s consistency with General
Plan Goals LU-B (Provide soft urban edges and ensure that designated intensities
provide gradual transition to open space at city edges), LU-I (Provide a range of
housing variety in type and price, including large-lot homes and housing oriented
to students), HO-1 (Provide opportunities for housing development that
accommodate projected growth, mitigate potential constraints, and facilitate
mobility within the ownership and rental markets. Ensure adequate sites are
available to meet local housing needs), and HO-2 (Provide a diversity of housing
types that accommodate projected population and demographic changes and
enable residents to remain in Rohnert Park throughout their lives).
5. The General Plan amendment approved for this Project will not cause the
General Plan to become internally inconsistent.
The General Plan amendments proposed by the project applicant are minor
adjustments to accommodate the addition of twenty-two lots and provide a more
gradual transition within the Low-Density Residential area. The amendments
continue to implement the General Plan policies and goals. 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 is in harmony with surrounding neighborhoods, and the
site is physically suitable for the development proposed.
6. That the City has considered and evaluated the goals, objectives and policies of
the General Plan and finds that the proposed General Plan amendments are in
compliance with the General Plan.
The General Plan comprises many objectives, policies, principles, programs,
standards, proposals and action plans (collectively, “policies”), as well as
performance standards. In 2010, the City 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
quality, 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 proposed current amendments are minor in nature and do not change the
City’s original considerations with respect to General Plan compliance. In fact, by
increasing the number of total housing units and affordable housing units
provided, the proposed amendments improve the Project’s compliance with
Housing Element of the General Plan.
7. 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.
Section 4. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council
adopt the Findings hereinabove; adopt and amend the General Plan Land Use Diagram and
approve Planning Application No. PLGP22-0001, General Plan Amendments for the specific
plan for property located south of the Canon Manor Specific Plan area, west of Petaluma Hill
Road, east of Bodway Parkway, and north of Valley House Drive (various APNs), as described
in the Southeast Specific Plan General Plan Amendments attached to this Resolution as
Exhibit 1, in its entirety, and as shown in the Southeast Specific Plan General Plan Land Use
Diagram Amendments attached to this Resolution as Exhibit 2.
DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED on this 13th day of July, 2023 by the City of
Rohnert Park Planning Commission by the following vote:
AYES: _____NOES:_____ ABSENT:_____ ABSTAIN:_____
AUSTIN-DILLON_____ EPSTEIN_____ ORLOFF_____ STRIPLEN_____ LAM_____
_________________________________________________________________
Chairperson, Rohnert Park Planning Commission
Attest: ________________________________
Clotile Blanks, Recording Secretary
Chapter 2: Land Use and Growth Management
2-37
Southeast Specific Plan Area
LU-22 Require preparation of a Specific Plan prior to approval of any development in the
southeast area.
The Specific Plan shall include a neighborhood park approximately five to eight acres in
size, as specified in OS-12. Development shall be in accordance with the development
program outlined in Table 2.4-3.
Table 2.4‐3:
Use Program: Southeast Specific Plan Area Land
Approx.
Gross
Acreage
Housing Units
Minimum‐Maximum
Approx. Non‐residential
Building Area (1,000 s.f.)
Rural / Estate Residential 15-20 9.13 10-20 19
Low Density Residential 20-22 27.69 100-180 160
Medium Density Residential 26-29 27.77 230-250 239
Mixed-Use Development 5-10 6.96 80-117 81 10
Parks 5-8 7.98
Total 80 79.53 420 -499 499 10
(Rev. 06/23)
LU-23 Permit neighborhood-oriented retail, offices, financial, business and personal services,
and other similar neighborhood-compatible uses.
LU-24 Permit a maximum FAR of 0.4 for retail-only development, and 1.0 for mixed use
development.
Only land devoted to non-residential uses shall be counted towards establishing the non-
residential FAR requirements.
LU-25 Allow residential uses in the mixed use area, as long as they do not front Bodway
Parkway.
LU-26 Allow the Mixed Use area to be developed with a mix of residential and commercial
uses, or with either one of those uses without the other.
Northeast Specific Plan Area
LU-27 Require preparation of a Specific Plan prior to approval of any development in the
Northeast area.
LU-28 Require that development in the Northeast Specific Plan area be in accordance with the
development program outlined in Table 2.4-4.
Resolution 2023-13
Exhibit 1
Figure 3.2-13
Southeast Specific Plan Area Illustrative Diagram
Revised 6/23 Rohnert Park General Plan3-38Figure Not to Scale
Frontage Road and side-on
building orientation
Duplex Units mixed with single
family
Variety of
Housing
Types and
Sizes
Rural Estate Lots along
Petaluma Hill Road
provide transition to
County open space
Retail building to
define street and
corner; Parking
screened by
buildings
Apartments and
townhomes mixed with
Commercial; Front
doors along Valley
House Drive
Side on building orientation
along Valley House Drive
Berm and view fence creates
soft rural edge and preserves
views along Petaluma Hill Road Petaluma Hill RoadValley House Drive
NEIGHBORHOODPARK
Resolution 2023-13
Exhibit 2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2023-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT
PARK RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT LOCATED
SOUTH OF THE CANON MANOR SPECIFIC PLAN AREA, WEST OF PETALUMA
HILL ROAD, EAST OF BODWAY PARKWAY AND NORTH OF VALLEY HOUSE
DRIVE (VARIOUS APNS)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Penn Grove Mountain LLC filed Planning Applications
proposing amendments to the General Plan (PLGP22-0001), an amended Specific Plan (PLSP22-
0001), a revised Development Area Plan (PLDP22-0001), an amendment to the Development
Agreement (PLDA22-0001), and approval of an amended Tentative Map (PLSD22-0001), for
the Southeast Specific Plan (“Project”) located south of the Canon Manor Specific Plan Area,
west of Petaluma Hill Road, east of Bodway Parkway and north of Valley House Drive (various
APNs), in accordance with the City of Rohnert Park Municipal Code (“RPMC”); and
WHEREAS, in conjunction with Planning Application No. PLSP22-0001, the Project
proposes approval of an amended Southeast Specific Plan, attached to and incorporated in this
Resolution as Exhibit 1; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the proposed amendments is to allow for a more gradual
transition of densities and for the addition of twenty-two single-family residential lots within the
fourth phase of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared the Southeast Rohnert Park Phase 4 Southeast
Specific Plan EIR Consistency Review dated June 2023, which is incorporated herein by
reference, and determines that the proposed amendments will not result in new environmental
impacts not previously evaluated in a previously certified EIR, or a substantial increase in
previously identified impacts (“Consistency Analysis”) and the City has otherwise carried out all
requirements for the Project pursuant to CEQA; 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 encompassing a 300
foot radius of the subject property and a public hearing was published for a minimum of 10 days
prior to the public hearing in the Community Voice; and
WHEREAS, on July 13, 2023, 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 Planning Application No. PLSP22-0001 for the proposed revised Southeast Specific
Plan.
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 amended specific plan:
Section 1. Recitals. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. CEQA Review. On December 7, 2010, the City Council of the City of
Rohnert Park certified the Final EIR for the Southeast Specific Plan Project, including the
adoption of associated CEQA Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as described in City Council Resolution No.
2010-134 (2010 EIR). CEQA Guidelines section 15162 provides that “no subsequent EIR shall
be prepared” for a project unless the lead agency determines that (1) “substantial changes are
proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR”; or (2)
“substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken”; or (3) “new information of substantial importance … shows” one or more
significant effects not discussed in the original EIR, greater severity to previously-identified
substantial effects, or newly-found feasible mitigation measures that would substantially reduce
significant effects. As described in the Consistency Analysis, the proposed amendments will not
result in new environmental impacts not previously evaluated in the 2010 EIR, or a substantial
increase in previously identified impacts. The proposed amendments (addition of twenty-two
lots, alterations to the lot and street configuration, and amending the land use designation from
Rural Estate Residential to Low-Density Residential), are minor and will not result in any
changes to the proposed project not previously analyzed in the 2010 EIR and no new information
of substantial importance shows any significant effects or newly found feasible mitigation
measures that would substantially reduce significant effects. Further, the amendments are
consistent with the project analyzed in the 2010 EIR. Therefore, no additional environmental
review is necessary.
Section 3. Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings
concerning the amended Southeast Specific Plan proposed by Planning Application No. PLSP22-
0001 pursuant to Rohnert Park Municipal Code section 17.06.390:
1. The specific plan or specific plan amendment is consistent with the city’s general
plan.
The amended Specific Plan would continue to implement the General Plan’s goals
for the Southeast Specific Plan Area as described in the Land Use and
Community Design Element, as recommended to be amended. The amended
Specific Plan complies with the goals and policies of the City’s Housing Element
and inclusionary housing ordinance. The proposed amended plan will increase the
amount of housing provided by the Project consistent with regional needs and the
Housing Element.
2. The specific plan or specific plan amendment will not adversely affect the public
health and safety or result in incompatible land uses.
The amended Specific Plan is not expected to have negative impacts on the health
or well-being of project residents or occupants of the surrounding land uses. The
proposed twenty-two new lots can be served by existing and planned
infrastructure that has been constructed to support the project and are in character
with surrounding neighborhoods. The proposed land use changes provide a more
gradual transition between residential densities and will not result in incompatible
land uses.
3. The specific plan or specific plan amendment provides the framework to phase
and pace growth within the specific plan area so as to ensure completion of all
necessary public facilities concurrently with completion of the specific plan; or,
alternately, a statement of public policy consideration can be adopted and/or an
exception granted in accordance with general plan policies GM-10, GM-11, and
GM-12.
This is the final phase of the Willowglen project. Each phase of the project is
designed to provide for adequate infrastructure and to be integrated with existing
City public improvements, as described in the specific plan. The timing of the
construction of public facilities will be paced to meet the needs of the
development. The off-site infrastructure necessary to serve the development,
including the twenty-two proposed new lots, is already in place. The
infrastructure systems internal to the Willowglen project can be extended as Phase
4 builds out. The water service strategy is consistent with the City’s long-term
water supply plans and its water capacity charge program.
4. The specific plan or specific plan amendment identifies adequate financing
mechanisms for the infrastructure and public facilities required to support the
development.
The project will be subject to the payment of fees to provide for and maintain
public infrastructure such as Public Facilities Financing Plan fees and Water
Capacity Charges to help fund off-site improvements; City-wide and Regional
Traffic fees; Pavement Maintenance fees; Public Services Impact fees; Park
payments, and Maintenance of on-site Infrastructure fees. In addition, the
developer has worked with the City to form a Community Facilities District, to
provide for ongoing maintenance and services, and a Homeowners Association to
maintain certain private facilities.
5. The proposed specific plan is consistent with the planning and prezoning
designation provided for the specific plan area, pursuant to Government Code
Sections 65300 and 65859, or alternatively functions as prezoning for the
unincorporated territory.
The site is zoned “Specific Plan District (SP),” which is implemented through the
land use designations on the City’s General Plan Land Use Diagram. The
proposed Specific Plan, as amended, is consistent with these designations, as
amended.
Section 4. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council
adopt the Findings stated hereinabove and approve Application No. PLSP22-0001 for the
amended Southeast Specific Plan as provided at Exhibit 1, in its entirety.
DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED on this 13th day of July, 2023 by the City of
Rohnert Park Planning Commission by the following vote:
AYES: _____NOES:_____ ABSENT:_____ ABSTAIN:_____
AUSTIN-DILLON_____ EPSTEIN_____ ORLOFF_____ STRIPLEN_____ LAM_____
_________________________________________________________________
Acting Chairperson, Rohnert Park Planning Commission
Attest: ________________________________
Clotile Blanks, Recording Secretary
City of Rohnert Park
Southeast Specific Plan
Adopted December 2010
Amended November 25, 2014
Resolution No. 2014-164
Amended April 23, 2019
Resolution No. 2019-044
Amended _______ 2023
Resolution No. 2023-00
APRIL 2019 JULY 2023
Resolution 2023-14
Exhibit 1
APRIL 2019 FEBRUARY 2023 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
1. INTRODUCTION
A. Background and Plan Purpose 1
B. Planning Process 1
C. Specific Plan Contents 2
D. How to Use This Plan 2
E. Statutory Authority 3
F. Relationship to the General Plan 3
G. Relationship to Other Plans and Regulations 4
2. DESCRIPTION OF PLAN AREA
A. Regional Setting 5
B. Local Setting 5
C. General Site Characteristics 5
D. Jurisdictions 7
3. LAND USE ELEMENT
A. Introduction 8
B. Land Use Policies 8
C. Land Use Designations 8
D. Land Use Designations Summary 13
E. Affordable Housing 15
4. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 16
5. CIRCULATION ELEMENT
A. Existing Circulation 19
B. Roadway Classifications and Standards 19
C. Transit Service 20
D. Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation 20
E. Private Drive / Lane 21
F. Projected Traffic Volumes 21
G. Emergency Vehicle Access 21
H. Phasing 21
6. PUBLIC SERVICES ELEMENT
A. Introduction 24
B. Access and Circulation 24
C. Water Service 24
D. Sanitary Sewer Service 25
E. Storm Drainage System 25
F. Parks and Recreation 26
G. Schools 26
H. Police and Fire 26
I. Finances 26
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN
APRIL 2019 FEBRUARY 2023 ii
7.DESIGN GUIDELINES 28
8.IMPLEMENTATION ELEMENT
A.Development Review and Approval Process 29
B.Financing 29
C.Amendments to the Specific Plan 29
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 30
LIST OF RELATED TECHNICAL STUDIES 30
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN
APRIL 2019 JULY 2023 iii
LIST OF FIGURES PAGE
Figure 2-1 Specific Plan and Planned Development Areas 6
Figure 3-1 Conceptual Land Use Plan 10
Figure 3-2 Conceptual Development Plan 11
Figure 3-3 Mixed Use Area 14
Figure 5-1 Circulation Plan 22
Figure 5-2 Conceptual Phasing Plan 23
LIST OF TABLES PAGE
Table 2-1 Current and Planned Development SESPA Parcels 7 5
Table 3-1 Permitted Uses 12 13
Table 3-2 SESPA Land Use Program 13 14
Table 4-1 Development Standards 17
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN
APRIL 2019 JULY 2023 1
1. INTRODUCTION
A. Background and Plan Purpose
The present document has been prepared in response to the City of Rohnert Park’s
Municipal Code Chapter 17.06, Article VIII, Sections 17.06.290-450, SP-Specific Plan
District. This chapter outlines the requirements for the preparation, adoption and
implementation of Specific Plans in certain areas of the community. The Southeast
Specific Plan area, the subject of this Plan document, was identified in the City’s General
Plan, as adopted in July of 2000 (and subsequently amended) and amended in 2010. The
purpose of the Plan, consistent with the aims of Chapter 17.06, SP-Specific Plan District,
is to provide a vehicle for ensuring that this area of the City is master planned. It is also to
ensure that the phasing and ultimate development of the property involved is consistent
with a vision that is both compatible with the existing community and responsive to the
vision of the General Plan.
B. Planning Process
As outlined in the aforementioned Chapter of the Municipal Code, there are two primary
phases of activity that the Specific Plan process entails. The first of these is the
submission of a Preliminary Application that is then followed with a Specific Plan, the
subject of the present document. A Preliminary Application for the Southeast Specific Plan
was submitted to the City of Rohnert Park in February of 2002. In preparing the
Preliminary Application, the property owners, Redwood Equities, LLC,
Penn Grove Mountain, LLC, undertook the preparation of a variety of engineering and
technical studies to both document the existing conditions on the site as well as to
develop some preliminary concepts for the physical development of the land uses and
activities established for this area in the General Plan; in addition, several meetings were
held with representatives of the City of Rohnert Park to discuss the proposed Specific
Plan. Upon completion of the Preliminary Application and presentation to the Planning
Commission and the City Council, additional technical studies were undertaken as well as
a process of interaction with representatives of the City of Rohnert Park to review more
detailed information on the proposed development. Following the Specific Plan procedure,
the present document was submitted to the City of Rohnert Park and a draft
Environmental Impact Report was prepared. The present document reflects, therefore, the
information contained in the Preliminary Application as well as the subsequent refinement
of plan concepts and incorporates feedback from the City's representatives. The present
document will be submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council for review and
public hearings. Upon the approval of the City Council the Plan will be implemented as an
ordinance.
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN
APRIL 2019 JULY 2023 2
C. Specific Plan Contents
The present Plan contains the following four elements:
•Land Use, which establishes the land use pattern and standards for uses allowed in
the plan area;
•Circulation, which, based on the transportation requirements generated by the land
uses in the Plan area, establishes a circulation system necessary to accommodate
vehicular and pedestrian movements.
•Public Services, which based on the land use pattern outlines the strategies for
providing public safety, recreation, utility and school services.
•Design Guidelines, which address recommended site planning, building and open
space relationship, architecture and land design and public access; and
•Implementation, which provides information on the actions needed to implement the
Plan, including General Plan and zoning changes, if needed, and phasing.
D. How to Use This Plan
As adopted by the City of Rohnert Park, the Plan represents a public document that
establishes the amount, type and location of urban development that will be permitted in
the Southeast Specific Plan area. The Plan also provides development standards and
design guidelines for the development and recommends specific actions to implement the
plan and financing methods and sources to fund improvements.
As the property owners move forward to implement the project, the detailed development
plans will be subject to review by the City for consistency with the Specific Plan. It is
anticipated that the future development plans for the area will be consistent with the
Specific Plan and therefore the environmental issues associated with development will
have been assessed in the environmental documentation which has been prepared as
part of the Specific Plan process. Further assessment, if required, can be limited to site-
specific impacts of the individual development plans.
Subsequent steps in the development process, including Development Area Plans,
subdivision and other procedures are administered according to the Municipal Code.
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN
APRIL 2019 JULY 2023 3
E. Statutory Authority
California Law, specifically Section 65450-65457 of the Government Code, empowers
cities to employ specific plans to provide for the systematic implementation of the General
Plan by linking the implementing policies of the General Plan with the individual
development proposals in a defined area.
This Specific Plan conforms to the various principles and requirements of State Planning
and Zoning Law, Article 8, Specific Plans of Chapter 3. Local Planning by providing the
following information:
•(1) The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space,
within the area covered by the plan.
•(2) The proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components
of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal,
energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by
the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan.
•(3) Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the
conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable.
•(4) A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public
works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out paragraphs (1), (2),
and (3).
•(5) A statement of the relationship of the specific plan to the general plan.
F. Relationship to the General Plan
The City of Rohnert Park’s General Plan provides a comprehensive statement of the
objectives, themes and policies which the community is seeking to achieve in the areas of
land use, growth management, community design, transportation, open space, parks and
public facilities, environmental conservation, health and safety, noise, and housing. The
current Specific Plan, as an instrument which promulgates and is an extension of the
General Plan, incorporates, by definition, the stated general objectives, themes and
policies and, where more specific objectives and policies are stated, makes reference to
such objectives and policies and provides further elaboration on the ways in which the
Specific Plan is responsive to this guidance.
A comprehensive discussion of the General Plan goals, policies, and programs that
provide direction and input to the Southeast Specific Plan and the various related
elements are included as Attachment C: General Plan Analysis.
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN
APRIL 2019 JULY 2023 4
G. Relationship to Other Plans and Regulations
The Southeast Specific Plan Area (SESPA) is within Sonoma County and within the City
of Rohnert Park’s Sphere of Influence and 20-year Urban Growth Boundary. Annexation
into the City of Rohnert Park has been completed and the specific plan area is currently
under development. Actions required for the ongoing implementation of the Specific Plan
are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 7: Implementation.
Policy documents and ordinances of both of Sonoma County and The City of Rohnert
Park provide guidance on the development process and requirements in the plan area.
State and regional agencies also exercise jurisdictional authority over development
activities in the plan area. The following City policy documents apply to the plan area:
•City of Rohnert Park General Plan
•City of Rohnert Park Zoning Ordinance
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN
APRIL 2019 JULY 2023 5
2. DESCRIPTION OF PLAN AREA
A. Regional Setting
The City of Rohnert Park is located in central Sonoma County approximately a one hour
drive north of the San Francisco Bay Area. With the Pacific Ocean to the west, the
community lies within the Cotati Valley and is bounded to the south by the City of Cotati
while the City of Santa Rosa lies to the north.
B. Local Setting
As shown in Figure 2-1, the Southeast Specific Plan Area (SESPA) lies within the City of
Rohnert Park’s city limit in the extreme southeast corner of the City. The SESPA is
bounded to the north by the Canon Manor Specific Plan Area, to the east by Petaluma Hill
Road and undeveloped land, to the south Valley House Drive and undeveloped land, and
to the west by Bodway Parkway and land in the Sonoma Mountain Village Planned
Development.
C. General Site Characteristics
The SESPA consists of relatively flat land rising gently from east to west with no
significant natural or manmade features or changes in topography. The neighborhood
park is complete and first phases of 105 lots phase 3 is currently under development. Two
additional lots would be added to Phase 1 with the 2019 specific plan amendment. The
current development and remaining development are as shown in Table 2-1.
SOUTHEA ST SPECIFIC PLAN
T fr .. :,
r1�-=-�i:.-.:.--j!---�
J l!.��CL1. /' tf· li .·
l'
�;ifa dium Land� . � anned De I --�-,.._ ve opment
Rohner, Pork Fxpy
:, � ,,, __ J ···----=
\
.. �: \\ -. ,s .. . .... ��-\ ,.;::.,�
\ ... �-,.. \;,,.!,.•• . ,_, ;;.,. �..... ;.�:� '-:; -,';: .,,.. \\
'.
0.5 0.25 O -•==i-�====�0.5 Miles
\ -:, �·
··--·· Sphere of I nflu _ ence
20 year UGB c:::::J Development A P777l
reas
� Outside Cit L . ...--i Y 1mit
L-.J Central R h :-·--·j . . o nert Park PDA
L----� City Limits
APRIL 2019 JULY 2023 6
"":�.:..-
S
. Figure 21
Planned De
pecific Plan an.d
velopmentA reas
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN
APRIL 2019 JULY 2023 7
Table 2-1 Current and Planned Development*
Phase Area Parcels Owner % of Total
1 29.2 ac. 108** Varied – under active development; includes
developer Penn Grove Mtn LLC
37%
2 16.0 ac. 129 Penn Grove Mtn LLC 20%
3 14.3 ac. 106 Penn Grove Mtn LLC 18%
4 20.1 ac. 54 76 Penn Grove Mtn LLC 25%
*Includes 2 lots owned by Penn Grove Mtn LLC and changes to Phases 3 and 4 in 2019 Specific Plan amendment.
**Includes Mixed Use parcel for future apartments, townhomes and commercial.
D. Jurisdictions
The SESPA falls entirely within the city limits of the City of Rohnert Park. Other
government agencies with jurisdiction in the plan area include:
•State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board, which reviews and regulates
activities that affect water quality in California;
•State of California Department of Fish and Game, which reviews projects affecting fish
and wildlife habitat; and
•Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers which regulates activities and
development in the navigable waters of the United States
•U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which reviews and regulates activities that affect habitat
of threatened and endangered species
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN
APRIL 2019 JULY 2023 8
3. LAND USE
A. Introduction
This section of the Specific Plan provides information and guidance on the range of land
uses and the general levels of development to be accommodated within the SESPA. Also
provided are development standards which provide more specific guidance on physical
development parameters such as setbacks, building height, FAR’s, and the like.
B. Land Use Policies
Information on the Land Use policies for the SESPA, which have been established in the
General Plan, are provided in Attachment C: General Plan Analysis.
C. Land Use Designations
As shown in the City of Rohnert Park General Plan, the land uses intended for
development within the SESPA include residential and mixed-use as well as a park.
Following guidance provided by the General Plan, the proposed development to be
accommodated in the SESPA may be characterized as a residential community adjacent
to the existing Canon Manor residential development and bounded to the east by
Petaluma Hill Road, the south by Valley House Drive, and the west by Bodway Parkway.
Within the residential community, as contemplated in the General Plan and shown in
Figure 3-1: Conceptual Land Use Plan and illustrated in Figure 3-2: Conceptual
Development Plan, different densities of housing will be accommodated. Adjacent to the
residential development will be a mixed-used area. Incorporated within the fabric of the
residential development will be a park to serve local residents. The Specific Plan has
established 6 specific plan land use designations. Each specific plan land use
designations is consistent with an existing general plan land use designation. Table 3-1:
Permitted Uses identifies uses that are unconditionally permitted and those that require
special permits or approvals. Those uses not specifically listed are not permitted unless
determined by the City to be substantially similar to a listed use. A description of the
specific plan land uses follows:
•The Rural Estate Residential (RE) land use is the lowest density land use,
accommodating up to 2 single-family detached residential units per gross acre.
This district is intended for very low-density residential development on large estate
lots of typically 17,000 sq.ft. or larger in size. This district, located at the perimeter
of the city, is intended to provide a transition from the more urban development to
the open space/agricultural areas outside the city. This land use category is
consistent with the "Rural Estate Residential" General Plan designation.
•The Low Density Residential (LD) land use designation is also intended for
single-family detached residential units. The density for this land use designation is
between 4.0 and 6.0 units per gross acre. This land use category is consistent with
the "Low Density Residential" General Plan designation and can accommodate the
following housing types:
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN
APRIL 2019 JULY 2023 9
Conventional Lots: Units that take garage and front door access from the
public street.
Executive Estate Lots.: Units that take garage and front door access from
the public street. Executive Estates have larger, deeper lots and are able to
accommodate a greater array of enhanced home options and backyard
amenities, including accessory dwelling units..
Duets: Two attached units separated by a common lot line. Duets can be
designed similar to conventional lots with garage access from the street or
private drive/lane.
•The Southeast Medium Density or SE Medium Density (SEMD) classification
envisions detached single-family housing and/or duets with an overall density
ranges from 6.1 to 12.0 units per gross acre. This land use designation is
consistent with the "Medium Density Residential" General Plan designation. The
SE Medium Density Designation can accommodate a variety of lot types including:
Conventional Lots: Units that take garage and front door access from the
public street.
Motorcourt Cluster: Units that take garage access from a private drive/lane
and front door access from the public street and private drive/lane.
Duets: Two attached units separated by a common lot line. Duets can be
designed similar to conventional lots with garage access from the street or
private drive/lane.
•The Mixed-Use (MU) land use classification envisions a development pattern that
encompasses businesses, retail shops, institutions, service organizations and
residences in a compatible, pedestrian environment. The appropriate residential
component of this land use will be multifamily (apartments) and attached single-
family units (townhomes). See Figure 3-3: Mixed Use Area. This land use allows for
the development of integrated centers that combine a supportive mix of land uses,
either within the same building or in clusters of buildings. This land use is
consistent with the “Mixed Use” General Plan Designation.
•The Park (P) land use classification accommodates neighborhood-scale park
development to support the recreational needs of the adjacent residences. This
land use designation is consistent with the "Parks/Recreation" General Plan
designation.
In addition to the aforementioned land uses, Figure 3-1 designates 3 view corridor areas
that have been sited to preserve and enhance views to the eastern ridgeline of the hills
east of Petaluma Hill Road. Each corridor shall consist of a 50-foot wide area of land at
the terminus of the street. No structures shall be permitted within these corridors, except
for transparent (see-through) fences. No trees shall be planted within view corridors.
Berms shall be permitted as necessary for sound attenuation.
A 50-foot buffer has also been designated along the length of Petaluma Hill Road to
preserve the scenic qualities of this roadway. In no case shall trees or shrubs that exceed
25 feet in height upon maturity be planted within the buffer to preserve views.
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN
APRIL 2019 JULY 2023 10
Figure 3-1 Conceptual Land Use Plan (Revised)
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN
APRIL 2019 JULY 2023 11
Figure 3-2 Conceptual Development Plan (Revised)
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN
APRIL 2019 JULY 2023 12
Table 3-1: Permitted Uses
Land Use Category RE LD MD MU P
Single Family Home P P P
Duets P
Townhouse P
Multi-Family Housing (Apartments) P
Secondary Unit P
Bed and Breakfast Inn C
Accessory Structure (non-habitable) – Shall be subject to RPMC Section
17.10.060
I I I
Community Center P
Small Day Care Home (8 or fewer children) P P P P
Large Day Care Home (9 or more children) C C C C
Community Gardens P
Family Care Home/Residential Care Facility (6 or fewer people) P P P P
Private School/Education C C C C
Single Room Occupancy Boarding House A A A
Fraternity/Sorority C C C
Religious Assembly C C C C
Antenna, Vertical/Satellite Dish, Communication Facility C C C C
Home Occupation P P P P
Amusement Center (video games, billiards, theatre or indoor
amusement)
C
Animal Hospital / Veterinary Clinic – small animals only, no outdoor
facilities
C
Bank/Savings & Loan/Credit Union P
Bar/Nightclub/Live Entertainment – subject to permitting requirements,
refer to Land Use Footnote “r” Section 17.07
C
Barber/Beauty Shop P
Health and Beauty Spa/Massage Therapy C
Clubs and Lodges/Public Assembly C
Dry Cleaning (only minor processing on-site)/Laundromat/Tailor P
Grocery/Food Market/Bakery P
Restaurant (café, microbrewery, sit-down or take-out)- refer to land use
footnote R Section 17.07
P
Retail Sales (Florist, Antiques, Interior Design, Hardware, clothing, etc.) P
Office (Professional/ Administrative/Medical/Dental) P
Laboratory (in conjunction with medical, dental or optical use) P
Professional Services (small scale postal, copy, printing) P
Medical Clinic C
Pharmacy (drive-through windows not permitted) P
Art Studios/Galleries (Photography, fine arts) C
Public Facility (Police, fire and other government uses) C C C C
Studios (Dance, Martial Arts) P
Health Club P
Liquor Store (off-Sale) - subject to permitting requirements, refer to Land
Use Footnote “r” Section 17.07
C
Park, Playfield, playground, sport court P
Detention Basin/Water Storage Facility P
(P)Permitted (C) Conditionally permitted by Planning Commission (A) Administrative Permit (T) Temporary
Conditional Permit (I) Uses Allowed as incidental to Primary Use
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN
APRIL 2019 JULY 2023 13
D. Land Use Designations Summary
Table 3-2: SESPA Land Use Program presents a comparison between the guidance
provided in Table 2.4-3 Land Use Program: Southeast Specific Plan Area of the General
Plan and the proposed Specific Plan.
Table 3-2: SESPA Land Use Program
Land Use
2000 General Plan (As Amended 201022) Specific Plan
Gross
Acres1
Density
Range
(Du/Ac)
Unit
Range
(Min. –
Max)
Non-
Residential
Bldg Area
(1,000 s.f.)
Approx.
Gross
Acres
Units Density
(Du/Ac)
Non-
Residential
Bldg Area
(1,000 s.f.)
Rural Estate
Residential
15-20
9.13
up to
2.21
30-50
up to 20 n.a.16.0
9.13 292 19 1.8
2.1 n.a
Low Density
Residential
20-22
27.69 4-6 145-165
110-166 n.a.21.0
27.69
128
160
6.0
5.8 n.a
Medium
Density
Residential3
26-29
27.77 6.1-12 180-220
169-333 n.a.27.6
27.77 239 8.7
8.6 n.a
Mixed Use
Development
5-10
6.96 n.a.55-75
81 10 7.0
6.96
117
81 n.a. 10
Parks 5-8
7.98 n.a. n.a.n.a. 7.9
7.984 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Total 80
79.53 n.a.360-600 10 79.5
79.53 513 499 n.a. 10
Notes:
1. Gross Acreage includes all rights-of-way located within the project boundary, measured to the center line of the
street
2. Rural Estate residential unit count includes one existing unit.
3. In the Specific Plan, the SE Medium Density land use category is consistent with the Medium Density General Plan
Land Use Designation.
4. Includes a 5.0 net acre park and a 2.1 net acre basin (7.1 net acres total)
As indicated in the table, the proposed specific plan land uses are generally consistent in
terms of the General Plan’s vision for the Specific Plan area.
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN
APRIL 2019 JULY 2023 14
Figure 3-3 Mixed Use Area (Graphics Updated Only)
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN
APRIL 2019 JULY 2023 15
E. Affordable Housing
The City of Rohnert Park’s Affordable Housing Ordinance requires all new housing
projects of five units or more to provide at least 15% of all units as affordable. This
equates to 72 75 of the 477 499 total units within the SESPA. The ordinance provides a
number of options to meet this requirement ranging from on-site construction, land
donation to a non-profit developer, transfer of inclusionary unit credits and in-lieu fees for
the construction of off-site affordable units. Additional affordable units may be provided in
addition to the required inclusionary units.
The SESPA has been designed to allow for either on-site or off-site construction of
affordable units. The Specific Plan’s wide range of housing types including duets,
apartments, townhomes, and small single-family homes, which provides numerous
opportunities to provide on-site affordable housing consistent with the City’s affordable
requirements. The development agreement for the project includes the Affordable
Housing Plan for the project.
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN
APRIL 2019 JULY 2023 16
4. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS
This Chapter describes standards for the development of each designation within the plan
area. Table 4-1: Development Standards, sets forth the minimum requirements for lot
area, coverage, floor area ratios, height, and setbacks, except as allowed through the City
development and design review process, planned area process, or as otherwise indicated
by the Specific Plan. The intention of these standards is to provide quantifiable guidance
on the development desired in each of the land use categories.
For issues not specifically addressed by the development standards or the Specific Plan,
the City of Rohnert Park Zoning Code shall apply and shall be based upon the most
compatible zoning designation as determined by the planning director or his/her designee.
Park development standards are intentionally excluded from Table 5-1: Development
Standards. Park development standards shall be the same as those specified in the
Parks (P-I) zoning district of the City of Rohnert Park Zoning Code.
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN
APRIL 2019 JULY 2023 17
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN
APRIL 2019 JULY 2023 18
Table 4-1: Development Standards Table 4-1 Notes:
1.Duets are two attached units located on two separate lots.
2.Dimensions are measured at the center of the lot. Flag lots are permitted.
3.Maximum Residential Density refers to the gross overall density for the overall specific plan land use district.
4.Towers, spires, cupolas, chimneys, elevator penthouse, water tanks, monuments, and similar structures and necessary mechanical
appurtenances covering not more than twenty percent of the top floor roof area may exceed the maximum permitted height in the
underlying zoning district by ten feet by conditional use permit.
5.Accessory structures are defined as detached structures such as sheds and small out structures not intended to serve as a living
quarter. These are not permitted on duet lots, on mixed-use parcels, or within the 50-foot Petaluma Hill Road setback. All accessory
structures shall meet the requirements of Rohnert Park Zoning Code section 17.10.060 as it pertains to accessory structures. For
purposes of this specific plan, detached garages are not considered accessory structures.
6.All homes backing up to Petaluma Hill road shall be single story. No structures are permitted within the 50-foot setback, which is
measured from existing right-of-way.
7.Minor projections such as bay windows, fireplaces, balconies, dormers and other minor architectural projections may encroach up to 2
feet into the front yard setback and up to 3 feet into side and rear yard setbacks. However, projections are allowed on one side yard
only as one side must maintain at least 4’ clear for full fire packs. Intrusions into setbacks shall not exceed more than 30% of the total
length of one wall only. Full clearance on opposing side yard setback without overhangs is needed.
8.Front yard setback and Public Utility Easements may need to be expanded in specific loc ations to accommodate additional room for
utility boxes, transformers, and other infrastructure pursuant to the requirements of the public utility company.
9.Duet garages may be accessed either directly from the street or private drive/lane
10.Minimum setback to property line may be 0' or 3' minimum; however, the aggregate distance between buildings shall be no less than 8
feet.
11.Dimension may be reduced to a minimum of 10 feet for up to 55% of the width of the building.
12.Due to the configuration of duet units, the rear setback is often synonymous with the side yard setback. Garages may be setback a
minimum of 5 feet in either condition; however, living areas shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet when adjacent to another lot’s private
rear yard.
13.Garage access from a private drive / lane shall have a minimum driveway apron dimension of 5 feet or less or 18 feet or more to deter
parked cars from blocking the drive aisle. This dimension shall be measured from the edge of the drive aisle/ lane to the face of garage
door.
14.Private open space shall provide a minimum dimension of 10 feet in any one direction. Private open space may be provided in the
front, rear or side yards as long as the area is defined by a fence or wall and may be split into two areas if necessary. Private open
space areas may be split into two separate areas as long as the minimum dimension is met for all spaces and the cumulative area of all
spaces meets the minimum area requirement.
15.This requirement applies to residential uses only and may be provided in the form of balconies, porches or decks. The minimum
dimension shall be 6 feet.
16.FAR for commercial buildings shall not exceed 0.4. FAR for residential building shall not exceed 1.15 and shall have a minimum
density of 12.2 du/ac. Mixed use buildings, if proposed, are permitted to increase the FAR in accordance with the General Plan.
17.Tandem spaces are permitted in order to meet the parking requirements.
18.Wall and fence heights may be increased to allow for sound attenuation per the recommendation of an acoustical study.
19.Secondary units are defined as either an attached or detached unit intended for use as a separate living unit but under the s ame
ownership as the primary unit. Secondary units must include separate access, a bathroom, a kitchenette, and a separate parking
space. This space may be provided as a tandem garage space or an uncovered space but must be located on the same lot as the unit.
Secondary units shall be subject to the same minimum setbacks as the primary structure. Secondary units are only permitted on Rural
Estate Lots.
20.Affordable housing projects parking ratio shall comply with California Government Code Section 65915-65918 Density Bonus Parking
Requirement.
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN
APRIL 2019 JULY 2023 19
5. CIRCULATION ELEMENT
A traffic noise assessment was performed as part of the SESPA planning process to
determine the extent to which traffic along the major thoroughfares adjacent to the area
had the potential to generate noise levels in excess of established standards. The findings
of this assessment are that noise generated by traffic along Petaluma Hill Road, Bodway
Parkway, and Valley House Drive is anticipated to be such that mitigation measures such
as sound walls, berm, setbacks, or any combination of these would be required. The
precise design and configuration of these measures will be developed in collaboration with
City representatives.
Circulation in the Southeast Area consists of a series of Arterials, Collector, and local
roadways as illustrated in Figure 5-1: Circulation Plan. Existing roadways surrounding the
site include Bodway Parkway, Valley House Drive, and Petaluma Hill Road. Bodway
Parkway is an existing Major Collector. The project will improve Bodway Parkway within
the existing right-of-way by adding an additional 6-foot sidewalk to the easterly side of the
street, along the project’s frontage. Valley House Drive and Petaluma Hill Road are both
Minor Arterials. Improvements to Valley House Drive include a meandering 8-foot wide
Class I bikeway/sidewalk. Petaluma Hill Road improvements include widening the existing
roadway by 20 feet to accommodate left and right turn lanes at the signalized intersection
at Valley House Drive, a 7-foot sidewalk with curb and gutter, and an 8-foot multi-use path
with curb and gutter, and a 6-foot on-street bike lane. All new roadways interior to the
project area consist of Minor Streets, 42-foot wide Neighborhood Streets, and 24 feet wide
private drives and 20-foot wide private drives at motorcourts. All streets, except for
private drives and motorcourts, are public.
The Design Guidelines presented in Chapter 6 of this document provide additional
guidance and direction in planning for new development.
A. Existing Circulation
Existing circulation in the vicinity of the SESPA is provided via three principal roadways
including Petaluma Hill Road, located on the eastern boundary of the site which is the
principal north/south regional roadway, Valley House Drive to the south serving east-west
traffic, and Bodway Parkway to the west, also serving north/south movements. The
Phase 1 interior circulation system for Phases 1-2 is complete and the Phase 3 interior
circulation system is under construction.
B. Roadway Classifications and Standards
The General Plan provides guidance on the sizing and physical and functional
characteristics of roadways within the City of Rohnert Park. For the SESPA, the General
Plan’s Master Street Plan (Figure 4.1-1 in the General Plan) indicates the following
classifications for roadways shown on the Plan:
•Bodway Parkway: Major Minor Collector (2 lanes) [Per Resolution N. 2021-097]
•Valley House Drive: Minor Arterial (4 lanes) [Proposed]
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN
APRIL 2019 JULY 2023 20
•Petaluma Hill Road: Minor Arterial (2 lanes) [Existing]
The street sections which correspond to these classifications are shown in Attachment A:
the Public Services Plan.
C.Transit Service
Transit services in the vicinity of the SESPA are provided by Sonoma County Routes 44,
46 and 52 that operate on Petaluma Hill Road and Camino Colegio. The project, when
implemented, will add incrementally to the demand for transit services that can be met by
the transit provider.
D.Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation
Pedestrian and bicycle circulation within the SESPA will be facilitated by a network of
sidewalks and bicycle lanes which will be developed along with the roadway system. This
system is demonstrated in Figure 5-1: Circulation Plan. The local street system has been
designed as a grid network of streets with sidewalks, short blocks, and multiple
intersections to maximize connectivity and allow pedestrians to maneuver easily
throughout the SESPA. A direct east-west connection has been provided in the form of a
through street that extends from the park/mixed use area and the Rural Estate
neighborhood. This connection along with one through north-south connection has been
designated as a “Major Pedestrian Corridor”. Major Pedestrian Corridors are intended to
provide direct connections through the site for pedestrians traveling along these
sidewalks. Neck-downs or bulb-outs shall be provided at key intersections to promote
safer pedestrian street crossings.
In addition to improved connectivity within the site, an 8-foot multi-use trail along Valley
House Drive and a 6-foot sidewalk along Bodway Parkway provide both bicyclists and
pedestrians with easy access to adjacent neighborhoods. The multi-use trail will be
grade-separate from the street, providing a safer environment for trail-users. Both the
Valley House and Bodway pedestrian corridors are also considered Major Pedestrian
corridors and should be carefully designed to minimize driveway accesses and vehicular
interruptions. This may be achieved through the use of motor court homes or by siding
homes onto these roadways.
The Valley House Drive and Bodway Parkway pedestrian corridors have also been
designed to promote connectivity with existing and planned adjacent neighborhoods by
providing direct connection to existing sidewalks and providing enhanced pedestrian
crossings to future development planned just west of the SESPA. Figure 5-1
demonstrates the conceptual location for these crossings. Crossing enhancements may
include features such as bulb-outs, enhanced paving materials, lighted crosswalks or
other design features that alert vehicles of a pedestrian presence and encourage drivers
to slow down. The final designs of these intersections are subject to future review and
approval by the City of Rohnert Park.
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN
APRIL 2019 JULY 2023 21
E.Private Drive / Lane
1.Dead end lanes are allowed if lane length does not exceed 150'.
2.Maximum 6 residential units.
3.No parking shall be allowed.
4.Lanes shall connect to streets that provide minimum 20' clear width.
5.Access shall be through a Standard 250 A, C, or D curb cut unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
6.Lighting shall meet the City's minor street requirements for uniformity ratio and minimum maintained foot candle
specifications. All streetlights shall be LED.
7.Signs will be posted with "No Parking Fire Lane"
F. Projected Traffic Volumes
In order to assess the potential demands for transportation services in the SESPA and
given the possibility of different types of commercial development within the mixed-use
area, two alternative scenarios were used. One examined the development of the 20,000
s.f. of space for a small retail center while the other analyzed the requirements for office
development. Under the first scenario, the retail center, an average of about 5,000 daily
vehicle trips would be generated while under the second scenario, the office development,
the trips would be somewhat lower. Refer to the Southeast Specific Plan Traffic Impact
Study, which is on file with the City of Rohnert Park Planning Division (File numbers 2003-
031, -054 and –005).
G. Emergency Vehicle Access
Access for emergency vehicles, including police and fire, will be provided via the network
of streets that will be developed as part of the project.
H. Phasing
As shown in Figure 5-2, Conceptual Phasing Plan, the project will be developed in several
phases according to market demands. At each stage of development, roads will be
constructed to provide access to the new residences while ensuring a logical roadway
pattern is available for utility services, fire access, and life safety equipment as needed
and appropriate. The first two three phases are under active development at this time.
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN
APRIL 2019 JULY 2023 22
Figure 5-1: Circulation Plan (Revised)
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN
APRIL 2019 JULY 2023 23
Figure 5-2: Conceptual Phasing Diagram (Revised)
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN
APRIL 2019 JULY 2023 24
6.PUBLIC SERVICES ELEMENT
A.Introduction
In support of the residential, mixed-use and park development within the SESPA, public
services will be required. These services include access and circulation, water service,
sanitary sewer service, and storm drainage management. The Public Services Plan,
provided as Attachment A, describes the delivery approach concepts for each of these
systems. Following are brief summaries of the planned improvements for each service.
B. Access and Circulation
The existing roadways which provide primary access to the SESPA, i.e. Petaluma Hill
Road, Valley House Drive, and Bodway Parkway, will require different levels of
improvement in order to accommodate the future transportation demands generated by
the new development. In the case of Petaluma Hill Road, which is a fully improved county
highway, the project will include the installation of additional pavement to allow for the
installation of an 8-foot bike lane constructed according to County Standards along the
project’s frontage. A traffic signal at the Petaluma Hill Road/Valley House Drive
intersection already exists as well as a new left and right turn lanes at the traffic signal.
South of Valley House Drive, additional pavement will also be added to accommodate
longer deceleration lanes. Bodway Parkway will be upgraded from its existing situation
(which includes two traffic lanes, a median and a bikeway/sidewalk on the western side of
the roadway) to include a new 6-foot sidewalk on the east side of the parkway along the
frontage of the SESPA. Finally, with the elimination of the property on the south side of
Valley House Drive from the Urban Growth Boundary, the existing improvements to Valley
House Drive are adequate to serve the proposed traffic flow. Improvements to both
Bodway and Valley House are not included in the Public Facilities Financing Plan.
Streets and sidewalks required for internal circulation within the SESPA will be developed
in accordance with the City of Rohnert Park Manual of Standards, Details and
Specifications (most current edition).
C. Water Service
As part of the Specific Plan process the Rohnert Park Final Water Supply Assessment,
(Winzler and Kelly, January 2005) was prepared to determine the availability of water
needed to serve the project area. The Specific Plan also considers water conservation
and a water conservation plan was prepared. Both the water assessment and the water
conservation plan are on file with the City of Rohnert Park Development Services
Department (File numbers 2003-031 and -054). Consistent with the objective of water
conservation, low flow devices will be installed within the new homes and drought tolerant
landscaping materials will be utilized. The developers of the SESPA will continue to work
with the City of Rohnert Park to construct appropriate water saving and water generating
projects, consistent with state law.
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN
APRIL 2019 JULY 2023 25
New development within the SESPA will pay the City’s most current water capacity
charge. This charge funds upgrades to the City’s water system to serve new development.
The project will need to construct or fund the construction of a 12” water main extension
from the City’s water tank on Camino Colegio to the project.
D. Sanitary Sewer Service
The owners of the SESPA property have entered into an agreement with the County of
Sonoma and the developers of the Sonoma Mountain Village to provide a collector sewer
system for Canon Manor, the Southeast Specific Plan, and the lands formerly owned by
Agilent Technologies. This system consists of a gravity main from the intersection of
Bodway Parkway and Camino Colegio, a sewerage lift station, and a force main to an
adequately sized trunk line sewer provided by the Public Facilities Financing Plan. These
facilities are complete.
E. Storm Drain System
Runoff and storm water, which requires management within the SESPA, will be collected
and conveyed through a series of interconnected drop inlets, catch basins, manholes, and
pipes. Rain gardens will be used in large residential lots and in the commercial and
multifamily areas. Additional filtering or low impact design elements will be included in the
design to meet SUSUMP requirements; storm water quality enhancement or cleaning for
the 2-year storm event.
Except for the commercial and multifamily sections, all the storm water will tie into a storm
water detention facility located adjacent to the park at the project’s western boundary. The
total area of the detention basin is about 1.8 acres. The storm water detention facility or
detention basin will attenuate the increase in runoff created by the development of the
property to be at the same present rate. This will result in no net increase in peak runoff in
the 100-year storm event. In addition to attenuating the peak runoff, the detention facility
will also provide a means of infiltration for ground water recharge and an improvement in
water quality by settling of sediment. After release through the detention basin outlet
structures, the runoff will drain into two existing systems located in Bodway Parkway and
converge just to the west of the intersection of Bodway Parkway and Valley House Drive.
The point of reference within the watershed that is used to compare pre and post project
flows is located on the Sonoma Mountain Village site. An existing storm drain in the
Sonoma Mountain Village site currently conveys water from Bodway Parkway and the
SESPA. This storm drain system will continue to serve the SESPA after development.
This will be possible since the SESPA will have no net increase in peak flows up to the
100 year storm.
The upstream collection facilities will be funded by the developers of the SESPA. A
Preliminary Stormwater Mitigation Plan has also been prepared as part of the Specific
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN
APRIL 2019 JULY 2023 26
Plan process and can be found on file at the City of Rohnert Park Planning Divisions (File
numbers 2003-031 and -054).
F. Parks and Recreation
A new community park is proposed within the SESPA as shown in Figure 10: Master Park
Plan. This Public Services Plan proposes a 5 ± net acre park and, rectangular in nature,
adjacent to Bodway Parkway. The park’s proposed east-west orientation allows it to be
integrated into the SESPA’s proposed pedestrian promenade and view corridor.
G.Schools
The project proponents have contacted the Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District to
determine services available to the Southeast Area. A school district representative
indicated that currently the Southeast Rohnert Park Specific Plan area would be served by
the following schools:
Elementary School: Monte Vista
Middle School: Lawrence E. Jones Middle School
High School: Rancho Cotate & Technology High
H. Police and Fire
The City of Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety will provide police and fire services
to this area. The Department of Public Safety provides police, fire and other related
services with cross-trained personnel under a single administrative umbrella. SESPA can
currently be served by the City’s Fire Station in M section. The City’s Public Facilities
Financing Plan includes funding of a new fire station in the southwest portion of the City to
serve planned growth.
I. Finances
Major off-site infrastructure is paid for by the City’s Public Facilities Financing Plan and the
Water Capacity Charge programs. The SESPA development will pay into these fees.
Ongoing maintenance for service for the SESPA project will funded by special tax
assessments collected through a Community Facilities District (CFD). The services funded
by the special taxes include provision of public safety services that are in addition to those
services provided before the formation of the Community Facilities District; the
maintenance, rehabilitation and reconstruction of publically owned pavement; the
maintenance, rehabilitation and reconstruction of publically owned landscapes, parks,
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN
APRIL 2019 JULY 2023 27
playgrounds, signage, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, decorative walls and street lighting; and
the permitting, operation, maintenance , monitoring, rehabilitation and reconstruction of
publicly owned drainage and storm water treatment systems within the District. This also
includes all the appurtenances and work (such as engineering, planning, designing,
construction and coordination) to provide and maintain the services.
The special tax rate for the CFD is established annually. The calculations to establish the
tax rate are informed by the provisions of the Development Agreement between the
developer and the City.
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN
APRIL 2019 JULY 2023 28
7. DESIGN GUIDELINES
The Design Guidelines are presented as Attachment B to this document.
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN
APRIL 2019 JULY 2023 29
8. IMPLEMENTATION ELEMENT
A.Development Review and Approval
The Southeast Specific Plan was approved by the City Council in 2010 and annexation of
the site to the City was completed in 2011. Both actions were subject to preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to evaluate the environmental effects of these actions.
The City Council certified the EIR in taking action on the project. In 2014, minor
amendments to the Specific Plan and Development Area Plan were approved to eliminate
alley-loaded single family lots and incorporate motorcourt homes.
Final maps for Phases 1 and 2 have been approved and construction of homes within
those phases is underway. The neighborhood park on the western side of the project is
nearing completion. Current amendments to project plans are proposed to reflect a better
understanding of development patterns.
B.Financing
The developers of the SESPA will fund the installation of public facilities and services in
the SESPA and will also contribute through the City of Rohnert Park Public Facilities
Financing Plan and agreements with the County of Sonoma for the funding of off-site
services. These fees also include school mitigation fees, park fees, sewer and water
connection fees, storm drain fees, engineering plan check fees, grading plan and permit
fees, building plan and permit fees, housing in-lieu fees, traffic signal fees, and area-wide
impact fees.
The maintenance of open spaces, landscape medians and other similar features will be
financed through the established Community Services District.
C.Amendments to the Specific Plan
Amendments to this Specific Plan shall be made in accordance with applicable sections of
the Rohnert Park Municipal Code, Chapter 17.06, Article VIII, Section 17.06
SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN
APRIL 2019 JULY 2023 30
List of Attachments:
Attachment A: Public Services Plan, Civil Design Consultants, Inc. October 27, 2010
Attachment B: City of Rohnert Park Southeast Specific Plan Design Guidelines,
prepared by William Hezmalhalch Architects, Inc. May 2006
Attachment C: General Plan Analysis
List of Related Technical Studies (on File at the City of Rohnert Park Planning
Division File no. 2003-031, -054, and –005)
•City of Rohnert Park Southeast Specific Plan Preliminary Application, presented by
Redwood Equities, LLC, February 2002
•Final Report – Southeast Specific Plan Market Analysis, Economic & Planning
Systems, Inc. February 2002.
•Final Report – Southeast Specific Plan Market Analysis, Economic and Planning
Systems, February 2002; a revision to this report was prepared in 2006.
•Updated Geotechnical Engineering Investigation – Proposed Residential Development
7279 Petaluma Hill Road, Rohnert Park, California, Southeast Specific Plan,
Michelucci & Associates, Inc. December 2002.
•Results of 2001 Survey for Special-Status Plant Species, Southeast Specific Plan
Area, Rohnert Park, California; Laurence P. Stromberg, Ph.D., Wetlands Consultant;
May 2001.
•Jurisdictional Delineation – Redwood Equities, LLC Property, Gibson & Skordal, LLC,
Wetlands Consultants, June 2002
•Letter: from Calvin C. Fong, Chief, Regulatory Branch, Department of the Army, San
Francisco District, Corps of Engineers, to Tom Skordal.
•A Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Southeast Specific Plan Area, in Rohnert Park,
Sonoma County, California, submitted by Archaeological Resource Service, January
2002.
•Southeast Specific Plan Traffic Impact Study for the City of Rohnert Park, Whitlock &
Weinberger Transportation, Inc. January 2003.
•Addendum to SESPA Traffic Impact Study, Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation,
March 6, 2003.
•Environmental Site Assessment, Phase 1 Investigation, Harris & Lee, Environmental
Sciences, March 2001.
•Traffic Noise Assessment, Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. April 6, 2003.
•Public Facilities Financing Plan, Harris and Associates, May 25, 2004
•Public Services Plan, Civil Design Consultants, Inc. 2003.
•Rohnert Park Final Water Supply Assessment, Winzler and Kelly, January 2005
•Water Conservation Plan for Southeast Specific Plan, John Olaf Nelson Water
Resources Management, May 2008
•Preliminary Stormwater Mitigation Plan, Civil Design Consultants, Inc., 2008
Preliminary Stormwater Mitigation Plan
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2023-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF A REVISED DEVELOPMENT AREA PLAN FOR THE SOUTHEAST
SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT LOCATED SOUTH OF THE CANON MANOR SPECIFIC
PLAN AREA, WEST OF PETALUMA HILL ROAD, EAST OF BODWAY PARKWAY
AND NORTH OF VALLEY HOUSE DRIVE (VARIOUS APNS)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Penn Grove Mountain LLC filed Planning Applications
proposing amendments to the General Plan (PLGP22-0001), an amended Specific Plan (PLSP22-
0001), a revised Development Area Plan (PLDP22-0001), an amendment to the Development
Agreement (PLDA22-0001), and approval of an amended Tentative Map (PLSD22-0001), for
the Southeast Specific Plan (“Project”) located south of the Canon Manor Specific Plan Area,
west of Petaluma Hill Road, east of Bodway Parkway and north of Valley House Drive (various
APNs), in accordance with the City of Rohnert Park Municipal Code (“RPMC”); and
WHEREAS, in conjunction with Application No. PLDP22-0001, the applicant seeks
approval of a development area plan for the entire Project site, as provided in the proposed
Development Area Plan – Southeast Area attached to and incorporated in this Resolution as
Exhibit 1; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the proposed amendments is to allow for a more gradual
transition of densities and for the addition of twenty-two single-family residential lots within the
fourth phase of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared the Southeast Rohnert Park Phase 4 Southeast
Specific Plan EIR Consistency Review dated June 2023, which is incorporated herein by
reference, and determines that the proposed amendments will not result in new environmental
impacts not previously evaluated in a previously certified EIR, or a substantial increase in
previously identified impacts (“Consistency Analysis”) and the City has otherwise carried out all
requirements for the Project pursuant to CEQA; 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 encompassing a 300-
foot radius of the subject property, and a public hearing was published for a minimum of 10 days
prior to the public hearing in the Community Voice; and
WHEREAS, on July 13, 2023, 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 Planning Application No. PLDP22-0001 for the proposed Development Area Plan.
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 Development Area Plan:
Section 1. Recitals. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. CEQA Review. On December 7, 2010, the City Council of the City of
Rohnert Park certified the Final EIR for the Southeast Specific Plan Project, including the
adoption of associated CEQA Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as described in City Council Resolution No.
2010-134 (2010 EIR). CEQA Guidelines section 15162 provides that “no subsequent EIR shall
be prepared” for a project unless the lead agency determines that (1) “substantial changes are
proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR”; or (2)
“substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken”; or (3) “new information of substantial importance … shows” one or more
significant effects not discussed in the original EIR, greater severity to previously-identified
substantial effects, or newly-found feasible mitigation measures that would substantially reduce
significant effects. As described in the Consistency Analysis, the proposed amendments will not
result in new environmental impacts not previously evaluated in the 2010 EIR, or a substantial
increase in previously identified impacts. The proposed amendments (addition of twenty-two
lots, alterations to the lot and street configuration, and amending the land use designation from
Rural Estate Residential to Low-Density Residential), are minor and will not result in any
changes to the proposed project not previously analyzed in the 2010 EIR and no new information
of substantial importance shows any significant effects or newly found feasible mitigation
measures that would substantially reduce significant effects. Further, the amendments are
consistent with the project analyzed in the 2010 EIR. Therefore, no additional environmental
review is necessary.
Section 3. Findings. The Planning Commission hereby finds and recommends that
the City Council make the following findings concerning the revised Development Area Plan –
Southeast Area Plan proposed by Planning Application No. PLDP22-0001 pursuant to Rohnert
Park Municipal Code section 17.06.400(E):
1. The proposed development conforms to the specific plan.
The revised Development Area Plan conforms to the specific plan, as
recommended to be amended, and provides details on the project including
residential floor plans and elevations by housing type, landscaping pedestrian
walkways, infrastructure summaries, streetscape, and park details. The proposed
revised plan is consistent with the specific plan because it conforms to the
requirements in the specific plan as amended related to density, housing type and
location, and public improvements.
2. Public infrastructure and services can be provided concurrently with the
development.
The Project is designed to have adequate infrastructure, integrated with existing
City roadways, streets, bicycle paths, and walkways. All streets and thoroughfares
will meet the standards of the City. The proposed development has been designed
to provide satisfactory vehicular circulation and public improvements, such as
utilities and drainage facilities have been designed and are conditioned to be
constructed in conformance with City standards.
The infrastructure necessary to serve the first phase of the development is already
in place. The water service strategy is consistent with the City’s long-term water
supply plans and its water capacity charge program.
Section 4. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council
adopt the Findings stated hereinabove and recommend City Council approval of Application No.
PLDP22-0001 for the amended Development Area Plan – Southeast Area as provided at
Exhibit 1, in its entirety and subject to the recommended conditions of approval as provided in
Exhibit 2.
DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED on this 13th day of July, 2023 by the City of
Rohnert Park Planning Commission by the following vote:
AYES: _____NOES:_____ ABSENT:_____ ABSTAIN:_____
AUSTIN-DILLON_____ EPSTEIN_____ ORLOFF_____ STRIPLEN_____ LAM_____
_________________________________________________________________
Acting Chairperson, Rohnert Park Planning Commission
Attest: ________________________________
Clotile Blanks, Recording Secretary
DRAFT
City of Rohnert Park
Development Area Plan - Southeast Area
Resolution No. 2019-044
April 2019 May 2023
Applicant: Penn Grove Mountain LLC
Contact: Ben vanZutphen
P.O. Box 2357
Healdsburg, CA 95448
Phone: (707) 484-5944
Prepared by: William Hezmalhalch Architects (WHA) Contact: Robert Lee 5000 Executive Parkway, Suite 375 San Ramon, CA 94583 Phone: (925) 463-1700 Fax: (925) 463-1725
.
Resolution No. 2023-15
Exhibit 1
Design Team
APPLICANT:
Applicant: Penn Grove Mountain LLC
Contact: Ben vanZutphen
P.O. Box 2357
Healdsburg, CA 95448
Phone: (707) 484-5944
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:
Landesign Group
3344 Gravenstein Highway No.
Sebastopol, CA 95472
Phone: (707) 829-2580
Fax: (707) 829-3417
ARCHITECTS:
William Hezmalhalch Architects
5000 Executive Parkway, Suite 375
San Ramon, CA 94583
Phone: (925) 463-1700
Fax: (925) 463-1725
CIVIL ENGINEER:
Civil Design Consultants
2200 Range Avenue, Suite 204
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Phone: (707) 542-4820
Fax: (707) 542-4535
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023
Table of Contents
Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 2
Land Use ......................................................................................................................................... 3
Affordable Housing Plan .................................................................................................................. 4
Streets ............................................................................................................................................. 6
Pedestrian Ways and Bike Ways ....................................................................................................... 7
Preliminary Infrastructure - Water ................................................................................................... 8
Preliminary Infrastructure - Sewer ................................................................................................... 9
Preliminary Infrastructure - Storm Drain ........................................................................................ 10
Rural Estate: Preliminary Elevations ............................................................................................... 11
Rural Estate: Typical Plot Plan & Preliminary Floor Plans - First Floor ............................................ 12
Rural Estate: Preliminary Floor Plans - Second Floor...................................................................... 13
Low Density- Executive Estate: Preliminary Elevations ................................................................... 14
Low Density- Executive Estate: Typical Plot Plan & Preliminary Floor Plans - First Floor .................. 15
Low Density- Executive Estate: Preliminary Floor Plans - Second Floor ........................................... 16
Low Density- Executive Estate: Preliminary Homeowner Options ................................................... 17
Low Density- Conventional: Preliminary Elevations .................................................................... 14 18
Low Density- Conventional: Typical Plot Plan & Preliminary Floor Plans - First Floor ................. 15 19
Low Density- Conventional: Preliminary Floor Plans - Second Floor ........................................... 16 20
SE Medium Density - Conventional: Preliminary Elevations ....................................................... 17 21
SE Medium Density - Conventional: Typical Plot Plan & Preliminary Floor Plans - First Floor ...... 18 22
SE Medium Density - Conventional: Preliminary Floor Plans - Second Floor .............................. 19 23
SE Medium Density - Conventional Duet: Preliminary Elevations ............................................... 20 24
SE Medium Density - Conventional Duet: Preliminary Floor Plans ............................................. 21 25
SE Medium Density - Motorcourt: Preliminary Elevations .......................................................... 22 26
SE Medium Density - Motorcourt: Typical Plot Plan & Preliminary Floor Plans - First Floor ........ 23 27
SE Medium Density - Motorcourt: Preliminary Floor Plans - Second Floor ................................. 24 28
SE Medium Density - Motorcourt: Typical Plot Plan & Preliminary Floor Plans - First Floor ........ 25 29
SE Medium Density - Motorcourt: Preliminary Floor Plans - Second Floor ................................. 26 30
Mixed-Use Site - Conceptual Site Plan with Parking & Loading ................................................... 27 31
Apartments: Preliminary Elevations ........................................................................................... 28 32
Apartments: Preliminary Floor Plans - Building A ...................................................................... 29 33
Apartments: Preliminary Floor Plans - Building B ...................................................................... 30 34
Apartments: Floor Plan and Elevation - Community Recreation Building .................................... 31 35
Townhomes - 5-Plex: Preliminary Elevations .............................................................................. 3236
Townhomes - 5-Plex: Preliminary Floor Plans - First Floor .......................................................... 3337
Townhomes - 5-Plex: Preliminary Floor Plans - Second Floor ...................................................... 3438
Townhomes - 6-Plex: Preliminary Elevations .............................................................................. 3539
Townhomes - 6-Plex: Preliminary Floor Plans - First Floor ......................................................... 3640
Townhomes - 6-Plex: Preliminary Floor Plans - Second Floor ..................................................... 3741
Retail: Preliminary Elevations ..................................................................................................... 3842
Retail: Preliminary Floor Plans .................................................................................................... 3943
Trash Enclosure ......................................................................................................................... 4044
Illustrative Landscape Plan ......................................................................................................... 4145
Mixed-Use Site - Illustrative Landscape Plan .............................................................................. 4246
Community Monumentation - Petaluma Hill Road Streetscape & Elevation ............................... 4347
Estate Lot View Corridors .......................................................................................................... 4448
Perimeter Streetscape Details - Valley House Road .................................................................... 4549
Perimeter Streetscape Details - Valley House Road .................................................................... 4650
Perimeter Streetscape Details - Bodway Parkway ...................................................................... 4751
Perimeter Streetscape Sections ................................................................................................. 4852
Conceptual Lighting Details ....................................................................................................... 4953
Representative Imagery: Perimeter Streetscapes ....................................................................... 5054
Neighborhood Park - Site Plan ................................................................................................... 5155
Neighborhood Park - Detention Pond Sections .......................................................................... 5256
Neighborhood Park - Playground ............................................................................................... 5357
Neighborhood Park - Dog Park ................................................................................................... 5458
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023
Summary
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area2
Land Use
Specific Plan Development Standards Proposed
Approx.
Gross Ac.1 Units
Maximum
Density
(Du/Ac)
Non-
Residential
Bldg Area
( 1,000 s.f.)
Parking Required Approx. Gross Ac.1 Units Density
(Du/Ac)
Non
Residential
Bldg Area
(1000 s.f.)
Parking Provided
Rural Estate
Residential 9.1 19 2.2 n.a.2 per unit 9.13 19 2.1 n.a.2 garage space per unit
Low Density
Residential 27.7 160 6.0 n.a.2 per unit 27.69
Conventional: 128
Executive Estate: 32
Total: 160
5.8 n.a.2 garage space per unit
SE Medium
Density
Residential 27.8 239 12.0 n.a.2 per unit 27.77
Conventional: 112
Motorcourt: 99
Duet: 28
Total: 239
8.6 n.a.
2 garage space per unit
2 garage space per unit1 covered, 1 uncovered space per unit
Mixed Use
Development
7.0 81 24.0 102
Per Rohnert Park Zoning Code -
Single-Family Attached (Townhomes):
2 spaces per unit, one of which must be
covered, plus 1 space per 4 units for guest
parking (102 Required)
Multi Family (Apartments)
• 1 space per studio or 1 bedroom unit;
• 2 spaces per 2 bedroom unit;
• 2.5 spaces per 3 bedroom unit; and
• 1 guest parking space for every 4 units
(Total of 64 Required)
General Retail:
1 space per 300 square feet of gross floor
area (34 Required)
Retail Loading:
7,501 to 40,000 sq.ft, 1 berth required
Per California Government Code Sections
65915 – 65918)-
Density Bonus Project Parking
• 1 space per studio or 1 bedroom unit;
• 2 spaces per 2 or 3 bedroom unit;
(54 Required)
Townhomes = 3.06
Apartments = 1.75
Retail = 1.52
Net Total = 6.33
(6.96 gross)
Townhomes
3 Bedroom: 29
4 Bedroom: 16
Subtotal: 45
Apartments
1 Bedroom: 18
2 Bedroom: 11
3 Bedroom 7
Subtotal 36
Total: 81
Townhomes = 14.7
Apartments = 20.2 10,340
Townhomes
Garage: 90
Guest: 15
Accessible: 1
Subtotal: 106
Apartments
Carport: 36
Guest: 25
3 Bedroom 6
Accessible: 3
Subtotal 64
Retail
Standard: 59
Accessible: 3
Subtotal 62
Retail Loading
15’x30’: 1
Parks 7.93 n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.7.983 n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.
Total 79.5 499 n.a.n.a.n.a.79.53 499 n.a.n.a.n.a.
(1) Gross Acreage includes all rights-of-way located within the project boundary, measured to the center line of the street
(2) 10,000 s.f. retail
(3) Includes a 5.0 net acre park and a 2.1 net acre basin (7.1 net acres total)
29
128
16.0
21.0
15.95
21.05
30
45
2
47
6.32
3.05
2
66
79.47
29
128
513
1.8
6.0
Land Use
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area3
Land Use Approx. Gross Ac.Total Units Density
Rural Estate Residential 9.13 19 2.1
Low Density Residential 27.69 160 5.8
SE Medium Density Residential 27.77 239 8.6
Mixed Use Development 6.96 81 n.a.
Parks 7.98 (5.0 Net)0 n.a.
Total 79.53 499 6.3
LEGEND
29 1.8
6.0
8.7
6.0
15.95
21.31
27.53
79.47
128
477
Affordable Housing Plan
pp
pp14 DUET (28 UNITS)
• If For Rent: 50% very low-income + 50%
low-income
• If For Sale: 50% low-income + 50%
moderate income
8 12 TOWNHOMES
• If For Rent: 50% very low-income + 50%
low-income
• If For Sale: 50% low-income + 50%
moderate income (4 minimum)
36 APARTMENTS
•36 Units, 50% very low-income + 50% low-
income
TOTAL
14 Duet (28 Units)
8 12 Townhome
38 36 Apartments
= 72 76 Affordable Homes
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area4
DRAFT
In the event that the required 72 75units are constructed on site, these units
will be distributed throughout the SESPA. The 72 75 units include a 36 -unit
apartment complex, 14 duets (28 units), and 8 11 townhomes.
The City ’s affordable requirement states that fifty percent (50%) of the rental
apartment units shall be rented to very-low income households and fifty
percent (50%) shall be rented to low income households. Since an affordable
housing provider typically manages low income rental units, the 36 75 low
income restricted units need to be located near one another to ensure efficient
management of the property; therefore, these units have been located within
the mixed use parcel. The timing of their construction will be determined by
the development agreement and the agreement with the affordable housing
provider.
The remaining 36 units have been distributed throughout the SE Medium Density
and mixed use townhouse land use designation. These units will be duets that
look similar to the adjacent market rate units. The construction phasing of
these units will occur at the same time as the adjacent market rate units. If
operated as rental housing, fifty percent (50%) of the duets and townhomes will
be rented to very-low income households. The remaining fifty percent (50%)
will be rented to low-income households. If sold as owner-occupied housing,
fifty percent (50%) of the duets and townhomes will be sold to low income
households. The remaining fifty percent (50%) will be sold to moderate income
households.
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area5
Streets
LEGEND
Valley House Drive
Minor Collector (4 lanes)
Minor Arterial (2 lanes)
Minor Local (2 lanes)
Major
Neighborhood Street (2 lanes)
Private Drive (2 lanes)
Emergency Vehicle Access
(not an intersection)
Neighborhood Park
ParkingBodway ParkwayPetaluma Hill RoadDRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area6
Pedestrian Ways and Bike Ways
Valley House Drive
Connection to Canon Manor
Bodway ParkwayPetaluma Hill RoadMulti-Use Trail (Class I bike lane)
Sidewalk (Both Sides of Street)
Sidewalk (One Side of Street)
Park Trails
Internal Trails
Class II Bike Lane
Enhanced Pedestrian Crossing
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area7
Preliminary Infrastructure - Water
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area8
Preliminary Infrastructure - Sewer
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area9
Preliminary Infrastructure - Storm Drain
BIO-RETENTION BEDSBIO-RETENTION BEDS
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area10
Minimum Lot Size: 17,000 SF
Minimum Lot Width: 90’
Minimum Lot Depth: 100’
Maximum Lot Coverage: 30%
Minimum Setbacks: Front: 20’ to Porch; 20’ to Primary Building; 20’ to Garage
Rear: 25’ to Primary Building; 5’ to Detached Garage
Side: 10’ Interior; 20’ Corner
Rural Estate
Plan 1 - Italianate Plan 3 - Cottage
11
The Spanish Colonial Style is an adaptation of Mission Revival
enriched with additional Latin American details and elements. The
homes are mostly asymmetrical 1 and 2 storied massing with one
strong element. Roofs are finished with ‘S’ shape concrete tile over
4:12 hip or gabled roof forms. The walls are finished with a light to
medium texture stucco, and are accented with the occasional use
of decorative brick or ceramic tile. The windows are vertical multi-
paned and trimmed with simple cementitious material (wood like) or
stucco head and sill trim. Featured windows may occur in a recessed
wall plane. Exterior accents may include cylindrical towers, porches,
balconies, arched openings, and cementitious material (wood-like),
stucco or wrought iron details.
The Spanish Colonial color palettes demonstrated in the street scenes
were selected to reflect the architectural theme of the style in early
1900’s. These colors will include a color range in off-whites or beige
tones to light tans for the primary wall colors. The trim color is made
up of lighter wood tones and darker colors, simulating the look of
stain. Accent colors are deep jewel tones as well as rich earth tones.
Roof colors are a subtle blend of terra-cotta shades.
The Italianate Home’s sophisticated façade and graceful details,
especially the decorative brackets, make it easily recognizable. Roofs
are ‘S’ shape concrete tile covering low pitch, usually at 4:12, hipped
planes providing a continuous eave line. Walls of lightly textured
stucco provide a vernacular that is enriched with selective use of cut
stone as an entire surface material or as entry and corner accent.
Vertical multi-paned windows are trimmed at the head and sill and
occasionally at the jamb and may have arched or curved window tops.
Exterior accents may include a pronounced entry with door surrounds
of cementitious material (wood-like), stucco or simulated stone, pot
shelves, balconies of decorative wrought iron, and shutters.
The Italianate color palettes demonstrated in the street scenes were
selected to reflect the architectural theme of their origin. These colors
will include rich, saturated hues of yellow, tan, and salmon for the
primary wall colors. The trim color is deeply tinted whites or lighter
wood tones and sometimes will include a darker secondary trim color.
Accents are emphasized with the use of bolder jewel tones as well
as rich earth tones. Roof colors are a complex blend of terra-cottas,
browns, tans, and warm reds.
Cottage is a picturesque style that reflects the rural setting of the
area. The primary wall material is medium textured stucco, typically
accented with stone or brick with a rusticated appearance or a mix of
cementitious (wood like) horizontal, board & batten siding and stucco.
The main roof is hipped and may have intersecting gables. Premium
grade composition shingles or flat concrete tiles cover varied roof
pitches from 4:12 to 8:12. Vertical multi-paned windows are trimmed
at the jamb head and sill. Exterior accents may include porches,
balconies of wood or wrought iron, shutters, pot shelves and window
bays.
The Cottage color palettes demonstrated in the street scenes were
selected to reflect the architectural theme of earlier examples. These
colors will include soft, mid-value hues of beige, tan, yellow, gray, and
green for the primary wall colors. The trim color is usually soft tinted
whites that are in subtle contrast to the body color. Accent colors of
muted blue, green, and red are used on entry doors, shutters, and
other features. Roof colors are shades of gray, blue, green, and brown.
Italianate Cottage
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area11
Preliminary Elevations
Plan 2 - Spanish Colonial Plan 4 - Italianate
Spanish Colonial
Plan 2
+/- 3153 Sq.Ft.
4 Bdrm/3Ba/Den
3 Car Garage
Options: Den/Music Room
Plan 4
4015 - 4284 Sq.Ft.
3-5 Bdrm/4.5-5.5 Ba/Studio
3 Car Garage
Options: Casita/4 Car Garage/Media
Room/Extended Family/Loft
Plan 1
2521 - 2738 Sq.Ft.
5 Bdrm/2.5-3.5 Ba/Den
2 Car Garage
Options: Den/Guest Suite/3-
Car Garage
Plan 3
3553-3794 Sq.Ft.
6 Bdrm/4-5 Ba/Teen Room/Office
4 Car Garage
Options: Guest Suite/Optional
Rural Estate
Typical Plot Plan & Preliminary Floor Plans - First Floor
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area12
Plan 4 Plan 3
Rural Estate
Preliminary Floor Plans - Second Floor
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area13
(NEW PAGE ADDED)
Preliminary Elevations
Low Density - Executive Estate
The Craftsman Style is characterized by the rustic texture of the
building materials, broad overhangs, and exposed rafter tails at the
eaves. The homes are often characterized by 2-story massing with
a significant single story element nestled against the main body of
the structure. Roofs are finished with premium grade composition
shingles or flat concrete tile cover low pitches of 3:12 to 5:12, often
with cross gabled forms. The walls are predominately finished with
cementitious (wood like) siding or stucco with a medium texture as
a primary or secondary material. The walls are accented with the
occasional use of a masonry wainscot in either textural rubble like
stone or brick of a rustic handmade look. The windows have a vertical
proportion with mullions in the upper half and trimmed with simple
or shaped trim surrounds. Exterior accents include porches, stout
columns, pot shelves, ridge beams and purlins with knee braces, and
gable end articulation.
The Craftsman color palettes demonstrated in the street scenes were
selected to reflect a modern interpretation of historic themes. These
colors will include earth tones ranging from warm greens and light
browns to tans and ochre yellows for the primary wall colors. The trim
is a complimentary color to the wall color selected from the same
earth tone range. Accent colors typically used on the entry door and
railings are rich, light earthy shades of green, red, and brown. Roof
colors are shades of warm green and brown.
Traditional
The Bungalow style is a derivative of the American Craftsman style.
California was first introduced to the Bungalow style at the turn of
the twentieth century, they were particularly popular in Southern
California. Bungalows became popular in suburban neighborhoods
all throughout California and nationwide. Bungalows often exhibit
horizontal lines, ample porches, and lower pitched gable roofs.
Common exterior materials included shingles for the roof, and siding
and stucco on the walls. Typically, ornamentation is sparse, but
wood, brick or stone accents embellish the elevations. Current design
techniques include veneers and simulated wood materials as they are
more durable.
The Bungalow color palette demonstrated in the street scenes were
selected to reflect historic architectural themes. These colors will
include earth tones and light neutrals for the primary wall colors. The
trim colors are light or dark colors to contrast with the primary field
color of the house. Accent colors typically used on the entry door are
rich shades of green, blue, and black. Roof colors are shades of warm
grey and brown.
BungalowCraftsman
The Traditional style has evolved with respect to American culture
and traditions primarily rooted in the East Coast and Midwest. The
main roof may have simple cornice trim at the gable ends. Premium
composition shingles or flat concrete roof tiles, cover roof pitches
from 4:12 to 12:12. Walls are primarily covered with board and batten
or horizontal siding. Vertical multi-paned windows with true divided
lites or inserts are trimmed with cementitious material (wood-like)
at the 4 jambs head and sill. The trim may be multi-layered. Exterior
accents include white-painted columns, shuttered windows, wood
porches and balconies, decorative broken pediment trim, pot shelves
and painted cementitious material (wood-like) or composite vents at
the gable ends.
The Traditional color palette demonstrated in the street scenes were
selected to reflect historic architectural themes. Colors are primarily
whites, off-whites, light colors, and some dark. The trim colors are
whites or light or dark colors to contrast with the primary field color
of the house. Accents include white, light, or dark colors on the
shutters, entry door, and other features to contrast or harmonize with
the house color. Roof colors are shades of warm gray and brown.
The Farmhouse style has evolved with respect to rural American
culture and traditions, primarily found in the Mid-West. The main roof
may be gabled or hipped with simple cornice trim at the gable ends.
Decorative brackets may be found at the gables ends as well. Premium
grade composition or flat concrete roof tiles cover roof pitches from
4:12 to 12:12. Walls are primarily covered with horizontal siding or
board and batten. Vertical multi-paned windows with divided lites or
inserts are trimmed at the jamb head and sill. The trim may be muti-
layered at feature windows. Exterior accents include white-painted
columns, shuttered windows, wood porches and balconies, decorative
broken pediment trim, pot shelves and painted cementitious material
(wood-like) vents at the gable end.
The Farmhouse color palette demonstrated in the street scenes were
selected to reflect historic architectural themes. Colors are primarily
whites, off-whites, light colors, and some dark. The trim colors are
whites or light or dark colors to contrast with the primary field color of
the house. Accents include white, light, or dark colors on the shutters,
entry door, and other features to contrast or harmonize with the
house color. Roof colors are shades of warm gray and brown.
Farmhouse
Plan 2 - CraftsmanPlan 1 - Farmhouse Plan 4 - BungalowPlan 3 - Traditional
Minimum Lot Size: 6,000 SF
Minimum Lot Width: 50’
Minimum Lot Depth: 120’
Maximum Lot Coverage: 50%
Minimum Private Yard: 1500 SF
Minimum Setbacks: Front: 10’ to Porch; 15’ to Primary Building; 20’ to Garage
Rear: 20’ to Primary Building; 5’ to Garage
Side: 5’ Interior; 10’ Corner
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area14
(NEW PAGE ADDED)
Typical Plot Plan & Preliminary Floor Plans - First Floor
Low Density - Executive Estate
Plan 4
+/- 3129 Sq.Ft.
5 Bdrm/4.5 Ba/Bonus
2 Car Garage
Plan 3
+/- 2864 Sq.Ft.
3 Bdrm/3 Ba/Den
2 Car Garage
Plan 2
+/-1928 Sq.Ft.
3 Bdrm/2.5 Ba/Bonus
2 Car Garage
Plan 1
+/- 1885 Sq.Ft.
3 Bdrm/2.5 Ba/Bonus
2 Car Garage
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area15
(NEW PAGE ADDED)
Preliminary Floor Plans - Second Floor
Low Density - Executive Estate
Plan 4 Plan 3 Plan 2 Plan 1
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area16
Preliminary Homeowner Options
Low Density - Executive Estate
(NEW PAGE ADDED)
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area17
Minimum Lot Size: 5,000 SF
Minimum Lot Width: 50’
Minimum Lot Depth: 90’
Maximum Lot Coverage: 50%
Minimum Private Yard: 750 SF
Minimum Setbacks: Front: 10’ to Porch; 15’ to Primary Building; 20’ to Garage
Rear: 15’ to Primary Building; 5’ to Garage
Side: 5’ Interior; 10’ Corner
Plan 1X - CraftsmanPlan 3 - Cottage Plan 2 - TraditionalPlan 1 - Farmhouse
Low Density - Conventional
The Craftsman Style is characterized by the rustic texture of the
building materials, broad overhangs, and exposed rafter tails at the
eaves. The homes are often characterized by 2-story massing with
a significant single story element nestled against the main body of
the structure. Roofs are finished with premium grade composition
shingles or flat concrete tile cover low pitches of 3:12 to 5:12, often
with cross gabled forms. The walls are predominately finished with
cementitious (wood like) siding or stucco with a medium texture as
a primary or secondary material. The walls are accented with the
occasional use of a masonry wainscot in either textural rubble like
stone or brick of a rustic handmade look. The windows have a vertical
proportion with mullions in the upper half and trimmed with simple
or shaped trim surrounds. Exterior accents include porches, stout
columns, pot shelves, ridge beams and purlins with knee braces, and
gable end articulation.
The Craftsman color palettes demonstrated in the street scenes were
selected to reflect a modern interpretation of historic themes. These
colors will include earth tones ranging from warm greens and light
browns to tans and ochre yellows for the primary wall colors. The trim
is a complimentary color to the wall color selected from the same
earth tone range. Accent colors typically used on the entry door and
railings are rich, light earthy shades of green, red, and brown. Roof
colors are shades of warm green and brown.
Preliminary Elevations
14
Traditional
Cottage is a picturesque style that reflects the rural setting of the
area. The primary wall material is medium textured stucco, typically
accented with stone or brick with a rusticated appearance or a mix of
cementitious (wood like) horizontal, board & batten siding and stucco.
The main roof is hipped and may have intersecting gables. Premium
grade composition shingles or flat concrete tiles cover varied roof
pitches from 4:12 to 8:12. Vertical multi-paned windows are trimmed
at the jamb head and sill. Exterior accents may include porches,
balconies of wood or wrought iron, shutters, pot shelves and window
bays.
The Cottage color palettes demonstrated in the street scenes were
selected to reflect the architectural theme of earlier examples. These
colors will include soft, mid-value hues of beige, tan, yellow, gray, and
green for the primary wall colors. The trim color is usually soft tinted
whites that are in subtle contrast to the body color. Accent colors of
muted blue, green, and red are used on entry doors, shutters, and
other features. Roof colors are shades of gray, blue, green, and brown.
Cottage Craftsman
The Traditional style has evolved with respect to American culture
and traditions primarily rooted in the East Coast and Midwest. The
main roof may have simple cornice trim at the gable ends. Premium
composition shingles or flat concrete roof tiles, cover roof pitches
from 4:12 to 12:12. Walls are primarily covered with board and batten
or horizontal siding. Vertical multi-paned windows with true divided
lites or inserts are trimmed with cementitious material (wood-like)
at the 4 jambs head and sill. The trim may be multi-layered. Exterior
accents include white-painted columns, shuttered windows, wood
porches and balconies, decorative broken pediment trim, pot shelves
and painted cementitious material (wood-like) or composite vents at
the gable ends.
The Traditional color palette demonstrated in the street scenes were
selected to reflect historic architectural themes. Colors are primarily
whites, off-whites, light colors, and some dark. The trim colors are
whites or light or dark colors to contrast with the primary field color
of the house. Accents include white, light, or dark colors on the
shutters, entry door, and other features to contrast or harmonize with
the house color. Roof colors are shades of warm gray and brown.
The Farmhouse style has evolved with respect to rural American
culture and traditions, primarily found in the Mid-West. The main roof
may be gabled or hipped with simple cornice trim at the gable ends.
Decorative brackets may be found at the gables ends as well. Premium
grade composition or flat concrete roof tiles cover roof pitches from
4:12 to 12:12. Walls are primarily covered with horizontal siding or
board and batten. Vertical multi-paned windows with divided lites or
inserts are trimmed at the jamb head and sill. The trim may be muti-
layered at feature windows. Exterior accents include white-painted
columns, shuttered windows, wood porches and balconies, decorative
broken pediment trim, pot shelves and painted cementitious material
(wood-like) vents at the gable end.
The Farmhouse color palette demonstrated in the street scenes were
selected to reflect historic architectural themes. Colors are primarily
whites, off-whites, light colors, and some dark. The trim colors are
whites or light or dark colors to contrast with the primary field color of
the house. Accents include white, light, or dark colors on the shutters,
entry door, and other features to contrast or harmonize with the
house color. Roof colors are shades of warm gray and brown.
Farmhouse
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area18
Plan 1
+/- 1888 Sq.Ft.
2 Bdrm/2.5 Ba/Den
2 Car Garage
Plan 1X
+/- 2308 Sq.Ft.
2 Bdrm/2.5 Ba/Den/Bonus
2 Car Garage
Plan 2
+/- 2549 Sq.Ft.
3 Bdrm/2.5 Ba/Den/Opt. Suite
2 Car Garage
Opt. California Room
+/- 162 Sq.Ft.
Plan 3
+/- 2855 Sq.Ft.
4 Bdrm/Loft/3.5 Ba
2 Car Garage
Opt. California Room
+/- 135 Sq.Ft.
Low Density - Conventional
Typical Plot Plan & Preliminary Floor Plans - First Floor
OPT. CA
ROOM
OPT. CA
ROOM
15
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area19
Plan 1 Plan 1XPlan 2Plan 3
Low Density - Conventional
Preliminary Floor Plans - Second Floor
16
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area20
Minimum Lot Size: 3,000 SF
Minimum Lot Width: 35’
Minimum Lot Depth: 80’
Maximum Lot Coverage: 50%
Minimum Private Yard: 400 SF
Minimum Setbacks: Front: 5’ to Porch; 10’ to Primary Building; 20’ to Garage
Rear: 10’ to Primary Building; 5’ to Garage
Side: 4’ Interior; 10’ Corner
Plan 1 - TraditionalPlan 2 - Craftsman Plan 3 - CottagePlan 3 - FarmhousePlan 2 - Traditional
SE Medium Density - Conventional
Cottage is a picturesque style that reflects the rural setting of the
area. The primary wall material is medium textured stucco, typically
accented with stone or brick with a rusticated appearance or a mix of
cementitious (wood like) horizontal, board & batten siding and stucco.
The main roof is hipped and may have intersecting gables. Premium
grade composition shingles or flat concrete tiles cover varied roof
pitches from 4:12 to 8:12. Vertical multi-paned windows are trimmed
at the jamb head and sill. Exterior accents may include porches,
balconies of wood or wrought iron, shutters, pot shelves and window
bays.
The Cottage color palettes demonstrated in the street scenes were
selected to reflect the architectural theme of earlier examples. These
colors will include soft, mid-value hues of beige, tan, yellow, gray, and
green for the primary wall colors. The trim color is usually soft tinted
whites that are in subtle contrast to the body color. Accent colors of
muted blue, green, and red are used on entry doors, shutters, and
other features. Roof colors are shades of gray, blue, green, and brown.
Cottage
The Craftsman Style is characterized by the rustic texture of the
building materials, broad overhangs, and exposed rafter tails at the
eaves. The homes are often characterized by 2-story massing with
a significant single story element nestled against the main body of
the structure. Roofs are finished with premium grade composition
shingles or flat concrete tile cover low pitches of 3:12 to 5:12, often
with cross gabled forms. The walls are predominately finished with
cementitious (wood like) siding or stucco with a medium texture as
a primary or secondary material. The walls are accented with the
occasional use of a masonry wainscot in either textural rubble like
stone or brick of a rustic handmade look. The windows have a vertical
proportion with mullions in the upper half and trimmed with simple
or shaped trim surrounds. Exterior accents include porches, stout
columns, pot shelves, ridge beams and purlins with knee braces, and
gable end articulation.
The Craftsman color palettes demonstrated in the street scenes were
selected to reflect a modern interpretation of historic themes. These
colors will include earth tones ranging from warm greens and light
browns to tans and ochre yellows for the primary wall colors. The trim
is a complimentary color to the wall color selected from the same
earth tone range. Accent colors typically used on the entry door and
railings are rich, light earthy shades of green, red, and brown. Roof
colors are shades of warm green and brown.
Craftsman
Preliminary Elevations
Traditional
The Traditional style has evolved with respect to American culture
and traditions primarily rooted in the East Coast and Midwest. The
main roof may have simple cornice trim at the gable ends. Premium
composition shingles or flat concrete roof tiles, cover roof pitches
from 4:12 to 12:12. Walls are primarily covered with board and batten
or horizontal siding. Vertical multi-paned windows with true divided
lites or inserts are trimmed with cementitious material (wood-like)
at the 4 jambs head and sill. The trim may be multi-layered. Exterior
accents include white-painted columns, shuttered windows, wood
porches and balconies, decorative broken pediment trim, pot shelves
and painted cementitious material (wood-like) or composite vents at
the gable ends.
The Traditional color palette demonstrated in the street scenes were
selected to reflect historic architectural themes. Colors are primarily
whites, off-whites, light colors, and some dark. The trim colors are
whites or light or dark colors to contrast with the primary field color
of the house. Accents include white, light, or dark colors on the
shutters, entry door, and other features to contrast or harmonize with
the house color. Roof colors are shades of warm gray and brown.
The Farmhouse style has evolved with respect to rural American culture
and traditions, primarily found in the Mid-West. The main roof may be
gabled or hipped with simple cornice trim at the gable ends. Decorative
brackets may be found at the gables ends as well. Premium grade
composition or flat concrete roof tiles cover roof pitches from 4:12
to 12:12. Walls are primarily covered with horizontal siding or board
and batten. Vertical multi-paned windows with divided lites or inserts
are trimmed at the jamb head and sill. The trim may be muti-layered
at feature windows. Exterior accents include white-painted columns,
shuttered windows, wood porches and balconies, decorative broken
pediment trim, pot shelves and painted cementitious material (wood-
like) vents at the gable end.
The Farmhouse color palette demonstrated in the street scenes were
selected to reflect historic architectural themes. Colors are primarily
whites, off-whites, light colors, and some dark. The trim colors are
whites or light or dark colors to contrast with the primary field color of
the house. Accents include white, light, or dark colors on the shutters,
entry door, and other features to contrast or harmonize with the house
color. Roof colors are shades of warm gray and brown.
Special Condition: Two SE Mledium Density lots located at the northwest
corner of the Specific Plan will be developed using a one-story
home from the Low Density -Plan 1.
Farmhouse
17
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area21
Plan 1
+/- 2103-2111 Sq.Ft.
3 Bdrm/Loft(Opt.Bdrm 4)/2.5 Ba
2 Car Garage
Plan 2
+/- 2238 Sq.Ft.
4 Bdrm/Opt. Den/3 Ba
2 Car Garage
Plan 3
+/- 2480-2495 Sq.Ft.
4 Bdrm/Loft/Den
(Opt. Bdrm 5 )/2.5 Ba(Opt.Ba 3)
2 Car Garage TYP.SE Medium Density - Conventional
Typical Plot Plan & Preliminary Floor Plans - First Floor
80’ Min.18
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area22
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3
SE Medium Density - Conventional
Preliminary Floor Plans - Second Floor
19
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area23
Minimum Lot Size: 1,800 SF
Minimum Lot Width: 29’
Minimum Lot Depth: 60’
Maximum Lot Coverage: 70%
Minimum Private Yard: 250 SF
Minimum Setbacks: Front: 5’ to Porch; 8’ to Primary Building; 18’ to Garage
Side: 0/8’ Aggregate
SE Medium Density - Conventional Duet
Preliminary Elevations
The Craftsman Style is characterized by the rustic texture of the
building materials, broad overhangs, and exposed rafter tails at the
eaves. The homes are often characterized by 2-story massing with
a significant single story element nestled against the main body of
the structure. Roofs are finished with premium grade composition
shingles or flat concrete tile cover low pitches of 3:12 to 5:12, often
with cross gabled forms. The walls are predominately finished with
cementitious (wood like) siding or stucco with a medium texture as
a primary or secondary material. The walls are accented with the
occasional use of a masonry wainscot in either textural rubble like
stone or brick of a rustic handmade look. The windows have a vertical
proportion with mullions in the upper half and trimmed with simple
or shaped trim surrounds. Exterior accents include porches, stout
columns, pot shelves, ridge beams and purlins with knee braces, and
gable end articulation.
The Craftsman color palettes demonstrated in the street scenes were
selected to reflect a modern interpretation of historic themes. These
colors will include earth tones ranging from warm greens and light
browns to tans and ochre yellows for the primary wall colors. The trim
is a complimentary color to the wall color selected from the same
earth tone range. Accent colors typically used on the entry door and
railings are rich, light earthy shades of green, red, and brown. Roof
colors are shades of warm green and brown.
Craftsman
20
Cottage is a picturesque style that reflects the rural setting of the
area. The primary wall material is medium textured stucco, typically
accented with stone or brick with a rusticated appearance or a mix of
cementitious (wood like) horizontal, board & batten siding and stucco.
The main roof is hipped and may have intersecting gables. Premium
grade composition shingles or flat concrete tiles cover varied roof
pitches from 4:12 to 8:12. Vertical multi-paned windows are trimmed
at the jamb head and sill. Exterior accents may include porches,
balconies of wood or wrought iron, shutters, pot shelves and window
bays.
The Cottage color palettes demonstrated in the street scenes were
selected to reflect the architectural theme of earlier examples. These
colors will include soft, mid-value hues of beige, tan, yellow, gray, and
green for the primary wall colors. The trim color is usually soft tinted
whites that are in subtle contrast to the body color. Accent colors of
muted blue, green, and red are used on entry doors, shutters, and
other features. Roof colors are shades of gray, blue, green, and brown.
Cottage
Right Side - Craftsman
Plan 4 Plan 5
Right Side - Cottage
Plan 4 Plan 5
Front - Craftsman
Plan 4
Front - Cottage
Plan 4
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area24
Plan 4
+/- 1214 Sq.Ft.
2 Bdrm/2.5 Ba
1 Car Garage
Plan 5
+/- 1412 Sq.Ft.
3 Bdrm/2.5 Ba
2 Car Garage
SE Medium Density - Conventional Duet
Conceptual First
Floor Plan
Plan 5
Plan 4
Conceptual Second
Floor Plan
Preliminary Floor Plans
21
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area25
20’
Private Drive
20’
Private Drive
Plan 4 - CraftsmanPlan 3 - Farmhouse Plan 3 - TraditionalPlan 4 - Cottage
Farmhouse
SE Medium Density - Motorcourt
The Craftsman Style is characterized by the rustic texture of the
building materials, broad overhangs, and exposed rafter tails at the
eaves. The homes are often characterized by 2-story massing with
a significant single story element nestled against the main body of
the structure. Roofs are finished with premium grade composition
shingles or flat concrete tile cover low pitches of 3:12 to 5:12, often
with cross gabled forms. The walls are predominately finished with
cementitious (wood like) siding or stucco with a medium texture as
a primary or secondary material. The walls are accented with the
occasional use of a masonry wainscot in either textural rubble like
stone or brick of a rustic handmade look. The windows have a vertical
proportion with mullions in the upper half and trimmed with simple
or shaped trim surrounds. Exterior accents include porches, stout
columns, pot shelves, ridge beams and purlins with knee braces, and
gable end articulation.
The Craftsman color palettes demonstrated in the street scenes were
selected to reflect a modern interpretation of historic themes. These
colors will include earth tones ranging from warm greens and light
browns to tans and ochre yellows for the primary wall colors. The trim
is a complimentary color to the wall color selected from the same
earth tone range. Accent colors typically used on the entry door and
railings are rich, light earthy shades of green, red, and brown. Roof
colors are shades of warm green and brown.
The Traditional style has evolved with respect to American culture
and traditions primarily rooted in the East Coast and Midwest. The
main roof may have simple cornice trim at the gable ends. Premium
composition shingles or flat concrete roof tiles, cover roof pitches
from 4:12 to 12:12. Walls are primarily covered with board and batten
or horizontal siding. Vertical multi-paned windows with true divided
lites or inserts are trimmed with cementitious material (wood-like)
at the 4 jambs head and sill. The trim may be multi-layered. Exterior
accents include white-painted columns, shuttered windows, wood
porches and balconies, decorative broken pediment trim, pot shelves
and painted cementitious material (wood-like) or composite vents at
the gable ends.
The Traditional color palette demonstrated in the street scenes were
selected to reflect historic architectural themes. Colors are primarily
whites, off-whites, light colors, and some dark. The trim colors are
whites or light or dark colors to contrast with the primary field color of
the house. Accents include white, light, or dark colors on the shutters,
entry door, and other features to contrast or harmonize with the
house color. Roof colors are shades of warm gray and brown.
Craftsman Traditional
Cottage is a picturesque style that reflects the rural setting of the
area. The primary wall material is medium textured stucco, typically
accented with stone or brick with a rusticated appearance or a mix of
cementitious (wood like) horizontal, board & batten siding and stucco.
The main roof is hipped and may have intersecting gables. Premium
grade composition shingles or flat concrete tiles cover varied roof
pitches from 4:12 to 8:12. Vertical multi-paned windows are trimmed
at the jamb head and sill. Exterior accents may include porches,
balconies of wood or wrought iron, shutters, pot shelves and window
bays.
The Cottage color palettes demonstrated in the street scenes were
selected to reflect the architectural theme of earlier examples. These
colors will include soft, mid-value hues of beige, tan, yellow, gray, and
green for the primary wall colors. The trim color is usually soft tinted
whites that are in subtle contrast to the body color. Accent colors of
muted blue, green, and red are used on entry doors, shutters, and
other features. Roof colors are shades of gray, blue, green, and brown.
Cottage
Preliminary Elevations
The Farmhouse style has evolved with respect to rural American
culture and traditions, primarily found in the Mid-West. The main roof
may be gabled or hipped with simple cornice trim at the gable ends.
Decorative brackets may be found at the gables ends as well. Premium
grade composition or flat concrete roof tiles cover roof pitches from
4:12 to 12:12. Walls are primarily covered with horizontal siding or
board and batten. Vertical multi-paned windows with divided lites or
inserts are trimmed at the jamb head and sill. The trim may be muti-
layered at feature windows. Exterior accents include white-painted
columns, shuttered windows, wood porches and balconies, decorative
broken pediment trim, pot shelves and painted cementitious material
(wood-like) vents at the gable end.
The Farmhouse color palette demonstrated in the street scenes were
selected to reflect historic architectural themes. Colors are primarily
whites, off-whites, light colors, and some dark. The trim colors are
whites or light or dark colors to contrast with the primary field color of
the house. Accents include white, light, or dark colors on the shutters,
entry door, and other features to contrast or harmonize with the
house color. Roof colors are shades of warm gray and brown.
Minimum Lot Size: 3,000 SF
Minimum Lot Width: 50’
Minimum Lot Depth: 55’
Maximum Lot Coverage: 60%
Minimum Private Yard: 350 SF
Minimum Setbacks: Front: 5’ to Porch; 8’ to Primary Building; 20’ to Garage
from Public Street and 18’ from Private street
Rear: 10’ to Primary Building
Side: 4’ Interior; 7’ Corner
22
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area26
SE Medium Density - Motorcourt
Plan 3
+/- 2100 Sq.Ft.
3 Bdrm/3 Ba/Den(Opt. Bdrm 4)
2 Car Garage
Plan 1
+/- 1931 Sq.Ft.
3 Bdrm/2.5 Ba
2 Car Garage
Plan 4
+/- 2215 Sq.Ft.
3 Bdrm/3 Ba/Den(Opt. Bdrm 4)
2 Car Garage
Public StreetPrivate DrivePlan 2
+/- 1894-1905 Sq.Ft.
4 Bdrm/3 Ba/Den (Opt. Bdrm 4)
2 Car Garage
Typical Plot Plan & Preliminary Floor Plans - First Floor
23
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area27
SE Medium Density - Motorcourt
Preliminary Floor Plans - Second Floor
Plan 3
Plan 1
Plan 4
Plan 2
Public StreetPrivate Drive24
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area28
SE Medium Density - Motorcourt
Typical Plot Plan & Preliminary Floor Plans - First Floor
Plan 3
+/- 2100 Sq.Ft.
3 Bdrm/3 Ba/
Den(Opt. Bdrm 4)
2 Car Garage
Plan 3
+/- 2100 Sq.Ft.
3 Bdrm/3 Ba/Den(Opt.Bdrm 4)
2 Car Garage
Plan 1
+/- 1931 Sq.Ft.
3 Bdrm/2.5 Ba
2 Car Garage
Plan 4
+/- 2215 Sq.Ft.
3 Bdrm/3 Ba/
Den(Opt.Bdrm 4)
2 Car Garage
Plan 4
+/- 2215 Sq.Ft.
3 Bdrm/3 Ba/Den(Opt.Brdm 4)
2 Car Garage
Plan 2
+/- 1894-1905 Sq.Ft.
3 Bdrm/3 Ba/Den(Opt.Bdrm 4)
2 Car Garage
Public Street
Public Street Private Drive25
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area29
SE Medium Density - Motorcourt
Preliminary Floor Plans - Second Floor
Plan 3
Plan 3
Plan 1
Plan 4
Plan 4
Plan 2
Public Street
Public Street Private Drive26
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area30
Townhomes:
Total Site Area: 133,178 SF (3.06 AC) 100%
Total Building Footprint: 51,796 SF 39%
On-Grade Private Open Space: 8,216 SF 6%
Total Open Space/Landscaped Area:39,777 SF 30%
Total Paving Area: 33,389 SF 25%
Gross Floor Area:
95,389 SF
Unit Count: 45 Total
3 Bedroom: 29
4 Bedroom: 16
Density: 14.7 DU/AC
FAR: 0.72
Parking: 15 Public Spaces
1 Accessible Space
90 Private Garage Spaces
106 Total Spaces
(102 required)
Apartments :
Total Site Area: 76,230 SF (1.75 AC) 100%
Dwelling Unit (DU) Count: 36 Total
1 Bedroom: 18
2 Bedroom: 11
3 Bedroom: 7
Density: 20.2 DU/AC
Total Building Footprint: 26,956 SF 35%
Total Open Space/Landscaped Area:33,757 SF 44%
Total Paving Area: 16,804 SF 21%
Gross Floor Area: 50,178 SF
FAR: 0.65
Total Private Open Space: 3,162 SF
Parking: 25 Guest Spaces
3 Accessible Spaces
36 Private Carport Spaces
64 Total Spaces
27
Trash Enclosure
Urban Town Square/ Flex Parking Area
Resident Entrance
Trellis / Mail Boxes
6 Flex Spaces
BLDG A BLDG A
6-Plex A
6-Plex A 5-Plex A 5-Plex A 5-Plex A
6-Plex B
6-Plex B
6-Plex A
BLDG B
Resident EntranceBBQ Area
Commercial Entry
Community Garden
Commercial Entry
Trash Enclosure
Loading (15’x30’)
Retail:
Total Site Area: 65,498 SF (1.50 AC) 100%
Total Building Footprint: 10,340 SF 16%
Total Open Space/Landscaped Area:29,065SF 44%
Total Paving Area: 26,084 SF 40%
Gross Floor Area: 10,340 SF
FAR: 0.20
Loading: 1 Space (15’x30’)
Parking: 59 Public Spaces (Incl. 6 Flex Spaces)
3 Accessible Spaces
62 Total Spaces
1.4 Spaces/300 SF Retail
(1 per 300 SF required)
DRAFT
Mixed-Use Site - Conceptual Site Plan with Parking & Loading
20.5
45
2
47
1.36
27,202
0.53
2
28
66
30,754
40,440
36%
18%
40%
48%
22%
34%19,560
27,100
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area31
Maximum Lot Coverage: 80%
Minimum Private Yard: 50 SF
Minimum Setbacks: Front: 20’ to Primary Building
Rear: 10’ to Primary Building
Side: 20’ to Corner
Apartments
The 2-story Apartments are a collection of 1, 2, and 3 bedroom flats and attached 1-car garages arranged in
(2) two different 12-unit buildings for a total of (3) three buildings and (36) units. The elevation facades are
designed in a Traditional Style with paneled elements, shutters, and fully trimmed windows, and paneled
columns on a brick base. Particular attention has been paid to the building massing to provide a variety of
forms and window arrangements to differentiate ‘like units’ and give a more eclectic appearance. The low
pitched roofs are at a 4:12 pitch with a mix of gables and hipped roof forms. The exterior facades are stucco
with (2) two complementary colors to articulate the massing between first and second floors. Each apartment
has either a covered patio at grade (first floor) or a covered deck at the second floor for private outdoor space.
The (12) twelve first floor units (a mix of 1, 2, or 3 bedroom) are ADA accessible.
Preliminary Elevations
Building A
Building B
28
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area32
Apartments
Preliminary Floor Plans - Building A
Plan 1-ADA
+/-626 606 Sq.Ft. (Net)
+/-645 647 Sq.Ft. (Gross)
+/-89 84 Sq. Ft. (Patio)
1 Bdrm/1 Ba
1 Car Garage
Plan 1
+/-605 603 Sq.Ft. (Net)
+/-645 643 Sq.Ft. (Gross)
+/-74 84 Sq. Ft. (Patio)
1 Bdrm/1 Ba
1 Car Garage
Plan 1
+/- 605603 Sq.Ft. (Net)
+/-645 643 Sq.Ft. (Gross)
+/-74 84 Sq. Ft. (Patio)
1 Bdrm/1 Ba
1 Car Garage
Plan 2-ADA
+/-894 899 Sq.Ft. (Net)
+/-933 952 Sq.Ft. (Gross)
+/-100 99 Sq.Ft. (Patio)
2 Bdrm/1 Ba
1 Car Garage
Plan 2
+/-894 899 Sq.Ft. (Net)
+/-933 952 Sq.Ft. (Gross)
+/-100 99 Sq.Ft. (Patio)
2 Bdrm/1 Ba
1 Car Garage
Plan 2-ADA
+/-920 899 Sq.Ft. (Net)
+/-933 952 Sq.Ft. (Gross)
+/-100 99 Sq.Ft. (Patio)
2 Bdrm/1 Ba
1 Car Garage
Plan 2
+/-894 899 Sq.Ft. (Net)
+/-933 952 Sq.Ft. (Gross)
+/-97 99 Sq.Ft. (Patio)
2 Bdrm/1 Ba
1 Car Garage
Plan 3
+/- 1065 1060 Sq.Ft. (Net)
+/- 1106 1116 Sq.Ft. (Gross)
+/- 74 77 Sq.Ft. (Patio)
3 Bdrm/2 Ba
1 Car Garage
Plan 3
+/-1065 1060 Sq.Ft. (Net)
+/-1106 1116 Sq.Ft. (Gross)
+/-74 77 Sq.Ft. (Patio)
3 Bdrm/2 Ba
1 Car Garage
Plan 1X-ADA
+/- 629 Sq.Ft. (Net)
+/- 673 Sq.Ft. (Gross)
+/- 84 Sq. Ft. (Patio)
1 Bdrm/1 Ba
1 Car Garage
Plan 1XZ
+/-628 625 Sq.Ft. (Net)
+/-669 670 Sq.Ft. (Gross)1
+/-83 84 Sq. Ft. (Patio)
1 Bdrm/1 Ba
1 Car Garage
Plan 1
+/-626 603 Sq.Ft. (Net)
+/-645 643 Sq.Ft. (Gross)
+/-74 84 Sq. Ft. (Patio)
1 Bdrm/1 Ba
1 Car Garage
First FloorSecond Floor
29
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area33
Apartments
Preliminary Floor Plans - Building B
Plan 3-ADA
+/- 1258 Sq.Ft. (Net)
+/- 1323 Sq.Ft. (Gross)
+/- 99 Sq.Ft. (Patio)
3 Bdrm/2 Ba
1 Car Garage
Plan 1
+/-605 603 Sq.Ft. (Net)
+/-645 643 Sq.Ft. (Gross)
+/-74 84 Sq. Ft. (Patio)
1 Bdrm/1 Ba
1 Car Garage
Plan 1
+/-626 603 Sq.Ft. (Net)
+/-645 643 Sq.Ft. (Gross)
+/-74 84 Sq. Ft. (Patio)
1 Bdrm/1 Ba
1 Car Garage
Plan 2
+/-894 899 Sq.Ft. (Net)
+/-933 952 Sq.Ft. (Gross)
+/-100 99 Sq.Ft. (Patio)
2 Bdrm/1 Ba
1 Car Garage
Plan 2
+/-894 899 Sq.Ft. (Net)
+/-933 952 Sq.Ft. (Gross)
+/-97 99 Sq.Ft. (Patio)
2 Bdrm/1 Ba
1 Car Garage
Plan 3
+/-1065 1060 Sq.Ft. (Net)
+/-1106 1116 Sq.Ft. (Gross)
+/-74 77 Sq.Ft. (Patio)
3 Bdrm/2 Ba
1 Car Garage
Plan 3
+/-1065 1060 Sq.Ft. (Net)
+/-1106 1116 Sq.Ft. (Gross)
+/-74 77 Sq.Ft. (Patio)
3 Bdrm/2 Ba
1 Car Garage
Plan 1X
+/-628 625 Sq.Ft. (Net)
+/-669 670 Sq.Ft. (Gross)
+/-83 84 Sq. Ft. (Patio)
1 Bdrm/1 Ba
1 Car Garage
Plan 1
+/-626 603 Sq.Ft. (Net)
+/-645 643 Sq.Ft. (Gross)
+/-74 84 Sq. Ft. (Patio)
1 Bdrm/1 Ba
1 Car Garage
Plan 2-ADA
+/-894 899 Sq.Ft. (Net)
+/-933 952 Sq.Ft. (Gross)
+/-97 99 Sq.Ft. (Patio)
2 Bdrm/1 Ba
1 Car Garage
First FloorSecond Floor
Plan 1-ADA
+/-610 606 Sq.Ft. (Net)
+/-645 647 Sq.Ft. (Gross)
+/-89 84 Sq. Ft. (Patio)
1 Bdrm/1 Ba
1 Car Garage
Plan 1X-ADA
+/- 629 Sq.Ft. (Net)
+/- 673 Sq.Ft. (Gross)
+/- 84 Sq. Ft. (Patio)1
Bdrm/1 Ba
1 Car Garage
30
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area34
Apartments
Floor Plan and Elevation - Community Recreation Building Minimum Setbacks: Bldg to Public Street (Wisdom Ln) : 6’
Bldg to Bldg: 25’
Bldg to Side Property Line: 6’
31
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area35
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 4Plan 2Plan 3
Townhomes - 5-Plex
Preliminary Elevations Maximum Lot Coverage: 80%
Minimum Private Yard: 50 SF
Minimum Setbacks: Front: 10’ to Primary Building
Rear: 10’ to Primary Building
Side: 10’ to Corner
31
The 2-story Townhomes for the Craftsman Style elevation are an assemblage of both lap siding and board and
batt siding exteriors with some common trim details. The 5-unit and 6-unit buildings both have a collection of
3 or 4 of the plan types. The buildings that side onto a street have the Plan 4 (building end unit with front door
facing street) with the side entry to give a stronger aesthetic presence to the street orientation. The buildings
do have inside corner breaks (for change in exterior material) between units to allow for an architecturally
correct break for both materials and colors. This will lend itself to stronger individuality to each unit in the
building. The Craftsman style buildings reflect dominate gable 5:12 pitch roof forms with single story porch
elements. The paired single hung windows reinforce the Craftsman theme along with the stone bases to the
entry porch columns.
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area36
Plan 1
+/- 1463 Sq.Ft.
3 Bdrm/2.5 Ba
2 Car Garage
Plan 2
+/- 1556 Sq.Ft.
3 Bdrm/2.5 Ba
2 Car Garage
Plan 2
+/- 1556 Sq.Ft.
3 Bdrm/2.5 Ba
2 Car Garage
Townhomes - 5-Plex
Plan 3
+/- 1785 Sq.Ft.
3 Bdrm/2.5 Ba/Loft
Optional Bdrm 4
2 Car Garage
Plan 4
+/- 1745 Sq.Ft.
3 Bdrm/2.5 Ba/Loft
Optional Bdrm 4
2 Car Garage
Preliminary Floor Plans - First Floor
32
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area37
Townhomes - 5-Plex
Preliminary Floor Plans - Second Floor
33
Plan 1Plan 2 Plan 2Plan 3 Plan 4
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area38
Maximum Lot Coverage: 80%
Minimum Private Yard: 50 SF
Minimum Setbacks: Front: 10’ to Primary Building
Rear: 10’ to Primary Building
Side: 10’ to Corner
Total Open Space/Landscpaed Area: 39,777 SF
Total Private Open Space: 8,216 SF
Parking: 16 Public Spaces
90 Private Garage Spaces
Townhomes - 6-Plex
Plan 1Plan 3 Plan 2 Plan 2 Plan 4Plan 1
The 2-story Townhomes for the Craftsman Style elevation are an assemblage of both lap siding and board and
batt siding exteriors with some common trim details. The 5-unit and 6-unit buildings both have a collection of
3 or 4 of the plan types. The buildings that side onto a street have the Plan 4 (building end unit with front door
facing street) with the side entry to give a stronger aesthetic presence to the street orientation. The buildings
do have inside corner breaks (for change in exterior material) between units to allow for an architecturally
correct break for both materials and colors. This will lend itself to stronger individuality to each unit in the
building. The Craftsman style buildings reflect dominate gable 5:12 pitch roof forms with single story porch
elements. The paired single hung windows reinforce the Craftsman theme along with the stone bases to the
entry porch columns.
Preliminary Elevations
34
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area39
Townhomes - 6-Plex
Preliminary Floor Plans - First Floor
Plan 1
+/- 1463 Sq.Ft.
3 Bdrm/2.5 Ba
2 Car Garage
Plan 1
+/- 1463 Sq.Ft.
3 Bdrm/2.5 Ba
2 Car Garage
Plan 2
+/- 1556 Sq.Ft.
3 Bdrm/2.5 Ba
2 Car Garage
Plan 2
+/- 1556 Sq.Ft.
3 Bdrm/2.5 Ba
2 Car Garage
Plan 3
+/- 1785 Sq.Ft.
3 Bdrm/2.5 Ba/Loft
Optional Bdrm 4
2 Car Garage
Plan 4
+/- 1745 Sq.Ft.
3 Bdrm/2.5 Ba/Loft
Optional Bdrm 4
2 Car Garage
35
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area40
Townhomes - 6-Plex
Preliminary Floor Plans - Second Floor
36
Plan 1 Plan 1 Plan 2Plan 2Plan 3 Plan 4
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area41
(NEW PAGE ADDED)
Retail
Front Elevation - View from Bodway Parkway
Rear Elevation - View from Parking Area
The 1-story retail buildings have an agrarian nature to them and are organized to address street frontage and parking that occur on opposite
sides. The majority of the shop doors are located on the parking side of the building with signage and a few doors attracting patrons’
attention from the street. Roofs are finished with standing seam metal over low-pitched planes that respect the residential character of
the area. The walls are finished with medium texture stucco and accented with the occasional use of a masonry wainscot in textural rubble
like stone.
The color palettes for the Retail Shops demonstrated in the street scenes were selected to reflect the mix of the colors that are seen in the
adjacent neighborhoods. These colors will include earth tones ranging from warm reds and medium browns to tans and ochre yellows for
the primary wall colors. The trim and accent color is a sage green that is applied to fascias, woodwork, and building masses. Roof colors are
medium shades of warm gray.
Preliminary Elevations
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area42
(NEW PAGE ADDED)
Retail
Preliminary Floor Plans
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area43
Trash Enclosure
39
Conceptual Plan View Conceptual Plan View
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area44
Illustrative Landscape Plan
40
(SEE NEXT PAGE)
EXISTING HOUSEneeds
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area45
Mixed-Use Site - Illustrative Landscape Plan
41
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area46
Community Monumentation
Corner of Valley House & Petaluma Hill Road Streetscape
Petaluma Hill Road - Elevation
42
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area47
Estate View Corridors
Section at Petaluma Hill Road
Project - Estate Lots
43
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 APRIL 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area48
Perimeter Streetscape Details - Valley House Road
44 PETALUMA HILL ROADVALLEY HOUSE DRIVE
LANDSCAPE LEGEND
TREES
BOTANCIAL NAME / COMMON NAME SIZE
ACER X. FREEMANII 'JEFFERSRED' (AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE) 24" BOX
LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA 'POTOMAC' (CRAPE MYRTLE) 24" BOX
ALBIZIA JULIBRISSIN (SILK TREE)24" BOX
PLATANUS ACERIFOLIA 'BLOODGOOD'24" BOX
ULMUS PARVIFOLIA 'DRAKE' (DRAKE ELM)24" BOX
LARGE SHRUBSCOTONEASTER LACTEA (COTONEASTER) 5 GAL.GREVILLEA NOELLII (GREVILLEA) 5 GAL.
MEDIUM SHRUBSARCTOSTAPHYLOS 'HOWARD McMINN' (MANZANITA) 5 GAL.
XYLOSMA CONGESTUM 'COMPACTA' (DWARF XYLOSMA) 5 GAL.
SMALL SHRUBS
BERBERIS THUNBERGII 'CHERRY BOMB' (DWF. BARBERRY) 5 GAL.ROSMARINUS O.'COLLINGWOOD INGRAM' (ROSEMARY) 5 GAL.
GROUND COVERSROSMARINUS O. 'HUNTINGTON CARPET' (H.C. ROSEMARY) 1 GAL.COPROSMA KIRKII (CREEPING COPROSMA) 1 GAL.
FESTUCA ELIATOR 'ALTA' (MEADOW GRASS)
SHRUBS
PLATANUS ACERIFOLIA - REPLACEMENT STREET TREE
Valley House Road - Elevation at Estate Lots
Valley House Road - Streetscape
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area49
Perimeter Streetscape Details - Valley House Road
Valley House Road - Elevation at MDA Lots
Valley House Road - Streetscape
45
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area50
Perimeter Streetscape Details - Bodway Parkway
46
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area51
Perimeter Streetscape Sections
Section A - Valley House Road
Section C - Bodway Parkway
Section B - Valley House Road
Section D - Bodway Parkway
47
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area52
Cobra style street light for use only along Bodway Parkway to match existing street lights. Pursuant to City of Rohnert Park
Standard Detail 610.
LED Era®Bell decorative street light for use along residential streets. Pursuant to City of Rohnert Park Standard Detail.
Conceptual Lighting Details
SCALE: 1"=20'
NORTH
SHEET:
OF:
MARCH 2015
12
L10
8040200
MASTER PLANNING
(707) 829 - 2580
FAX 829 - 3417
3344 Gravenstein Hwy. No.
Sebastopol, CA 95472
ROHNERT PARK, CALIFORNIA
7279 PETALUMA HILL ROAD
SOUTHEAST
ROHNERT PARK
MIXED USE LIGHTING
V A L L E Y H O U S E D R I V EMIXED USE SITE LIGHTING RETAIL APARTMENTS TOWNHOMES
STREET LIGHTING LEGEND
14' INTERIOR STREET LIGHT
SCALE: NTS
MIXED USE LIGHTING LEGEND
48
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area53
Typical Frontage FencingPerimeter Streetscape
Representative Imagery
Perimeter StreetscapePerimeter Streetscape
49
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area54
Neighborhood Park - Site Plan
50
NOTE: All street lighting shall be LED.
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area55
Neighborhood Park - Detention Pond Sections
Section A - Bodway Parkway
Section B - Waterside Lane
Plan View - West End of Park
Section C - Wrenwood Way
51
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area56
Neighborhood Park - Playground
52
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area57
Neighborhood Park - Dog Park
53
DRAFT
APRIL 2019 MAY 2023 Development Area Plan - Southeast Area58
EXHIBIT 2
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DEVELOPMENT AREA PLAN – SOUTHEAST AREA
ON-GOING CONDITIONS
The conditions below shall apply to the Development Area Plan (DAP) for the Southeast
Area within the Southeast Specific Plan. The Southeast Area Project shall be developed in
accordance with the General Plan (GP), Southeast Specific Plan (SESP) including Design
Guidelines, Mitigation Measures (MM) identified in the Southeast Specific Plan Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR), Development Agreement (DA) between the City and Penn Grove
Mountain, LLC, the Rohnert Park Municipal Code (RPMC) and the Design and Construction
Standards.
General Requirements
1) These conditions replace the Conditions of Approval adopted by Rohnert Park City
Council Resolution 2019-045 2014-16 on April 23, 2019.
2) The applicant shall comply with all documents approved by the City Council and adhere
to all verbal representations and exhibits presented by the applicant at the Planning
Commission and/or City Council meeting for approval of the Southeast Specific Plan
project unless subsequently revised by the City.
3) In case of conflict between or among the various documents, the following order shall
prevail: General Plan, Mitigation Measures for the Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR), Southeast Specific Plan (SESP), Development Area Plan (DAP) and its
conditions of approval, Development Agreement (DA), Tentative Map and its Conditions
of Approval, Rohnert Park Municipal Code (RPMC), and Design and Construction
Standards.
4) The applicant shall comply with the FEIR. In addition, the applicant shall pay the cost to
monitor the Mitigation Measures identified in the FEIR for the Southeast Specific Plan
Project (SCH # 2003112011) kept on file in the Development Services Department. The
requirements contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) shall be
incorporated into these conditions and constructed in accordance with the MMP.
5) The applicant agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City, its officers, agents,
elected and appointed officials, and employees, from any and all liability or claims that
may be brought against the City arising out of its approval of this DAP save and except
that caused by the City’s active negligence.
6) By accepting the benefits conferred under this DAP, the applicant acknowledges all the
conditions imposed and accepts this DAP subject to those conditions with full awareness
of the provisions of the FDP, as may be amended from time to time, and the RPMC, as
applicable.
7) The use of the property by the applicant/grantee for any activity authorized by this DAP
shall constitute acceptance of all of the conditions and obligations imposed by the City on
this DAP. The applicant/grantee by said acceptance waives any challenge as to the
validity of these conditions.
8) All improvements shall comply with all applicable sections of the City of Rohnert Park
Municipal Code and any other applicable relevant plans of affected agencies, unless
superseded by the Specific Plan for this property.
9) The development of this phase shall be consistent with all other approvals associated with
this project (e.g. SESP, Tentative Map, DA).
10) The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and clearances from the Rohnert Park
Building and Public Safety Departments prior to occupancy of the project.
11) Any covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&R’s) applicable to the project property
shall be consistent with the terms of these conditions and the City Code. If there is
conflict between the CC&R’s and the City Code or these conditions, the City Code or
these conditions shall prevail.
12) . CONDITION ELIMINATED
13) CONDITION ELIMINATED
14) The improvements shall be in compliance with the site plan, exterior elevations and
landscaping plans as presented herein.
15) Building colors and materials shall be in compliance with the palettes presented in the
DAP as approved. Any minor changes shall be reviewed and approved by staff.
16) Any decorative paving shall be reviewed and approved by staff.
17) Architectural elements such as stone or brick wainscots shall be extended around the
sides of structure that will be visible from street sides including corners. All window
framing trim treatments shall be required on side and rear elevations.
18) All building footprints shall be identified by floor plan model and architectural style on
the master plotting plan. Single plots shall be submitted with each building permit
application. The developer shall ensure that a diverse set of plan models and colors shall
be evenly dispersed in each neighborhood.
19) Applicant shall comply with the Conditions of Approval for its Model Home Complex
adopted by Rohnert Park Planning Commission Resolution 2016-09 on April 14, 2016.
20) In each neighborhood, prior to issuance of building permits in that district, the applicant
shall install and maintain on-site display signs. The on-site display signs shall indicate
the location for future development of lighted and non-lighted parks and commercial
parcels, cul-de-sac openings, apartments, or higher density residential areas. These signs
shall be located in a manner to be clearly visible to all potential homebuyers in the
Southeast Area community. The signing plan shall be submitted to the City planning staff
for review and approval.
21) The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&R’s) filed for each
development shall be prominently displayed in the project sales office at all times. The
CC&R’s shall apply equally to both owners and renters. The CC&R’s shall be written to
require renters to comply with the regulations of the CC&R’s, and a copy of the CC&R’s
shall be given to each renter.
22) The applicant shall comply with its existing master signage program approved by
Rohnert Park Planning Commission Resolution 2018-14 on February 8, 2018.
23) Design and placement of walls and fences for each residential neighborhood and public
facility shall be in accordance with the standards in the FDP and shall be approved by
planning staff.
24) All residential dwellings shall display illuminated street numbers in a prominent location
in such a position that the numbers are easily visible to approaching emergency vehicles
from both directions. The numbers shall be of a contrasting color to the background to
which they are attached and four (4) inches minimum in height. Flag lots will have their
address displayed in a prominent position at the driveway intersection with the street.
25) All roof or ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view.
26) All site plans for residential units shall include a behind gate concrete pad for garbage
and recycling bins. The concrete pad may be incorporated into a concrete sidewalk
behind front fenced gate if the clearance allows for passage from the gate to the rear yard
with receptacles in storage. Motor court units shall shall provide for a paved designated
area fronting a public street or, for units not abutting a public street, a paved designated
area within the motor court for weekly garbage pickup area. These areas shall be
reviewed and approved by City planning staff and by the solid waste collection
franchisee.
27) The project applicant shall contract with a qualified acoustical consultant to ensure the
design of the housing units along Petaluma Hill Road, Bodway Parkway and Valley
House Drive do not allow for interior noise levels greater than 45dB Ldn. The acoustical
consultant shall prepare and submit to the planning staff a report detailing the acoustical
treatments to be used for compliance with this performance standard. The report shall be
reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits.
28) All buildings shall be connected to public water and sewer systems prior to occupancy.
Water and sewer service accounts shall be set up with the City Finance Department for
each structure with a building permit.
29) Prior to installation by the applicant, plant species, location, container size, quality and
quantity of all landscaping plants and materials shall be reviewed and approved by the
Planning staff (or designee) for consistency with the approved landscape plans. All plant
replacements shall be to an equal or better standard than originally approved.
30) Applicant shall provide front yard landscaping and corner lot side yard landscaping
outside of fenced areas. A permanent automatic sprinkler shall be installed to maintain all
landscape materials and trees. Applicant shall install front and side yard fencing prior to
occupancy.
31) Project lighting shall be reviewed and approved by planning staff. All exterior lighting
shall be designed to avoid spillover onto adjacent properties and right-of-ways. Lighting
elements shall be recessed to prevent glare. All building entrances shall include recessed
or soffit lights.
32) The developer shall comply with construction hours as designated in the Rohnert Park
Municipal Code Section 9.44.120.
33) The developer shall obtain and adhere to an approved truck route for deliveries and
construction material haulers.
34) All construction material waste and other debris shall be recycled to the extent possible.
The applicant shall present a “clean site everyday” program to City building staff for
approval. The program shall include on-site signage in English and Spanish to be posted
at construction entrances. No animals shall be brought on site by construction personnel
during work hours.
35) All material storage areas shall be fenced with at least a 6-foot high chain link fence with
at least two separate points of access with sufficient width for emergency vehicles. The
access points shall be shown on the construction fire and security protection site plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2023-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK AND
PENN GROVE MOUNTAIN LLC ADDING TWENTY-TWO LOTS AND MODIFYING
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS WITHIN THE FOURTH PHASE OF THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, Government Code § 65864, et seq., authorizes the City of Rohnert Park to
enter into development agreements which will provide certainty, definition and commitment to
developers as well as to necessary public improvements required by development; and
WHEREAS, the applicant, Penn Grove Mountain LLC, filed Planning Applications
proposing General Plan amendments (PLGP22-0001), an amended Specific Plan (PLSP22-
0001), a revised Development Area Plan (PLDP22-0001), an amendment to the Development
Agreement (PLDA22-0001), and modifications to conditions of approval for the Tentative Map
(PLSD22-0001), for the Southeast Specific Plan (“SESP”) located south of the Canon Manor
Specific Plan Area, west of Petaluma Hill Road, and north of Valley House Drive (various
APNs), in accordance with the City of Rohnert Park Municipal Code (“RPMC”); and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments would allow for a more gradual transition of
densities and for the addition of twenty-two single-family residential lots within the fourth phase
of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City staff has evaluated the project and determined that it is consistent
with the City’s current strategy for providing water service and that it will better serve the
housing needs of the city and the region; and
WHEREAS, in connection with the Project, Developer and City staff have negotiated a
proposed Sixth Amendment to Development Agreement (“Development Agreement
Amendment”) in accordance with the requirements of Government Code § 65864, et seq., and
Chapter 17.21, “Development Agreement Procedure,” of the Rohnert Park Municipal Code
(“RPMC”), for the Property. The Development Agreement Amendment negotiated by
Developer and the City is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Development Agreement Amendment, among other things, extends the
terms of the Agreement for 10 additional years, amends the Project to add 22 single-family
homes to Phase 4 and modify the unit types, provides for a park payment in the amount of
$180,000, modifies the Affordable Housing Plan to increase the number of affordable units,
increases the affordability term of ownership units, and modifies the annual date on which fees
are adjusted; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared the Southeast Rohnert Park Phase 4 Southeast
Specific Plan EIR Consistency Review dated June 2023, which is incorporated herein by
reference, and determines that the proposed amendments will not result in new environmental
impacts not previously evaluated in a previously certified EIR, or a substantial increase in
previously identified impacts (“Consistency Analysis”) and the City has otherwise carried out all
requirements for the Project pursuant to CEQA; 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 encompassing a 300
foot radius of the subject property and a public hearing was published for a minimum of 10 days
prior to the public hearing in the Community Voice; and
WHEREAS, on July 13, 2023, 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 proposed amendments to the Development Agreement.
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 Development Agreement Amendment:
Section 1. Recitals. The above recitations are true and correct and material to this
Resolution.
Section 2. CEQA Review. On December 7, 2010, the City Council of the City of
Rohnert Park certified the Final EIR for the Southeast Specific Plan Project, including adoption
of associated CEQA Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, as described in City Council Resolution No. 2010-134 (2010
EIR). CEQA Guidelines section 15162 provides that “no subsequent EIR shall be prepared” for a
project unless the lead agency determines that (1) “substantial changes are proposed in the
project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR”; or (2) “substantial changes
occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken”; or (3) “new
information of substantial importance … shows” one or more significant effects not discussed in
the original EIR, greater severity to previously-identified substantial effects, or newly-found
feasible mitigation measures that would substantially reduce significant effects. As described in
the Consistency Analysis, the proposed amendments will not result in new environmental
impacts not previously evaluated in the 2010 EIR, or a substantial increase in previously
identified impacts. The proposed amendments (addition of twenty-two lots, alterations to the lot
and street configuration, and amending the land use designation from Rural Estate Residential to
Low Density Residential), are minor and will not result in any changes to the proposed project
not previously analyzed in the 2010 EIR and no new information of substantial importance
shows any significant effects or newly found feasible mitigation measures that would
substantially reduce significant effects. Further, the amendments are consistent with the project
analyzed in the 2010 EIR. Therefore, no additional environmental review is necessary.
Section 3. Findings. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval to the City
Council of Planning Application Nos. PLGP22-0001, PLSP22-0001, PLSD22-0001, PLDP22-
0001, and PLDA22-0001 Development Agreement Amendment for Southeast Specific Plan,
hereby makes the following findings pursuant to Government Code § 65867.5 and RPMC
17.21.040:
1. The proposed Development Agreement Amendment was considered at a public
hearing
A duly noticed public hearing regarding the amended Development Agreement
was held by the Planning Commission on July 13, 2023, in conformance with the
notice provisions of Government Code §§ 65090 and 65091 and the requirements
of the RPMC Section 17.21.030.
2. The provisions of the proposed Development Agreement Amendment are
consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan
The proposed Development Agreement Amendment is consistent with the
General Plan, as recommended to be amended, and would direct the Project's
development in an orderly manner that benefits the City.
The Open Space element of the General Plan includes goals and policies for the
development and preservation of parks and open space within the City and is
implemented by the Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan and Subdivision
Ordinance. These establish the process for the dedication of parkland or in lieu fee
to meet the needs of the City’s growing population. Changes to the Project
include the payment of $180,000 to address parkland needs. This change is
consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan.
Staff has also considered the need for housing in the region. Changes to the
Project will increase the provision of affordable housing by four units and the
provision of total housing by twenty-two units will extend the affordability term
of affordable ownership units and will assist in expediting the construction of the
eight required townhome affordable units. The Housing Element of the General
Plan and the Land Use Element of the Southeast Specific Plan address this need
and the requirements for the provision of on-site affordable housing, as
implemented by the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (RPMC Section
17.07.020(N)). Changes to the project are consistent with the General Plan and
Specific Plan, as amended.
3. The provisions of the proposed Development Agreement are consistent with
Government Code § 65867.5(C).
The Development Agreement satisfies the requirements of Government Code
65867.5(C) which requires that a sufficient water supply be available for
subdivisions that meet the definition of “subdivision” in Government Code §
66473.7(a)(1) within the Project, as required by Government Code §
66473.7(b)(1). The City prepared a Water Supply Assessment to examine the
demands of new development and assesses the City’s supply sources to meet the
demands. Based on the City’s Water Supply Assessment, it was determined that
sufficient sources exist to meet the demands of the City’s general plan buildout
using a combination of surface water, groundwater and recycled water. The SESP
is included in the City’s General Plan and, therefore, the City’s Water Supply
Assessment accounts for increases in the population and use associated with the
SESP development. Because the Project is consistent with the prior analysis and
sufficient water supply is available for this project, no additional analysis is
needed and the proposed Development Agreement satisfies the required of
Government Code 65867.5(C).
4. The Planning Commission has given consideration to other pending
applications and approved projects; the traffic, parking, public service, visual,
and other impacts of the proposed development project upon abutting properties
and the surrounding area; ability of the applicant to fulfill public facilities
financing plan obligations; the relationship of the project to the City’s growth
management program; the provisions included, if any, for reservation, dedication,
or improvement of land for public purposes or accessible to the public; the type
and magnitude of the project’s economic effects to the city of Rohnert Park, and
of its contribution if any toward meeting the city’s housing needs; and to any
comparable, relevant factor.
The proposed modifications to the development result in an increase in the
number of residential units in the project. The impacts of these changes on traffic,
parking public service are modest. The Southeast SPA has an approved
Community Facilities District (CFD) which generates special taxes to support
public services. The twenty-two new residential lots will pay these special taxes,
which will mitigate its impacts. The new lot configuration maintains adequate
view corridors to the ridges east of the city and the conditions of approval for the
project require landscaping to further reduce visual impacts. The infrastructure
necessary to support the twenty-two new residential units is planned and the units
will pay the City’s Public Facilities Fee and Water Capacity charges, ensuring that
they contribute their fair share towards supporting infrastructure. The relatively
modest changes to the project do not substantially change the project, its
relationship with the City’s growth management program or the magnitude of the
project’s economic effects on the City.
Section 4. Based on the findings set forth in this Resolution and the evidence in the staff
report, the above-referenced Findings, and all other Project applications considered by the
Planning Commission concurrently with the proposed amendment to the Development
Agreement, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt an
ordinance to approve the Sixth Amendment to Development Agreement, substantially in the
form set forth at Exhibit 1 hereto.
DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED on this 13th day of July, 2023 by the City of
Rohnert Park Planning Commission by the following vote:
AYES: _____NOES:_____ ABSENT:_____ ABSTAIN:_____
AUSTIN-DILLON_____ EPSTEIN_____ ORLOFF_____ STRIPLEN_____ LAM_____
_________________________________________________________________
Chairperson, Rohnert Park Planning Commission
Attest: ________________________________
Clotile Blanks, Recording Secretary
Resolution No. 2023-16 – Exhibit 1
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City of Rohnert Park
130 Avram Avenue
Rohnert Park, CA 94928
Attention: City Clerk
(Space Above This Line for Recorder's Use Only)
Exempt from recording fee per Gov. Code§ 27383
SIXTH AMENDMENT TO
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS SIXTH AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (“Sixth
Amendment”) is entered into as of ______________, 2023 by and among PENN GROVE
MOUNTAIN, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company (“Developer”) and the CITY OF
ROHNERT PARK, a California municipal corporation (“City”). City and Developer are
sometimes referred to herein as a “Party” and collectively as “Parties.”
RECITALS
A. The City of Rohnert Park and Redwood Equities, LLC, Developer's predecessor-
in-interest (“Redwood Equities”), entered into that certain Development Agreement, as of
December 7, 2010, recorded on December 15, 2010, as Instrument No. 2010114199 in the Official
Records of Sonoma County (“Original Development Agreement”), with respect to that certain
real property described therein and in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference (the “Property”).
B. The City and Redwood Equities entered into that certain First Amendment to
Development Agreement dated December 9, 2014, and recorded on September 29, 2015, as
Instrument No. 2015085465 in the Official Records of Sonoma County, to, among other things,
revise the specifications for the Water Tank (the “First Amendment”).
C. On November 24, 2015, and with the consent of the Developer, the City Council of
the City of Rohnert Park adopted Resolution 2015-184 Establishing Rohnert Park Community
Facilities District No. 2015-01 (Southeast Specific Plan – Services) (“Services CFD”), Authorizing
the Levy of Special Taxes and Calling an Election Therein and Resolution 2015-185 Certifying
the Results of the November 24, 2015 Special Tax Election in Community Facilities District No.
2015-01.
2
4859-8378-8131 v5
D. On December 8, 2015, the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park, acting in its
capacity as the legislative body of Community Facilities District No. 2015-01, adopted Ordinance
No. 893 Authorizing the Levy of a Special Tax in Community Facilities District No. 2015-01.
E. On September 9, 2016, Redwood Equities and Developer entered into an
Assignment and Assumption Agreement recorded in the Official Records of Sonoma County as
Instrument No. 2017039425, whereby Redwood Equities assigned all rights and obligations of the
Development Agreement to Developer, Penn Grove Mountain, LLC, and Developer assumed all
rights and obligations of the Development Agreement.
F. Thereafter, the City and Developer entered into that certain Second Amendment to
Development Agreement dated February 28, 2018, and recorded on February 28, 2018, as
Instrument No. 2018013757 in the Official Records of Sonoma County, to revise certain conditions
associated with the timing of the construction of the Water Tank (the “Second Amendment”).
G. The City and Penn Grove Mountain LLC entered into that certain Third
Amendment to Development Agreement dated April 19, 2019, and recorded on May 20, 2019, as
Instrument No. 2019033687 in the Official Records of Sonoma County to eliminate the water tank
from Parcel B, require the construction of a water transmission line, provide for the reconveyance
of the water tank parcel to the developer at fair market value, and allow the development of two
lots on the water tank site (the “Third Amendment”).
H. The City and Penn Grove Mountain LLC entered into that certain Fourth
Amendment to Development Agreement dated November 26, 2019, and recorded on December 5,
2019, as Instrument No. 2019092549 in the Official Records of Sonoma County to redistribute the
number of income-restricted units available at each income level for the 36-unit affordable housing
apartment complex in order to meet the affordability requirements of Low Income Housing Tax
Credit (LIHTC) and ensure the on-site manager’s unit remains affordable (the “Fourth
Amendment”).
I. The Parties entered into that certain Fifth Amendment to Development Agreement
on November 12, 2020, recorded as Document No. 2020110241 in the Official Records of Sonoma
County to redistribute the number of income-restricted units available at each income level for the
36-unit affordable housing apartment complex (“Fifth Amendment”).
J. The Original Development Agreement as amended by the First, Second, Third,
Fourth, and Fifth Amendments may be collectively referred to herein as the “Development
Agreement.”
K. Developer has submitted applications to amend the General Plan, the Southeast
Specific Plan, the Tentative Subdivision Map for the Project, the Development Agreement, and
the Final Development Plan for the Phase 4 portion of the Project to add 22 single-family homes
(“Phase 4 Project Amendments”).
3
4859-8378-8131 v5
L. The City has reviewed the environmental impacts of the Phase 4 Project
Amendments pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and determined
that the proposed amendments will not result in new environmental impacts not previously
evaluated in the 2010 EIR, or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts. Therefore no
additional environmental review is necessary.
M. On __________________, 2023, in accordance with the recommendation of the
Planning Commission, the City Council approved the Phase 4 Project Amendments, including the
adoption of Ordinance No. ____, approving and authorizing the execution of this Sixth
Amendment.
N. The Parties now desire to enter into this Sixth Amendment to: (1) extend the term
of the Development Agreement for 10 additional years; (2) amend the Project, as defined in the
Development Agreement, to add 22 single-family homes to Phase 4 and modify the unit types
from 25 low-density single-family residences, no executive estates, and 29 rural estate single-
family homes, to 25 low-density conventional single-family residential, 32 low-density executive
estate single-family homes, 19 rural estate single-family homes, and Accessory Dwelling Units as
allowed by state and local law; (3) provide for a park payment in the amount of $180,000; (4)
modify the Affordable Housing Plan to increase the number of affordable Townhome Units from
eight to 12 and provide a timeline for the construction of the 12 affordable Townhome Units; (5)
increase the affordability term of ownership units from 45 to 99 years or such term as provided by
the third-party administering the units; (6) modify the fee provisions to acknowledge the creation
of the Services CFD; and (7) modify the annual date on which fees are adjusted to July 1.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, covenants, and provisions set
forth herein, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as
follows:
1. Defined Terms. All capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined in this Sixth
Amendment shall have the same meaning as in the Development Agreement. Any defined terms
in the Recitals above are hereby added to the Development Agreement.
2. Incorporation of Phase 4 into Project. The Project and Project Approvals, as
defined in the Development Agreement, are hereby amended to incorporate the Phase 4 Project
Amendments, including the additional 22 housing units approved as part of Phase 4.
3. Extension of Term of Development Agreement. Section 2.05 of the Development
Agreement regarding the Extended Term is amended to read in its entirety as follows:
“Section 2.05 Extended Term. City and Developer have extended the Initial Term
for an additional three-year period (“First Extended Term”) pursuant to the
provisions of Section 2.06. City and Developer hereby extend the First Extended
4
4859-8378-8131 v5
Term for an additional period of 10 years (“Second Extended Term”). The First
Extended Term and the Second Extended Term may hereinafter be referred to as
the “Extended Term”.
4. Increase in Number of Building Permit Allocations. Section 3.04 of the
Development Agreement regarding building permit issuance and the City’s Growth Management
Program is amended to read in its entirety as follows:
“Section 3.04 Issuance of Building Permits. Developer acknowledges and agrees
to comply with the provisions of the City’s Growth Management Program (City
Municipal Code section 17.19 et seq.), to the extent allowed by state law, which
regulates the number of market-rate residential building permits that the City issues
each year. In accordance with such program and subject to the limitations of this
Section 3.04, Developer shall be issued up to one hundred and seventy-five (175)
building permits for market-rate units during the first calendar year of the Term
within which the Sonoma County Local Agency Formation Commission approves
the annexation of the Property to the City; up to one hundred and fifty (150)
building permits for each of the second and third calendar years of the Term
thereafter; provided, however, the total allocation of building permits (for market
rate and affordable) units within the Project shall not exceed a cumulative total of
four hundred and ninety-nine (499) residential permits. Building permits that are
not used during the calendar year in which they are issued may be used in any
subsequent calendar year during the Term of this Agreement. Developer shall
submit an application to City and pay all applicable fees then due prior to the
issuance of any such building permits. The building permits allocated annually to
Developer shall be used exclusively in connection with the development of the
Project on the Property and may not be transferred to any other property or
properties.”
5. Acknowledgement that Community Services District 2015-01 Satisfies Public
Maintenance Fee Obligations. Section 4.06 of the Development Agreement is amended to read in
its entirety as follows:
“Section 4.06 Public Maintenance Fees. With Developer’s consent, the City has
formed the Services CFD and levies special taxes for the purpose of funding the
ongoing Maintenance Fees associated with the Project including, maintenance of
pavement and on-site infrastructure and provision of public services. All property
in the Project is included in the Services CFD and subject to special taxes, including
escalation of these special taxes, in accordance with Rate and Method of Special
Tax adopted for the Services CFD.”
5
4859-8378-8131 v5
6. Modification to Fee Escalation Adjustment Date. Section 4.14 of the Development
Agreement is amended to read in its entirety as follows:
“Section 4.14 Fee Escalation. The following fees shall be subject to annual
adjustment to reflect regular increases in costs and other escalations related to
inflation (“CPI Adjustment”) (i) the Regional Traffic Fee, and (ii) the Additional
Service Personnel Fee. From the Effective Date to the effective date of the Sixth
Amendment, fees were increased annually on the anniversary of the Effective Date.
After the effective date of the Sixth Amendment, fees shall be increased annually
on July 1. Annual increases shall be the percentage increase in the Consumer Price
Index. As used herein, the term “Consumer Price Index” means the United States
Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index, All Urban
Consumer, All Items, San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, California (1982 1984
equals 100), or the successor of such index.”
7. Park Payment for Additional Units. Section 4.15 is hereby added to the
Development Agreement as follows:
“Section 4.15 Park Payment. Prior to January 1, 2024, or the issuance of the first
building permit for Phase 4 of the Project, whichever comes first, Developer shall
pay City the amount of $180,000.00, which shall be used for park purposes.”
8. Deletion and Replacement of Exhibit D. Exhibit D (REVISED #2) is hereby
deleted and replaced with Exhibit D (“REVISED #3”) attached to this Sixth Amendment.
9. Effect of Amendment. Except to the extent the Development Agreement is
modified by this Sixth Amendment, the remaining terms and provisions of the Development
Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect. In the event of a conflict between
the terms of the Development Agreement and the terms of this Sixth Amendment, the terms of this
Sixth Amendment shall prevail.
10. Counterparts. This Sixth Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of
which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same
Amendment.
11. Effective Date. This Sixth Amendment is effective upon its recordation with the
Sonoma County Recorder's Office. This Sixth Amendment shall be recorded after the effective
date of the ordinance approving this Sixth Amendment.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Sixth Amendment has been entered into by and between
Developer and City as of the day and year first above written.
CITY:
6
4859-8378-8131 v5
City of Rohnert Park, a California municipal
corporation
By:__________________________________
City Manager, Marcela Piedra
Authorized by Ordinance ______, adopted by the
Rohnert Park City Council on ______________, 2023.
Approved as to Form:
By: _________________________________
Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney
Attest:
By: _________________________________
Sylvia Lopez Cuevas, City Clerk
DEVELOPER:
Penn Grove Mountain, LLC a California
limited liability company:
By: _________________________________
Title: ________________________________
Acknowlegements
4859-8378-8131 v5
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed
the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF __________________ )
On _______________, 20__ before me, ________________________, Notary Public, personally
appeared _________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies)
and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of
which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature: ____________________________
(seal)
******************************
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed
the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF __________________ )
On _______________, 20__ before me, ________________________, Notary Public, personally
appeared _________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies),
and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of
which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature: ____________________________
(seal)
EXHIBIT A: SITE MAP
EXHIBIT 'A'
THIS DIAGRAM G FOR GRAPHIC PURPOSES ONLY. ANY ERRORS
yy y OR OMISSIONS SHALL NOT EFFECT THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION
r
i-- ,,,Curve TableT. y
No. Radius Delta Length
s
Cl 3950.00' 05'04'58" 350.41'
C2 4050.00' 01'46'43" 125.73' , t
C3 4050.00' 00'00'51"1.00' r
C4 4-050.00' 01'38'32" 116.07' slit MAP
NO SCALE
tl i
CANON SUBDIVISION F
4iJ71 " "I
i I AREA OF
S 89'55`07` E 2640.58' EXCEPTION
POINT OF BEGINNIING SOUTH EAST
ROHNERT PARK
BULINOAR'i
y LA,
a4 1 -_ SOUTH EAST r4i Ic ROHNERT PARR
Q BOUNDARY LAMS t P.A77t)
7279 PETALUAIA HILL ROAD ne gg
t
T•:.
ON 2009-049O L4 tod
I
APN 047--111-0.30 l-t.3 -.
4 a
1-5.-^'
s
r%7
13 II o SOUTH EAST
15
o LA A` lag HOLDiIN S L7D ROHNERT PARK [ I
ON 1981-033808 BOUNDARY
IAPN047-111-051
VACANT)
a il-H{ &9'30'3" L 2589.34'
I Lt t.C(Y- VALLEY HOIJl9le DIVE 1.00
I -
I
77TO ALiTzTPtBC
0Y7 ]r4R So1Q fA
7LF
f
i I t-LAND OF KO htl.D IMGS LW CXXN1'Y'Or SO1/2 mA
ARo RTALLMA FAILL ROOD 2575 OP. 352
LW 1931-0J.36W
NW 047-t11-052
a 500' 10+O
s
Bearing Table 3
S
No. Bearing Distance
1 CINQUINI &- PASSAEINO, INC.
Li N 00'01'31" W 116.02'1 LAND SURVEYING
L2 N 00'01'31" W 1.00' A 1KUNAARY 1360 No. button Ave.
A TOPOGRAPHIC Santa Rosa, Ca. D5401
L3 N 89'59'11" W 30.00'
A CONSTRUCTION FAone: (707) 342-42a8
A SUE41'vlS1044S Fz (702) 542-2106
L4 N 89 59'11" W 21.29' W*W.C1NOUIMPASSARINO.0014
JOB NAME: DRAWN BY; AGC CHECKED S1: ,AMD
L5 S 00'00'49" W 22.46'SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK'
sr-At r- I' - SOO' DATE: OCT 2010
L6 S 05'05'48' W 64.47' DFScfiwnaN' EXHIBIT 'A' JOH }: 624A-10 511EET: I of 2
Exhibit D
4859-8378-8131 v5
EXHIBIT D
REVISED #3
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN
I. INTRODUCTION
The Southeast Specific Plan and accompanying Development Agreement meet the City of
Rohnert Park's inclusionary housing requirement. Under the proposed Development Agreement
and Specific Plan, the project will provide Low and Very Low income housing (as such terms are
defined in Section l7.07.020(N)(2) of the City's Municipal Code) as affordable rental housing, and
will provide Low and Moderate income housing (as such terms are defined in Section
l7.07.020(N)(2) of the City's Municipal Code) as affordable owner-occupied housing. As depicted
in the Specific Plan and Final Development Plan, a total of 76 Affordable Units are included in the
Project as follows: 36 apartment units in one apartment complex (Affordable Apartment
Complex); 28 Duet Units; and 12 Townhome Units. Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalized
terms contained in this Affordable Housing Plan shall have the meaning given to such terms in the
Development Agreement.
II. AFFORDABLE APARTMENT COMPLEX
A. Obligation to Construct
The Developer shall either (1) construct the Affordable Apartment Complex in accordance
with plans and specifications approved by the City, or (2) donate land within the Project, to one or
more non-profit housing developers in place of actual construction. Prior to donating the land to
the non-profit, the land must be appropriately zoned, buildable, free of toxic substances and
contaminated soils. Prior to donating this land to the non-profit, the Developer shall ensure that
the lots are fully improved with infrastructure, adjacent utilities, completed grading, all applicable
fees have been paid, and compliance with all applicable conditions of approval and mitigation
measures. The non-profit to whom the Developer donates the land shall have a minimum of five
years' experience in development, ownership, operation, and management of similar sized
affordable rental housing projects, and shall demonstrate that it has the capacity to construct and
operate the affordable housing apartment complex.
The Affordable Apartment Complex will be constructed on parcel "D" located at the corner
of Bodway Parkway and Valley House Drive. The Parties acknowledge that parcel "D" is expected
to be adequate to accommodate the Affordable Housing Complex, subject to formal site plan
review by the City and confirmation by the City that the Affordable Housing Complex complies
with the Specific Plan, the Project Approvals and Applicable Law.
Irrespective of who constructs the Affordable Apartment Complex, construction shall be
completed no later than the market-rate units that are part of the Project. In recognition of the fact
that Developer may phase construction of the market-rate or commercial units, for purposes of this
Exhibit D
4859-8378-8131 v5
Affordable Housing Plan, the phrase "completed no later than market-rate units" shall mean no
later than the City's issuance of a building permit for the 225th market-rate residential unit.
The Developer shall provide in its transfer documents donating land within the Project to
a non-profit housing developer for a reversion in fee to Developer of the land upon which the
Affordable Apartment Complex is to be constructed if the Affordable Apartment Complex has not
been constructed as required by this Affordable Housing Plan. If the non-profit housing developer
has not completed the construction of the Affordable Apartment Complex as set forth in this
Affordable Housing Plan, then the Developer will be required to complete construction of the
Affordable Apartment Complex itself. Developer shall do so at Developer's sole expense, and
Developer shall complete construction of the Affordable Apartment Complex no later than
issuance of the building permit for the 290th market-rate unit.
City shall not be obligated to issue any additional building permits beyond the 290th
building permit until the Affordable Apartment Complex is satisfactorily completed, as evidenced
by a final certificate of occupancy, according to the terms of the Agreement and this Affordable
Housing Plan.
B. Affordability
The Affordable Apartment Complex shall consist of 36 Affordable Units. Eighteen (18)
apartments shall be rented to households at or below 50% of area median income (Very Low
Income); seventeen (17) apartments shall be rented to households at or below 80% of area median
income (Low Income); and one (1) apartment shall be rented to a household at or below 120% of
area median income (Moderate Income.) Affordable Rent shall be set as defined by the Rohnert
Park Municipal Code. This section may be modified administratively by the Parties as long as it
is consistent with the intent of the Development Agreement and the City’s Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance.
C. Affordable Housing Agreement
Affordable rental properties shall be restricted for 55 years and owner-occupied affordable
housing units shall be restricted for 45 years as is required by the Rohnert Park Municipal Code.
In order to ensure that these affordability restrictions remain in place, the Developer or the non-
profit to whom the Developer donates land, shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement
with the City in a form and content acceptable to the City Attorney. The Affordable Housing
Agreement shall be recorded against the Affordable Apartment Complex parcel or project site
prior to the issuance of the building permit for the 100th market rate residential unit. The
Affordable Housing Agreement shall include at least the following terms:
1. The requirement to construct the Affordable Apartment Complex in accordance
with this Affordable Housing Plan.
2. Provisions restricting the rental of the Affordable Apartments to low and very
Low Income Households at an Affordable Rent as defined by the Rohnert Park
Municipal Code for 55 years.
Exhibit D
4859-8378-8131 v5
3. Non-discrimination covenants.
4. Annual certification requirements for the lease of the rental units.
5. The submission of certificates of continuing program compliance to the City at
least once a year.
6. Restrictions on the ability to transfer the Affordable Apartment Complex.
7. Maintenance and management requests, including identifying the City's
remedies following notice and opportunity to cure.
8. A marketing plan for the Affordable Apartments, including any preference
programs.
D. Quality Standards
The Affordable Apartment Complex shall comply with the construction and aesthetic
standards set forth in Rohnert Park Municipal Code Section 17.07.020, Footnote (N), subsection
9. Specifically, the Affordable Units shall be comparable in number of bedrooms, exterior
appearance, and overall quality of construction to the market-rate units in the same project. With
prior approval from the City Manager, the Affordable Units may have different square footage or
interior features from the market-rate units in the Project so long as the interior features are still of
good quality and are consistent with contemporary standards for housing. In its approval of the
Development Agreement for this Project, the City specifically approves and authorizes the
clustering of the 36 affordable apartment units in the Project.
E. Marketing/Implementation
Developer or its designated affordable housing developer shall prepare and implement a
marketing and implementation plan for the rental of the Affordable Apartments. The plan must be
in a form and content reasonably acceptable to the City and include, among other things, the
following:
1. A plan to market the Affordable Apartments to eligible households.
2. Procedures for the rental of the Affordable Apartments, including the slotting
of applications and creation of a waiting list, eligibility determination, income
certification, and annual re-certifications.
III. DUET UNITS AND TOWNHOME UNITS
A. Obligation to Construct
Exhibit D
4859-8378-8131 v5
Developer shall construct 28 affordable Duet Units and 12 affordable Townhome Units on
the sites depicted in and in accordance with the Specific Plan and Final Development Plan, as
amended, as well as all plans and specifications as approved by the City.
1. Construction of the affordable Duet Units shall be completed, as evidenced by
a final certificate of occupancy, concurrently with the related market-rate units
according to the Project phasing plan and phasing map as reviewed and
approved by the City and as included in the Final Development Plan.
2. Construction of the affordable Townhome Units shall be as follows:
a. Prior to the issuance of the 60th market rate building permit in Phase 4 of
the Project, the Developer must obtain building permit(s) for all 12
affordable Townhouse Units.
b. Prior to the issuance of the 63rd market rate building permit in Phase 4 of
the Project, the Developer must successfully complete the slab and water
meter authorization inspections for the building permit(s) associated with
the 12 affordable Townhouse Units.
c. Prior to the issuance of the 68th market rate building permit in Phase 4 of
the Project, the Developer must successfully complete the fire rough
inspection for the building permit(s) associated with the 12 affordable
Townhouse Units.
d. Prior to the issuance of the 72nd market rate building permit in Phase 4 of
the Project, the Developer must successfully complete the drywall nail
inspection for the building permit(s) associated with the 12 affordable
Townhouse Units
e. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the 75th market
rate building permit in Phase 4 of the Project, the Developer must
successfully secure the Certificates of Occupancy for all 12 affordable
Townhouse Units.
B. Affordability
The 28 affordable Duet Units and 12 affordable Townhome Units shall be used either as
rental housing or owner-occupied housing, subject to the following requirements:
1. If operated as rental housing, fifty percent (50%) of the Affordable Units shall
be rented to Very-Low income households at an Affordable Rent. The
remaining fifty (50%) of the Affordable Units shall be rented to Low-income
households at an Affordable Rent.
Exhibit D
4859-8378-8131 v5
2. If sold as owner-occupied housing, fifty (50%) of the Affordable Units shall be
sold to Low Income households at an Affordable Sales Price. The remaining
fifty percent (50%) of the Affordable Units shall be sold to Moderate income
households at an Affordable Sales Price.
C. Affordable Housing Agreement
Concurrent with recordation of the final map for each tract in which affordable housing
sites have been designated, Developer shall record an Affordable Housing Agreement containing
covenants against any parcel on which Affordable Units are proposed to be constructed. The
covenants containing the affordability restrictions for the Affordable Units shall remain in place
for a minimum of fifty-five (55) years (for rental housing) or ninety-nine (99) years or such other
term required by the third-party administrator (for owner-occupied housing). Among other things,
the Affordable Housing Agreement shall include the following terms:
If the Affordable Housing Unit(s) is/are operated as rental housing:
1. The requirement to construct the Affordable Units as provided herein;
2. Provisions restricting the rental of Affordable Units to low- and very low-
income households at an affordable rent for a period of fifty-five (55) years;
3. Non-discrimination covenants;
4. Provisions requiring income certification before the lease of any Affordable
Units and recertification every year thereafter;
5. Provisions requiring the submittal of certificates of continuing program
compliance to the City on at least an annual basis;
6. Restrictions on the ability to transfer the Affordable Units;
7. Maintenance and management requirements, including City remedies following
notice and opportunity to cure;
8. Provisions regarding the marketing of the Affordable Units.
If the Affordable Housing Unit(s) is/are sold as owner-occupied housing:
1. The requirement to construct the Affordable Housing Unit(s) as provided herein
and in partnership with a third-party administrator acceptable to City;
2. Provisions restricting the sale of the Affordable Units to Low and Moderate-
income households at an Affordable Sales Price for a period of at least ninety-
nine (99) years, or such other term required by the third-party administrator;
Exhibit D
4859-8378-8131 v5
3. Non-discrimination covenants;
4. Provisions requiring income certification before the sale of any Affordable
Units;
5. Restrictions on the ability to transfer the Affordable Units;
6. The phasing plan already submitted to the City that indicates the location and
unit size of each Affordable Unit, and the timing of the construction of the
Affordable Units in relation to the market rate units;
7. Provisions requiring homebuyers to execute and record, as appropriate, resale
and refinance restrictions, disclosure statements and a performance deed of
trust; and
8. A form of Resale and Refinance Restriction Agreement that includes, among
other things, provisions requiring that the Affordable Unit be sold to a Low or
Moderate-income household at an Affordable Sales Price for a period of ninety-
nine (99) years, refinance limitations, provisions prohibiting the rental of the
Affordable Unit, and an option to purchase at an Affordable Sales Price in favor
of City the event of a default by the owner.
D. Quality Standards
The Affordable Units shall comply with the construction and aesthetic standards set forth
in Rohnert Park Municipal Code Section 17.07.020, Footnote (N), subsection 9. Specifically, the
Affordable Units shall be comparable in number of bedrooms, exterior appearance, and overall
quality of construction to the market-rate units in the same Project. With prior approval from the
City Manager, the Affordable Units may have different square footage or interior features from
the market-rate units in the Project so long as the interior features are still of good quality and are
consistent with contemporary standards for housing. The Affordable Units shall be dispersed
throughout their respective phase.
E. Marketing/Implementation
Developer shall prepare and implement a marketing and implementation plan for the
Affordable Units. The plan must be in a form and content reasonably acceptable to the City and
include, among other things, the following:
1. A plan to market the Affordable Units to eligible households.
2. Procedures for the rental or sale of the Affordable Units, including the slotting
of applications and creation of a waiting list, eligibility determination, income
certification, and annual re-certifications.
Exhibit D
4859-8378-8131 v5
IV. COMPLIANCE MONITORING
Commencing one year after the Effective Date and every year through the Term, the
Developer shall submit an annual implementation plan to the City summarizing the status of
compliance with the Affordable Housing Plan, including status of construction and sale or rental
of the Affordable Units. At the time of submission of the information required by this section,
Developer shall submit the required Processing Fees to cover City's costs to review and monitor
Developer's compliance with the Affordable Housing Plan.
V. DEVELOPER'S OBLIGATION
The obligations set forth in the Affordable Housing Plan are the obligation of Developer,
who shall be responsible for fulfilling them at Developer's sole cost and expense. The City will
not have any obligation to assist in the development of any of the Affordable Units or Second
Units. The Developer shall provide or obtain any and all subsidies necessary to construct the
Affordable Units and to comply with all provisions of the Affordable Housing Plan.
Notwithstanding the above, City agrees that the Public Facilities Fee and the Water Capacity
Charge for the 12 Affordable Townhome Units may be paid at the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy.
VI. PRIORITY
The Affordable Housing Agreement described above shall be superior to any mortgage,
deed of trust, lien, or other encumbrances (other than the lien for current taxes or assessments not
yet due) recorded against the Property, and shall be enforceable against any party who has acquired
its title by foreclosure, trustee's sale, voluntary conveyance, or otherwise. If so requested by the
City, the Developer or its successor shall execute and agree to the recording of a subordination
agreement evidencing the provisions of this Section VIII.
VII. ADJUSTMENT
The Developer may seek a reduction, adjustment, or waiver of these Affordable Housing
requirements as is set forth in Rohnert Park Municipal Code Section 17.07.020, footnote (N),
subsection 15.
1
Resolution 2023- 17
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2023-17
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT
PARK RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE APPROVAL OF AN
AMENDED TENTATIVE MAP TO ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY
LOCATED SOUTH OF THE CANON MANOR SPECIFIC PLAN AREA, WEST OF
PETALUMA HILL ROAD, EAST OF WENDY DRIVE AND NORTH OF VALLEY
HOUSE DRIVE (APN: 047-111-062)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Penn Grove Mountain LLC, filed an amended Tentative
Map (PLSD22-0001; attached to this Resolution as Exhibit 1) for a 76-lot subdivision of
80± acres in the Southeast Specific Plan (“SESP”) area located south of the Canon Manor
Specific Plan Area, west of Petaluma Hill Road, east of Bodway Parkway and north of Valley
House Drive (various APNs) (“Project”), in accordance with the City of Rohnert Park
Municipal Code (“RPMC”); and
WHEREAS, the Project is consistent with the Rohnert Park General Plan and
Southeast Specific Plan, as amended; 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 encompassing a
300-foot radius of the subject property, and a public hearing was published for a minimum
of 10 days prior to the public hearing in the Community Voice; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared the Southeast Rohnert Park Phase 4 Southeast
Specific Plan EIR Consistency Review dated June 2023, which is incorporated herein by
reference, and determines that the proposed amendments will not result in new environmental
impacts not previously evaluated in a previously certified EIR, or a substantial increase in
previously identified impacts (“Consistency Analysis”) and the City has otherwise carried out
all requirements for the Project pursuant to CEQA; and
WHEREAS, on July 13, 2023, 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 reviewed and considered the information
contained in Planning Application No. PLSD22-0001 in Exhibit 1 for the proposed Tentative
Map for the property; and
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 Tentative Map for the property:
Section 1. Recitals. The above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. CEQA Review. On December 7, 2010, the City Council of the City of Rohnert
Park certified the Final EIR for the Southeast Specific Plan Project, including adoption of
associated CEQA Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, as described in City Council Resolution No. 2010-134
2
Resolution 2023- 17
(2010 EIR). CEQA Guidelines section 15162 provides that “no subsequent EIR shall be
prepared” for a project unless the lead agency determines that (1) “substantial changes are
proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR”; or (2)
“substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken”; or (3) “new information of substantial importance … shows” one or more
significant effects not discussed in the original EIR, greater severity to previously-identified
substantial effects, or newly-found feasible mitigation measures that would substantially
reduce significant effects. As described in the Consistency Analysis, the proposed
amendments will not result in new environmental impacts not previously evaluated in the
2010 EIR, or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts. The proposed
amendments (addition of twenty-two lots, alterations to the lot and street configuration, and
amending the land use designation from Rural Estate Residential to Low-Density
Residential), are minor and will not result in any changes to the proposed project not
previously analyzed in the 2010 EIR and no new information of substantial importance shows
any significant effects or newly found feasible mitigation measures that would substantially
reduce significant effects. Further, the amendments are consistent with the project analyzed
in the 2010 EIR. Therefore, no additional environmental review is necessary.
Section 3. Findings. The Planning Commission, in recommending to the City
Council approval of Planning Application No. PLSD22-0001 hereby makes the following
findings concerning the Tentative Map pursuant to Government Code § 66474:
1. The proposed map, and its design and improvements, are consistent with the
general plan and any applicable specific plan, any policy or guideline
implementing the general plan (including the city’s design guidelines), or other
applicable provisions of this code.
The proposed Tentative Map is consistent with the General Plan designations for
the area, as well as the specific plan that applies to the property, as recommended
to be amended in conjunction with this application. The proposed Tentative Map
will implement the General Plan in that it would increase the City’s existing
housing stock consistent with the Project approvals, the variety of housing types
and policies of the City’s Housing Element by complying with the City’s
inclusionary housing ordinance.
The proposed Tentative Map is consistent with the Southeast Specific Plan, as
recommended to be amended, as it proposes to subdivide the property according
to its requirements related to the number of residential units, density, housing
type, housing location, public improvements, open space, and related amenities.
The Tentative Map depicts the specific residential lots and uses consistent with
those in the Specific Plan, as amended.
The proposed Tentative Map has been designed to meet City standards which
provide satisfactory pedestrian and vehicular circulation, including emergency
vehicle access and on-site improvements, such as streets, utilities, and drainage
facilities have been designed and are conditioned to be constructed in
conformance with City standards.
3
Resolution 2023- 17
2. The site is physically suitable for the type of development.
The Tentative Map reflects the specific plan for this site, which is physically
suitable for the proposed development. No major geologic hazards have been
reported on the site or other limited conditions that would render it unsuitable for
residential development.
3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
The site is of sufficient size and shape and appropriately shown in the Specific
Plan to allow the proposed density of development. The subdivision has been
designed to accommodate the development of 76 residential units, taking into
consideration the shape and topography of the site. This development is consistent
with the density ranges provided for in the General Plan and Specific Plan, as
recommended to be amended.
4. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat, absent a statement of overriding conditions.
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse number
2003112011) and an Addendum to the EIR were prepared and certified for the
Southeast Specific Plan and associated General Plan amendments which
identified potential impacts related to the development of the site with the
proposed uses, including uses proposed with the subject Tentative Map Project.
No significant unavoidable impacts related to existing habitats were identified.
The Final EIR for this Project and associated General Plan amendments with
which the Project is consistent included the adoption of associated CEQA
Findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program. The contents of the Final EIR are incorporated herein by
this reference. Further, the City has prepared a Consistency Analysis that
demonstrates that the amendments will not result in any new impacts or the
substantial increase of any previously identified impacts.
5. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not cause serious
public health problems.
The design of the Project is not expected to have negative impacts on the health
or well-being of Project residents or occupants of the surrounding land uses. The
design of the Tentative Map is in conformance with the City’s General Plan, as
recommended to be amended, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance.
The construction of all units on the site has been conditioned to comply with all
applicable City ordinances, and standards including, but not limited to, the
California Uniform Building Code and the City’s Ordinances relating to
Stormwater runoff management and controls. In addition, the design and
construction of all improvements for the subdivision has been conditioned to be
in conformance with adopted City street and public works standards. The City’s
ordinances, codes, and standards have been created based on currently accepted
4
Resolution 2023- 17
standards and practices for the preservation of the public health, safety and
welfare. Finally, the proposed street system throughout the subdivision will
provide appropriate emergency vehicular access for the Project.
6. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property
with the proposed subdivision, absent alternative, equivalent easements.
The project will respect all existing easements, and any new easements required
by the project have been made conditions of the map approval.
Section 4. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
approval of Application No. PLSD2 2-0001 for a Tentative Map attached to this Resolution as
Exhibit 1, in its entirety, to allow the subdivision of Penn Grove Mountain LLC property located
south of the Canon Manor Specific Plan Area, west of Petaluma Hill Road, east of Wendy Drive and
north of Valley House Drive (APN: 047-111-062) subject to the recommended conditions of
approval in Exhibit 2.
DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED on this 13th day of July, 2023 by the City of
Rohnert Park Planning Commission by the following vote:
AYES: _____NOES:_____ ABSENT:_____ ABSTAIN:_____
AUSTIN-DILLON_____ EPSTEIN_____ ORLOFF_____ STRIPLEN_____ LAM_____
_________________________________________________________________
Acting Chairperson, Rohnert Park Planning Commission
Attest: ________________________________
Clotile Blanks, Recording Secretary
Attachments: Exhibit 1: Tentative Map
Exhibit 2: Conditions of Approval
S:\SDSK\PROJ\22-103\DWG\Amended Tentative Map\SERP-TM1-COV.dwg, 4/27/2023 3:13:54 PM
Resolution 2023-17 EXHIBIT 1
S:\SDSK\PROJ\22-103\DWG\Amended Tentative Map\SERP-TM2-BNDRY.dwg, 4/27/2023 3:15:39 PM
S:\SDSK\PROJ\22-103\DWG\Amended Tentative Map\SERP-TM3-SITE-PLAN.dwg, 4/28/2023 11:53:05 AM
S:\SDSK\PROJ\22-103\DWG\Amended Tentative Map\SERP-TM4-PHASING.dwg, 4/27/2023 4:32:49 PM
S:\SDSK\PROJ\22-103\DWG\Amended Tentative Map\SERP-TM5-9.dwg, 4/27/2023 4:32:17 PM
S:\SDSK\PROJ\22-103\DWG\Amended Tentative Map\SERP-TM5-9.dwg, 4/27/2023 6:01:26 PM
R=35.5'S:\SDSK\PROJ\22-103\DWG\Amended Tentative Map\SERP-TM5-9.dwg, 4/28/2023 8:43:13 AM
S:\SDSK\PROJ\22-103\DWG\Amended Tentative Map\SERP-TM5-9.dwg, 4/28/2023 8:43:44 AM
S:\SDSK\PROJ\22-103\DWG\Amended Tentative Map\SERP-TM5-9.dwg, 4/27/2023 6:17:32 PM
S:\SDSK\PROJ\22-103\DWG\Amended Tentative Map\SERP-TM10-11-GP.dwg, 4/28/2023 11:49:47 AM
S:\SDSK\PROJ\22-103\DWG\Amended Tentative Map\SERP-TM10-11-GP.dwg, 4/27/2023 6:28:10 PM
5
Resolution 2023- 17
EXHIBIT 2
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK TENTATIVE MAP
ON-GOING CONDITIONS
The conditions below shall apply to the Tentative Map (TM) for the Southeast Area Project
within the Southeast Specific plan. The Southeast Area Project shall be developed in accordance
with the General Plan (GP), Southeast Specific Plan (SESP) as amended, Mitigation Measures
identified in the Southeast Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), Development
Agreement (DA) between the City and Redwood Equities, LLC Penn Grove Mountain LLC, as
amended, and the Rohnert Park Municipal Code (RPMC) and the Design and Construction
Standards.
The Conditions of Approval as stated herein are the obligation of the applicant/developer and
place no obligation either express or implied on the City. These Conditions of Approval run
with this Tentative Map as approved regardless of ownership at time of recording.
General Requirements
1) These conditions replace the Conditions of Approval adopted by Rohnert Park City Council
Resolution 2019-046 on April 23, 2019.
2) The applicant shall comply with all documents approved by the City Council and adhere
to all exhibits presented by the applicant at the Planning Commission and/or City
Council meeting for approval of the Southeast Specific Plan project unless subsequently
revised by the City.
3) In case of conflict between or among the various documents, the following order shall
prevail: General Plan, Mitigation Measures for the Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR), Southeast Specific Plan (SESP), Development Area Plan (DAP) and its conditions of
approval, Development Agreement (DA), Tentative Map (TM) and its Conditions of
Approval, Rohnert Park Municipal Code (RPMC), and Design and Construction
Standards.
4) The applicant shall comply with the FEIR. In addition, the applicant shall pay the cost to
monitor the Mitigation Measures identified in the FEIR for the Southeast Specific Plan
Project (SCH # 2003112011) kept on file in the Development Services Department. The
requirements contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) shall be
incorporated into these conditions and constructed in accordance with the MMP.
5) The applicant agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City, its officers,
agents, elected and appointed officials, and employees, from any and all liability or
claims that may be brought against the City arising out of its approval of this Tentative
6
Resolution 2023- 17
Map and associated entitlements pertaining to the Southeast Specific Plan save and
except that caused by the City’s active negligence.
6) By accepting the benefits conferred under this TM, the applicant acknowledges all the
conditions imposed and accepts this TM subject to those conditions with full awareness
of the provisions of the SESP, as may be amended from time to time, and the RPMC, as
applicable.
7) The use of the property by the applicant/grantee for any activity authorized by this TM
shall constitute acceptance of all of the conditions and obligations imposed by the City
on this TM. The applicant/grantee by said acceptance waives any challenge as to the
validity of these conditions.
8) Development shown on the TM may be phased. Each final map shall stand-alone and be
self-sufficient as to access, traffic circulation, utilities, physical infrastructure, and land
use pattern subject to approval by the City Engineer.
9) Prior to the approval of any final map the applicant shall provide the Development
Services Director with a copy of the recorded covenants, conditions and restrictions
(CC&R’s) on the deeds for all lots within the project site, which inform subsequent
property owners of the nature and extent of existing agricultural activities, operations,
and facilities in the vicinity of the project site. The deed restriction shall also provide
notice of the potential conflicts or effects of typical agricultural activities outside of
project including but not limited to noise, odors, dust, agricultural spraying, livestock
and burning etc.
a. Any covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&R’s) applicable to the project
property shall be consistent with the terms of these conditions and the City Code. If
there is conflict between the CC&R’s and the City Code or these conditions, the City
Code or these conditions shall prevail.
10) If the City is required to enforce any of the conditions of approval, the applicant shall
pay all costs. At the City’s sole discretion, the City may require a cash deposit to cover
enforcement costs as a condition of the approval of any final map.
11) Prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall provide a set of
certified escrow instructions reflecting City’s demand for payment of Regional
Transportation Fee for each lot affected by this fee as set forth in the DA.
Building Services
12) Building code provisions shall apply to the construction, alteration, moving, demolition,
repair, maintenance and use of any building or structure within the jurisdiction of the
City, except work located primarily in a public way, public utility towers and poles,
mechanical equipment not specifically regulated by building code provisions, and
hydraulic flood control structures. All projects shall comply with the most current code
recognized by the City at the time of their building permit application. All State and
local ordinances shall be applicable to current projects.
7
Resolution 2023- 17
13) Geotechnical investigation reports shall be submitted for all building permit projects
unless waived by the Building Official. When required by the Building Official, the
potential for soil liquefaction and soil strength loss during earthquakes shall be evaluated
during geo-technical investigations. Compaction reports are required for each building
pad site and all compaction reports shall be submitted prior to a foundation inspection
and in compliance with the soils and geo-technical recommendations.
14) A completed and approved wet fire hydrants system, or other system approved by the
Building Official and Department of pPublic Safety (DPS), and all weather roads shall
be in place prior to any flammable or combustible material (such as wood) being brought
onto the site. The applicant may tie to the water system for fire flow only. Fire access
roads shall meet the DPS Fire Access Road Standard. These fire access roads shall
continue to be accessible until acceptance of the public streets by the City.
15) Pursuant to California State Assembly Bill 3158, the applicant shall pay the filing fee to
the Department of Fish and Game. The fee shall be submitted to the Planning Division
upon filing of any required Notice of Determination, along with any filing fee required
by the County Clerk/Recorder. The applicant should be aware that Section 21089(b) of
the Public Resources Code provides that any project approved under CEQA is not
operative, vested or final until the required fee is paid. Proof of fee payment may be
required prior to the issuance of building permits or filing of a final map.
16) The applicant shall submit a mailbox plan (locations and sizes) for all lots prior to
approval of any final map. The plan shall be approved by the Rohnert Park Post Office
and included with the first submittal of the improvement plans. The applicant shall
submit to the City a written confirmation from the Rohnert Park Post Office that the
mailbox locations are approved. The City will review and approve the location plan to
ensure adequate site distance and traffic safety measures are incorporated.
17) All public utilities easements (PUE) and public access easements shall be open and
accessible at all times.
18) Copies of the soils and geology reports and shall be reviewed and approved by the
developer’s soils engineer and geologist prior to issuance of a grading permit. The
developer’s soils engineer shall sign the plans stating that they conform to the soils
report recommendations.
19) All septic tanks, leach fields and related items in the final map area shall be abandoned
and destroyed in a manner approved by the County Department of Environmental Health
Services. Water wells that the applicant chooses to abandon shall be destroyed in a
manner approved by the Department of Environmental Health Services.
20) The applicant shall submit plans and obtain separate building permits for retaining walls
over four (4) feet in height and for all other walls, fences and signs over six (6) feet in
height.
21) The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit for any structure to be demolished. All
underground structures shall be abated, back-filled, inspected and approved by Sonoma
County Environmental Health Services or the Building Official as applicable.
8
Resolution 2023- 17
22) For any project requiring an on-site inspector to monitor grading, construction and/or
development, the applicant shall deposit funds with the City to cover the full cost of an
inspector prior to any land disturbance. The City Engineer, as appropriate, shall approve
the amount and hire the inspector.
23) The developer shall implement a dust control program as part of the measures required
by the FEIR for air quality control and the requirements of PM 10 and the Best Available
Control Measures (BACM). The program shall ensure that, at the City Engineer’s
discretion, a water vehicle for dust control operations is kept readily available at all times
during construction. The developer shall provide the City Engineer and Building
Official with the name and telephone number of the person directly responsible for dust
control and operation of the water vehicle.
Planning Services
24) A Tree Preservation and Removal Plan including a separate tree removal and sensitive
area plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Department for review and
approval in accordance with City ordinance. The plan shall show all sensitive areas and
stands of trees that are to be protected during grading operations and include, in detail,
the method proposed to protect these areas.
25) All areas to be graded and left undeveloped shall have a revegetation plan as part of the
dust control program. The Development Services Director or his designee shall review
and approve or conditionally approve the plan. The applicant shall guarantee the
revegetation prior to issuance of grading permits.
26) All material storage areas shall be fenced with at least a 6-foot high chain link fence with
at least two 20-foot gates for emergency vehicle access. The fencing shall be shown on
the fire and security protection site plan.
27) Unless otherwise specified in these conditions, the condition shall apply prior to
recordation of each final map or large lot final map. A “final map” shall mean a map
that results in buildable parcels of an acre or less in area. A “large lot final map” shall
mean a map that results in parcels larger than one acre in area.
28) The applicant shall pay all application fees, plan check and inspection fees, recordation
fees, park in-lieu fees, encroachment permit fees, segregation of assessment fees and
other applicable miscellaneous fees in effect at the time the fee is paid as required in the
Fee Schedule or RPMC.
29) The final map shall identify who is responsible to own and maintain all parcels to be
created with the map.
30) CONDITION ELIMINATED
31) The improvement plans shall show water services to each building. All water meters
shall be within the public right-of-way unless the Public Works Director specifically
approves exceptions. The City shall not maintain water and sewer system lines beyond
existing main line stub outs or on private property, unless otherwise agreed to by the
9
Resolution 2023- 17
City. Access easements shall be given to the City and recorded concurrently with the
final map for any exceptions approved by the City Engineer that require access to private
property.
32) If applicable, easements of record not shown on the tentative map shall be relinquished
or relocated. Lots affected by proposed easements or easements of record, which cannot
be relinquished or relocated, shall be redesigned. All easements for off-site grading and
drainage shall be acquired prior to approval of construction on these properties.
33) The applicant shall provide cable or conduit for each residential lot for cable television
and Internet access. The applicant shall provide cable or conduit for fiber optics or other
smart technologies for each commercial lot for Internet access. The cable or conduit
shall be shown on the joint trench improvement plans and constructed before the final
lift of asphalt is placed on the adjacent street.
34) Prior to approval of the first final map that requires a homeowners’ association, the
applicant shall incorporate a homeowners’ association consisting of all property owners
of lands in the development at the time of incorporation. The homeowners’ association
shall be responsible for maintaining all common facilities pertaining to the Home
Owners Association, including but not limited to, the association’s property, common
drive aisles, motor courts, parking facilities and all utilities contained therein, and
landscaping plus landscaping in adjacent public rights-of-way (such as parkway strips or
other similar areas), and for paying for security lighting, any common garbage collection
services, any security patrol services, if provided, and any other functions of a
homeowners’ association. The homeowners’ association shall comply with all NPDES
permit Best Management Practices in effect at the time.
35) The CC&R’s shall prohibit the on-site parking of recreational vehicles, including boats.
Parking shall be prohibited along emergency vehicle access easements, private streets
and lanes. The No Parking signs shall be approved by the DPS. A separate signing and
striping plan shall be provided to address on-site stop signs and no parking areas prior to
approval of any final map.
36) Motor courts shall be private facilities and shall have private street maintenance, street
sweeping and streetlights. A private Homeowners Association for the Motor Courts shall
be established. Motor courts shall have a visible demarcation between the public and
private areas and identified with signage that differentiates them from public streets.
The City Engineer shall approve all signage for private facilities with the approval of
individual improvement plans for the project.
37) The applicant shall provide adequate vehicle sight distance as specified by the State of
California, Department of Transportation’s Highway Design Manual (latest edition) at
all public and private street intersections. In addition, intersections and driveways shall
comply with City requirements for sight triangles. The design of the streets shall
incorporate public safety concerns, fire protection equipment movements, as well as the
location and pickup of solid waste.
10
Resolution 2023- 17
38) Safety lighting at the end and at any curve in any motor court shall be provided for
residential units that do not front on a public street. The lighting shall include individual
lights on each residential unit and\/or streetlights on street light poles. The City Engineer
shall approve the lighting plans that include these facilities.
39) The applicant shall contact the solid waste franchised hauler and obtain their written
approval of the proposed solid waste pickup locations on motor courts. The pickup
locations shall not be located in emergency vehicle access easements. A copy of the
written approval from the solid waste franchised hauler shall be submitted with the street
improvement plans for City review and approval. Provisions for paved areas for trash
receptacles on certain parcels shall be identified in the improvement plans to service
motor court residences; the trash receptacle cutouts shall be located on private parcels
fronting public streets or within the motor court for units not fronting a public street and
accommodate the receptacles for the respective lots.
40) Where required, the landscaping for the detention and/or retention basins shall be
reviewed and approved by the Development Services Director.
41) The applicant will coordinate with the local bus system authority to facilitate local bus
service in the project and to determine bus stop locations and shelter improvements. The
bus shelter locations shall be shown on the improvement plans and reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer. A copy of the written correspondence with the local bus
system authority approving transit facilities shall be submitted with the first street
improvement plans for each map.
42) Any above ground utility structures and appurtenances (e.g. cable TV boxes, phone
splice boxes) shall be limited to 36’ in height, installed in a public utilities easement
within the applicant’s property and within 10 feet behind street face of curbs. These
locations shall be screened with landscaping to the satisfaction of the Development
Services Director. The landscape screen shall not interfere with the utility companies’ or
Department of Public Safety’s access.
43) The electrical and water services shall be provided to all parks, landscape medians, and
other landscape areas in accordance with plans approved by the Public Works Director.
44) Prior to the approval of the first final map including a large lot final map, the applicant
shall be responsible for costs of implementation of ensuring compliance with Mitigation
Measures contained in Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP) for the FEIR. The applicant
shall provide funding, in an amount determined by the Development Services Director to
hire consultants or staff to implement compliance monitoring.
45) Prior to approval of the first final map, the street name and a theme for all street name
signage, including traffic signal signage, street corner signage, directional signs, and
other permanent fixtures depicting street names shall be submitted to the Development
Services Director for review and approval.
46) The total acreage for Neighborhood Park shall be a minimum of 5.0 acres as approved
by Parks and Recreation Commission dated July 19, 2010.
11
Resolution 2023- 17
47) Unless otherwise specified in these conditions, the conditions of approval shall apply to
each building permit.
48) In each neighborhood, prior to issuance of building permits for each tentative map phase,
the applicant shall install and maintain on-site display signs. The on-site display signs
shall indicate the location for future development of lighted and non-lighted parks and
commercial parcels, cul-de-sac openings, apartments, or higher density residential areas.
These signs shall be located in a manner to be clearly visible to all potential homebuyers
in the Southeast Area community. The signing plan shall be submitted to the
Development Services Director for review and approval.
49) The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&R’s) filed for each
development shall be prominently displayed in the project sales office at all times. The
CC&R’s shall apply to both owners and renters. The CC&R’s shall be written to require
renters to comply with the regulations of the CC&R’s, and a copy of the CC&R’s shall
be given to each renter. The CC&R’s shall be written to allow a majority of owners to
have pavement or landscape maintenance done and the cost thereof assessed to all
owners in the project.
50) The applicant shall provide a master signage program and a “Master Model Home
Signage” program for all residential subdivisions in the Southeast Area community. The
master signage programs shall be reviewed and approved by the Development Services
Director.
51) Design and placement of walls and fences for each district shall be in accordance with
the standards in the Specific Plan and Development Area Plan and shall be approved by
the Development Services Director. Walls and fences may be phased for each
development in the district.
52) All residential dwellings shall display illuminated street numbers in a prominent location
in such a position that the numbers are easily visible to approaching emergency vehicles
from both directions. The numbers shall be of a contrasting color to the background to
which they are attached and four (4) inches minimum in height. Flag lots will have their
address displayed in a prominent position at the driveway intersection with the street.
53) All buildings shall be connected to public water and sewer systems prior to occupancy.
Water and sewer service accounts shall be set up with the City Finance Department for
each structure with a building permit.
54) Prior to front yard landscaping installation by the applicant, plant species, location,
container size, quality and quantity of all landscaping plants and materials shall be
reviewed and approved by the Development Services Director for consistency with the
approved construction plans. All plant replacements shall be to an equal or better
standard than originally approved.
55) All construction of new multi-family residential projects and all non-residential
construction projects shall comply with the City’s Source Reduction and Recycling
Element, Household Hazardous Waste Element and the Sonoma County Integrated
Waste Management Plan, which incorporates these Elements. Provisions for compliance
12
Resolution 2023- 17
with the Plan will be submitted with individual project plans within the Southeast
Specific Plan Area.
56) All construction of new multi-family residential projects and all non-residential
construction projects shall incorporate interior and exterior storage area for recyclables
into new structures.
57) CONDITION ELIMINATED
Engineering Services
58) The Bio-Retention Beds on the individual lots shall be maintained by the CFD or the HOA, to
avoid the city having a separate maintenance agreement with each property owner.
59) All improvements within the public right of way shall comply with City of Rohnert Park
Standards.
60) Include the following in the General Notes of the plans:
a) "The Contractor is responsible for the removal of all USA markings created within
the project limits, and in relation to the project. Replacement and restoration must
meet the approval of the City Engineer."
b) "The contractor shall maintain one clean set of marked plans showing all changes
and “as built” information. This set of plans will be submitted to the City engineer
upon completion of work.”
c) "All utility covers shall meet final paving elevations. More than 0.25 inch of
deviation between the top of the utility cover and the surrounding pavement in a six
foot radius at any location shall be cause for rejection."
d) "Any current or new curb and gutter and sidewalk non compliant shall be replaced by
the developer to City Standard at the discretion of the City Engineer."
61) The applicant’s licensed civil engineer shall submit a photometric study with plans on Petaluma
Hill Road and Valley House Road with the first submittal of improvement plans to Land
Development Services Department for review and approval by Public Works Department.
62) Utility sewer improvement plans shall include the removal of sewer cleanouts at the end of sewer
mains and be replaced with shallow manholes per the latest City Standards.
On-going Conditions
63) Submit a copy of the CC&Rs and/or maintenance declarations for private improvements
(such as for maintenance of motor courts and private utilities) to the City Engineer and
City Attorney for review and approval. Maintenance declaration(s) shall be required to
be recorded concurrent with the recordation of the Final Map or prior to City Engineer
approval of improvement plans for the respective design, whichever occurs first.
64) The applicant shall submit to the City of Rohnert Park for review and approval, evidence
that the CC&R's will include provisions for maintenance of:
a) all private storm drain systems.
b) all private driveways
13
Resolution 2023- 17
c) all private motor courts
d) utilities within private easements or driveways
e) private area landscaping
f) sidewalks in private areas
g) private walkway and access easements.
65) A Community Facilities District or any other funding mechanism allowed by law shall
be formed by the project proponent encompassing the entire tentative map property for
the purposes of funding the long term maintenance of the public facilities built with the
project. The City shall be named as a third party beneficiary to the district/association. A
Covenant, Condition and Restriction shall be placed on the formation that requires; that
if the property owners of the district vote to dissolve the district, a homeowners
association shall be formed for the purposes of maintaining the facilities previously
maintained by the district.
66) CONDITION ELIMINATED
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits/Approval of Improvement Plans
67) Improvement Plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted for the
review and approval of the City Engineer showing grading, paving, utilities, drainage,
structures to be built, lighting and trash collection. The improvements plans shall
include parking lots, street and utility information including all concrete curb and gutter,
sidewalk, striping and signing, paving, water lines, storm drain lines and sewer lines as
necessary, erosion control and any necessary transitions. All improvements shall be in
accordance with the City of Rohnert Park Standard Improvement Details. Improvement
Plans shall include a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan including winterization and
erosion protection.
68) Storm drainage improvements shall be designed in accordance with the Sonoma County
Water Agency criteria. Hydrology calculations, pipe sizing and storm drain plans shall
be submitted for the review and approval of the City Engineer.
69) No lot- to- lot drainage is allowed except where easements for drainage are provided. A
copy of any such easement shall be provided to the City Engineer. No drainage may
discharge across sidewalks.
70) The applicant shall demonstrate for each building pad to the satisfaction of the City of
Rohnert Park as follows:
a) Adequate protection from 100-year frequency storm; and
b) Feasible access during a 10-year frequency storm.
71) Fire protection shall be in accord with the requirements of Rohnert Park Public Safety
Department. With the submittal of the improvement plans, calculations shall be
provided to the City and the Rohnert Park Public Safety Department to ensure that
adequate water pressures are available to supply hydrant flows and sprinkler flows.
14
Resolution 2023- 17
72) The improvement plans shall show a sewer lateral to each building in accord with City
Standards.
73) If private sewer lines are shared or if they cross property lines, a 10’ private sewer
easement shall be shown in the Final Map / Parcel Map or recorded by separate
document (if the development is done separate from recordation of a Final Map / Parcel
Map). The maintenance of any private sewer line shall be included in the maintenance
agreement for the overall site(s) which have an interest in the particular sewer.
74) The frontage improvements along the entire frontages of Petaluma Hill Road, Bodway
Parkway and Valley House Drive shall be designed by the project proponent, shown on
improvement plans and reviewed and approved by the City prior to approval of the first
Subdivision Improvement Plan. The following improvements are required:
a) Valley House Drive – An 8-foot wide Class I multi-use trail, landscape & irrigation
improvements, street lighting and Class II bike lanes on both sides of the street in
compliance with city standards. The final striping layout shall be modified as
directed by the City Engineer.
b) Petaluma Hill Road – Landscape & irrigation improvements, an 8-foot shoulder/bike
lane along the west side of the road in compliance with with city standards. The
design and location of the entry treatment monument shall be included on the
improvement plans for review and approval by the City.
c) Bodway Parkway – A 6-foot wide sidewalk, except in the area of the park which
shall be 8-foot in width, landscape & irrigation improvements and bus turnout in
compliance with city standards. The sidewalk shall be extended north to the Camino
Colegio intersection with a crosswalk extending west across Bodway Parkway to
connect with the Camino Colegio sidewalk.
75) The existing Recycled Water system shall be extended by the project proponent to serve
the proposed public park and detention basin, as well as landscaping within the
apartment, townhome, and commercial lots and within all public or common area
landscaped areas within the project before any building permits for Phase 3 or 4 are
issued. Improvement plans shall include the design and construction of the recycled
water extension subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. Prior to the
extension of the existing Recycled Water system to the park and detention basin, the
developer shall temporarily use potable water for irrigation. The in-tract portion of the
recycled water main shall be installed with the first phase of improvements to its
ultimate layout and size, to avoid cutting finished improvements at a later date.
Improvements shall include interim potable water connections as well as permanent
recycled water connections to all locations requiring the use of recycled water. The
City’s Per Acre Development water connection fee for the 7.1 (5.0?) acre park and
detention basin site shall not be paid due to temporary use of potable water on the site.
Developer shall pay the water consumption charges to City for potable water actually
used at the site for irrigation.
76) The Public Park shall be designed by the developer, reviewed and approved by the City
and constructed by the developer as stated within the timeframes identified in the
Development Agreement.
15
Resolution 2023- 17
77) Each phase of development shall include the design and construction of Utilities within
existing or proposed public right-of-way for electric, gas, telephone, communication and
cable TV and shall be submitted to the City Engineer and Director of Development
Services for review and approval. Any above-ground utility boxes, cabinets or structures
shall be specifically approved by the City and screened from public view to the
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services and City Engineer.
78) A grading permit application shall accompany submittal of the each phase of
Subdivision Improvement Plans for each phase. Said application shall include the
requirements listed in Sections 15.48 & 15.50 of the Municipal Code. The grading plans
shall be in conformance with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District guidelines
for reducing construction impacts and minimize dust emissions.
79) Each phase of development shall submit drainage plans subject to the review and
approval of the Sonoma County Water Agency (“SCWA”), the City of Rohnert Park and
these conditions of approval. Said plans shall meet or exceed SCWA standards and City
standards, whichever is more restrictive. All proposed building finished floor elevations,
including garages, shall be a minimum of 1 foot above the post construction 100-year
water surface elevations.
80) The storm water detention pond shall be designed by the project proponent, reviewed
and approved by the City concurrently with the first phase of development Phase 1 plans.
The storm water detention pond shall be designed in accordance with the WEF Manual
of Practice FD-20, per City Standards and be approved by the City Engineer, the
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Sonoma County Water Agency and Vector
Control.
81) Each phase of development shall prepare improvement plans and calculations for the
proposed project, shall demonstrate no increase in the 100-year water surface elevations
of adjacent properties and submit hydrology and hydraulic report(s) for the project
demonstrating that this requirement is met, subject to Sonoma County Water Agency and
City of Rohnert Park review and approval.
82) Each phase of development shall include the design by the project proponent for Erosion
and Sediment control plans prepared by a professional such as a Civil Engineer or
certified Erosion Control Specialist and shall meet the requirements listed in Section
15.52.030 of the Municipal Code. The plans shall provide measures to avoid the
introduction or spread of noxious weeds into previously un-infested areas. These plans
are subject to review and approval by the City. Erosion and Sediment control plans shall
be in conformance with Chapter 15.52 of the Municipal Code except that the reference
document for design criteria shall be the City of Santa Rosa Standard Urban Storm
Water Management Plan (SUSMP) or most current City adopted SUSMP.
83) Each phase of development shall include design by the project proponent of Street
lighting on public streets as well as private motor courts/lanes. The design shall be in
accordance with City standards and P.G.&E. requirements. In addition, lighting for
private streets and lanes shall be designed in accordance with the Zoning ordinance and
16
Resolution 2023- 17
to the Public Safety Department’s satisfaction. The first phase of development shall
include design for City standard street lighting along Valley House Drive, both sides of
the street.
84) All existing overhead utilities within the subdivision and all proposed utilities shall be
placed underground.
85) The first phase of development shall include the design by the project proponent for the
proposed bus stop along Bodway Parkway, subject to the review and approval of the
Sonoma County Transit and the City. The design shall meet the minimum requirements
set forth in the current City Standards. The developer shall obtain a written letter of
satisfaction from the Sonoma County Transit.
86) Each phase of development shall include design by the project proponent for roadways.
The design shall include slurry sealing specifications, subject to review and approval by
the City. All streets shall be slurry sealed prior to issuance of the last certificate of
occupancy for the phase or prior to acceptance of the public improvements, whichever
occurs first within each phase of development.
87) Each phase of development shall include the design by the project proponent for
installation of moisture barriers at the edges of all pavement sections for purposes of
maintaining constant moisture content of pavement sections, subject to review and
approval by the City. The design shall include moisture protection extending to 6 inches
below the aggregate base layer. The moisture barrier shall be a minimum of 4 inches
wide and consist of Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM) in a 10 mil visqueen
lined trench.
88) Soils beneath all roadways including motor courts shall be lime treated based on site
specific tests and as recommended by a geotechnical engineer. Exceptions may be
allowed in writing by the City Engineer if an acceptable alternate pavement section is
provided and lime treatment is not practical due to tight confines.
89) Each phase of development shall include design by the project proponent and all public
improvements shall comply with the latest version of the Rohnert Park Manual of
Standards, Details and Specifications. Reference to particular standards shall be made
on the improvement plans. Standards details and specifications shall not physically be
included on the plans but shall be referenced.
90) For each phase of development the project proponent shall design motor courts , with
utilities and appurtenances. These shall be private.
91) No utilities (sewer, water or storm drains) shall flow from a private utility to a public
utility and back to a private utility. No utilities (sewer, water or storm drains) shall flow
from a public utility to a private utility and back to a public utility.
92) All utilities shall be located within dedicated and accepted public street rights-of-way.
Any exception must receive prior written approval from the City Engineer.
17
Resolution 2023- 17
93) All existing wells and septic systems shall be abandoned in compliance with State and
County codes, prior to issuance of an initial grading permit. The existing well and septic
system serving the existing residential dwelling may remain in operation until such time
as the particular phase of development requires abandonment of the systems, subject to
review and approval by the City.
94) CONDITION ELIMINATED
95) The first phase of development shall include the design by the project proponent of
looped 12-inch water mains to the proposed commercial and multi-family residential
sites in order to adequately serve these sites in compliance with city standards.
96) The first phase of development shall include the design by the project proponent of a 12-
inch water main from the existing City of Rohnert Park main along Bodway Parkway to
Valley House Drive and along Valley House Drive to Willow Way Drive.
97) For each phase of the development the project proponent shall design all utilities in
compliance with City Manual of Standards and the California Department of Public
Health Drinking Water Program including vertical and horizontal separation between
utilities, curbs, gutters and monuments.
98) CONDITION ELIMINATED
99) The first phase of development shall include the design by the project proponent for the
park.
100) The applicant shall show the proposed structural sections for all motor courts on the site
improvement plans and pay the City’s plan check and inspection fee for the proposed
private improvements, including the water, recycled water, sewer and storm drainage
facilities in these areas, to assure that the improvements are designed and constructed to
City standards.
Prior to Approval of Final Map
101) Submit each final map and improvement plans with a completed Land Development
Review Submittal Sheet, Final-Parcel Map Completeness Checklist and Final-Parcel
Map Submittal Checklist as available on the City web-site and all appropriate additional
information.
102) Prior to City Council approval of the first final map; the developer shall satisfy Rohnert
Park Municipal Code section 16.14.010 D. 2. regarding off-site dedication of rights-of-
way and easements.
103) Prior to City Council approval of the first subdivision map, the proposed sidewalk,
multi-use trail and landscaping along the entire project frontage of Petaluma Hill Road,
Bodway Parkway and Valley House Drive shall be designed by the project proponent,
shown on improvement plans and reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and
included in Subdivision Agreement to be constructed with the first phase of construction.
18
Resolution 2023- 17
104) The developer/property owner shall offer for dedication a 21-foot “Public Sidewalk
Easement” to the city over the sidewalk required along Petaluma Hill Road, on the first
subdivision map. The city shall not be obligated to maintain the sidewalk if the City
Council accepts the offer for dedication. The easement shall be located adjacent to the
Petaluma Hill Road right of way and encumber Lots 385 – 391372 – 374 and Lots 389-
397.
105) The City shall have no obligation to maintain private motor courts, or police the private
maintenance of the motor courts.
106) Each subdivision map for the phased development shall have a note on the local agency
page stating: All fences, soundwalls and retaining walls shall be constructed on private
property and maintained by the private property owner, unless specifically dedicated to
and accepted by the City.
107) All property corners of lots within the subdivision shall be monumented in compliance
with city standards, except as expressly permitted in writing by the City Engineer.
108) The applicant shall execute a Long-Term Maintenance Agreement with the City
covering the ongoing maintenance of landscape features within the public right-of-way
for which the homeowner’s association is responsible for maintenance. The agreement
shall transfer from the applicant to the homeowner’s association upon termination of the
one-year warranty period following acceptance of improvements.
Prior to Construction
109) Applicant must file a Notice of Intent to Comply with the Terms of General Permit to
Discharge Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (NOI) with the State of
California Water Resources Control Board, and obtain a permit, prior to commencement
of any construction activity.
110) No construction shall be initiated for each phase until the Improvement Plans have been
approved by the City, all applicable fees have been paid, an encroachment permit and/or
grading permit has been issued and a project schedule has been submitted to the City
Engineer and a pre-construction conference has been held with the City Engineer or his
designee.
111) Developer shall secure an encroachment permit from the City prior to performing any
work within the City right of way, a State Highway or constructing within a City
easement.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
112) Prior to issuance of building permits for any single family residential units, Individual
Plot Plans shall be prepared by the project proponent, submitted and reviewed and
approved by the City.
19
Resolution 2023- 17
113) Prior to issuance of building permits for commercial and multi-family residential units,
site development plans shall be prepared by a California registered Civil Engineer,
submitted and reviewed and approved by the City.
114) Prior to issuance of the first residential building permit, the Developer shall commence
construction of the park.
115) Prior to issuance of the 15th residential building permit or completion of the first
application of asphalt on streets adjacent to the park, whichever is earlier, the Developer
shall complete construction of the water detention pond. Apartment, townhomes and
condominium units shall be counted as one residential building permit for each unit.
116) Prior to issuance of the 201st residential building permit, the Developer shall complete
construction of the park and obtain acceptance of the City for the same.
Prior to the Occupancy
117) CONDITION ELIMINATED
118) Prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit, the storm water detention pond shall be
constructed and complete.
Department of Public Safety-Fire
114) Fire Hydrant spacing and placement shall be consistent with the City of Rohnert Park
Standards, comply with Appendix C of the 2007 California Fire code, and the
amendments to table C105.1 by RPDPS ordinance #793. Specific locations of Fire
hydrants shall be coordinated with the applicants Civil Engineer based on Fire Engine
response protocols.
115) All roadway, private lanes and drives shall comply with the City of Rohnert Park
Standards. Specifically reference Standard #202 “Alley,” in regards to:
o Motor court lighting shall meet the City’s minor street requirements.
o Motor courts are to be use as secondary access only, with parking provided on
primary access roads.
116) Roadway widths shall be consistent with the City of Rohnert Park Standards, comply
with Appendix D of the 2007 California Fire code, and the amendments to RPDPS
ordinance #793 Section 15.28.D103.2 – 15.28.D106.1.
117) Minimum interior and exterior turning radius for Fire Apparatus Access shall be all 20
feet and 40 feet.
City of Rohnert Park
Planning Commission Staff Report (Supplemental)
Meeting Date: July 13, 2023 (Item continued from the June 22, 2023 meeting)
Item No: 7.1
Prepared By: Elliott Pickett, Associate Planner
Agenda Title: PROJ22-0003, Willowglen Phase 4, Amendments to the General Plan,
Southeast Specific Plan (SESP), Development Area Plan, Development
Agreement, and Tentative Map (CEQA: Consistent with SESP 2010 EIR)
Location: Property bounded by Bodway Parkway to the west, Valley House Drive to
the south, Petaluma Hill Road to the east, and Canon Manor Specific Plan
Area to the north (Various APNs)
GP/Zoning: Low-Density Residential, Rural Estate Residential/ SP: Specific Plan
Applicant/Owner: Ben van Zutphen for Penn Grove Mountain LLC
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolutions to recommend that the City Council amend
entitlements for the WillowGlen project, as follows:
1. Recommend approval of amendments to the General Plan;
2. Recommend approval of an amended Specific Plan;
3. Recommend approval of an amended Development Area Plan;
4. Recommend approval of an ordinance approving a Sixth Amendment to the Development
Agreement between the City of Rohnert Park and Penn Grove Mountain LLC; and
5. Recommend approval of an amended Tentative Map and Conditions;
The proposed tentative map attached to the original staff report was erroneously missing three
detention pipes and orifice structures. Attachment 1 to this supplemental staff report corrects this
error and ensures consistency with the Preliminary Drainage Report. This map replaces Exhibit 1
to Attachment 7.
Attachments:
1. Proposed Tentative Map (Revised June 2023)
S:\SDSK\PROJ\22-103\DWG\Amended Tentative Map\SERP-TM1-COV.dwg, 6/19/2023 12:36:32 PM
S:\SDSK\PROJ\22-103\DWG\Amended Tentative Map\SERP-TM2-BNDRY.dwg, 6/19/2023 12:36:56 PM
S:\SDSK\PROJ\22-103\DWG\Amended Tentative Map\SERP-TM3-SITE-PLAN.dwg, 6/19/2023 12:37:44 PM
S:\SDSK\PROJ\22-103\DWG\Amended Tentative Map\SERP-TM4-PHASING.dwg, 6/19/2023 12:41:56 PM
S:\SDSK\PROJ\22-103\DWG\Amended Tentative Map\SERP-TM5-9.dwg, 6/19/2023 12:48:39 PM
S:\SDSK\PROJ\22-103\DWG\Amended Tentative Map\SERP-TM5-9.dwg, 6/19/2023 12:49:16 PM
R=35.5'S:\SDSK\PROJ\22-103\DWG\Amended Tentative Map\SERP-TM5-9.dwg, 6/19/2023 12:50:07 PM
S:\SDSK\PROJ\22-103\DWG\Amended Tentative Map\SERP-TM5-9.dwg, 6/19/2023 12:55:53 PM
S:\SDSK\PROJ\22-103\DWG\Amended Tentative Map\SERP-TM5-9.dwg, 6/19/2023 12:56:56 PM
S:\SDSK\PROJ\22-103\DWG\Amended Tentative Map\SERP-TM10-11-GP.dwg, 6/19/2023 1:01:48 PM
S:\SDSK\PROJ\22-103\DWG\Amended Tentative Map\SERP-TM10-11-GP.dwg, 6/19/2023 1:07:53 PM
From:Pickett, Elliott
To:"artbytenisha@gmail.com"
Cc:Planning
Subject:RE: Public Comment - Southeast Specific Plan
Date:Tuesday, June 27, 2023 11:52:36 AM
Hello Tenisha,
Thank you for your comments. They have been received and will be made a part of the record.
The public hearing for this item has been continued and is scheduled to be held at the regular
Planning Commission meeting on July 13, 2023, at 6:00 pm in the City Council Chambers at 130
Avram Avenue, Rohnert Park CA.
Elliott Pickett
City of Rohnert Park | Associate Planner
130 Avram Avenue | Rohnert Park, CA 94928
(707) 588-2257 | epickett@rpcity.org
www.rpcity.org
From: Tenisha Bernal <artbytenisha@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2023 1:53 PM
To: Planning <Planning@rpcity.org>
Subject: Public Comment - Southeast Specific Plan
EXTERNAL EMAIL
Hello,
My name is Tenisha Bernal and I live at 7664 Wildrose Way. I was in attendance during
your June 22nd meeting which was sadly adjourned early because two council members
didn’t show up. So below is the speech I wrote as I won’t be able to attend next month’s
meeting as I will be on my book tour for my children’s book Little Chef’s First 100
Words.
The #1 issue in Rohnert Park is homelessness & affordable housing.
So why are you going to let the developer build 22 additional million dollar homes &
ONLY 4 more affordable townhomes?
Your letter mailed to us residents states, “Also as part of this project, an additional four
affordable townhouse units would be built within the project (outside of Phase 4).
That absolutely baffles my mind because;
A) The insanly low number of affordable homes being added vs the 76 high priced
homes.
B) This plan is allowing the developer to segregate low income families from the upper
class. There’s already division in our neighborhood, we don’t need more.
After my family and I moved in we met some of our neighbors nearby. They pointed at
our house and asked if that’s where we live. They then made comments about how they
aren’t a fan of the affordable apartments being built. I let them know that we live in
affordable housing.
See, many neighbors don’t think we live in affordable housing when looking at our
home. Thats because our home is a duet, set amongst single family homes.
The developer did a great job when they planned for this. Willowglen built affordable
duets amongst the fancy / expensive homes, so then there was no segregation. The low
income families live amongst the wealthy families, in unison.
But if you approve of this plan, those 4 additional townhomes won’t be with the wealthy.
They’ll be segregated. And that’s not ok.
The neighborhood has already opposed changing the storefront phase into more
affordable housing because godforbid there wouldn’t be another coffee shop for them to
go to, “as promised”. Believe me, I’ve heard it many of times from neighbors.
Here’s a CRAZY IDEA, how about 50/50, with 50% of affordable homes & 50% estate
homes? What a concept, Right? It’s not that hard to say “no” right now and ask for more
layout options.
For those of you who vote to approve of this phase 4, you clearly don’t have the
residents of Rohnert Park in your best interest, and that’s sad.
Please take a stand for what’s right for your community members.
Thanks,
Tenisha Bernal
7664 Wildrose Way
--
Author / Illustrator: Little Chef’s First 100 Words
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/695836/little-chefs-first-100-words-by-written-and-
illustrated-by-tenisha-bernal/