Loading...
2024/05/23 Planning Commission Agenda Packet City of Rohnert Park Joint Special Meeting of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee and Planning Commission and Planning Commission Regular Meeting NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A MEETING will be held on Thursday, May 23, 2024, 6:00 P.M. CITY HALL – COUNCIL CHAMBER 130 Avram Avenue, Rohnert Park, California To any member of the audience desiring to address the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee or Planning Commission: For public comment on items listed or not listed on the agenda, or 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. PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 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 Planning Commission (Austin-Dillon ____ Epstein ____ Lam ____ Orloff ____ Striplen ____) 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 6.1 Approval of the Draft Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of April 25, 2024. 6.2 Receive a report on the five-year extension of the University District Specific Plan Development Agreement (CEQA Status: Consistent with the Final EIR for the University District Specific Plan project Certified on May 23, 2006, and Amended by the City Council on November 8, 2016) Planning Commissioner Motion/Roll Call Vote: (Epstein _____ Striplen ____ Lam ____ Orloff _____ Austin-Dillion _____) 7. REGULAR CALENDAR 7.1 PUBLIC HEARING – Snyder Lane Commons Project (File Nos. PROJ23-0001, PLGP23-0001, PLSP23-0001, PLDP23-0001, and PLSD23-0002) – Consider a recommendation to the City Council for the adoption of an Addendum to the University District Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Amendments, Specific Plan Amendments, Development Area Plan Amendments and a Tentative Map and vacation of public right of way. (CEQA Status: Proposed Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the University District Specific Plan Area) Planning Commissioner Motion/Roll Call Vote: (Epstein _____ Striplen ____ Lam ____ Orloff _____ Austin-Dillion _____) 8. ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION 9. ITEMS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF 10. ADJOURNMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND CALL TO ORDER OF JOINT SPECIAL MEETING WITH THE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (THIS ITEM WILL NOT START BEFORE 7 PM) 11. ROLL CALL Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (Keith ____ Ogren ____ Gutierrez ____ Hensel ____ Johnson ____) Planning Commission (Austin-Dillon ____ Epstein ____ Lam ____ Orloff ____ Striplen ____) 12. PUBLIC COMMENT – Persons who wish to speak to the Commission/Board 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. 13. AGENDA ITEMS 13.1 Discussion and Direction on Milestone #2 Report for the Countywide Active Transportation Plan and Rohnert Park Active Transportation Plan Update. (This is not a project under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)) 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 the May 23, 2024, Planning Commission Meeting of the City of Rohnert Park was posted and available for review on May 17, 2024, 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 17th day of May 2024 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 June 3, 2024. Minutes of the Planning Commission Regular Meeting And Downtown Design Review Board Special Meeting of the City of Rohnert Park Thursday, April 25, 2024 6:00 P.M. 130 Avram Avenue, Rohnert Park 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Matthew Epstein called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Chairperson Matthew Epstein. 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: Matthew Epstein, Chairperson Charles Striplen, Vice Chairperson Marc Orloff, Commissioner Tramaine Austin-Dillon, Commissioner Absent: Fanny Lam, Commissioner 5. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR - ADOPTION OF MINUTES 6.1 Approval of the Draft Minutes of the Planning Commission Regular Meeting of March 28, 2024. ACTION: Moved/Seconded (Orloff/Striplen) to adopt the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of March 28, 2024. Motion carried by the following (3-0-1-1) roll call vote: AYES: Epstein, Striplen, Orloff, NOES: None; ABSTAIN: Austin Dillon ABSENT: Lam 7. AGENDA ITEMS 7.1 MASTER BANNER SIGN PROGRAM – PLS124-0005 Sonoma State University (SSU) Commissioner Austin-Dillon recused himself from Item 7.1 due to a conflict of interest. Planning Manager, Mary Grace Pawson provided background information on the Sonoma State University master banner program and commented that staff’s presentation at the March 28, 2024 meeting perhaps lacked the clarity and detail to provide a proper review of the program which cumulated in the denial by the Commission of the application. Ms. Pawson noted in order to complete the record for the application and to preserve the applicant’s appeal rights, staff has prepared a resolution of denial to document the Commission’s reasoning and findings to explain why the application, as proposed, is inconsistent with the City’s Zoning Code. The resolution also documents that the Planning Commission’s denial is “without prejudice”, which allows the applicant to bring forward a revised application without waiting the one-year waiting period that is required by code. Staff will recommend that SSU submit the revised application and will consider the comments from the Planning Commissioners to ensure a smooth review process without delay for the new application. Discussion was held by staff and the Commission. Commissioners expressed their desire to support the partnership with SSU and wanted to clarify their assessment of the application as being too broad in its current format. As discussions were held, a recommendation was brought to the Commission that refraining from approving the Resolution, “denying” the application without prejudice could be an option, with an alternate motion made to postpone the consideration of application PLSI24-0005 to a later date, allowing staff to work together with SSU to revise the application. Chairperson Epstein concurred with the recommendation and suggested to the Commissioners that the SSU matter be rescheduled to a later date. ACTION: Moved/Seconded (Epstein/Orloff) that Resolution 2024-10 will not be denied without prejudice by the Planning Commission, but Application PLSI24-0005 would be tabled for consideration at a later date. Motion carried by the following (3-0-1-1) roll call vote: AYES: Epstein, Striplen, Orloff, NOES: None; RECUSE: Austin-Dillon; ABSENT: Lam Commissioner Austin-Dillon returned to the dais. 8. DOWNTOWN DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SPECIAL MEETING Chairperson Epstein called the Downtown Design Review Board Special Meeting to order at 6:17 p.m. 8.1 DOWNTOWN DESIGN REVIEW - PLSR24-0001 - Orangetheory Fitness Center Exterior Modifications Planning Manager, Mary Grace Pawson presented a PowerPoint presentation for a proposal in the Downtown District Amenity Zone (DDAZ) of the Central Rohnert Park Priority Development Area Plan (PDA) located at 500 Raley’s Towne Center. The proposal is for exterior modifications to an existing commercial building (previously Tonayan Mexican Restaurant) to allow for the relocation of Orangetheory Fitness Center to the 500 Raley’s Towne Center location. Ms. Pawson stated that the DDAZ and its supporting Form Base Code (FBC) outline development standards as well as procedures for the preparation, filing and processing of applications within the DDAZ. Applications within the DDAZ are subject to review and approval by the Downtown Design Review Board (DDRB). The DDAZ FBC allows the City’s Planning Commission to serve as the DDRB. Ms. Pawson outlined the exterior modifications to include new architectural elements, landscaping, lighting, signage, bicycle parking and an expanded outdoor seating area. The applicant, Brendan McNamara of Argonaut Investments was recognized, provided an update on the Raley’s Towne Center and responded to questions and comments raised by the Commission. ACTION: Moved/Seconded (Orloff/Austin-Dillon) approving Resolution 2024-01 of the Downtown Design Review Board for the exterior modifications to the existing building located at 500 Raley’s Towne Center for relocation of the Orangetheory Fitness Center. Motion carried by the following (4-0-1) roll call vote: AYES: Epstein, Orloff, Striplen, Austin-Dillon, NOES: None; ABSENT: Lam. 9. ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioner Striplen kindly welcomed back to the meeting Planning Manager, Mary Grace Pawson Commissioner Orloff continued to have an interest in the clean-up of the Southwest Shopping Center and wants to have a study session with the owners of the property. Chairperson Epstein commented on the esthetics and economic development of each neighborhood and concern and importance of this to long-time residents. 10. ITEMS FROM THE DOWNTOWN DESIGN REVIEW BOARD None. 11. ITEMS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF Mary Grace Pawson, presented on behalf of the City of Rohnert Park, Certificates of Appreciation to Planning Commissioners Orloff, Epstein, and Striplen for their dedicated volunteer service. Commissioner Austin-Dillon received his Certificate at the April 14th ceremony and Commissioner Fanny Lam will receive hers at a future date. Ms. Pawson conveyed there were currently no pending items scheduled for the upcoming May 9th Planning Commission meeting, but to save the date in case something should arise. Ms. Pawson also informed the Commission there would be a crucial meeting regarding the Development Plan for the University District area located at the southeast corner of Keiser and Snyder, next to the middle school on May 23rd. The Parks and Recreation Commission will be discussing the item on May 6th. The proposed recommendation to the Parks and Recreation Commission is to suggest payment of an in-lieu fee for parks instead of putting a very small park on a 2.4-acre project parcel. 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chairperson Matthew Epstein adjourned the Planning Commission Meeting and the Downtown Design Review Board Special Meeting at 6:44 p.m. ______________________________ ___________________________________ Matthew Epstein, Chairperson Recording Secretary – Clotile Blanks Page 1 City of Rohnert Park Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: May 23, 2024 Item No: 6.2 Prepared by: Elliott Pickett, Associate Planner Agenda Title: Receive a report on the five-year term extension of the University District Specific Plan Development Agreement Location: Property north and south of Rohnert Park Expressway, west of Petaluma Hill Road and south of Keiser Avenue GP/Zoning: Various/SP: Specific Plan Applicant/Owner: Lisa Borba for UD LLC RECOMMENDED ACTION: None. Informational item only. BACKGROUND: On April 22, 2014, based on a recommendation from the Planning Commission, the City Council approved an ordinance authorizing an Amended and Restated Development Agreement (“DA”) between the University District LLC and Vast Oaks LP. The ordinance and the DA became effective on May 22, 2014. The DA covers a large portion of the University District Specific Plan Area (see Attachment 1), which is generally referred to as the Vast Oaks and UDLLC property. The DA has been amended two times, once to modify the Affordable Housing Plan and once to facilitate the construction of water tank and the expansion of Crane Creek Regional Park. The DA has also been partially assigned to a number of merchant builders, in order to accomplish the buildout of the Vast Oaks portion of the University District. In 2020, Vast Oaks LP assigned its interest in the DA to University District LLC. The term of the DA is ten (10) years and Section 2 of the DA contemplates and describes the process by which the Developer may request and the City may approve two (2) five year extensions (“Extended Term”) to the DA. On January 19, 2024, the Developer requested the first five-year extension. The DA provides that a DA extension shall be reviewed in the same manner as annual extensions. Section 2.02(C) further provides that if an Extended Term is granted, “City shall record an instrument giving notice of the Extended Term and the termination date thereof.” On March 12, 2024, the City Council reviewed the annual report for the University District DA and determined that the Developer was in substantial compliance with the terms of the DA. On May 14, 2024, the City Council adopted a resolution approving and authorizing the execution of a notice of an extended term for the University District Development Agreement, finding that the Page 2 developer was making adequate progress, was not in default under the agreement, and that the term extension would be beneficial to the city to continue the orderly development of the Specific Plan area. Because the Planning Commission will continue to review development plans in the University District, staff wanted to make sure the Planning Commission was informed about the extended term of the Development Agreement. Planning Manager Approval Date: 04/12/2024 1. Vicinity Map of the University District and Areas Subject to the Development Agreement 2. Approved Form of the Notice of Term Extension to the Amended and Restated Development Agreement Attachment 1 – Vicinity Map of UDSP & Areas Subject to the Development Agreement UDSP Subject to Development Agreement UDSP Subject to Development Agreement UDSP not Subject to Development Agreement 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 NOTICE OF EXTENDED TERM OF AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS NOTICE OF EXTENDED TERM OF AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (“Term Extension”) is executed as of ______________, 2024, by the CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, a California municipal corporation (“City”) with reference to the following recitals: RECITALS A.The City of Rohnert Park and University District LLC and Vast Oaks LP,Developer’s predecessor-in-interest, entered into that certain Amended and Restated Development Agreement, as of May 22, 2014 (based on an Ordinance approved on April 22, 2014), and recorded on July 28, 2014, as Instrument No. 2014051817 in the Official Records of Sonoma County (“Original Amended and Restated 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 University District LLC and Vast Oak LP entered into that certainFirst Amendment to the Original Amended and Restated Development Agreement recorded on January 19, 2016, as Instrument No. 2016003747 in the Official Records of Sonoma County, to revise the affordable housing plan (the “First Amendment”). C. The City and University District LLC and Vast Oaks LP entered into that certainSecond Amendment to the Original Amended and Restated Development Agreement dated October 26, 2016 and recorded on November 17, 2016, as Instrument No. 2016106715 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”). The Original Amended and Restated Development Agreement as amended by the First Amendment and the Second Amendment may be collectively referred to herein as the “Development Agreement.” All capitalized terms shall have the meaning as set forth in the Development Agreement unless otherwise defined herein. D.On September 16, 2020, University District LLC and Vast Oaks LP entered into an Assignment and Assumption Agreement recorded in the Official Records of Sonoma County as Instrument No. 2020084863, whereby Vast Oaks LP assigned its rights and obligations of the Attachment 2 - Form of Notice of Extended Term 2 Development Agreement to University District LLC, and University District LLC assumed all assigned rights and obligations of the Development Agreement. E. The Development Agreement has been partially assigned to a number of merchant builders to allow for build out of the Project anticipated by the Development Agreement, which assignment agreements have been recorded against the Property. F. The original term of the Development Agreement is through May 22, 2024. Article 2 of the Development Agreement provides that the Developer may request up to two (2) five year extensions to the Development Agreement, and on January 19, 2024, the Developer made such a request for the first five year extension. G. Section 2.02 (C) requires review of a requested extension in the same manner as annual reviews and provides that a request can be denied, conditioned or shortened if the Developer is in default or has not satisfied certain material requirements or project conditions. H. The City Council reviewed the annual report on the University District Development Agreement on March 12, 2024, and determined that the Developer is making progress on its Project, is not in default under the Development Agreement and has fully satisfied the terms of the Development Agreement to date. NOTICE NOW, THEREFORE, the City hereby executes this Notice as required by Section 2.02(C) of the Development Agreement: 1. Notice of Extended Term. The New Initial Term of the Development Agreement, as defined in Section 2.01, has been extended by an Extended Term of an additional five years. The termination date of the Development Agreement is May 22, 2029. 2. Effect of Term Extension. Except to the extent the Development Agreement is extended, the remaining terms and provisions of the Development Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect. [Intentionally left blank. Signatures continue on the following page. Signatures must be notarized] 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Notice has been executed by City as of the day and year first above written. CITY: City of Rohnert Park, a California municipal corporation By: City Manager Authorized by Resolution 2024-______, adopted by the Rohnert Park City Council on April 23, 2024. Approved as to Form: By: City Attorney Attest: By: City Clerk ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF UNIVERSITY DISTRICT LLC University District, LLC hereby agrees and acknowledges that the Amended and Restated Agreement has been extended for an Extended Term of five years, as set forth above. UNIVERSITY DISTRICT LLC: University District, LLC a California limited liability company By: Title: Acknowledgment 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 Exhibit A Legal Description of the Property [to be inserted] EXHIBITA-1 Legal Description of UD LLC Property Real property In the unlf1COl1)(nted area or the C.OOnty of Sonoma, State of caritornia, descnbed as foUows: Parcel One: Lying in Rancho Cotati and being a portion � the laOds of Henry Himebauch AndeBOn as described in Book 864 of Officlal RecOrds at Page 194, being more partlcularty described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Westerly property line of the lands of Anderson, said point being ttie SOUtheast comer of Partel 1V of the lands of the C.oooty of Sonoma as descrtbed In Book 2166 of Official Records, at Page 300 said point bears Horth 89° 23' 40" East 190.01 feet from a set iron pipej thence leaving said line North 89° 23' 40" East 1692.29 feet to the NorthweSt aimer of the parcel conveyed to the state of califomia by deed recorded March 28, 1967 ln Book 2260 of Official Records, Page 173, Sonoma county Records; thence aloog the West Nne of Aid parcel South OD 02· 40" West 300 feet to a point; thence North 89D 23' 40� east 95 feet to a paint; thence South o• 02' 40" West 80 feet to a point; thence s«th 8911 23' 40'' West 95 feet to a point: thence South Cl° 02' 40" West 510 feet to the South line of said Anderson pan:.el; thence West along said South line 1692.29 feet to the Soultmest comer of said Anderson pan;el; thence North OD 02' 20" West 871.SO feet to the point ot beginning. Pain:el Two: An easement for private and pub�c road and incidental purposes over the following described parcel: Beginning at a point which bears North 89° 23' 40� East 95 feet distant t'rom the Nortl'least comer of the above deseribed parcel; thence North 89" 23' 40" East 100 feet; thence South 00 02' 410" West 380 feet; thena! South 89" 23' 40" W� 100 feet to a point; thence North oa 02' 40" East 380 feet to the point or begil'lning. APN: 047·131-026-000 and 04?·131-027·000 Exhibit A-1 - 1 - -----,,.--------------,,-----, . = �-- . I im , Ht,, iu �u P",uh• ,u ""' �I Sn ffl lu -------� U• r� ;• �� I,� J,; , .. Ol'08 TDII 'fllDU,Uhil � �it 111 m h� 3N'rJ 11811.lNS Exhibit A-1-2 - .. nrtr J.l� . 1:-:i -�I :�-' . \11 3 t::,,� !·JI w ··1u: 1 tu] Ill • 13 ill !��J Ii ' \ an��.� 11, A :::, 11 ' I ;i : ' I L In lfi I*' / M r, I EXHIBIT A-2 Legal Description of Vast Oak Property Rea1 property in the unincorporated area of the County of Sonoma, state of californfa, described as follows: TRACT ONE Parcel One Being a portion of that tract conveyed to Frank H. Denman and George B. Murphy and David R. Risk and James C. Risk, bv Deed dated February 23, 1911 and recorded in Book 272 of Deeds, page 200, Sonoma county Records1 and commencing at a stake madted 30 and 31, standing on the South boundary of the lands conveyed to Denman and Murphy b,v said Risk Brothers, from which a stake marked "Risk" standing at the Southwest comer or said land bears West 4(>.45 chaJns distant; thence along the South boundary of said lands East, 10.32 chains to a stake marked 32 and 33; thence North across said lands, at 19.15 charns a stake matked 32 and 33, standing on the South side cl a road lald out acrosi saJd lands of Denman and Murphy, at 19.45 chains to the center of said road; thence aloog the center of �id road South 89° 30' West, 10.32 chains to a polnt from wtilch a stake marked 30 and 31 standing on the South side of said road bears South 30 Hnks distant; thence South 19.35 chains to the point of beginning. Parcel Two An easement 60 feet in width for general road and public utility purposes, the centerline of which is the same as the East line of the parcel of land conveyed to James Ta$ley by Deed recorded In Book 2307 at page 590, Sonoma County Records. APN: 015-262-001 TRACTTWO Parcel One Being a portion of the tract cooveyed to Frank H. Denman and Geo 8. Murpfly, by David R. Risk and James c. Risk by Deed dated February 23, 1911 and recorded in Book 2n of Deeds, Page 200, S<lnoma County Records, and comrnencrng 21t a stake marked •34", standing on the South boundary of said Lands and at the Northeast comer of Lands conveyed to Geo H. Anderson by Cotati Company, bV Deed recorded in Book 181 of Deeds, Page 4n, and Sonoma COuntv Records; thence along said line West 10.26 chains to a stake marked 32 a11d 33; ttience North 19.15 chains to a stake marked 32 and 33, standing on the So,uth line of a <ta foot reed laid out across said lands of Frank H Denman and Geo B. Murphy, and along South line d lands of H. Comstcck, at 19.-15 chai� to center of road; thence along center of same, North 891) 30' East, 10.26 chains; lhence leaving said road South 30 lif'lks, a stake marked 34 ,and 35, standing on the South side of said road, 19.57 chains the polnt of commencement. ExcepHng therefrom any portion of said land lying E1sterly of the agreed boundary mne as d@scrlbed in that certain Soondary Une Agreement and Quitclaim Dead executed by and betWeen North Bay Title Company and Cottonwood Enterprises recorded March 21, 1994 under Document No. 1994 0037174 Sonoma County Records Also excepting therefrom any portion of said land lying Easterly or the agreed boundary line as First American Tltle Exhibit A-2 -1- described ln that certain Bcundarr Linn Agraement and Qultclalm Dnd e:,cec:ut«i by and between NOl"'th Ba� Title Compemy (045-262·002·000) and North Bay ntle Company (045�262·003-000} recadl!d Mi!lreh 21, :Ii 994 under ooa,ment No 1994 69.384, Sonoma Cmmtv R.eoords Paroel 1'\IO AJI the land lying Wl!!Ste....,-ot dW! agreed boundilll")' llne as described in d1oat certain � Line Agreement ail'II Quitdaim Deed �t:ed by and between Horth ea� nne cornpanv and Cottonwood Enlel"prises recorded Man:::h 2:li, :li99-4 Wider Document. No. 1994 00374'7'4 sonoma County Ree:Otds Pared Tnree All the li!lnd tvlnlil Westerly ot d'loe 19reecl boundefl' llne as described in th11t certain Bound:i,y Une Agreement:: and �claim Deed �ut.ed � .and between North Bay Title Company (04.5•26:i. 002-000) and' North BayTitle COmpany(045·262-oo3-000) recorded May 27, 1994 under Ooc:ument rlk>. 1994 006.9384, 5oflcma C.ounl'f Records_ Parcel Fol.II" A fight ol waf OYer a SIJIP' of laRd 40 l'eet In �h. e:,ctenclng 20 feet QQ eadl 5'cle d ttle NOl'ttl lfM ol sard lands from the East to the West boundary of the lands heft:tolOf"e' conveyed to Frank H.Denman and Olarlolte E. Denrniu'I, � wife and Geotgl! B. Murphy and Mic!!! P. Mwphy, hlSwife, �ptlng ttie right ol way �r and alOnQ a •IP or lalld 20 reet In width along die Nort:n line or the lands. hcrtinabove de:sc:flbed, APN: 045-262-002 Pattel one Being a portion of that bact: conveyed to Fra11k H. Denman and George B.. MUl)lhy by' DaYld R. RiSk and Jame!i C. R.isk by Deed c:fated February 23, 1911 and rea;B ded In Bode 27.2 of Deed5 at page 200, Scinomai County R.econ:ls,. and aimmendng at lhe Morthea5t comer ot lhet tnlc:t hereb:lfore CQnVeYed to A.S. Cordoza In the center ol lhe road rrom Petahlma to santa Rosa. from which en Iron pin at � Soutf15!it comer ot said tract co,weyed to Denman 11nd Murphy beaf's South s.02 cha1ns dls�nt alld a stake m1ri(ed 37-38 standing on the West slcfie of said road bea,s west 45 lrnts distant; theflce aJong the center or said road Ncrth 15.93 chains to the center liine of a 40· foot road laid out across said lallds con� to Denman and Murphy Ca � 35 standi119 at the point or intersectmn or the: West line of the Petaluma and Santa Ros.a ROad, wtlh the South llne df said 40-foot road); lhenc:e along the ,:enter ol seld '10-Joot road. Sollth 89° 30' West. 19.94 dlailns to a point from which � stake mertcecl 31-35 standing on the South side or said !'Md bears South JO links drstant; then� SOuth 15.72 chalmii to a stake mii!lf'Qd 37-38 standing at the Northwe&t: O'.ll"nlfll" ot lhe tract heretofore conveyed to A.S. Cordoza; thenc:e along the said lands East 19. 9"11 ct11inS to ltle point of beginning. eccei:iung therefrom anv portiCn °' said land IP'IJ Viesl:l!!t\y and the agreed boundary line as d'esaibc:d In that certain Bourxlarr Line Agreement and Qultdaim Deed exec:uted bv and BetWeen NClrth B.ny Tltl.e Company (045·262·002-000) and Nc,rt;h Bay nle Company (0iS-:26l-OOJ.-DOO) recorded Ma.y 27, 19941 under Document No. 1994 0069384, 5onom,a county Rea:Jn:k. Exhibit A-2 -2- Parcel Two ,&.II the laAtl ,ving Eastl!rly or the agreed oound.ary Hoc 4S deserQ>ed In that c:ertaln Boundal)' une Agreement cUld Quitclaim Deed CMearted by and between North Bay Title CtJmp,ny (045·262-002-CJOO) end North Bay Tltle Comt)an\l' {04S-262-003-000) recorded May 27, 1994 underOocLJl'l'M!ftt No. 1 m 006()384, Sonome coontv Records. APN: 045-262·003 Para! One Beginning at an Iron pin In Iha center r::I the Petaluma and S1mta Rl)S,8,, wtlid'I 15 South 40.41 d\alns lrom the Northeast mmer ar 5eClfon � 19 In Townst.p 6 North Range 7 West., M.O..M., arwl the 5oulhe-a5t comer of the lands heretol'ore conveyed to frank J. Denman 1md George 8, Murphy by Da\lid R. Rrst and las C. Risk; thence along lhe east boundary of said in.ct and Ille i:enter of said road North 5.0Z chelns to ain Iron pm; thence IMYlng said �d and parallel with the south bouooary or said net, west Hl.94 chains. IQ a �; thence- 5outtl S.02 Cllalfts to a stake mlM1(ed "Al$1c" at the northwest comer or the land � co� to Atltofle carc10za by the eot.,ti Companv� 1hente along the south boundary or lands cl Frank H. Pervnan and Geo B. Murphy, East 19.94 d1aiM to the PQmt of be,jnnlng.. And belng. lhe same aa,id a5 15 describedand iet foflh in that certain Deed, Frank J. Oemtan and Geo a. Murphy to Antone C&rdoi.a,dated Augu5t 12, 1911 and reaJl'dcd in 8ook 279 ot Deeds, page 16'4, Sonoma County Records,which Mid oeed Is herebV referTed to and made a 1)0l't thereat, Excepting therflrrom anv portion ot the above descnbed lands l'/lng Weste,..,. of th.rt boundary llne estabished by Boundary Line Agreement bv and �n North Nav Tide Company and Cottonwood Enterpnses, recotded Matth 21, 199'4 under Document No. 19N 0037471, SonfJl'ml county ReQ)rds.. PercelTWo AA¥ portion of the lands of flbrth Bay Trtle Ccmpany as � In tnose deedl ,ecorded J� 11, 1992 under Document No.. 1992 0069810 and 1992 0069871, sooorna COOnty Rec:ofds. lylng Eas�rtv al that boundary line estab11shecl by Boundll"'I/ UBe Agreement by and between North Bay Tide O:impany and c.otmwwood Enb:rprfses, recorded Ml!lrc:h 21, 1994 under Dooment No. 1991 003747'4, Sonoma County Records. APN: IMS-262�°'1 TRACT RY'E Ber.-.; a portion of Randle Cotati and begim1ing; at a po{nt.36 chains North of lhe point of lntffllectlon ot the ceflterllne d tile Couotv Road leadlng t'rom S.flnta Ros.a to Pet1rum1 with the South line o1 sectron 19, Townsh\p 6 Nortn, Range 7 West,. M.D.M., said s.ediOn llne being also the a!flter1ine ar COpeland Dkl'l mended; dlence from sad point ol begamlng (l'lf'llch Is marked by an lrori pin) Wes( 20.00 chains to the Ea5t llne of tile ea acre tract of George H. Anderson, .J8 chains North of the S0utt1c,1st comer or said 80 aae tTacti thence North along said Nne ot Andersen tract 38.62 mains to ,1 stake-marked "RISK"; thence East 19.94 chains to an ll"Ofl pin In the ceoo!T or said county �; � south 38.62 chains to the point of beginnlf19, and being the sama land as i!'i cliKa'ibld and set. rortt1 lri that certain Oeed, lhe Cotati Company to Antone c.ardc:na dated May 12th, 1889 and reowa@d in Boole 181 ot Deeds, page 556 ot SGlloma O:.unty Record5, which 5oilld Deed Is hll!l"eby referred to and rnllde a port ttie,eof. Exhibit A-2 -3- Excelltlng therefrom l:tlat portion or land o:inwyed t:o the ec.intv or &;mama, bV dHd rec:orded on April 24, 1967 In BOC* 2264 of Offldal Recmds, pal)! 923, Sonoma C.ountv Retords. Also exceptng therefrom that portion ol lend conwy,ed to Cotati Rancho Partners by deed recorded on Oea:mber 31, 1969 rn Book 2437 ot OffldaJ Records:, pagit B39, sor.oma County Records. A.P. No. 047-131-019 TAACTSIX Pall'all One Lyng In the Cotati ltanclwl, being a portiOn of tM liMm of Henry HlmebalXl'l Anderson as described in BOC1k 861 or Offlclal Reo:lrds, Page 1941 a11rJ �ng more partic:ulariy described a5 followS: Conwnencing cit a point; on khe Westerly property llne or the lind5 or Anderson 5akl point being tne Mortheast corner ot Pan::et IV al tile raru1s ol tile C.ounty of SoCloma ;a5 dl!$Cribed n Book 2166 c:J Officf.nl Records, Page 300, $aid point bears North 89" 23' "10" East l9I,l51eet from in. Iron Jlil:i! monurntr1t set; thence North 813'" 23' .,o-faSt IS37.2.9 fttt t.o a point, satd point beiog the true point at begrnnrno; thence North O" 02• 'J:1' fast 1670.72 feet to thl! North lin� or $!id Andel'50ll land; thence North 894' 21' .. o· East iib:1,11J lhe North llne of said Anderson lands 794,22 reet to the NClf1:heast comer therl!Df, thence South OCI 02' 10• We!it along the West llne of said Anderson parcet 1670.72 feet lo a pc;ilnt oo the North line of the patal conveyed to the 0:11.i� aboYt r•r11'Nd to; thence South w 23' 40" West 794_22 reet to ttw pojnt or begrllnlng Parcel Two A non-e);'11.151ve easemimt for general road an::I utility purposes 60 reet tn wfdlti li,olng 30 feet on each slde of a Hne desalbed as follows: Beglnl'liing 8t a point oo the Soudl line of 1Celser AVl;!nue at a poi'tt dlsttint 30 lttl Westet1v rrom a stake marting the Nortl'lffst comer of ttw: 20 acre parcel owned by Henry H. Anderson1 et ux thence South and lO feet dlslant from the &nt line of said Anderson percei l 146..61 feet to a point thent:e Southwesterly In a dlrtd line 16S feet to the Nordwtesteriy comer of Part:et One ebove described end the terminus Qf $akl easement APN: 047·131--024 Pan;el One li,olng r.-the Cotau R.a,v:ho, befrlg a portion of the Lands of H@n"° Him!llf!U\)1'1 Andetson as descrtbed ln Book 1:164 of Offldal Records,. page 194, and being more particulDrl',' de:IICl'llied .u l'ollOW$: Begtnnlng et II point Ol"I the Westerly property line of the Lands of Anderson, said point being the Northeast comer of Parcet IV of tht Laflds of the c.ounty ar Sonoma as described In Book 2166 or Official Records, page 300, said point bearS North 89'1' 23' 410" � 191.15 feet from ein Iron pipe 5et; thence North 89& 23' 10· east 1837-29 reet � a paint, t.N!nte Narth � 02" "IO' E.nst 1670.n Exhibit A-2-4- feet to the ftorth line or said AndersOn Lands; thence south 89" 23' o110· West along the North line of said Ander,on �s 1837.29 feet to tin! Northwest comer thereat; thence South 00 02' 4'0• west, aklng th11t west llne d said .Mderson Parcel 1610.72 Jeet to lhe point d beginning. l:)cc.eptlng therefrgm all that pgrUon of said limd lving Northerly al the a�eed bwldatv llne descrlled In that <ertaln Bounclary line Agreement and Qultdillm Deed executed by end between vast Oak Propertres and Cotatl-Rc!Mert Part lklltlect School Distrtc:t reOlltded August 51 19941 undel-Document No. 1994 00936261 Sonoma County Records. Parcel Two All that tands lyin; Southerly or th� agreed bollndary inc described .-. that certain llou1diMy Une Agreemerrt. and Qultclllllm Deed e«<utat by and bl!twce11 'llzl$t Oak Properties and Cotati-Rohnert Parti: Unilierl School District rerorded Aug1151: 5, 1994 under OoC1Jment Mo. 1994 009362.S, Sonoma County Records. Parat Three A non--exdusnoe easen'll!!nt ror 9enar111 road and utility purposes 60 ret:t In 'tllddl tvfng JO feet on each Side of a line descrl>ed as follCIWS� Begnning at a point on the Sciuth llfl.e o# i<dser .lvenue at a poi11t distant 30 feet � from a stake mar1dng the Nor1hent corner ol the ;zo .acrt! �reel owned � Henry H. Andeqon, et u:i,:, !;hence s.outh aMI 30 reet disttnt Jrcm the fast r.e ul said .Anderson P•cef 1116.M feet ID a point; � Southwesmrty In a meet line 165 reet to i:tie NOf1:heasterl!I' comer or Para! one above descrtied and the termioos or said easll!ment. Excepmg that po,tl1;111 lying wlttikl Parcel on, 111ii:w&. Parcel Four A non"9CIU5fve easement, 60 feet 511 Vffdth ror ,gener111 ro.ad and public utllll;y purposes, l�ng equally Oil each side ot the East line of the lboYe described Parcel Olle. &cept;ng thererrom that portion l','lng within Pcirtel One above. APN: 047-131-025 Exhibit A-2-5- �-faliliiiiii .. -.---· .. _ �': i; 11=l1 ,•i in! !; �:H� tr• hi• !1 ll�lll pli l;!!I11 pl;,�, �111 ·�!! !· r·?1• 1r1 11,:i;'..h.fhll�l .1n .wJu'Ut •,e,t"W j ,;{U /IP' 91 IQ :i, I h1 ' ! 1: I --·-- ffl 1111 :H h� --· ; ·•ufliru r.a.,= I I t•• =�a=; I iU--t�i...... -.... -J ., ..... ___" --I I � i :ni;--== •· j........ iti --tn 1,: tU I\ 1,i .� I J l H .«�.u,..1..1i,� ·-_!.j------=- Nt:11.ITill!Nt.l\' lllfYd .1.llllNUOll �+-� 111 ;fc <4.-� E:'3 91 Po ��.., HI In u:i Iii I� I • , .. U' f'.1; .. .r' pt lllln9IIII.UIS Exhibit A-2 -6- � ;: i : ji! £i I·!1ii: Iii I I ., ffl iH:.� I i•i I .. I I •�11 i I II: . i•]1; I l_- \ \ !11I J (: 'II)• I • I 1 r � lqt fa. lti1 h I II II. I I I------hu 11ti.I� all-Ill•·,,,_� .IN(l1�..-,.,.. ---J In Iii 1n its,:i: �f -m ,., n lill �J;� ---- Ii , � \ . L. n __, 1 City of Rohnert Park Planning Commission Staff Report Meeting Date: Item No: Prepared By: Agenda Title: Location: May 23, 2024 7.1 Elliott Pickett, Associate Planner PUBLIC HEARING –Snyder Lane Commons Project (File Nos PROJ23- 0001, PLGP23-0001, PLSP23-0001, PLDP23-0001, and PLSD23-0002) – Consider a recommendation to the City Council for adoption of: an Addendum to the University District Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Amendments, Specific Plan Amendments, Development Area Plan Amendments and a Tentative Map and vacation of public right of way (CEQA: Proposed Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the University District Specific Plan Area). Approximately 2.4-acre lot located south of Keiser Avenue and north of Lawrence Jones Middle School within the University District Specific Plan Area (5040 Snyder Avenue; APN: 045-253-025) GP/Zoning: High Density Residential/ SP: Specific Plan Applicant/Owner: Cory Creath for Snyder Lane Ventures, LP RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the following resolutions for the 36-unit Snyder Lane Commons development: 1.Recommend City Council adoption of an addendum to the Environmental Impact Reportfor the University District Specific Plan Area;2.Recommend City Council approval of amendments to the General Plan; 3.Recommend City Council approval of amendments to the University District Specific Plan;4.Recommend City Council approval of amendments to the Bristol Development Area Planand a Tentative Map; and5.Recommend City Council approval of vacation of public right-of-way. BACKGROUND: In 2006, the City approved the University District Specific Plan (UDSP) and its Environmental Impact Report (UDSP EIR), which allowed the development of up to 1,736 residential units and 250,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial development on 300 acres of lands owned by five property owners (University District LLC, Vast Oak Properties, Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District, Gee, and Linden) in the City of Rohnert Park (see Figure 1). The Gee property has since become known as the Bristol development and the Linden property, now held by Snyder Lane Ventures LLC, is the subject of this staff report (“project site”). 2 Figure 1 – University District Specific Plan Area Site Plan In 2014, the City adopted amendments to the approved University District Specific Plan which reduced the total residential units to 1,645 and the total commercial square footage to 100,000 square feet. These changes were analyzed in an addendum to the UDSP EIR and found to be consistent with the original analysis. Since that time, the City has approved subdivision maps and Development Area Plans (DAPs) that have supported housing construction in the Vast Oak and Bristol neighborhoods (see Figure 1). In 2023, the City approved its current Housing Element, which designated the project site for high- density housing. At this point, the Bristol neighborhood is fully developed, the Vast Oak portion of University District is nearing completion, and the UDLLC, Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District, and project sites are left to be developed. PROPOSED PROJECT: The applicant proposes to develop the project site with 36 townhome units and associated amenities, including carports, a community garden, barbeque, a play area, and common open space. The proposal is intended to provide housing that is naturally more affordable to first-time homebuyers and also includes 6 units of on-site deed-restricted affordable housing. Each unit is three stories with a private backyard patio, balcony, and bike garage/storage area. The development is all electric (no natural gas will be extended), designed to achieve net zero emissions and provides solar panels on rooftops and carports. The units are designed to provide flexible areas 3 that cater to a variety of needs, including remote work, young families, and empty nesters (See Figure 2). Consistent with the approved plans for the Bristol subdivision, access will be provided from Oak Circle, which avoids potential conflicts with the controlled intersection of Snyder Lane and Keiser Avenue. Figure 2 – Site Plan The applicant’s proposal would result in 1,665 residential units in the University District Specific Plan Area and would increase the number of on-site affordable units by 6 units from 218 to 224. These changes are consistent with the UDSP EIR, which analyzed up to 1,736 residential units but require modest revisions to the adopted Specific Plan and General Plan revisions. The proposed changes needed to implement the applicant’s proposal are shown in the exhibits to Resolution 2024-06 for the General Plan amendments and Resolution 2024-07 for the University District Specific Plan amendments (Attachments 3 and 4). Because development on the project site was contemplated when the Bristol subdivision was approved, the Development Area Plan (DAP) for the project will be as an Appendix to the Bristol DAP in order to provide clarity around the infrastructure that supports both developments. ANALYSIS: The proposed changes are reasonable modifications to the University District Specific Plan and in line with the number of units originally approved by the UDSP; implement the Housing Element; and support appropriate residential development within the City. The addition of 20 new units and the characterization of the subject parcel as high-density residential 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 UDSP are also consistent with the City’s long-term goals as it will better meet the City’s regional housing need and provide a wider variety of housing styles within the UDSP area. The project is consistent with the City’s long-term sustainability goals and is 4 designed in a manner that will reduce long terms emissions associated with new development in the City. The details of the various entitlement changes necessary to effect the proposal are discussed below. General Plan Amendment The currently adopted General Plan includes a policy limiting development within the University District Specific Plan (UDSP) area to 1,645 units. Approving this project while maintaining proposed densities in the remaining portions of the UDSP requires that Policy LU-14 of the General Plan be amended to update the unit totals allowed in the UDSP area to 1,665 units. This amendment, while minor, enhances General Plan compatibility with goals and policies for housing diversity, housing affordability, and walkable site planning, and maintains compatibility with goals and policies related to infrastructure, phasing, parks, maintenance, funding of infrastructure and services, drainage, and open space, among other subjects. Specific Plan Amendments The increase of twenty lots in the UDSP and change in residential land use designation to high- density residential on the subject parcel require amendments throughout the existing University District Specific Plan. Revisions to the Specific Plan include the following. • Increasing the residential unit allocation on the project site by twenty residential units which increases the total number of approved residential units for this site from 16 to 36 units; • Changing the designation of the project site from low-density residential to high-density residential, in conformance with the Housing Element and Land Use Diagram of the General Plan; • Amending figures and tables throughout the Specific Plan to reflect the revised land uses and unit totals; • Clarifying how development standards are implemented for townhomes; and • Updating information throughout the Specific Plan where conditions have changed. 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 will ensure completion of necessary public facilities concurrently with the completion of the Specific Plan; adequate financing mechanisms for the infrastructure and public facilities; and internal consistency with the rest of the specific plan. The proposed University District Specific Plan amendment is consistent with the planned uses for this site in the General Plan and is compatible with adjacent uses. The University District 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 in slightly more fee revenue to the City. As a practical matter, most of the offsite infrastructure required to serve the University District Specific Plan Area is complete. Two remaining infrastructure projects, the signalization of the Keiser/Snyder intersection and Keiser/Petaluma Hill intersection are designed and funded and construction is anticipated to begin this calendar year. Construction of the proposed project is not anticipated to commence until 2025. 5 Development Area Plan Amendments The purpose of a Development Area Plan (DAP) is to provide a summary of the total dwelling units by plan type, a list of any non-residential uses, and descriptions of open space, streets, preliminary infrastructure, and bikeways. The DAP describes the preliminary floor plans, landscaping plans, and typical elevations, including conceptual materials and the appearance of the structures. As described above, the Snyder Lane Commons project DAP will be included as an appendix to the Bristol Development Area Plan. These communities share points of access and infrastructure and are intended to be compatible. The project proposal includes 36 units spread throughout six, three-story buildings. Each unit is approximately 1,700 square feet; corner units are slightly larger and have a larger backyard (see Table 1). Table 1: Summary of Floor Plans Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Total Backyard Floor Plan A (Interior) 576 SF 550 SF 571 SF 1,696 SF 287 SF Floor Plan B (Corner) 576 SF 571 SF 613 SF 1,759 SF 500 SF The floor plan (see Figure 3) provides two flexible rooms on the first floor: one of which could be used as a bedroom or office that opens to the backyard, and the other that could be used for bike parking or storage that opens to the sidewalk. The second level includes the main living area, with a dining room, kitchen, living room, and two balconies. The third level contains two bedrooms. Each floor plan contains three full bathrooms, with one on the first level and two on the third level. Figure 3: Proposed Floor Plan The site contains three color schemes which provide visual variety while maintaining a compatible overall site design (see Figure 4). The color schemes and materials used are similar to the Bristol LEVEL 3 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 1 6 development and the multifamily housing complex to the east within Vast Oak, with neutral colors, vertical siding, and the use of natural materials and accent colors. The design of this project would reinforce the cohesion of the University District Specific Plan area as a master-planned neighborhood. Figure 4: Color Schemes 7 Circulation: The 36 units within the development would be served by an internal single-directional roadway loop that connects to Oak Circle. Existing residents in the Bristol development would continue to be served by Oak Circle, which has two connections to Keiser Avenue. Off-site circulation improvements associated with this project include the completion and signalization of the Keiser Avenue/Snyder Lane intersection, which includes widening, installation of a sidewalk and landscaping, and installation of 3-way stop control at Keiser Avenue and Oak Circle east. This Keiser Avenue/Snyder Lane intersection improvement project is being completed by the City as a Capital Improvement Project. The stop sign installation will be required as a condition of approval of the project. These improvements will enhance safety and circulation for residents of Bristol, Vast Oak North, and the proposed project. The completion of the Snyder Lane sidewalk frontage, between Keiser Avenue and Lawrence Jones Middle School, eliminates the need for the existing walking path between Oak Circle and the neighboring school property. The Bristol neighborhood is experiencing nuisance conditions, because of school pick-up and drop-off occurring at a location that was designed only for neighborhood walking and biking. In accordance with the Conditions of Approval for the Bristol Project, the path right-of-way has been offered to the Bristol Homeowners Association (HOA). The HOA has declined this offer of dedication and requested instead, that the right-of-way be vacated in favor of the project applicant, where it will be landscaped and maintained in conjunction with the Snyder Lane Commons development. This will further improve neighborhood circulation by removing automobile congestion associated with school drop-off and pick-up times. The Planning Commission must find that the proposed vacation is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed vacation is consistent with General Plan policies and goals to address localized congestion at school drop-off and pick-up locations (Policy TR-13), maintain high levels of mobility along all major street segments and at major intersections (Goal TR-B), reduce peak-hour traffic congestion and associated impacts, including air pollution, energy consumption, and noise (Goal TR-J), and minimize the impacts of growth and annexation on existing homes and businesses (Goal GM-H). The proposed vacation would remain consistent with policies to establish strong connections between neighborhoods and activity centers in order to encourage walking and biking (Policy CD-B) and to ensure that bikeways are continuous and interconnected, and that access points into bikeways minimize conflicts with pedestrian and traffic circulation (Policy TR-41) as the current walking path encourages automobile idling and the alternate access would still allow walking and biking connections to the school site. Parking: The complex includes 82 parking spaces. Each unit has two dedicated parking spaces, one of which is an electric vehicle charging station, and there are 10 guest spaces provided. Ground-floor storage areas fronting onto the sidewalk serve as a convenient location to park bicycles, scooters, and micromobility devices. The parking strategy is designed to provide sufficient, convenient, and sustainable parking and transportation options. 8 Landscape Plan: The applicant has proposed to utilize a variety of trees, shrubs, and groundcover plants for the project’s landscaping. Street trees, mainly Coast Live Oaks along Snyder Lane, Chinese Pistache along Keiser Avenue, and Purple Leaf Plum on the Oak Circle frontage, are supported by native and naturally summer-dry climate-adapted shrubs, succulents, and groundcover in the planting areas. Smaller trees are provided within front porch planters and along walkways, and other common area amenities are generously landscaped. The proposed landscaping plan provides shade and natural features for residents, ensures responsible water use through the selection of appropriate plants, and provides for bioretention features where needed on site. Walls and Fences: Walls or fences are provided for each backyard. Masonry walls, matching the style used throughout Vast Oak, would be provided along Snyder Lane to serve as a traffic noise barrier. The applicant proposed to use horizontal slat aluminum fences for the remaining lots. As a condition of approval, the applicant will be required to submit updated designs for the remaining fencing for review by the Planning Division, providing fence designs that are visually consistent with the Bristol subdivision and remaining University District Specific Plan designs. Mailboxes: The applicant proposes to install five small aluminum cluster mailboxes throughout the development for easy access by residents. There is no overhead structure proposed for these units. However, in other locations within the City, the applicants have been required to install an overhead weather protection structure. As such, a condition of approval requires the applicant to provide a design option during the building permit submittal for review by the Planning Manager. Community Amenities: The project includes several common-space amenities for residents throughout the project site. This includes an open space with benches and landscaping, a community garden, a barbecue and picnic area, and a play structure. These community amenities are illustrated in Figure 5. Figure 5: Common Area Amenities 9 Residential Density: The adopted Housing Element includes an inventory of sites that could accommodate the city’s fair share of the regional housing need, which included the project site. While the project is within the permitted density for the zone, the proposed project has fewer units than were included in the housing element inventory. As the number of units is less than anticipated in the Housing Element by income category, the City must make findings pursuant to Government Code section 65863(b) that: (1) the reduction is consistent with the adopted general plan; and (2) the remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need. These proposed findings are included in the resolution recommending approval of the DAP and the tentative map. The proposed project has decreased the inventory surplus by the numbers shown in Table 2, however, the remaining inventory has capacity to meet the city’s remaining assigned housing need, as described in the proposed findings. Table 2: Projected and Proposed Units by Affordability for the Project Site Low-Income Moderate-Income Above Moderate- Income Total Units Housing Element Projection 5 6 61 72 Proposed Project 3 3 30 36 Difference 2 3 31 36 Tentative Map The proposed tentative map divides the site into 37 distinct parcels. Lots 1 through 36 are the individual townhome lots, from the townhome façade to the end of the backyard, and the remainder is identified as “Parcel A” and contains the common areas, including the parking lot, sidewalks, front porch landscaping, and common amenities. The townhome lots vary in size from 971 square feet to 1,218 square feet. Maintenance of Public Services and Facilities: General Plan policy requires new development to cover its costs and seeks to avoid burdening existing taxpayers with the cost of service for new development. To satisfy this policy, a Community Services District (CFD) was formed for the Bristol Subdivision. The CFD covers the cost of public safety services as well as publicly owned landscaping, lighting and stormwater compliance. The project will be required to annex to the Bristol CFD to cover its fair share of public service and maintenance costs. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On May 6, 2024, the Parks and Recreation Commission considered a proposal by the applicant to pay a park in-lieu fee as a way of complying with the parkland dedication requirement for a subdivision of this size. The Parks and Recreation Commission recommended payment of the fee in lieu of land dedication. The Park and Recreation Commission’s Resolution is included as Attachment 1 to this staff report. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Rohnert Park, as the lead agency, has conducted an environmental review 10 of the University District Specific Plan Area, which includes the project site. The City prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to address the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that may be associated with the planning, construction, or operation of the Project 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. The City certified the Final EIR on May 23, 2006 and approved Addendums to the Final EIR on April 8, 2014 and November 8, 2016. In accordance with the requirements of CEQA, City staff and consultants reviewed the proposed project in light of the more detailed project-specific information now available and determined that a supplemental or subsequent EIR was not required by CEQA Guidelines section 15162. Therefore, an addendum (the 2024 Addendum) has been prepared to make minor technical revisions or additions to the certified EIR. The 2024 Addendum concluded that there are no changes in the project or new information that would result in a new or substantially more severe impact than was disclosed in the 2006 Program EIR, 2014 Addendum, and 2016 Addendum. Therefore, no additional environmental review is necessary and the proposed project will be required to comply with the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the University District Specific Plan Area. Attachment 2 to this staff report includes a resolution recommending adoption of the Addendum to the City Council. The Addendum is included as an Exhibit to the Resolution. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: A public hearing notice denoting the time, date, and location of this hearing was published in the Community Voice on May 10, 2024. 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 University Specific Plan Area and associated General Plan amendments and approve entitlements for the Snyder Lane Commons project. 1. Resolution recommending City Council approval of an addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the University District Specific Plan located south of Keiser Avenue, west of Petaluma Hill Road and north of Copeland Creek 2. Resolution recommending City Council approval of amendments to the General Plan for the University District Specific Plan Project located south of Keiser Avenue, west of Petaluma Hill Road, and north of Rohnert Park Expressway (various APNs) 3. Resolution recommending City Council approval of amendments to a Specific Plan for the amendments to the General Plan for the University District Specific Plan Project located south of Keiser Avenue, west of Petaluma Hill Road, and north of Rohnert Park Expressway (various APNs) 4. Resolution recommending City Council approval of amendments to the Bristol Development Area Plan, approval of a tentative map for the Snyder Lane Commons Project located south of Keiser Ave, east of Snyder Lane, and North of Lawrence E Jones Middle School, and making Government Code 65863(b) findings (APN 045-253-025) 5. Resolution finding vacation of ROW consistent with the General Plan. 11 City Attorney Approval Date: 05/17/2024 Planning Manager Approval Date: 05/17/2024 Attachments: 1. Parks and Recreation Commission Resolution 2024-01 2. Resolution No. 2024-05 (Addendum to the University District Specific Plan EIR) Exhibit A – Addendum to the University District Specific Plan EIR - Snyder Lane Commons Project 3. Resolution No. 2024-06 (General Plan) Exhibit A – Proposed General Plan Amendment 4. Resolution No. 2024-07 (Specific Plan) Exhibit A – Proposed Specific Plan Amendment 5. Resolution No. 2024-08 (Development Area Plan Amendment, Tentative Map and Government Code 65863(b) Findings) Exhibit A – Proposed Plan Set – Snyder Lane Commons Development Area Plan and Tentative Map Exhibit B – Recommended Conditions of Approval 6. Resolution No. 2024-09 (Vacation of Right-of-Way) PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2024-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK RECOMMENDING THE USE OF PARK-IN-LIEU FEES TO MEET THE PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT FOR A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF 36 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SNYDER LN AND KEISER AVE WITHIN THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN AREA. WHEREAS, the applicant, Cory Creath for Snyder Ventures, LP, filed Planning Applications proposing amendments to the General Plan (PLGP23-0001), and the University District Specific Plan (PLSP23-0001), as well as Development Area Plan (PLDP23-0001), and a Tentative Map (PLSD23-0002) for the Snyder Lane Commons project (“Project”) located within the University District Specific Plan, southeast of Snyder Lane and Keiser Avenue (APN 045-253-025), in accordance with the City of Rohnert Park Municipal Code (“RPMC”); and WHEREAS, the City of Rohnert Park Municipal Code requires that prior to approval of a Specific Plan and/or Tentative Map, the Parks and Recreation Commission shall review the size, layout and configuration of any proposed parkland and/or payment of comparable park in-lieu fees for conformance with the City's general plan, any applicable specific plans, the zoning ordinance and any applicable parks and recreation commission standards; and WHEREAS, the City of Rohnert Park’s Parks and Recreation Commission has previously reviewed and recommended approval of the University District Specific Plan, including parkland dedication and improvements for the Vast Oak subdivision and a park-in-lieu fee for the Bristol subdivision; and WHEREAS, Cory Creath, on behalf of Snyder Ventures, LP, is proposing payment of park in-lieu fee in lieu of parkland dedication as part of the proposed Tentative Map and Development Area Plan for the 2.4-acre, 36-unit townhome development; and WHEREAS, future residents in the proposed Project will live in in close proximity to parks and amenities such Eagle Park, Sunrise Park, the Rohnert Park Community Center, Griffin’s Grove Park, Twin Creeks Park, and the Community Gardens; and WHEREAS, the General Plan and the University District Specific Plan identify Twin Creeks Park and Griffin’s Grove Park to serve the University District Specific Plan area; and WHEREAS, based on the 36-unit multi-family proposal and a required parkland ratio of five acres per 1,000 persons, the applicant is obligated by the Rohnert Park Municipal Code to provide a minimum of 0.36 acres of parkland, parkland improvements and amenities, payment of in-lieu fees, or some combination thereof; and WHEREAS, based on review of comparable sales of land within the City and total cost of improvements as discussed in the Report to the Parks and Recreation Commission, dated May 6, 2024, the applicant would be obligated to pay a total of $187,895.82 in lieu of dedication of parkland as part of a Tentative Map which satisfies the total parkland obligation required by the Municipal Code; and DocuSign Envelope ID: 2601769D-0CFD-4050-B7A1-B661C9228420 WHEREAS, on May 6, 2024, the Parks and Recreation Commission conducted a duly and properly notice public meeting reviewed all pertinent maps, documents, exhibits, the staff report and all attachments, and oral and written public comments. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK DOES DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct; Section 2. There is no park or recreation facility designated in the general plan within the proposed subdivision; Section 3. That the dedication of land is not feasible or compatible with the general plan. Section 4. The City has acquired the necessary park property totaling 13.66 acres for the University District Specific Plan Area; Section 5. The payment of $187,895.82 reflects a fee that is comparable to dedication of the required parkland and infrastructure improvements and is an appropriate fee in lieu of said dedication of parkland. Section 6. The Parks & Recreation Commission recommends to the Planning Commission and City Council that the above referenced fee be included in the approvals for the proposed project. DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED this 6th day of May, 2024 by the following vote: AYES: _____ NOES: _____ ABSENT: _____ ABSTAIN: _____ ________________________________________________ Chairperson City of Rohnert Park, Parks an Recreation Commission Attest: ________________________________ Clerk Parks and Recreation Commission 3 0 1 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 2601769D-0CFD-4050-B7A1-B661C9228420 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2024-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT LOCATED NORTH OF COPELAND CREEK, WEST OF PETALUMA HILL ROAD, AND SOUTH OF KEISER AVENUE (VARIOUS APNS) WHEREAS, in 2006 the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park, acting as the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), certified the Environmental Impact Report for the University District Specific Plan (the 2006 EIR) and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for development within the University District Specific Plan Area; and WHEREAS, the development analyzed in the 2006 EIR included up to 1,736 residential units and 250,000 square feet of commercial development; and WHEREAS, in 2014 and 2016 the City adopted Addenda to the 2006 EIR to describe changes to proposed development within the University District Specific Plan and additional detail regarding construction of a water tank; and WHEREAS, both EIR Addenda concluded that the proposed changes in the project would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact than disclosed in the 2006 EIR; and WHEREAS, in 2023, the City adopted its required Housing Element, including an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, which, among other things, provided for high density residential development on the 2.4 acre parcel located at the southeast corner of Snyder Lane and Keiser Avenue within the University District Specific Plan Area; and WHEREAS, the applicant, Cory Creath for Snyder Ventures, LP, filed Planning Applications proposing amendments to the General Plan (PLGP23-0001), an amended Specific Plan (PLSP23-0001), a Development Area Plan (PLDP23-0001), and a Tentative Map (PLSD23- 0002) to allow the subdivision and development of property for the Snyder Lane Commons project (“Project”) located within the University District Specific Plan, at the southeast corner of Snyder Lane and Keiser Avenue (APN 045-253-025), in accordance with the City of Rohnert Park Municipal Code (“RPMC”); and WHEREAS, the purpose of the proposed amendments is to allow for an increased density and an increase of twenty residential units for the Snyder Lane Commons Project (proposed project) within the University District Specific Plan Area, consistent with the City’s adopted Housing Element; and WHEREAS, the City and its consultant, Dudek, analyzed the potential impacts of the proposed project in light of the 2006 EIR and documented those conclusions in the 2024 Addendum to the University District EIR – Snyder Lane Commons Project (2024 Addendum), which is attached as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the 2024 Addendum concludes that the revisions as a result of the proposed project would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact than disclosed in the 2006 EIR; and WHEREAS, Section 21000, et. seq., of the Public Resources Code and Section 15000, et. seq., of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (the “CEQA Guidelines”), which govern the preparation, content, and processing of environmental impact reports, have been fully implemented in the preparation of the EIR and Addendum; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California State Law and the RPMC, public hearing notices were mailed to all property owners within an area exceeding a three hundred foot radius of the subject property and a public hearing was published for a minimum of 10 days prior to the first public hearing in the Community Voice; and WHEREAS, on May 23, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Rohnert Park held a public hearing at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify regarding the EIR Addendum; and WHEREAS, at the May 23, 2024 public hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR Addendum for the proposed project as well as information presented by staff and the public and recommended its approval by the City Council; and 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 2024 Addendum: Section 1. Recitals. The above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. Findings. Planning Commission makes the following findings concerning the Addendum to the University District EIR – Snyder Lane Commons Project: 1. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed, analyzed and considered the University District EIR and Addendum and all written documentation and public comments on the proposed Project; and 2. The Addendum was prepared and reviewed in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and 3. The information and analysis contained in the Addendum reflect the City's independent judgment as to the environmental consequences of the proposed Project; and 4. The documents and other materials, including without limitation staff reports, memoranda, maps, letters and minutes of all relevant meetings, which constitute the administrative record of proceedings upon which this Resolution is based are located at the City of Rohnert Park, City Clerk, 130 Avram Ave., Rohnert Park, CA 94928. The custodian of records is the City Clerk. 5. The proposed revisions as a result of the project do not require preparation of a new subsequent or supplemental EIR under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 to 15164, because there is no involvement of new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. The proposed project is consistent with the 2006 EIR and previous addenda. All of the pertinent mitigation measures from the 2006 EIR continue to apply to the Project and no new effects could occur and no new mitigation measures are required. Section 3. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council make the findings set forth above and adopt the Addendum to the University District EIR – Snyder Lane Commons Project attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED on this 23rd day of May, 2024 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 EXHIBIT A <ADDENDUM TO THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT EIR SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT > 4853-4090-6415 V1 Addendum to the University District Specific Plan EIR Snyder Lane Commons Project (5040 Snyder Lane, Rohnert Park, California) MAY 2024 Prepared for: CITY OF ROHNERT PARK 130 Avram Avenue Rohnert Park, California 94928 Contact: Elliott Pickett Prepared by: 1810 13th Street Sacramento, California 95811 Contact: Christine Kronenberg, AICP 14235.04 ii MAY 2024 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 iii MAY 2024 Table of Contents SECTION PAGE NO. 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Background and Overview ........................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Project Location ...................................................................................................................................... 4 1.3 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance ................................................................................ 5 1.3.1 Use of an Addendum ................................................................................................................ 5 1.3.2 Environmental Analysis and Conclusions ................................................................................ 6 1.3.3 Incorporation by Reference ...................................................................................................... 7 1.3.4 Addendum Process and Availability ......................................................................................... 7 2 Project Description ............................................................................................................................................ 11 2.1 Project Improvements ......................................................................................................................... 11 2.1.1 Access and Parking ............................................................................................................ 11 2.1.2 Landscape and Fencing ........................................................................................................ 11 2.1.3 Utilities .................................................................................................................................... 12 2.1.4 Lighitng ................................................................................................................................... 12 2.1.5 Other Project Improvements ................................................................................................. 12 2.2 Project Construction ............................................................................................................................ 12 2.3 Required Project Approvals................................................................................................................. 12 3 Environmental Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 16 3.1 Environmental Factors Previously Analyzed ...................................................................................... 17 3.2 Environmental Factors Not Requiring Mitigaiton ins the UDSP EIR ................................................. 17 3.3 Environmental Factors Requiring Mitigation in the UDSP EIR .......................................................... 20 3.3.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................... 21 3.3.2 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................... 22 3.3.3 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................. 23 3.3.4 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................ 25 3.3.5 Geology and Soils .................................................................................................................. 26 3.3.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................... 27 3.3.7 Noise ....................................................................................................................................... 28 3.3.8 Public Services ....................................................................................................................... 30 3.3.9 Transportation and Traffic ..................................................................................................... 30 3.3.10 Water Resources .................................................................................................................... 33 3.3.11 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................... 34 3.4 Other Environmental Factors .............................................................................................................. 35 3.4.1 Updated CEQA Guidelines Appendix G ................................................................................. 35 SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 iv MAY 2024 3.4.2 Other Factors Not Previously Discussed in the UDSP EIR ................................................... 38 3.5 Applicable Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................................... 38 4 References ........................................................................................................................................................ 52 TABLES 1 Land Use Changes to the University District Specific Plan under the 2014 Addendum ................................. 2 2 Land Use Changes to the University District Specific Plan under the Proposed Project ................................. 5 3 Summary of Adopted Mitigation Measures from the UDSP EIR ..................................................................... 16 4 Summary of Transportation Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................... 31 5 Applicable UDSP EIR Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................................... 39 FIGURES 1 Project Location ................................................................................................................................................... 9 2 UDSP Properties ................................................................................................................................................ 10 3 Site Plan ............................................................................................................................................................. 13 4 Landscape Planting Plan .................................................................................................................................. 14 APPENDICES Appendix A – Aquatic Delineation Report Appendix B – Special-Status Plant Survey Report Appendix C – California Tiger Salamander Habitat Assessment Memorandum Appendix D – Burrowing Owl and Nesting Bird Survey Results Appendix E – Environmental Noise Assessment SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 v MAY 2024 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 14235.04 vi MAY 2024 Acronyms and Abbreviations Acronym/Abbreviation Definition ADUs accessory dwelling units BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BMP Best Management Practice CALFIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CBC California Building Code CEQA California Environmental Quality Act City City of Rohnert Park CO carbon monoxide CRPUSD Cotati Rohnert Park Unified School District CTS California tiger salamander cy cubic yard dB ldn day/night level decibels DOC California Department of Conservation DPS Department of Public Safety EIR Environmental Impact Report ESA Environmental Site Assessment FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency GHG greenhouse Gas HDR High Density Residential IS Initial Study LOS Level of Service MM mitigation measure MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program NAHC Native American Heritage Commission ND Negative Declaration NOx oxides of nitrogen OPR Office of Planning and Research PM10 coarse particulate matter RPFD Rohnert Park Fire Department SCH State Clearinghouse SCTA Sonoma County Transportation Authority sf square feet SSU Sonoma State University SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan UD LLC University District LLC UDSP University District Specific Plan USFWS United State Fish and Wildlife Service VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 vii MAY 2024 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.04 1 MAY 2024 1 Introduction The following analysis describes the proposed minor changes or additions to the University District Specific Plan (UDSP or Plan) and UDSP EIR, as defined below, attributed to the proposed Snyder Lane Commons project (proposed project or project), located in the City of Rohnert Park (City) and demonstrates that these changes would not constitute significant new information or create significant new impacts from what was analyzed in the UDSP Environmental Impact Report (UDSP EIR – SCH #2003122014). The City adopted the UDSP and certified the UDSP EIR in March 2006 (UDSP EIR or EIR). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an addendum to a certified EIR may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary and none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that call for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), when an EIR has been certified for a project no subsequent EIR shall be prepared unless the City determines substantial changes, new information or new circumstances have occurred resulting in new impacts or a substantial increase in severity of prior impacts which will require major revisions to the certified EIR. The proposed project only requires minor updates to the UDSP EIR; therefore, the City determined an addendum was the appropriate CEQA document. This section discusses the project background, identifies the project location, and discusses compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A detailed description of the proposed project is provided in Section 2, Project Description. An analysis demonstrating that the proposed project would not result in significant new information or any new environmental impacts that were not previously identified in the UDSP EIR, including the subsequent addenda, is provided in Section 3, Environmental Analysis. 1.1 Project Background and Overview The project site is located at 5040 Snyder Lane (APN: 045-253-025) within the boundaries of the approximately 300-acre UDSP area which is bounded on the east by Petaluma Hill Road, on the west by various residential uses and Lawrence E. Jones Middle School, on the north by Keiser Road, and on the south by Sonoma State University (SSU), Green Music Center, and Copeland Creek (see Figure 1, Project Location). The UDSP includes five properties: University District LLC (UD LLC) property, Vast Oak property, Gee (Bristol) property, Abu-Halawa (Creath) property, and the Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District (CRPUSD) property (see Figure 2, UDSP Properties). The project site is located on the Abu-Halawa (Creath) property, in the northwesternmost portion of the Plan area. The objectives of the UDSP are to foster diverse residential and mixed-use development, to provide open space, detention basins, public parks and trails for pedestrian and bicycle connections, and to provide access to educational and cultural facilities. As of this writing, the Vast Oak and Gee (Bristol) properties are largely developed consistent with the UDSP and the City has approved a final map for the UD LLC property. The Abu-Halawa (Creath) property is the subject of this document. The City does not have an active development application for the Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District (CRPUSD) property. In 2014, an addendum was prepared to analyze a reconfiguration of residential units and acreage within the UDSP. In 2016 another addendum was prepared that analyzed an offsite water tank and ancillary features to serve the Plan area. In 2018, the City approved a Consistency Analysis for a 42 unit low density residential development and in 2019 approved a Consistency Analysis that evaluated improvements to a section of Keiser Avenue adjacent to the project site. SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 2 MAY 2024 The UDSP EIR is considered a program EIR, which according to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, can be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project, which are related either: geographically, as logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions, in connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program, or as individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways. The UDSP EIR analyzed development of a total of 1,736 dwelling units, 126 of which were accessory dwelling units (ADUs) that were considered high density residential (HDR) units for the purposes of the EIR evaluation. The 2014 UDSP addendum evaluated the increase the acreage and number of units in lower density land use designations and reduce the acreage and number of units in higher density land use designations. This resulted in an overall reduction of 91 units, including the ADUs for a total of 1,645 residential units. The 2014 changes also reconfigured the planned development and reduced the amount of office and retail commercial development. The change in residential units and commercial land use acres between the UDSP EIR and the 2014 Amendment are shown in Table 1. Table 1. Land Use Changes to the University District Specific Plan under the 2014 Addendum UDSP EIR 2014 Addendum Net Change Residential Units 1,736 units* 1,645 units - 91 units Neighborhood-serving Commercial Development 250,000 square feet** 100,000 square feet - 150,000 square feet Notes: * Total includes 126 ADUs * ** Represents the square footage analyzed in the USDP EIR (175,000 square feet was approved by the City). The 2014 Amendment to the UDSP also updated and reconfigured the proposed parklands. The 2014 Specific Plan Amendment eliminated the proposed “notch” park and UDLLC park and the private promenade parks; the size of the proposed Twin Creeks Park and Oak Grove Park (now Griffin’s Grove Park) increased and landscaped areas were included in the Vast Oak and University District LLC (UD LLC) areas of the UDSP. Overall parkland acreage was increased from the approximately 16 acres proposed in the 2006 Specific Plan to a total of 19.57 acres in the 2014 Specific Plan. Private promenade dedications were decreased but both the 2006 and 2014 Specific Plans were consistent with the city’s park dedication requirements of five acres per 1,000 population. The 2014 UDSP also updated the circulation plan to revise the layout of interior roads and access points onto Rohnert Park Expressway and Keiser Avenue and to modify bike lanes. The 2014 UDSP modified the drainage plan to take into account a proposed detention basin. The changes were evaluated in an Addendum to the UDSP EIR, Evaluation of Proposed Amendments to the University District Specific Plan (2014 Addendum). The analysis concluded that the proposed amendments to the UDSP would not result in new or more severe impacts than were analyzed in the UDSP EIR. Both the 2006 and 2014 Specific Plans contemplated a new offsite water supply tank, access road, and associated infrastructure. In 2016, the City proposed to construct the offsite water supply tank and ancillary features to serve the Plan area. Subsequently, a 2016 Addendum was prepared that analyzed the revisions to the UDSP EIR as a result of the additional project-level details for these infrastructure improvements. The 2016 Addendum concluded that there were no substantial changes to the UDSP, no substantial changes in circumstances, or new information related to SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 3 MAY 2024 environmental impacts, that would result in a new or substantially more severe impact than that disclosed in the UDSP EIR as a result of the water tank construction. In 2016, the City also approved an amendment to the Development Agreement with University District LLC and Vast Oaks LP. This amendment clarified various responsibilities associated with building the contemplated water tank and provided for the dedication of 50 acres in the unincorporated County, east of the UDSP, for the purpose of expanding Crane Creek Regional Park. On February 25, 2020, the City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approved the Copeland Creek Trail to Crane Creek Regional Park, bringing the total park acreage dedicated as a result of the UDSP to 69.57 acres, well in excess of the City’s required parkland dedication standard. In 2018 the City approved the Bristol Subdivision, a 42 unit low density residential development contemplated in the UDSP. In accordance with the City’s Subdivision Ordinance, the Bristol developer paid a park in-lieu fee for the 0.63 acres of park land required for the estimated 134 residents in the development. This brought the total park land dedication and fee equivalent for the UDSP to 70.2 acres. The City evaluated the Bristol development in a Consistency Analysis, dated February 2018, and determined the Bristol Subdivision project is consistent with the anticipated land use established for the project site in the UDSP. It also determined there would not be any new impacts or impacts peculiar to the project site that were not previously evaluated in the UDSP EIR. In 2019, the City approved plans to improve a section of Keiser Avenue located adjacent to the project site and install a traffic signal at the Snyder Lane/Keiser Avenue intersection, consistent with mitigation measures TRA-4a (Install Traffic Signal at Snyder Lane/Keiser Avenue Intersection) and mitigation measure TRA-4b (Widen Keiser Avenue Westbound Approach and Snyder Lane) included in the UDSP EIR. The widening of Keiser Avenue also included installation of water, sewer and storm drain infrastructure, curb and gutter, and a sidewalk. To accommodate these improvements removal of a residence located on the project site was required. The City evaluated these improvements in a Consistency Analysis and determined there would not be any new impacts or impacts peculiar to the project site that were not previously evaluated in the UDSP EIR. These improvements are scheduled to occur between Fall 2024 and Spring 2025, prior to the operation of the proposed project. In 2023, the City adopted its 2023-2031 Housing Element (Housing Element) that included a policy to require the re-designation of this site from low density (6 du/acre) to high density residential (12.1 to 24 du/acre). The City issued an Initial Study–Negative Declaration (IS-ND) in compliance with CEQA for the Housing Element that determined potential environmental impacts associated with adoption of the Housing Element would be less than significant. This Addendum has been prepared by the City to demonstrate that the proposed Snyder Lane Commons project is a minor change to the UDSP and does not result in any new significant information or significant impacts. The UDSP EIR analyzed the following 13 environmental resource areas: • Aesthetics • Agriculture, Land Use, and Planning • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Geology/Soils • Hazards/Hazardous Materials • Noise • Population/Housing • Public Services • Transportation/Traffic • Utilities/Service Systems • Water Resources SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 4 MAY 2024 The UDSP EIR determined that the UDSP would not have the potential to cause significant impacts associated with the following environmental resource areas: • Land Use and Planning • Population/Housing • Utilities/Service Systems The UDSP EIR determined that impacts associated with the following environmental resource areas could be mitigated to less-than-significant levels: • Biological Resources • Geology/Soils • Hazards/Hazardous Materials • Public Services • Water Resources Based on the environmental analyses included in the UDSP EIR, the City determined that, in conjunction with cumulative development within the City, the UDSP would result in significant and unavoidable impacts in the following environmental resource areas despite implementation of mitigation measures: • Aesthetics • Agricultural Resources • Air Quality • Cultural Resources • Noise • Transportation/Traffic 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 UDSP EIR. The City also adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with respect to the significant and unavoidable impacts. The UDSP and UDSP EIR are both 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_ area_plans/specific_plans. Since the UDSP EIR was completed, the CEQA Guidelines were updated to include four additional resource areas: Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Wildfire. The updated Guidelines also now require a transportation analysis to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in lieu of level of service (LOS). A brief discussion that addresses these issue areas is included in Section 3. 1.2 Project Location The 2.4-acre rectangularly shaped project site is situated on nearly level terrain at an elevation of approximately 118 feet above mean sea level within the northwesternmost portion of the UDSP bounded by Keiser Road to the north, Snyder Lane to the west, Lawrence E. Jones Middle School to the south, and the Bristol Subdivision to the east, as shown on Figure 1. SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 5 MAY 2024 The project site is surrounded by a mix of residential uses to the north, west, and east. To the north are rural residences located within unincorporated Sonoma County; to the west are manufactured homes (zoned Medium Density Residential/Mobile Home Overlay); to the east are the recently constructed single-family residences in the Bristol Subdivision (designated Low Density Residential in the UDSP). The UDSP, as amended by this project, would designate the project site as High Density Residential. This land use designation is intended to allow alley and motor-court single family attached and multi-family stacked - flat, carriage, townhome, zero - lot line and condominium ownership and rental homes with densities ranging from 12.1 to 24.0 dwelling units/acre. This land use designation is consistent with the General Plan, as amended in January 2023 by Resolution No. 2023-004 with the adoption of the City’s Housing Element. Table 2 compares the land use changes proposed by the project to those approved with the 2006 UDSP and the 2014 Amendment to the UDSP. With the proposed project, the total number of dwelling units would remain less than was analyzed in the UDSP EIR. The site is currently vacant, but wet and dry utility stubs for the project were constructed with the Bristol Subdivision and are available along its Oak Circle frontage. The site contains scattered mature trees. Table 2. Land Use Changes to the University District Specific Plan under the Proposed Project 2006 UDSP 2014 UDSP Amendment Proposed 2024 UDSP Amendment Proposed Project (Net Change From 2006 UDSP) Residential Units 1,736 units1 1,645 units 1,665 units - 71 units Neighborhood- serving Commercial Development 250,000 square feet2 100,000 square feet 100,000 square feet - 150,000 square feet Notes: 1 Total includes 126 ADUs. 2 Represents the square footage analyzed in the USDP EIR (175,000 square feet was approved by the City). 1.3 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance 1.3.1 Use of an Addendum Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an addendum to a certified EIR or an adopted Negative Declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary and none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that call for preparation of a subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration have occurred. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), when an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration for a project has been prepared, no subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency (the City) determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, one or more of the following: 1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 6 MAY 2024 significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; B. Significant effects previously discussed will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR or negative declaration; C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives; or D. Mitigation or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR or negative declaration would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. 1.3.2 Environmental Analysis and Conclusions Development of the project site with low density residential uses was previously evaluated in the UDSP EIR. The City has determined that the proposed changes represent only minor modifications to what was previously evaluated in the UDSP EIR. Because of the revisions approved with the 2014 UDSP, the total development associated with the UDSP, including this project, remains below the levels analyzed in the 2006 EIR (see Table 2). The City’s adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element (March 2023) included a policy to require the re-designation of this site from low density (6 du/acre) to high density residential (12.1 to 24 du/acre). This addendum is evaluating the proposed change from low density to high density residential. The City issued an Initial Study–Negative Declaration (IS-ND) in compliance with CEQA for the Housing Element that determined potential environmental impacts associated with adoption of the Housing Element would be less than significant. As illustrated in Table 2, the proposed project would result in a decrease of 16 low density residential units and an increase in 36 high density residential units for a total increase of 20 residential units. This would increase the total number of units within the UDSP from 1,645 to 1,665, which is below the total number of units evaluated in the UDSP EIR. The project would result in a density of 15 du/acre and includes a Specific Plan Amendment to bring the UDSP consistent with the General Plan. As described below in Section 3, Environmental Analysis, the proposed project, which results in changes to the UDSP, would not result in new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts in the UDSP EIR. Similarly, there are no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, no substantial changes in the environmental conditions since preparation and adoption of the UDSP EIR, and no new information of substantial importance that would result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts. Thus, the City has determined that an Addendum to the UDSP EIR is the appropriate environmental review document to address the project changes. This Addendum to the adopted UDSP EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 7 MAY 2024 1.3.3 Incorporation by Reference In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15150, this Addendum has incorporated by reference, the following documents: • Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration. Copeland Creek Trail to Crane Creek Regional Park Project. January 2020. • Final Initial Study – Negative Declaration. Rohnert Park Housing Element. December 2022. • University District Specific Plan EIR Consistency Review. Keiser Avenue Reconstruction – Phases 2 & 3. April 2019. • Gee Property University District Specific Plan EIR Consistency Review. Bristol Residential Subdivision. February 2018. • University District Specific Plan CEQA Addendum. Evaluation of the University District Water Tank (City Tank #8) Project. October 2016. • CEQA Addendum. Evaluation of the Proposed Amendments to the University District Specific Plan. February 2014. • Final Environmental Impact Report for the University District Specific Plan (SCH #2003122014). March 2006. 1.3.4 Addendum Process and Availability Per CEQA Guidelines, Section 15164(c), an Addendum need not be circulated for public review, but can be included in or attached to the Final EIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(d) states the decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the Final EIR or adopted Negative Declaration prior to making a decision on the project. Once adopted, the addendum is placed in the City’s Administrative Record, along with the original EIR or Negative Declaration, thus completing the CEQA process. SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 8 MAY 2024 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Keiser Ave Snyder LnSnyder LnRohnert Park Expy Petaluma Hill RdCOPELAND CREEK CRANE CREEK HINEBAUGH CREEK University District Specific Plan Project Location Rohnert Park City Limits University District Specific Plan Project Location 0 1,000500FeetnDate: 3/15/2024 User: kholmes Path: Z:\Projects\j1423509\MAPDOC\WORKING\5040SnyderLane.aprx Map: Map Layout: Figure 1 Project LocationPetaluma Sonoma Rohnert Park Sebastopol Windsor Santa Rosa Santa Rosa £¤101 ÄÆ116 ÄÆ121ÄÆ116 ÄÆ1 ÄÆ12 M a r i n C o u n t y S o n o m a C o u n t y N a p a C o u n t y Project Location !(^ SOURCE: Bing Maps 2024, Sonoma County 5040 Snyder Lane Project Project Location FIGURE 1 Keiser Ave Snyder LnSnyder LnRohnert Park Expy Petaluma Hill RdSnyder LnCRANE CREEK COPELAND CREEK HINEBAUGH CREEK Rohnert Park City Limits University District Specific Plan Property 0 800400FeetnDate: 3/29/2024 User: kholmes Path: Z:\Projects\j1423509\MAPDOC\WORKING\5040SnyderLane.aprx Map: Map Layout: Figure 2 UDSPPSOURCE: Bing Maps 2024, Sonoma County 5040 Snyder Lane Project University District Specific Plan Properties FIGURE 2 Creekside Middle School KISCO Wellness Center Redwood Park Estates "J" Section Green Music Center Sonoma State University Rancho Cotate High School Vast Oak University District LLC (UD LLC) Cotati/Rohnert Park Unified School District (CRPUSD) Gee (Bristol)Abu Halawa(Creath) Vast Oak SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.04 11 MAY 2024 2 Project Description 2.1 Project Improvements The project is proposing construction of 36 townhome units across six separate buildings (Figure 3, Site Plan). Each unit is proposed to be three stories for a total height of 30 feet. Each townhome would be located on a newly created lot; in total 36 new lots are proposed, averaging 1,084 square feet (sf). The six new buildings are proposed to be various sizes, ranging between 3,467 to 13,778 gross sf. Overall, the buildings would cover 21,047 sf, occupying approximately 20% of the site. Each townhome unit would be provided with a private backyard patio, internal storage units, and two surface parking spaces, one of which would support an electric vehicle charging station. The townhomes would include shared, private common area amenities, including an open space area, playground, community garden, and communal barbecue area, as shown on Figure 3. The project proposes to construct 6 (16.67% of the project) affordable units. These units will be deed restricted in accordance with the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance. In accordance with the City’s Subdivision Ordinance (Rohnert Park Municipal Code Chapter 16), the project proposes to pay an in-lieu fee equivalent to 0.414 acres of parkland bringing the total parkland associated with the University District to 74.34 acres. 2.1.1 Access and Parking Primary vehicle access to the project site would be from Oak Circle via a new driveway which would serve as the main entrance along the eastern portion of the site. Vehicles would circulate the project site in one direction, exiting the site from a second new driveway access along Oak Circle. The project includes a total of 82 parking spaces, with 72 spaces provided in carport and surface parking areas (2 spaces for each townhome unit) and 10 for visitors. Carports would cover parking spaces in front of each townhome unit and along the center of the project site; the remainder of the parking would be uncovered. The project would provide pedestrian sidewalks throughout the site, fronting each townhome unit and along its Oak Circle frontage. The sidewalks would connect pedestrians to on-site common area amenities as well as off-site sidewalks along Snyder Lane and Keiser Avenue. 2.1.2 Landscaping and Fencing The proposed project would remove 27 existing trees throughout the site. According to an arborist report prepared for the project, trees to be removed include weeping willow, plum, coast live oak, coast redwood, Raywood ash, Monterey cypress, eastern cottonwood, and pear. The project’s proposed landscaping plan includes planting 96 trees and groundcover throughout the project site (Figure 4, Landscape Planting Plan). As the proposed tree removal is part of a larger project, the removal is exempt from the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 17.15 – Tree Preservation and Protection, and the removal request is being processed along with the primary entitlement request submitted for the project. The proposed project provides a net increase of 69 trees on the site. The project also includes 6-foot-high fencing that would border most lots along the northern and southern perimeter of the project site. A 7-foot-high masonry wall is proposed along Snyder Lane to border the western, northern, and southern perimeter of the westernmost townhomes; this wall is intended to address potential noise impacts. Six-foot-tall masonry walls are also proposed at the northwest and southwest corners of the project site. While the project would add additional bioretention areas on site, the amount of impervious surface would total approximately 75,390 sf due to the addition of buildings, paved parking areas, and sidewalks. SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 12 MAY 2024 2.1.3 Utilities The project would connect to existing City water lines within Oak Circle for domestic and irrigation uses. A new sanitary sewer pipe would connect to the municipal sewer system within the southwest corner of Oak Circle. The project would be served by Pacific Gas & Electric for electricity and AT&T for telecommunications. An electrical transformer would be installed along the northern perimeter of the project site, adjacent to Keiser Avenue. Four stormwater bioretention areas are proposed along the northwestern and southwestern portions of the project site totaling 2,515 sf. These bioretention areas would be connected to new storm drain lines that drain to the City’s storm drain system along Snyder Lane. 2.1.4 Lighting Project lighting, which would include building lights, parking area lights and common area lights, would be designed and installed in conformance with the City’s lighting and glare performance standards, as set forth in Section 17.12.050 of the Municipal Code, which requires all lighting be directed downward and shielded at lot lines. The project includes City standard streetlights along Oak Circle and along Keiser Avenue. Also, 4-foot-high bollard lights are proposed throughout the project site. Carports would also be downlit. 2.1.5 Other Project Improvements Two trash enclosures are proposed central to the project site. The project is designed to be net zero energy efficient through the provision of rooftop solar photovoltaic arrays. Each townhome unit would be equipped with one electric vehicle charging station and all appliances would be electric. The project is proposed as an “all electric” project and natural gas connections will not be installed. 2.2 Project Construction If the project is approved, project construction is anticipated to begin in the Spring of 2025, lasting between 18 to 24 months. Construction activities would be limited to the hours of 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM, consistent with Section 9.44.120 of the City’s Noise Ordinance, and staging of construction equipment would occur onsite only. Construction equipment would likely include excavators, backhoes, loaders, scrapers, concrete saws, small cranes, rollers, pavers, and handheld tools. Site preparation would include demolition, clearing of vegetation, concrete, and asphalt, as well as grading. Project grading would cut 1,260 cubic yards (cy) of earth material and fill 670 cy of earth material. Therefore, the project site would involve a net cut of 590 cy of earth material in terms of grading. 2.3 Required Project Approvals The project is requesting a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Development Area Plan Amendment, and approval of a tentative map, which are discretionary approvals. The project also requires a variety of ministerial permits including a grading permit, an encroachment permit (for work in the City’s right-of- way, including utility connections), building permits, fire permits for fire sprinklers, fire alarms, and other permits.                                                                               Site Plan 5040 Snyder Lane ProjectPath:Z:\Projects\j1423509\MAPDOC\DOCUMENTSOURCE: AXIS, 2023 FIGURE 3 Landscape Planting Plan 5040 Snyder Lane ProjectPath:Z:\Projects\j1423509\MAPDOC\DOCUMENTSOURCE: Pedersen Associates, 2023 FIGURE 4 SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 15 MAY 2024 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 16 MAY 2024 3 Environmental Analysis 3.1 Environmental Factors Previously Analyzed The UDSP EIR evaluated whether implementation of the UDSP would have an adverse impact on the environment. Table 3, Summary of Adopted Mitigation Measures from the UDSP EIR, presents the environmental resource areas analyzed and the mitigation measures adopted. When the mitigation measures were not sufficient to reduce potential impacts to less-than- significant levels, this is also noted in Table 3 below. Table 3. Summary of Adopted Mitigation Measures from the UDSP EIR Impact Section Mitigation Measures Aesthetics Mitigation Measures AES-1a and AES-5a. Impacts related to scenic resources were determined to be significant and unavoidable and no feasible mitigation exists (Impact AES-3). Agricultural Resources Mitigation Measure AG-3. Impacts related to conversion of farmland were determined to be significant and unavoidable and no feasible mitigation exists (Impact AG- 4). Air Quality Mitigation Measures AQ-1a and AQ-2a. Impacts related to operational emissions and consistency with the 2000 Clean Air Plan were determined to be significant and unavoidable after implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2a (Impacts AQ-2 and AQ-5). Biological Resources Mitigation Measures BIO-2a, BIO-3a, BIO-5a, BIO-6a, BIO-8a, BIO-9a, BIO- 10a, BIO-12a, BIO-13a, BIO-14a, and BIO-15a. Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures C-1a, C-2a, C-3a, C-4a, and C-5a. Impacts related to historic structures were determined to be potentially significantly and unavoidable after implementation of Mitigation Measure C-3a (Impact C-3). Geology and Soils Mitigation Measures GEO-2a, GEO-5a, GEO-7a, and GEO-8a. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mitigation Measures HAZ-2a, HAZ-2b, HAZ-2c, HAZ-2d, HAZ-2e, HAZ-6a, and HAZ-6b. Land Use and Planning Impacts less than significant and no mitigation required Noise Mitigation Measure N-1a, N-1b, N-1c, N-4a, and N-4b. Impacts related to the exposure of offsite noise-sensitive land uses to cumulative traffic noise were determined to be significant and unavoidable and no feasible mitigation exists (Impact N-5) Population and Housing Impacts less than significant and no mitigation required Public Services Mitigation Measure PS-2a. SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 17 MAY 2024 Table 3. Summary of Adopted Mitigation Measures from the UDSP EIR Impact Section Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic Mitigation Measures TRA-1a, TRA-4a, TRA-4b, TRA-5a, TRA-5b, TRA-6a, TRA-6b, TRA-7a, TRA-8a, TRA-9a, TRA-11a, TRA-14a, and TRA-18a. Impacts related to increased traffic congestion at the following intersections were determined to be significant and unavoidable with mitigation: Adobe Road/Petaluma Hill Road, East Cotati Avenue/Old Redwood Highway, Adobe Road/Petaluma Hill Road Main Street/Old Redwood Highway and Highway 101 (Impacts TRA-9, TRA-18, TRA-19 and TRA-22). Utilities and Service Systems Impacts less than significant and no mitigation required Water Resources Mitigation Measures WR-1a, WR-2a, WR-2b, WR-4a, WR-4b, and WR-5a. Growth Inducing Impacts Impacts less than significant and no mitigation required Cumulative Impacts Mitigation Measures BIO-2a, BIO-4a, BIO-5a, BIO-6a, BIO-7a, BIO-8a, BIO- 9a, BIO-10a, BIO-12a, and BIO-13a. Cumulative impacts related to the loss of open space (Impact CE-1), conversion of agricultural lands (Impact CE-3), air quality (Impact CE-4), biological resources (Impact CE-5), loss of open space (Impact CE-8), and noise (Impact CE-9) were determined to be significant and unavoidable. The impact analysis below demonstrates that the proposed project is a minor change or addition to the UDSP EIR and does not result in any new significant information or significant impacts. The following includes the project- specific environmental review required pursuant to CEQA and incorporates applicable mitigation measures from the UDSP EIR if needed. 3.2 Environmental Factors Not Requiring Mitigation in the UDSP EIR The proposed project would not result in changes to the approved UDSP relative to the environmental resource areas as explained below. Nor would the proposed project result in a change in circumstances, or new information that would alter the impact conclusions of the UDSP EIR for these environmental resource areas. Therefore, no new significant impacts or a substantial increase in severity of impacts previously identified in the UDSP EIR would result, and no additional analysis of these topics is required based on the following information: ▪ Agricultural Resources. As concluded in the UDSP EIR, implementation of the UDSP would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use because the Plan area does not include farmland of these classifications; therefore, there would be no impact (Impact AG-1). Also, implementation of the UDSP would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson act contract (Impact AG-2) because the site is not zoned for agriculture and does not include lands under Williamson Act contracts. The UDSP EIR acknowledges that the location of a proposed water tank site, SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 18 MAY 2024 which is outside of the Plan area, may be under a Williamson Act contract (Impact AG-3). However, this impact does not apply to the proposed project. According to the UDSP EIR, the Plan area consisted mostly of land that was actively farmed when the EIR was prepared. Implementation of the UDSP was determined to result in the permanent conversion of this farmland from agricultural use to urban uses even though none of the land was classified as important farmland by the state. The EIR concluded that this impact would be significant and unavoidable, and no mitigation is available (Impact AG-4) and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted. However, the project site itself was historically developed as a rural residential land use and has not recently been used for agricultural activities. Due to the fallow nature of the project site, the proposed project would not result in the conversion of active farmland not already analyzed in the UDSP EIR; therefore, the proposed project would not result in a more severe impact related to the conversion of farmland. Based on the above analysis, development of the project site was addressed in the UDSP EIR and the addition of 20 units would not result in any new impacts because the site footprint has not changed. There are no changed circumstances and no new information that would alter the impact conclusions of the UDSP EIR. Therefore, no new significant impacts or a substantial increase in severity of impacts previously identified in the UDSP EIR would result. ▪ Land Use and Planning: The UDSP EIR concluded that implementation of the UDSP would not result in a loss of community cohesion and would not conflict with relevant plans and policies. The EIR also concluded the UDSP would not result in significant construction-related impacts on existing land uses and would be compatible with existing and future adjacent land uses. Construction and land use compatibility impacts are addressed specifically throughout the respective resource sections of the EIR. The EIR also determined that all potential physical environmental effects on adjacent land uses, including traffic, noise, aesthetics, and public services, are addressed and mitigated to the extent feasible in the respective EIR sections. The UDSP EIR concluded that Plan implementation would generally be compatible with adjacent land uses; the range of residential land uses proposed throughout the western half of the Plan area would be generally consistent in terms of density, building scale, and character of the existing residential and public institutional land uses that exist along the Plan area’s western border. In addition, the open space land uses proposed in the eastern portion of the Plan area would be generally compatible with existing rural land uses to the east. The project site is not located within the area of an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Furthermore, the EIR concluded that the UDSP would be compatible with other future nearby land uses anticipated under the General Plan such as adjacent residential land uses proposed by the Northeast Area Specific Plan to the north across Keiser Avenue. The proposed project would include an additional 20 new residential units which represents an approximately 1.2% increase of the total units accounted for in the 2014 Addendum. However, these additional units are included in the 1,736 residential units evaluated in the UDSP EIR, and thus were already analyzed. SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 19 MAY 2024 In addition, the addition of 20 residences and the change in land use from low density to high density, is consistent with the City’s adopted Housing Element and enhances the consistency between the UDSP and the City’s General Plan. The project does not represent a significant change in the prior land use or planning analysis because the proposed project involves similar residential uses, in the same location, that were analyzed under the UDSP EIR. There are no changed circumstances and no new information that would alter the impact conclusions of the UDSP EIR. Therefore, no new significant impacts or a substantial increase in severity of impacts previously identified in the UDSP EIR would result. ▪ Population and Housing: The project proposes the development of 36 HDR units that would replace the 16 LDR units that were analyzed in the UDSP EIR. This represents a net increase of 20 units above the 1,645 units accounted for in the 2014 Addendum. However, this increase in units, including the associated number of new residences, is under the 1,736 units (and residents) originally analyzed in the UDSP EIR. The UDSP EIR acknowledges that the Plan would induce a growth rate that would not exceed 1%, because population growth would be addressed through the City’s Growth Management Ordinance (Rohnert Park Municipal Code Chapter 17.19). The City monitors compliance with the Growth Management Ordinance on an annual basis and its most recent annual report confirms that development in the City is consistent with the requirements of the Growth Management Ordinance. For these reasons, the increase in 20 residential units within the Plan area does not change the population and housing impact conclusions provided in the UDSP EIR. Furthermore, no housing or residents would be displaced by the proposed project because the site is currently vacant. Construction of the project is anticipated to generate temporary construction-related jobs; however, it is not anticipated that the project would cause a substantial number of construction workers to relocate to the city, increasing the population of the area. Therefore, impacts would remain less than significant, the same as the UDSP EIR (pp. 3.9-4 – 3.9-6). ▪ Recreation: The UDSP EIR concluded that implementation of the UDSP would result in the creation of 40.81 acres of parkland, exceeding the estimated demand (22.60 acres) of parkland for the Plan area based on the City’s standard of 5 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. Therefore, the EIR concluded impacts to recreation would be less than significant and no mitigation required (pp. 3.10-8 – 3.10-9). The 2014 Amendment to the UDSP included the realignment of public parks and landscape areas and amended the land use plan to provide 19.78 acres of developed parkland in the Vast Oak neighborhood. The 2014 Addendum determined these changes to the Plan would not result in recreation related impacts. As described in Section 1.1,Project Background, since the adoption of the 2014 Amendment to the UDSP, the City has worked with the various development interests in the UDSP to secure the dedication of 50 acres of parkland for regional purposes and the payment of in lieu fees for the Bristol Subdivision, bringing the total acreage of parkland associated with the USDP to 70.2 acres, well in excess of both the City’s parkland standard and the parkland area analyzed in the UDSP EIR. SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 20 MAY 2024 The proposed project would include an additional 20 new residential units which represents an approximately 1.2% increase in the total units accounted for in the 2014 Addendum. However, these additional units were originally accounted for in the UDSP EIR. These changes do not represent an increase in impacts to recreation because the parkland area associated with the UDSP already exceeds required and analyzed standard and the project is proposing to provide fees in lieu of land dedication based on the city’s standard for parkland acreage per residents. In addition, the proposed project includes private recreation amenities on site within the development’s common space, including a play structure and a community garden, which provide additional resources for residents beyond the developed public parks in the area. There are no changed circumstances, and no new information that would alter the impact conclusions of the UDSP EIR. Therefore, no new significant impacts or a substantial increase in severity of impacts previously identified in the UDSP EIR would result. ▪ Utilities and Service Systems: The UDSP EIR concluded that buildout of the Plan area would not result in significant impacts related to solid waste generation, water supply1, natural gas and electricity demand, telecommunications, and wastewater. The proposed increase in 20 additional new residential units were originally accounted for in the UDSP EIR. For these reasons, buildout of the proposed project would not significantly increase the demand for utilities and services systems beyond what was analyzed in the UDSP EIR; impacts to utilities and service systems would remain less than significant the same as the UDSP EIR (pp. 3.12-7 – 3.12-9). ▪ Growth Inducing Impacts: The UDSP EIR concluded that the buildout of the Plan area would not result in new growth inducing impacts because the proposal was consistent with the UDSP and the City’s General Plan, Urban Growth Boundary and Growth Management Plan. The 2014 Addendum reached similar conclusions. The proposed project would include an additional 20 new residential units which represents an approximately 1.2% increase in the total units accounted for in the 2014 Addendum. However, these additional units were originally accounted for in the UDSP EIR. These changes do not represent new growth inducing impacts because the project would continue to be within the scope analyzed in the 2006 EIR and would remain consistent with City’s Urban Growth Boundary and Growth Management Ordinance. There are no changed circumstances, and no new information that would alter the impact conclusions of the UDSP EIR. Therefore, no new significant impacts or a substantial increase in severity of impacts previously identified in the UDSP EIR would result. 3.3 Environmental Factors Requiring Mitigation in the UDSP EIR The discussion below describes the proposed project as compared to what was analyzed in the UDSP EIR. As described in Section 1.3.2, within the Plan area, the proposed project would replace 16 LDR units with 36 HDR units for a total increase of 20 residential units. This analysis has been prepared by the City to demonstrate that the proposed project 1 See Section 3.3.10 of this Addendum. The Water Resources section of the UDSP EIR concluded that implementation of the UDSP would not result in significant impacts related to groundwater supplies (Impact WR-7), insufficient surface water quantity (Impact WR-8), or use of recycled water (Impact WR-9). SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 21 MAY 2024 does not result in any new significant information or significant impacts not analyzed in the UDSP EIR. This section only addresses those resource areas that resulted in project impacts requiring mitigation measures in the UDSP EIR. As discussed below, no new significant impacts were identified beyond those in the UDSP EIR, and any required mitigation measures are incorporated accordingly. 3.3.1 Aesthetics The UDSP EIR concluded that view corridors would be maintained with future development of the UDSP and that compliance with General Plan policies would reduce impacts related to impairing scenic vistas and visual character to a less-than-significant level (Impact AES-1). The EIR also concluded that the UDSP would not result in significant light or glare impacts due to construction (Impact AES-4). Additionally, the UDSP would not result in significant aesthetic impacts related to inconsistencies with City’s General Plan or Sonoma County General Plan (Impact AES- 6). As described in the UDSP EIR (pp. 3.1-17 to 3.1-19), construction within the Plan area has the potential to result in significant visual impacts. Construction activities may introduce heavy equipment and associated vehicles, including dozers, graders, scrapers, and trucks, into the viewshed of developed property neighboring the UDSP. Mitigation Measure (MM) AES-1a was provided to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation measure requires that, prior to construction activities adjacent to Redwood Park Estates residences, the construction contractor install visual screen fencing. The EIR states that these residences are particularly sensitive to visual construction impacts because their direct views of the Sonoma Mountains to the east; these residences do not have fencing or screening, so views of the mountains are unobstructed. The EIR concluded that visual construction impacts are considered less than significant for all viewers other than residents of Redwood Park Estates (Impact AES-1). MM AES-1a was implemented when construction was taking place adjacent to Redwood Estates. That construction is now complete. Therefore, MM AES-1a has been satisfied. As noted in the UDSP EIR, implementation of the UDSP would introduce new permanent sources of lighting (Impact AES-5). Compliance with UDSP development standards and design guidelines would help reduce the amount of light affecting views. The community lighting component of the UDSP would also minimize impacts on open space areas while providing safe access to pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles. Lighting impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through the implementation of MM AES-5a which requires lighting to be designed to be shielded and directed downward. This mitigation measure would also apply to the proposed project to ensure lighting impacts associated with the residential development would be less than significant. Petaluma Hill Road, which is the eastern boundary of the Plan area, is a county- and City-designated scenic roadway that provides views of the hillsides to the east. The EIR determined that implementation of the UDSP would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to Petaluma Hill Road. Specifically, removal of farm fences and alteration of the undeveloped agricultural fields would alter the overall visual quality of the site for viewer groups (pp. 3.1-20 to 3.1.21). Therefore, implementation of the UDSP was determined to alter the visual quality of the Plan area from undeveloped to urban; this impact was determined to be significant and unavoidable, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted (Impact AES-3.). The proposed project would include an additional 20 new residential units which represents an approximately 1.2% increase of the total units accounted for in the 2014 Addendum, but within the 1,736 units evaluated in the UDSP SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 22 MAY 2024 EIR. Although the change in residential units would involve higher housing density, it would not introduce any new or changed significant visual impacts because the area proposed for development was analyzed in the UDSP EIR and would be developed consistent with the UDSP and the City’s current zoning standards which provide criteria for structures, setbacks, parking, and residential development. While visual impacts to Petaluma Hill Road would continue to be significant and unavoidable after mitigation, based on the above analysis, the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in severity of impacts previously identified in the UDSP EIR. There are no changed circumstances and no new information that would alter the impact conclusions of the UDSP EIR. 3.3.2 Air Quality The UDSP EIR provided a carbon monoxide (CO) hotspots analysis that determined implementation of the UDSP would not result in a significant CO concentration impact (Impact AQ-3). The EIR also determined the Plan would not create any odor nuisances (Impact AQ-4) and these impacts were determined to be less than significant. The UDSP EIR analyzed emissions of criteria pollutant emissions resulting from construction and operation of the UDSP (Impact AQ-1). Criteria pollutant emissions were quantified and would exceed the air district thresholds resulting in a significant impact. With, implementation of construction control practices recommended in the 1999 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Guidelines, the UDSP EIR determined that construction-related air quality impacts would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of MM AQ-1a. The UDSP EIR concluded that future operation of the UDSP would result in a significant and unavoidable air quality impact (Impact AQ-2). As indicated in the EIR, operation of the UDSP would result in emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen dioxide (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and course particulate matter (PM10) from residential, business, and retail buildings and from increased vehicle trips generated by the uses allowed per the Plan. No feasible mitigation was identified to reduce the impact and the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Area source emissions were also evaluated, which include natural gas combustion for water and space heating, landscaping equipment, and personal household product use. The EIR concluded that an increase in vehicle emissions would also occur due to an increase in daily vehicle trips (Impact AQ-2). Implementation of MM AQ-2a would reduce this impact but not to a less-than-significant level. The mitigation measure requires residential development to use solar water heaters, central water heaters, install insulation beyond building code requirements, utilize electric landscape maintenance equipment, and use hot water circulating plumbing. However, even after mitigation, the resulting emissions were determined to still be greater than the BAAQMD significance thresholds and the impact would be significant and unavoidable. Because the project includes development of residential uses, compliance with this mitigation measure would be required. The UDSP EIR concluded that the implementation of the Plan would be inconsistent with the state’s 2000 Clean Air Plan due to the increase in vehicle mile traveled (VMT) attributed to growth under the General Plan (Impact AQ-5) resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. The EIR concluded no mitigation measures are available to reduce VMT associated with the implementation of the City’s General Plan and the UDSP. SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 23 MAY 2024 The proposed project would include an additional 20 new residential units which represents an approximately 1.2% increase of the total units accounted for in the 2014 Addendum. However, these additional units were originally accounted for in the UDSP EIR and would not increase air quality impacts beyond what was evaluated in the EIR. The proposed project would involve similar construction activities, occur within the same project footprint, and involve similar residential uses (once operational) as analyzed under the EIR. Further, the project would be required to comply with MM AQ-1a and MM AQ-2a, as described above. There are no changed circumstances and no new information that would alter the impact conclusions of the UDSP EIR. Therefore, no new significant impacts or a substantial increase in severity of impacts previously identified in the UDSP EIR would result. 3.3.3 Biological Resources The UDSP EIR identified impacts on biological resources including impacts or potential impacts on wetlands, riparian habitat, including impacts on riparian vegetation along Copeland and Hinebaugh Creeks during construction, oak woodlands, listed plants, and listed animals and their habitats (i.e., California tiger salamander; foothill yellow-legged frogs; northwestern pond turtles; burrowing owl; and migratory birds and raptors). Mitigation and compensation measures described in the UDSP EIR were found to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. This section describes the findings of that analysis and applicability to the proposed project. As described in the UDSP EIR, implementation of the UDSP has the potential to result in the direct loss of waters of the United States, including wetlands, as well as non-jurisdictional wetlands (Impact BIO-1), jurisdictional wetlands (Impact BIO-2) and riparian vegetation (Impact BIO-4). The EIR includes MM BIO-3a which requires a wetland evaluation occur prior to the development of the proposed project because this portion of the Plan area was not surveyed for these resources. Pursuant to this mitigation measure, the project applicant has prepared an aquatic resource delineation report (Appendix A). The results of the report indicate that the project site does not contain potential waters of the United States and that the project site does not contain any jurisdictional waters pursuant to Section 401 or 404 of the Clean Water Act or riparian vegetation. Therefore, Impact BIO-1, Impact BIO-2, and Impact BIO-4 do not apply to the proposed project. The UDSP EIR notes that implementation of the UDSP has the potential to disturb oak woodland habitat adjacent to Keiser Road in the northern portion of the Plan area and at the potable water pipeline and tank site (Impact BIO- 6 and Impact BIO-7). Tree removal along Snyder Lane and Keiser Avenue, including tree removal adjacent to the project site, was analyzed in the 2019 Consistency Analysis. This analysis demonstrated these tree removal activities are consistent with the UDSP EIR; tree removal would be done consistent with the City’s Zoning Code, Title 17, Chapter 17.15, Tree Preservation and Protection, which provides regulations for tree removal and allows tree removal or replacement done as part of a larger project to be processed along with the primary entitlement. In addition, the EIR also identifies a potentially significant impact related to the potential disturbance and degradation of Central Coast Steelhead habitat (Impact BIO-9). This impact also does not apply to the proposed project because the Central Coast Steelhead habitat is located in Copeland Creek, which is not located on or near the project site. The UDSP EIR notes potentially significant impacts to Foothill yellow-legged frogs (Impact BIO-11) and Northwestern Pond turtles (Impact BIO-12) due to development of the Vast Oak and University District LLC (UD LLC) properties portion of the Plan area, which are adjacent to Hinebaugh Creek and Copeland Creek which are characterized as SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 24 MAY 2024 riparian habitat. However, the EIR determined no habitat for Foothill yellow-legged frogs or Northwestern pond turtles is present on the project site (which is not adjacent to Hinebaugh or Copeland Creek) so impacts do not apply to the proposed project. A reconnaissance level field survey was conducted of the Abu-Halawa (Creath) property on January 14, 2004 to support this finding. Implementation of the Plan has the potential to disturb riparian habitat during construction (Impact BIO-5). However, this impact would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through the incorporation of MM BIO-5a which requires the installation of construction barrier fencing along Hinebaugh Creek, Copeland Creek, unnamed drainages, seasonal wetlands, oak trees, and active bird nests. The mitigation measure requires fencing to be installed prior to any construction activities. Although the project site does not contain wetland resources as noted above and is not adjacent to Hinebaugh Creek or Copeland Creek, the mitigation measure would still apply because it contains Coast Live Oak tree and other trees that could support active bird nests. Compliance with MM BIO-5a would be required for the proposed project to ensure impacts to these resources would be less than significant. The project is proposing removal of 27 trees including weeping willow, plum, coast live oak, coast redwood, Raywood ash, Monterey cypress, eastern cottonwood, and pear. Prior to tree removal in accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the California Fish and Game Code and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service the project applicant shall be required, as a condition of the project, to conduct nesting bird surveys prior to any tree removal. As indicated in the UDSP EIR (pp. 3.4-42 – 3.4-43), the Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District (CRPUSD), Gee (Bristol), and Abu-Halawa (Creath) (project site) properties were not surveyed for special-status plants. The EIR notes there is a low potential for special-status plants to occur in these areas due to the type of soils present on these sites and likely absence of wetland habitat. However, because these areas had not been surveyed the potential to impact special-status species was determined to be potentially significant (Impact BIO-8). This impact was determined to be less than significant through the implementation of MM BIO-8a which requires a qualified botanist to conduct blooming-period surveys prior to development. The project applicant conducted a floristic, protocol-level rare plant survey of the project site, per MM BIO-8a and no special-status plants were observed during the survey (Appendix B). Implementation of the UDSP has the potential to disturb California tiger salamander (CTS) and their habitat within the Santa Rosa Plain area; this impact was determined to be potentially significant (Impact BIO-10). As noted in the EIR, no CTS surveys have been conducted on the Abu-Halawa (Creath), Gee (Bristol), and Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District (CRPUSD) portions of the Plan area, therefore this was determined to be a significant impact and required compliance with MM BIO-10a. This mitigation measure requires that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to be contacted prior to development to determine whether protocol-level upland surveys are warranted. The project applicant retained a qualified biologist to assess the potential for the project site to contain suitable CTS habitat. The results of this assessment are summarized in a memorandum titled California Tiger Salamander Habitat Assessment for the Creath Property Project in Rohnert Park (Appendix C). The memorandum concluded that the proposed project site does not provide suitable breeding habitat, nor is it near any known breeding sites. It also noted that existing residential development surrounding the project site precludes connection to extant CTS populations. In accordance with MM BIO-10a, the project applicant provided USFWS the above-mentioned memorandum informing the USFWS of conclusions that the project site does not represent CTS habitat. SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 25 MAY 2024 As described in the UDSP EIR, the project site is characterized as nonnative annual grassland (Figure 3.4-1 of the UDSP EIR). This biological community has the potential to provide suitable Burrowing owl nesting habitat (pp. 3.4- 22 – 3.4-23). Implementation of the UDSP therefore has the potential to significantly impact Burrowing owl habitat, including on the project site (Impact BIO-13). In conjunction with MM BIO-13a, a reconnaissance level field survey was conducted on the site, which indicated that suitable burrowing owl nesting habitat is not found on site. The results of this survey are summarized in a memorandum titled Burrowing Owl and Nesting Bird Survey Results (Appendix D); the survey concluded there were no burrowing owls or signs of owl activity observed on site. The UDSP EIR identified a potentially significant impact related to the spread of noxious weeds (Impact BIO-15). As noted in the EIR, development within the Plan area has the potential to introduce noxious weeds resulting in the degradation of riparian plant communities and wildlife habitat. However, implementation of measures to avoid the introduction of noxious weeds outlined in MM BIO-15a was determined to reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level. The project would be required to comply with his mitigation to ensure it would not introduce any noxious plants or weeds. Based on the above analysis, the proposed project would be required to incorporate MM BIO-3a, MM BIO-5a, MM BIO-8a, MM BIO-10a, MM BIO-13a, and MM BIO-15a, and impacts would remain less than significant, consistent with the analysis in the UDSP EIR. The project applicant has already complied with MM BIO-3a, MM BIO-8a, and MM BIO-10a, and MM BIO-13a, as discussed above. The proposed project would include an additional 20 new residential units; however, these additional units were originally accounted for in the UDSP EIR and would involve similar construction activities and occur within the same project footprint analyzed under the EIR. There are no changed circumstances and no new information that would alter the impact conclusions of the UDSP EIR. Therefore, no new significant impacts or a substantial increase in severity of impacts previously identified in the UDSP EIR would result. 3.3.4 Cultural Resources As described in the UDSP EIR, efforts to locate cultural resources within the Plan area consisted of conducting a records search at the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System, contacting the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and Native American representatives, and other interested local groups. The UDSP EIR identified three archaeological sites within the Plan area. No archaeological resources were identified on the project site based on the records search. The UDSP EIR concluded that construction activities could result in a potential impact to known archaeological and prehistoric resources on the Vast Oak and University District LLC (UD LLC) properties and included implementation of MM C-1a and MM C-2a which requires the establishment and application of a monitoring plan and data recovery program in the event resources are unearthed. This impact is not applicable to the project because it addresses areas that do not include the project site. However, the UDSP EIR determined that demolition or destruction of a historical resource cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact and would be potentially significant and unavoidable if historical resources are determined present (Impact C-3). SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 26 MAY 2024 The structures previously located on the Abu-Halawa (Creath) property were evaluated and found not to be an historic resource (Dudek 2019). This evaluation, prepared pursuant to MM C-3a, ensures that the proposed project is compliant with the requirement that a historic building assessment be conducted for any buildings proposed for removal. The evaluation found that, after extensive archival research, a field survey, and property significance evaluations, the buildings located on the Abu-Halawa (Creath) property do not contain any of the characteristics required to be considered eligible for listing as historic buildings on either the state or federal lists, or as a locally significant resource. The buildings lack any significant historical associations as well as architectural merit and represent compromised integrity. As such, the buildings would not be considered an historical resource under CEQA as verified by the historic building assessment completed per MM C-3a. Because there is the potential for cultural resources to exist within the Plan area, which includes the project site, including and undiscovered cultural resources, the EIR determined this would be a potential impact (Impact C-4 and Impact C-5) and could be reduced to less-than-significant level through the implementation of MM C-4a and MM C-5a. To ensure impacts to cultural resources remain less than significant, the proposed project would be required to implement MM C-4a which requires a site-specific survey of the site and onsite Native American and archeological monitors during any ground disturbing activities. MM C-5a requires that Native American and archaeological monitors be present during all ground-disturbing activities. Based on the above analysis, the proposed project would be required to incorporate MM C-4a and MM C-5a, consistent with the EIR. The proposed project would include an additional 20 new residential units. However, these additional units were originally accounted for in the UDSP EIR, and the addition of these units does not represent an increase in cultural resource impacts because the proposed project would involve similar construction activities and occur within the same project footprint analyzed in the EIR. There are no changed circumstances and no new information that would alter the impact conclusions of the UDSP EIR. Therefore, no new significant impacts or a substantial increase in severity of impacts previously identified in the UDSP EIR would result. 3.3.5 Geology and Soils As stated in the UDSP EIR there are no known faults located in the Plan area. Therefore, the EIR concluded no impact would occur due to potential surface fault rupture (Impact GEO-1). The EIR also determined that Plan implementation would not be expected to result in impacts due to liquefaction (Impact GEO-3) or landslides and other slope failures (Impact GEO-4). A potentially significant geotechnical concern related to the presence of expansive soil conditions at the UDSP’s proposed water tank site location was identified; however, this impact does not apply to the proposed project because the project is not located at the water tank site (Impact GEO-5a). The EIR notes that soils in the Plan area could be susceptible to erosion due to grading, trenching, and other earthwork associated with buildout (Impact GEO-6). However, compliance with City requirements, including preparation and implementation of a grading and erosion control plan and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) with site-specific Best Management Practices (BMPs), would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The EIR noted that implementation of the UDSP has the potential to cause structural damage to buildings and potentially create hazardous conditions for people using those buildings due to seismic ground shaking. This potential impact was determined to be less than significant through the implementation of MM GEO-2a which requires buildings be design and constructed in accordance with the most recent seismic standards of the California Building Code (CBC) (Impact GEO-2). The project would be required to also comply with this mitigation measure. SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 27 MAY 2024 It is noted on page 3.6-8 of the UDSP EIR that the Plan area contains native topsoil materials that are relatively soft and probably would experience some degree of settlement due to building loads (Impact GEO-7). However, this impact was determined to be less than significant through the implementation of MM GEO-7a which requires soils to be recompacted during project construction. The UDSP also notes that clayey native soils and sediments that occur in the Plan area have the potential to be highly expansive and determined impacts would be significant (Impact GEO-8). Compliance with MM GEO-8a would mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring buildings be designed and constructed to minimize damage from expansive soil conditions. The project would be required to comply with mitigation measures MM GEO-7a and GEO-8a to ensure site conditions and buildings are designed to minimize impacts. Based on the above analysis, the proposed project would be required to incorporate MM GEO-2a, MM GEO-7a, and MM GEO-8a, and impacts would remain less than significant, consistent with the EIR. The proposed project would include an additional 20 new residential units however, these additional units were originally accounted for in the UDSP EIR and would involve similar construction activities and occur within the same project footprint analyzed under the EIR. There are no changed circumstances and no new information that would alter the impact conclusions of the UDSP EIR. Therefore, no new significant impacts or a substantial increase in severity of impacts previously identified in the UDSP EIR would result. 3.3.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials The UDSP EIR analyzed impacts associated with the use, transport and storage of hazards and hazardous materials. Two Phase 1 environmental site assessments (ESAs) were performed in the Plan area, as described in the UDSP EIR (pp. 3.7-1 – 3.7-2). No hazardous materials sites were identified within the Plan area, including the project site. This analysis determined that implementation of the UDSP would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of Hazardous Materials (Impact HAZ-1) because both the Sonoma County General Plan and City’s General Plan contains policies and programs that would provide sufficient regulation to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. It was also determined that implementation of the UDSP would not cause a significant impact related to hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5 (Impact HAZ-4) because no sites were identified within the Plan area. The UDSP EIR also determined that implementation of the UDSP would result in less than significant emergency response related impacts because the Plan area is located at the edge of current development would not hinder emergency services (Impact HAZ-5). The EIR concluded that implementation of the Plan has the potential to expose construction workers, the public, or the environment to hazardous materials (Impact HAZ-2). For instance, small quantities of petroleum and/or other chemicals used to operate and maintain construction equipment would be used at construction sites. Accidental releases of small quantities of these substances could contaminate soils and degrade the quality of surface water and groundwater, resulting in a public safety hazard. Also, the potential presence of pesticide and fertilizer residues from previous agricultural uses could create a hazard to the public and environment. Compliance with MM HAZ-2a, MM HAZ-2b, MM HAZ-2c, MM HAZ-2d, and MM HAZ-2e are required to address this impact and reduce it to a less- than-significant level. These mitigation measures require contractors to follow the City’s Fire Department’s regulations and guidelines related to the transportation and storage of hazardous materials (MM HAZ-2a); immediately contain spills, excavate spill-contaminated soil, and dispose of it at an approved facility (MM HAZ-2b); SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 28 MAY 2024 develop and implement plans to reduce exposure of people and the environment to hazardous conditions during construction (MM HAZ-2c); screen surface soils in the Plan area for residual agricultural chemicals (MM HAZ-2d); and stockpile and sample excavated soils (MM HAZ-2e). The project would require compliance with these mitigation measures, and contractors would be required to ensure all potentially hazardous materials would be handled properly and addressed in the event of an accidental spill during construction activities. The UDSP EIR also notes that the Plan area is located within 0.25-mile of two schools: Rancho Cotate High School and Creekside (now Lawrence E. Jones) Middle School. The project site is located directly north of the middle school site. Therefore, consistent with Impact HAZ-2 of the UDSP EIR, the proposed project has the potential to emit hazardous emissions, handle hazardous waste or acutely hazardous materials, substance, or waste within 0.25- miles of an existing school (Impact HAZ-3). However, this impact was determined to be less than significant through the implementation of MM HAZ-2a through MM HAZ-2e. The UDSP EIR states that there is the potential for wildfires due to the presence of open space and agricultural lands which may expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death representing a potentially significant impact (Impact HAZ-6). To address this impact, the EIR includes MM HAZ-6a and MM HAZ-6b which requires construction contractors to clear materials that could serve as fire fuels before construction begin (MM HAZ-6a) and equip construction equipment with spark arresters (MM HAZ-6b). The project would be required to comply with these mitigation measures due to the proximity of undeveloped lands and the overall fire hazard in the region. Based on the above analysis, the proposed project would we required to incorporate MM HAZ-2a through MM HAZ- 2E, MM HAZ-6a, and MM HAZ-6b, and impacts would remain less than significant, consistent with the EIR. The proposed project would include an additional 20 new residential units; however, these additional units were originally accounted for in the UDSP EIR and do not represent an increase in impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials because the proposed project would involve similar construction activities, occur within the same footprint, and involve similar residential uses (once operational) as analyzed under the EIR. There are no changed circumstances and no new information that would alter the impact conclusions of the UDSP EIR. Therefore, no new significant impacts or a substantial increase in severity of impacts previously identified in the UDSP EIR would result. 3.3.7 Noise The UDSP EIR determined that impacts related to groundborne vibration exposure associated with construction activities would be less than significant (Impact N-2). Also, the EIR concluded that implementation of the UDSP would result in no instances where existing noise sensitive land uses would be exposed to significant traffic noise. Therefore, impacts related to the exposure of increased traffic noise on noise-sensitive land uses would be less than significant (Impact N-3). Noise impacts from construction activities occurring in Plan area would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, the location of the equipment, the timing and duration of the noise-generating construction activities, and the distance to the closest noise-sensitive receptors. Projected noise levels from construction activities associated with buildout of the UDSP are provided on Tables 3.8-6 and 3.8-7 of the UDSP EIR; these tables indicate that grading and framing/exterior activities have the potential to result in noise levels that could be SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 29 MAY 2024 potentially significant if they are experienced within 500 feet of residences outside the hours of 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM (Impact N-1). However, the UDSP EIR concluded that implementation of MM N-1a, MM N-1b, and MM N-1c would reduce potential construction noise impacts to a less-than-significant level; MM N-1a restricts noise- generating construction activities within 500 feet of residences between the hours of 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM; MM N- 1b requires contractors to notify residences within 500 feet of construction areas of the construction schedule in writing prior to the commencement of construction activities. MM N-1b also requires the construction contractor to designate a noise disturbance coordinator who is responsible for responding to noise complaints. MM N-1c requires construction contractors to locate stationary noise-generating construction equipment as far away as possible from existing residences. To address potential construction noise, the project, which is located adjacent to exiting residences, would be required to comply with MM N-1a, MM N-1b, and MM N-1c. The UDSP EIR noted that implementation of the UDPS has the potential to expose proposed noise-sensitive land uses (residences located adjacent to Snyder Lane and residences and mixed-use Rohnert Park Expressway) to traffic noise considered to be potentially significant (Impact N-4). The project site is located immediately east of Snyder Lane; therefore, Impact N-4 is potentially significant as related to the proposed project. However, the EIR determined that MM N-4a and MM N-4b would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. MM N-4a requires a qualified acoustical consultant to assist in design treatments for residences located adjacent to Snyder Lane that would reduce exterior noise exposure levels to less than 60 day/night level decibels (dB ldn). The mitigation measure outlines treatments that include installing a soundwall, earth berm, or placement of building structures between roadway and outdoor activity areas. The measure also outlines building setback distances that if followed would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. MM N-4b requires a qualified acoustical consultant to ensure that interior noise levels at residences does not exceed as a result of traffic noise 45 dB Ldn. If the consultant determines treatments are necessary, these may include installing acoustically rated windows and blocking sound transmission paths through vents or other openings in the building shell. A noise assessment was performed in conjunction with MM 4-a and MM 4-b titled Environmental Noise Assessment Snyder Lane Commons Residential Development (Appendix E). This assessment determined that the proposed project is predicted to be exposed to future traffic noise levels under interior noise level standard for residential uses. However, a portion of the proposed project was predicted to be exposed to future traffic noise levels in excess of the exterior noise level standard without treatment. To ensure this impact would be less-than-significant and be consistent with the analysis in the EIR, the proposed project would install three traffic noise barriers. As described in Section 2.1.2 of this Addendum, these barriers would be 6 – 7 feet tall and are incorporated as part of the project description. The UDSP EIR also determined that implementation of the UDSP would expose offsite noise-sensitive land uses to cumulative traffic levels; this impact was determined to be significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted (Impact N-5). Based on the above analysis, other than cumulative traffic noise exposure to offsite noise-sensitive land uses, the proposed project would be required to comply with MM N-1a through N-1c, N-4a, and N-4b to ensure noise associated with construction activities would remain less than significant consistent with the EIR and future residences would not be exposed to noise levels in excess of existing standards. The proposed project has already complied with MM N-4a and MM N-4b as discussed above. The proposed project would include an additional 20 new residential units; however, these additional units were originally accounted for in the UDSP EIR and do not represent an increase in impacts related to noise because the proposed project would involve similar construction activities, occur within the same footprint, and involve similar residential uses (once operational) as analyzed under SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 30 MAY 2024 the EIR. There are no changed circumstances and no new information that would alter the impact conclusions of the UDSP EIR. Therefore, no new significant impacts or a substantial increase in severity of impacts previously identified in the UDSP EIR would result. 3.3.8 Public Services The UDSP EIR analyzed impacts to public services associated with the implementation of the UDSP. The EIR noted that the City’s Department of Public Safety (DPS) indicated it may have difficulty serving the Plan area without a new fire station, staffing, and equipment. The EIR determined that while there is the potential need for construction of new facilities, those specific construction impacts would be beyond the impacts assessed in this EIR related to urbanization and construction of new development and associated facilities. Therefore, the EIR concluded the impact would be less than significant (Impact PS-1). The UDSP EIR noted that implementation of the Plan would result in the development of up to 1,732 dwelling units and that these units could be expected to generate up to 468 elementary school-age children, 237 middle school- age children, and 277 high school-age children, totaling 982 school-age children. The EIR further states that the Plan would have no impact on elementary or middle school capacity because those students are accounted for within the General Plan projections for those students; the CRPUSD is expected to have excess capacity for those students. The project is required to pay school fees, as noted in MM PS-2a to ensure impacts to schools are mitigated. Therefore, based on the above analysis, the proposed project would be required to incorporate MM PS-2a, and impacts would remain less than significant, consistent with the analysis in the EIR. The proposed project would include an additional 20 new residential units which were originally accounted for in the UDSP EIR. These changes do not represent an increase in public service impacts. There are no changed circumstances and no new information that would alter the impact conclusions of the UDSP EIR. Therefore, no new significant impacts or a substantial increase in severity of impacts previously identified in the UDSP EIR would result. 3.3.9 Transportation and Traffic The UDSP EIR analyzed the impacts to transportation and traffic associated with the implementation of the UDSP. The EIR analyzed impacts to the level of service of intersections and roadway segments at both the local and regional level. On September 27, 2013, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 743 which eliminated reliance on level of service and other similar measures of vehicle capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining impacts under CEQA. In 2018, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) eliminated auto delay and level of service for CEQA purposes and, instead require the use of vehicle miles traveled or VMT, as the preferred CEQA transportation metric. The City does not have any adopted VMT thresholds or screening parameters to identify projects not required to evaluate VMT. The OPR Technical Advisory for Evaluating Transportation states that "projects that generate 110 daily trips per day or less may be assumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact. This level of trip generation equates to about 10,000 square feet of office space, 11 single- family dwelling units, or 17 multi-family dwelling units.” Although the proposed project includes a net increase of 20 additional units compared to what was proposed in the UDSP for the project site, because of unit reductions in SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 31 MAY 2024 other areas of the UDSP, the overall residential unit count is within the overall 1,736 units evaluated in the UDSP EIR. The project does not propose an increase in overall number of units beyond what was evaluated in the UDSP EIR and does not trigger the threshold to conduct a new analysis of traffic or VMT. Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, development projects that have already been analyzed by a previously certified EIR shall not be required to conduct further environmental analysis, unless the project proposes substantial changes, or new information of substantial importance unknown during the original analysis and confirms the project would result in a new significant impact. The UDSP EIR determined implementation of the UDSP would result in less-than-significant impacts related to impeding emergency access (Impacts TRA-2, TRA-10, and TRA-20) and disruption of alternative modes of transportation (Impacts TRA-3, TRA-12, and TRA-21). As described in the UDSP EIR, traffic associated with buildout of Plan area would result in unacceptable level of service (LOS) conditions at multiple intersections (Impacts TRA-1, TRA-4, TRA-5, TRA-6, TRA-7, TRA-8, TRA-9, TRA- 11, TRA-13, TRA-14, TRA-15, TRA-16, TRA-17, TRA-18, TRA-19 and TRA-22), several of which were described as significant and unavoidable. The UDSP EIR established thirteen (13) integrated mitigation measures to reduce the significance of these impacts. Eleven of these mitigation measures require improvements to roadways and intersections within the City’s jurisdiction and two require coordination with outside agencies on intersections in Sonoma County and the City of Cotati. These mitigation measures are being implemented through both developer construction efforts and the payment of mitigation fees, which allow the City and other agencies to construct the mitigation projects. The implementation of the mitigation measures is being coordinated with phases of development. Table 4, below, summarizes the mitigation measures, their status and the plan for completing incomplete measures. Table 4 illustrates that all of the eleven mitigation measures located in the City are funded and designed; seven of these measures are complete and one (widening of Snyder Lane) has been partially completed. The remaining measures are scheduled for implementation in 2024 and 2025, concurrent with buildout of the proposed project. For the two regional mitigation measures, the City has established funding mechanisms to ensure benefitting developers pay their fair share of contemplated regional improvements. The proposed project will pay City PF Fees sufficient to fund its fair share of the remaining City improvements (TR- 4a and TR-6a) along with regional traffic fees that apply to the University District. Table 4. Summary of Transportation Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure Description Status TRA-1a Add center left turn lane on RPX at SSU access Completed by Vast Oak developer. TRA-4a Install a traffic signal at Snyder Lane and Keiser Avenue Design complete. Construction by City scheduled for 2024. Project to pay City’s PF Fee to ensure fair share contribution. SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 32 MAY 2024 Table 4. Summary of Transportation Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure Description Status TRA-4b Widen Keiser Avenue westbound approach at Snyder Lane Completed by Vast Oak/Bristol developers. TRA-5a Add separate right and left turn lanes on eastbound Keiser Avenue approach to Petaluma Hill Road Completed by Vast Oak developer. TRA-5b Add center turn lane on Petaluma Hill Road at Keiser Avenue Design complete. Construction by Vast Oak developer scheduled for 2024 (concurrent with TRA-14a). TRA- 6a Widen Snyder Lane between Keiser Avenue and Southwest Boulevard Widening complete between San Francisco Drive and Southwest Boulevard by City. Design complete between Keiser Avenue and Lawrence Jones Middle School. Construction by City scheduled for 2024. Project to pay City’s PF Fee to ensure fair share contribution. Design programmed for 2025 between Lawrence Jones Middle School and San Francisco Drive. Project to pay City’s PF Fee to ensure fair share contribution. TRA-6b Reconfigure Snyder Lane/RPX intersection Completed by City. TRA-7a Install Traffic Signal/Roundabout at RPX/SSU access Completed by Vast Oak developer. TRA-8a Install southbound right turn lane and eastbound right turn lane and left turn lane at RPX and Petaluma Hill Road Completed by Vast Oak developer. TRA-9a Coordinate with Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) and Sonoma County on traffic congestion at Petaluma Hill Road and Adobe Road in Penngrove (significant and unavoidable impact because intersection is outside of City jurisdiction) All USDP projects make regional traffic payments to City for fair share of this intersection improvement. City transmits payments to SCTA annually. Project will pay its University District Regional Traffic Fee. TRA-11a Prepare plans showing access strategy for all UDSP intersections on to RPX Plans and construction completed by Vast Oak developer TRA-14a Signalize Petaluma Hill Road/Keiser Avenue intersection Design complete. Construction by Vast Oak developer scheduled for 2024 (concurrent with TRA-5b). TRA–18a Coordinate with City of Cotati on traffic congestion at East Cotati Avenue and Old Redwood Highway (significant and unavoidable impact because intersection is outside of City jurisdiction) City has established and is collecting fair share contributions from development taking access from East Cotati Avenue and is coordinating with City of Cotati. SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 33 MAY 2024 The UDSP EIR evaluated the increase in traffic associated with buildout of 1,732 units. The 2014 Addendum reduced the total number of units from 1,732 to 1,645. The project would increase the total of number of units to 1,665, which would be less than what was analyzed in the EIR. Therefore, the EIR traffic analysis has captured the proposed project. As described above, the applicant is required to pay the City’s PF Fee and University District regional traffic impact fee, to fund the remaining improvements identified in the EIR and summarized in Table 4. The proposed project would include an additional 20 new residential units which represents an approximately 1.2% increase of the total units accounted for in the 2014 Addendum. However, these additional units were originally accounted for in the UDSP EIR. There are no changed circumstances and no new information that would alter the impact conclusions of the UDSP EIR. Therefore, no new significant impacts or a substantial increase in severity of impacts previously identified in the UDSP EIR would result. 3.3.10 Water Resources The UDSP EIR concluded that implementation of the UDSP would not result in significant impacts related to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow hazards (Impact WR-6), would not result in significant impacts to groundwater supplies (Impact WR-7), insufficient surface water quantity (Impact WR-8), or use of recycled water (Impact WR-9). A water supply assessment was prepared for the UDSP in 2004 that concluded there is a sufficient water supply for the UDSP. In accordance with state law, the City has prepared an Urban Water Management Plan in 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020, all of which document that the City has adequate water supply for planned development, including the UDSP, under all hydrologic conditions. Potential impacts related to drainage patterns were determined to be less than significant with the incorporation of MM WR-1a (Impact WR-1). As described in the UDSP EIR, implementation of the UDSP would result in an increase in impervious surface and subsequent runoff, potentially causing flooding in the Plan area. To address this impact, MM WR-1a requires measures identified in the storm water quality management plan and storm water drainage detention analysis prepared for the UDSP to be implemented. Compliance with MM WR-1a would ensure no net increase in peak stormwater discharge relative to current conditions. The project would be required to demonstrate no net increase in stormwater flows relative to existing conditions in compliance with MM WR-1a. Implementation of the UDSP could result in an increase in pollutants due to additional stormwater runoff that could also affect water quality through erosion by adding additional sediment to area waterways (Impact WR-2 and Impact WR-2). Compliance with existing state and city requirements detailed in MM WR-2a and MM WR-2b would ensure impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level. The project would be required to comply with mitigation measures WR-1a, WR-2a and WR-2b, which set forth state and city requirements to follow during construction and operation to protect water quality. The UDSP EIR also concluded that buildout of the UDSP has the potential for an accidental spill of hazardous vehicular and equipment fluids. This represents a potentially significant impact if spills from construction vehicles and equipment contaminate groundwater and surface waters (Impact WR-4). The impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through the implementation of MM WR-4a and MM WR-4b. MM WR-4a requires the development and implementation of a spill prevention and control program to minimize the potential for, and effects from, spills of hazardous, toxic, or petroleum substances during construction activities; it also requires spills to be reported in compliance with local, regional, and state regulations. MM WR-4b requires that the City be responsible SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 34 MAY 2024 for conducting a detailed analysis and implementing control measures if a spill were to occur. These mitigation measures would apply to the project. As described in the UDSP EIR, implementation of the UDSP could result in construction of housing and commercial structures in a floodplain which could expose people, structures, and/or facilities to significant risk from flooding (Impact WR-5). However, the project site is located outside of a 100-year floodplain; it is within an area designated Zone X by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FEMA 2008). This designation indicates the project site is located outside of a 100-year floodplain. Therefore, this impact was determined to be less than significant and the minor changes due to the project do not alter this analysis. Based on the above analysis, the project would be required to incorporate MM WR-1a, MM WR-2a, MM WR-2b, MM WR-4a, and MM WR-4b and the impacts would continue to be less than significant. The proposed project would include an additional 20 new residential units; however, these additional units were originally accounted for in the UDSP EIR and would involve similar construction activities, occur within the same footprint, and involve similar residential uses (once operational) as analyzed under the EIR. There are no changed circumstances and no new information that would alter the impact conclusions of the UDSP EIR. Therefore, no new significant impacts or a substantial increase in severity of impacts previously identified in the UDSP EIR would result. 3.3.11 Cumulative Impacts The UDSP EIR concluded that implementing the UDSP would not result in cumulatively significant impacts on aesthetics and visuals, cultural resources, land use, population growth in the City, public utilities and services, water supply demand and stormwater runoff (Impacts CE-2, CE-6, CE-7, CE-10, CE-11, CE-13, and CE-14). The UDSP EIR concluded that implementing the UDSP would result in cumulative significant impacts to Biological Resources and Transportation despite mitigation (Impacts CE-5 and CE-12). The proposed project would comply with applicable mitigation measures for Biological and Transportation Resources as identified in the UDSP EIR. The UDSP EIR concluded that implementing the UDSP would result in significant and unavoidable impacts due to loss of open space, conversion of agricultural land, air quality impacts, impacts on land use related to loss of open space, and noise impacts (Impacts CE-1, CE-3, CE-4, CE-8, and CE-9). The proposed project would include an additional 20 new residential units beyond those originally contemplated for the project site. However, because of reductions in density in other areas of the UDSP, the total unit count in the UDSP with the proposed project remains less than was analyzed in the UDSP EIR. The proposed project would involve similar construction activities, occur within the same footprint, and involve similar residential uses (once operational) as analyzed under the EIR. There are no changed circumstances and no new information that would alter the impact conclusions of the UDSP EIR. Therefore, no new significant impacts or a substantial increase in severity of impacts previously identified in the UDSP EIR would result. SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 35 MAY 2024 3.4 Other Environmental Factors 3.4.1 Updated CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Since the UDSP EIR was completed, the CEQA Guidelines were updated to include additional resource areas: Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Wildfire, and Tribal Cultural Resources. The following information is provided for informational purposes only because the updates to the CEQA Guidelines occurred after the UDSP was certified. 3.4.1.1 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? (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, VI. Energy, threshold (a)) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, VI. Energy, threshold (b)) In 2018, the CEQS Guidelines were updated to include an analysis of energy impacts. 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. The City requires compliance with Tier 1 of the California Green Building Standards Code. Because the project would comply with the existing energy standards and regulations, including Tier 1 Green Building requirements, the project would not result in significant impacts associated with the potential to conflict with energy standards and regulations. 3.4.1.2 Forestry Resources Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? In 2010, Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines was updated to include Forestry Resources under Agriculture. The UDSP EIR was prepared prior to 2010; therefore, this analysis was not included in the EIR. The project site has a residential land use designation under the UDSP and the surrounding area is characterized by residential and public SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 36 MAY 2024 institutional uses. Whie there are trees on the project site, no portion of the site meets the definition of forest land,2 as defined in California Public Resources Code Section 12220(g). Timberland3 (as defined by California Public Resources Code Section 4526) or timberland-zoned timberland production4 (as defined by Section 51104(g) of the Government Code) is not present on site, nor are there any active or potential commercial timber operations present in the area. For these reasons, the project would not conflict with lands zoned for forest land, timberland, or timberland production; the project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- forest use; and the project would not involve changes in the existing environment that could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, the project would not result in no impact to forestry resources. 3.4.1.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, threshold (a)) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, threshold (b)) In 2019, the CEQA Guidelines were updated to include an analysis of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). The proposed project would include an additional 20 new residential units which represents an approximately 1.2% increase of the total units accounted for in the 2014 Addendum. However, these additional units were originally accounted for in the UDSP EIR. Although an analysis of greenhouse gas emissions was not required in 2006 when the EIR was drafted, the courts have found that GHG emissions and climate change are not considered “new information” under Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 because the relationship between GHG emissions and climate change were known at the time that the UDSP EIR was prepared (Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 515). In the Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development case, the City of San Diego prepared an addendum to a prior EIR for a residential development project. The original EIR had not addressed GHG emissions and climate change, and the addendum did not address the issue either. The court found that climate change and carbon dioxide emissions had been studied by the federal government since the 1970s and there had been litigation over the environmental effects of climate change since the 1990s, these potential environmental impacts could have been raised at the time the City certified the Final EIR. Therefore, the UDSP EIR can be deemed to have analyzed these issues. Further, the proposed project is an “all-electric” project and will not involve the use of natural gas for operation. This project provision is consistent with the City’s draft General Plan update and regional guidance regarding new 2 “Forest land” is land that can support 10-percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. 3 “Timberland” means land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the board as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of a commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees. Commercial species shall be determined by the board on a district basis. 4 “Timberland production zone” or “TPZ” means an area, which is devoted to and used for growing and harvesting timber, or for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses. SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 37 MAY 2024 development and GHG emissions. While not required, this project element reduces the potential GHG emissions associated with the project. 3.4.1.4 Tribal Cultural Resources Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 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: i) 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 ii) 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 § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, VIII. Tribal Cultural Resources, threshold (a)) In 2016, the CEQA Guidelines were updated to include tribal cultural resources separate from cultural resources. The UDSP EIR discusses tribal cultural resources within the Plan area and consistent with SB 18 the City conducted outreach to the local tribes including the Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria. As described in Section 3.3.5, of this Addendum, the proposed project would be required to implement MM C-5a. This mitigation measure requires that Native American and archaeological monitors be present during all ground- disturbing activities. Furthermore, the mitigation measure requires that a monitoring plan shall be prepared to guide the actions of monitors and construction crews in the event of an archaeological or tribal cultural resource discovery. Because the project would be required to implement this mitigation measure and because Native American representatives were consulted during the preparation of the UDSP EIR, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact to tribal cultural resources. 3.4.1.5 Wildfire If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, XX. Wildfire): (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? (d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 38 MAY 2024 In 2018, the CEQA Guidelines were updated to include an analysis of wildfire impacts. 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 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. The nearest area designated as a very high fire hazard severity zone is located adjacent to North Sonoma Mountain Regional Park, approximately 4 miles east of the project site (CALFIRE 2023). Therefore, the project would not result in a significant impact due to wildfire. 3.4.2 Other Factors Not Previously Discussed in the UDSP EIR The following resource topic areas were not previously analyzed in the UDSP EIR or subsequent addenda. The following information is provided for informational purposes. 3.4.2.1 Mineral Resources Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? The California Department of Conservation (DOC) provides maps that classify lands according to the significance of mineral resource deposits within the area. The DOC designates the project site as being within Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-1), which describes areas where available geologic information indicates that little likelihood exists for the presence of significant mineral resources (DOC 2013). Accordingly, the proposed project would have no impacts related to the loss of availability of mineral resources. Therefore, the project would also not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site. The project would have no impact to mineral resources. 3.5 Applicable Mitigation Measures As shown in Table 5, Applicable UDSP EIR Mitigation Measures, the following mitigation measures would apply to the proposed project. MM BIO-3a, MM BIO-8a, MM BIO-10a, MM N-4a, and MM N-4b apply to the proposed project and have been completed. This is noted in the table. SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 39 MAY 2024 Table 5. Applicable UDSP EIR Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures Aesthetics MM AES-5a: Require Lighting Design to be Shielded and Directed Downward in Compliance with City of Rohnert Park Standards Night lighting along the University District Specific Plan streets, parking areas and any public spaces shall be focused downward and/or shielded to avoid glare and point sources of light interfering with the vision of onsite and offsite residents and motorists on local roadways. Night lighting for streets will be required to conform with City standards regarding street lighting. Lighting elements will be required to be recessed within their fixtures to prevent glare. A specialist in lighting design shall be consulted during project design to determine light source locations, light intensities and type of light source. New lighting levels provided shall 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 annexation area. Air Quality MM AQ-1a: Minimize Dust Emissions and Ensure Consistency with Bay Area Air Quality Management District Guidelines for Reducing Construction Impacts The following control practices shall be required during construction within the University District Specific Plan area to minimize dust emissions and ensure consistency with BAAQMD guidelines for reducing construction impacts: ▪ Water exposed surfaces twice daily. ▪ Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or maintaining at least 2 feet of freeboard on haul trucks. ▪ Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. ▪ Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. ▪ Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. ▪ Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more). ▪ 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. ▪ Replace vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 40 MAY 2024 Table 5. Applicable UDSP EIR Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures These activities shall be required by the City as conditions of approval on all development permits within the University District Specific Plan area, including grading permits. MM AQ-2a: Utilize Measures Identified in URBEMIS 2002 Model to Minimize Air Pollutant Emissions Associated with Residential Projects The City shall require, to the extent feasible, the following measures for development within the University District Specific Plan: ▪ use of solar water heaters, ▪ use of central water heaters, ▪ installation of increased insulation beyond state Title 24 (CCR) requirements, ▪ use of electric landscape maintenance equipment on commercial buildings, and ▪ hot water circulating plumbing. Biological Resources MM BIO-3a: Conduct a Wetlands Evaluation Prior to Development of the Abu-Halawa, Gee, and Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District Properties Prior to development within the Abu-Halawa, Gee, and CRPUSD properties, the project proponent for that development will retain a qualified wetland ecologist to conduct a wetlands evaluation of the proposed development area to ensure that the area does not support potentially jurisdictional wetlands. If wetlands are present and will be filled, the project proponent for that development will develop a wetland mitigation plan that includes a minimum 1:1 replacement to offset the loss of wetlands and habitat function. If the wetlands could be considered jurisdictional by the Corps, then a wetland delineation will be conducted and the results submitted to the Corps. COMPLETED PER AQUATIC RESOURCE DELINEATION REPORT DATED APRIL 2022 (APPENDIX A) MM BIO-5a: Install Construction Barrier Fencing to Protect Sensitive Biological Resources Adjacent to the Construction Zone The project proponent or its contractor will install orange construction barrier fencing to protect sensitive biological resources. The construction specifications will require that a qualified biologist identify sensitive biological habitat on site and identify areas to avoid during construction. Sensitive resources that occur in and adjacent to the proposed construction area (study area) include Hinebaugh Creek, Copeland Creek, unnamed drainages, seasonal wetlands, oak trees, and any active bird nests. Any sensitive resources within the area that can be avoided by construction will be fenced off to avoid disturbance in these areas. Before construction, the construction contractor will work with the project engineer and a resource specialist to identify the locations for the barrier fencing and will place stakes around the sensitive resource sites to indicate these locations. The protected area will be designated as an environmentally sensitive area and clearly identified on the construction specifications. The fencing will be installed before construction activities are initiated and will be maintained throughout the construction period. The following paragraph will be included in the construction specifications: The Contractor’s attention is directed to the areas designated as “environmentally sensitive areas.” These areas are protected, and no entry by the Contractor for any purpose will be allowed unless specifically authorized SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 41 MAY 2024 Table 5. Applicable UDSP EIR Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures in writing by the City. The Contractor will take measures to ensure that Contractor’s forces do not enter or disturb these areas, including giving written notice to employees and subcontractors. Temporary fences around the environmentally sensitive areas will be installed as the first order of work. Temporary fences will be furnished, constructed, maintained, and removed as shown on the plans, as specified in the special provisions, and as directed by the project engineer. The fencing will be commercial-quality woven polypropylene (Tensor Polygrid or equivalent), orange in color, and at least 4 feet high. The fencing will be tightly strung on posts with a maximum 10-foot spacing. MM BIO-8a: Conduct Special-Status Plant Surveys in the Cotati- Rohnert Park Unified School District, Gee, and Abu-Halawa Portions of the Study Area Prior to any development on the CRPUSD, Gee, and Abu-Halawa portions of the specific plan area, the project proponent for that project will retain a botanist to conduct a blooming-period survey of the CRPUSD, Gee, and Abu-Halawa portions of the study area for special-status plant species listed in Table 3.4-2. The appropriate survey period is during late April to early May. Survey methods will be consistent with DFG guidelines for assessing the effects of proposed developments on rare and endangered plants (California Department of Fish and Game 2000). If any special-status plants are identified during the survey, the botanist will photograph, map, and flag locations of the plants, document the location and extent of the special-status plant population on a CNDDB survey form, and submit the completed survey form to the CNDDB. The botanist will also develop additional mitigation measures in cooperation with DFG. USFWS will also be consulted if the species is federally listed. Measures can include avoidance of the plants and establishment of a buffer area, purchase and protection in perpetuity of another population of the affected species, and/or collection of seed to transplant into existing seasonal wetlands in the Anderson 48 Mitigation Area (the least-preferred method). COMPLETED PER SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SURVEY REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 2020 (APPENDIX B) MM BIO-10a: Contact U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to Determine whether Protocol-Level Upland Surveys for California Tiger Salamander on the Abu- Halawa, Gee, and Cotati- Rohnert Park Unified School District Properties Are Warranted USFWS will be contacted prior to development within the Abu-Halawa, Gee, and CRPUSD properties to determine whether protocol-level upland surveys for California tiger salamander are warranted. If protocol-level surveys are required, they will be conducted according to USFWS-approved survey guidelines. In the unlikely event that surveys determine that tiger salamander are present on site, the project proponent for development on those properties would formally consult with USFWS to obtain necessary permits and develop appropriate avoidance/minimization and compensation measures such as relocating salamanders to a protected conservation area and purchasing or creating suitable compensation habitat. Any such permits must be obtained prior to development. COMPLETED PER CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMNDER HABITAT ASSESSMENT DATED NOVEMBER 9, 2022 (APPENDIX C) SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 42 MAY 2024 Table 5. Applicable UDSP EIR Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures MM BIO-13a: Conduct Preconstruction Surveys for Active Burrowing Owl Burrows and Implement the California Department of Fish and Game Guidelines for Burrowing Owl Mitigation, if Necessary The Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, published by DFG (California Department of Fish and Game 1995), recommends that preconstruction surveys be conducted to locate active burrowing owl burrows in the construction area and in a 250-foot-wide buffer zone around the construction area. The project proponent will retain a qualified wildlife biologist to conduct preconstruction surveys for active burrows according to DFG guidelines. The preconstruction surveys will include a breeding season survey and a wintering season survey conducted in the winter and spring/summer prior to initiation of project construction (including grading). If no burrowing owls are detected, then no further mitigation is required. If active burrowing owls are detected in the survey area, the following measures shall be implemented prior to construction. ▪ Occupied burrows shall not be disturbed during the breeding season (February 1–August 31). ▪ When destruction of occupied burrows is unavoidable during the nonbreeding season (September 1–January 31), unsuitable burrows will be enhanced (enlarged or cleared of debris) or new burrows created (installing artificial burrows) at a ratio of 2:1 on nearby protected lands approved by DFG. Newly created burrows will follow guidelines established by DFG. ▪ If owls must be moved away from the study area during the non-breeding season, passive relocation techniques (e.g., installing one-way doors at burrow entrances) will be used instead of trapping. At least 1 week will be necessary to accomplish passive relocation and allow owls to acclimate to alternate burrows. ▪ To offset the loss of burrowing owl nesting and foraging habitat in the construction area, the project proponent will acquire and permanently protect a minimum of 6.5 acres of foraging habitat per occupied burrow identified in the construction area. The protected lands should be located adjacent to the occupied burrowing owl habitat in the study area or at another occupied site near the study area. The location of the protected lands will be determined in coordination with DFG. The project proponent will also prepare a monitoring plan, and provide long-term management and monitoring of the protected lands. The monitoring plan will specify success criteria, identify remedial measures, and require an annual report to be submitted to DFG. ▪ If avoidance is the preferred method of dealing with potential impacts, no disturbance should occur within 160 feet of occupied burrows during the nonbreeding season (September 1–January 31) or within 250 feet during the breeding season (February 1–August 31). Avoidance also requires that at least 6.5 acres of foraging habitat (calculated based on an approximately 300- foot foraging radius around an occupied burrow), contiguous with occupied burrow sites, be permanently preserved for each pair of breeding burrowing owls or single unpaired resident bird. The configuration of the SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 43 MAY 2024 Table 5. Applicable UDSP EIR Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures protected site will be submitted to DFG for approval.’ COMPLETED PER BURROWING OWL AND NESTING BIRD SURVEY DATED APRIL 1, 2024 (APPENDIX D) MM BIO-15a: Avoid the Introduction or Spread of Noxious Weeds into Previously Uninfested Areas To prevent the introduction of new noxious weeds or spread of existing noxious weeds in the study area, the project proponent or its contractors will implement the following measures during construction activities: ▪ Educate construction supervisors and managers on weed identification and the importance of controlling and preventing the spread of noxious weed infestations. ▪ Clean construction equipment at designated wash stations before entering and upon leaving the construction work area. ▪ If seeding will occur as part of the project, seed all disturbed areas with certified weed-free native mixes or certified weed-free rice straw. ▪ Conduct a follow-up inventory of the construction area to verify that construction activities have not resulted in the introduction of new noxious weed infestations. If new noxious weed infestations are located during the follow-up inventory, contact the appropriate resource agency to determine the appropriate species-specific treatment methods. Cultural Resources MM C-4a: Identify Archaeological Sites in the University District Specific Plan Area and Implement Further Measures Impacts to potentially significant archaeological sites within the Specific Plan area outside of the Vast Oak and UD LLC properties can be reduced to a less-than- significant level by conducting a survey to identify archaeological sites in the Specific Plan area, evaluating any sites that are identified and implementing further mitigation measures as necessary. Mitigation measures might include capping, avoidance, conservation easements, and data recovery excavation, but are dependent on the nature of the archaeological site concerned, as well as the nature and severity of impacts. The survey will be undertaken by a qualified archaeologist once property access is granted to the city and prior to notice to proceed with construction in unexamined areas. Similar to the steps taken in support of this EIR section, qualified archaeologists would record the attributes of identified archaeological sites, delineate their boundaries through a combination of surface mapping and excavation, test excavate the site to determine significance, and identify reasonable measures by which impacts would be reduced. Mitigation measures such as avoidance, capping, and conservation easements shall be implemented in order to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. The City is responsible to ensure that the actions described above occur before construction commences outside of the Vast Oak and UD LLC properties. SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 44 MAY 2024 Table 5. Applicable UDSP EIR Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures MM C-5a: Implement a Monitoring Program for Buried Cultural Resources The City shall require that Native American and archaeological monitors are present during all ground-disturbing activities. A monitoring plan shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist to guide the actions of monitors and construction crews in the event of an archaeological discovery. The contents of the monitoring plan would conform to the description given in Mitigation Measure C-1a. [The monitoring plan shall contain the stop-work procedures to be implemented in the event of an archaeological discovery; methods to be employed by archaeologists in determining the extent and significance of archaeological discoveries; a research design and significance thresholds by which to evaluate the significance of archaeological discoveries; data recovery procedures (that is, standards for mitigative archaeological excavation); and standards for curation of archaeological materials and reporting of discoveries.] Geology and Soils MM GEO-2a: Comply with Applicable Uniform Building Code Standards The project applicant will design and construct all project facilities in accordance with the most recent seismic standards of the California Building Standards Code. The City shall confirm, during plan check, that the most recent code has been followed. MM GEO-7a: Process Native Topsoil Prior to Construction The project applicant will scarify, moisture-condition, and recompact native topsoil during project construction to minimize the potential for post-construction settlement. MM GEO-8a: Design Foundations to Account for Expansive Soil Conditions The project applicant will design and construct the foundations and/or building pads for all proposed project structures using standard engineering practices that account for, and minimize damage resulting from, expansive soil conditions. Specific design and construction methods will be selected during the final stages of project design, and will likely include one or more of the following (Michelucci & Associates 2003): ▪ replacement of expansive native soils with non-expansive fill material, ▪ treatment of expansive native soils with lime to reduce expansion potential, ▪ installation of post-tensioned concrete slab-on-grade foundations, or ▪ use of drilled, cast-in-place, reinforced concrete piers and concrete grade beams for foundation support. Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM HAZ-2a: Follow City of Rohnert Park Fire Department and Other Guidelines for Storage and Handling of Hazardous Materials The City shall require that contractors transport, store, and handle hazardous materials required for construction in a manner consistent with relevant regulations and guidelines, including those recommended and enforced by the City of Rohnert Park Fire Department (RPFD). Among other things, the RPFD’s guidelines require contractors to transport and store materials in appropriate and approved containers along designated truck routes, maintain required clearances, and handle materials using fire department–approved protocols. SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 45 MAY 2024 Table 5. Applicable UDSP EIR Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures MM HAZ-2b: Immediately Contain Spills, Excavate Spill-Contaminated Soil, and Dispose of It at an Approved Facility In the event of a spill of hazardous materials in an amount reportable to the RPFD (as established by fire department guidelines), the contractor shall immediately control the source of the leak and contain the spill. If required by the RPFD or other regulatory agencies, contaminated soils will be excavated and disposed of off site at a facility approved to accept such soils. MM HAZ-2c: Immediately Contain Spills, Excavate Spill-Contaminated Soil, and Dispose of It at an Approved Facility The City shall require the applicant to develop plans to prevent the pollution of surface water and groundwater and to promote the health and safety of workers and other people in the project vicinity. These programs shall include an operations and maintenance plan, a site-specific safety plan, and a fire prevention plan, in addition to the SWPPP required for hydrology impacts. The programs are required by law and shall require approval by several responsible agencies. Required approvals are as follows: the SWPPP shall be approved by the RWQCB; the site-specific safety plan and the operations and maintenance plan shall be approved by Cal-OSHA; and the fire safety plan shall be approved by the Rohnert Park Fire Department. The City shall also require the applicant to develop and implement a hazardous materials management plan that addresses public health and safety issues by providing safety measures, including release prevention measures; employee training, notification, and evacuation procedures; and adequate emergency response protocols and cleanup procedures. Finally, the City shall require the applicant and its designated contractors to comply with Cal-OSHA, as well as federal standards, for the storage and handling of fuels, flammable materials, and common construction-related hazardous materials and for fire prevention. Cal-OSHA requirements can be found in the California Labor Code, Division 5, Chapter 2.5. Federal standards can be found in Occupational Safety and Health Administration Regulations, Standards—29 CFR. MM HAZ-2d : Screen Surface Soils in the Project Area for Residuals from Agricultural Chemicals (Fertilizers and Pesticides) To reduce the potential for human exposure to potentially harmful pesticide and fertilizer residues, surface soils in the area shall be sampled or field screened by a qualified hazardous materials consultant for residuals from agricultural chemicals (fertilizers and pesticides) during construction. The Sonoma County Environmental Health Department shall review the results of soils sampling or screening and shall identify appropriate handling in accordance with the department’s guidelines. In the event that soil sampling or field screening indicates the presence of hazardous concentrations of agricultural chemicals, then the following measures shall apply. Project activities shall not be performed within lands where agricultural chemicals have been applied until completion of the restricted access period. The use of appropriate personal protective gear shall be required when working within or adjacent to agricultural lands during the 30 days following the application of agricultural chemicals. MM HAZ-2e : Screen Surface Soils in the Project Area for Residuals from Soil generated by construction activities shall be stockpiled on site in a secure and safe manner and sampled prior to reuse or disposal at an appropriate facility. SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 46 MAY 2024 Table 5. Applicable UDSP EIR Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures Agricultural Chemicals (Fertilizers and Pesticides) MM HAZ-6a : Before Construction Begins, Clear Materials That Could Serve as Fire Fuel from Areas Slated for Construction Activities If dry vegetation or other fire fuels exist on or near staging areas, welding areas, or any other area on which equipment will be operated, contractors shall clear the immediate area of fire fuel. To maintain a firebreak and minimize the availability of fire fuels, the City shall require contractors to maintain areas subject to construction activities clear of combustible natural materials to the extent feasible. To avoid conflicts with policies to preserve riparian habitat, areas to be cleared shall be identified with the assistance of a qualified biologist. MM HAZ-6b : Before Construction Begins, Clear Materials That Could Serve as Fire Fuel from Areas Slated for Construction Activities The City shall require contractors to equip any construction equipment that normally includes a spark arrester with an arrester in good working order. Subject equipment includes, but is not limited to, heavy equipment and chainsaws. Implementation of this measure would minimize a source of construction-related fire. Noise MM N-1a: Mitigation Measure N-1a: Restrict Hours of Construction Activity Noise-generating construction activities within 500 feet of residences will be restricted by the City to the hours of operation between 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Exceptions to this may be allowed if an exemption by special permit is issued by the superintendent of public works prior to commencement of construction. MM N-1b: Disseminate Essential Information to Residences and Implement a Complaint/Response Tracking Program The construction contractor will notify residences within 500 feet of the construction areas of the construction schedule in writing before construction. The construction contractor will designate a noise disturbance coordinator who will be responsible for responding to complaints regarding construction noise. The coordinator will determine the cause of the complaint and will ensure that reasonable measures are implemented to correct the problem. A contact telephone number for the noise disturbance coordinator will be conspicuously posted on construction site fences and will be included in the written notification of the construction schedule sent to nearby residents. MM N-1c: Locate Construction Equipment as Far Away from Residences as Feasible Stationary construction equipment that generates noise levels in excess of 65 dBA L eq 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. MM N-4a: Ensure that Noise Levels at Residential Outdoor The project applicant shall retain a qualified acoustical consultant to design treatments for residences located adjacent to Snyder Lane and Rohnert Park Expressway such that exterior noise levels do not exceed 60 dB Ldn at outdoor activity areas. Treatments may include methods such as construction of a soundwall or an earth berm between the new residences and the roadway or placement of building SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 47 MAY 2024 Table 5. Applicable UDSP EIR Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures Activity Areas Do Not Exceed 60 dB Ldn structures between roadway and outdoor activity areas. Alternatively, the following setbacks from the design road right of way as shown in the University District Specific Plan would ensure that noise levels at outdoor activity areas do not exceed 60 dB Ldn. No additional setback would be required along Petaluma Hill Road, as the 60 dB Ldn contour falls within the structural buffer on the west side of Petaluma Hill Road. ▪ 62 feet on the north side of Rohnert Park Expressway from Petaluma Hill Road to the North SSU Access, ▪ 99.5 feet on each side of Rohnert Park Expressway from the North SSU Access to Snyder Lane, and ▪ 28 feet on the south side of Keiser Avenue. The acoustical consultant will prepare and submit to the City a report detailing the acoustical treatments to be used for compliance with this performance standard. The report must be reviewed and approved by the City before a building permit will be issued. COMPLETED PER ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE ASSESSMENT DATED JUNE 29, 2023 (APPENDIX E) MM N-4b: Apply Acoustical Insulation Treatments to Residential Units The project applicant shall retain a qualified acoustical consultant to ensure that interior noise levels at residences does not exceed as a result of traffic noise 45 dB Ldn. If treatments are necessary, treatments may include installing acoustically rated windows, and blocking sound transmission paths through vents or other openings in the building shell. If windows must be closed to achieve this performance standard, air conditioning must be provided. The acoustical consultant will prepare and submit to the City a report detailing compliance with the interior noise performance standard or, if necessary the acoustical treatments to be applied to the building for compliance with the interior noise performance standard. The report must be reviewed and approved by the City before a building permit is issued. COMPLETED PER ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE ASSESSMENT DATED JUNE 29, 2023 (APPENDIX E) Public Services MM PS-2a: Payment of School Fees by Developer The City will ensure that the developer pays the fees required by CRPUSD to compensate for impacts to schools associated with this project. Transportation and Traffic MM TRA-4a: Install Traffic Signal at Snyder Lane/Keiser Avenue Intersection A traffic signal should be installed at the intersection of Snyder Lane/Keiser Avenue. The signal would need to be coordinated with the adjacent signal at Creekside (Lawrence E. Jones) Middle School, which is 400 feet to the south. Particular focus would need to be placed on the southbound left-turn lane into Creekside Middle School, which currently queues all the way to Keiser Avenue during peak drop-off and pick-up periods. It is not possible to reduce the school-related queuing through SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 48 MAY 2024 Table 5. Applicable UDSP EIR Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures provision of dual southbound left turning lanes at the school signal, as it would require reconfiguration of the school site and parking lots. For this same reason, it is not possible to mitigate the Snyder Lane/Keiser Avenue intersection with a two-way left- turn lane to assist outbound left-turning vehicles, since the center turn lane space is already occupied by school-related queuing. If the CRPUSD makes onsite changes to improve operation of the Snyder Lane traffic signal at Creekside Middle School-Rancho Grande mobile home park by 2012, adding turn lanes without a traffic signal may mitigate the Snyder Lane/Keiser Avenue intersection. A policy shall be added to the University District Specific Plan requiring analysis of traffic conditions at the completion of the early phase, and recommending changes, if necessary, in the proposed mitigation measures as a result of potential improvements to the Snyder Lane/Creekside Middle School signal. This MM is designed and funded as a City Capital Improvement Project scheduled for construction in 2024. The project will pay the City’s PF Fees to support its fair share of this required improvement. MM TRA-5a: Add Separate Left and Right Turn Lanes on Eastbound Keiser Avenue Approach The existing single-lane eastbound approach should be widened to provide separate left- and right-turn lanes. This MM has been completed by the Vast Oak developer. MM TRA-5b: Add a Center Turn Lane on Petaluma Hill Road Adjacent to Keiser Avenue Table 4.3-4 in the General Plan indicates that Petaluma Hill Road will be upgraded to include intersection improvements and turn lanes between a point 1,500 feet north of Keiser Avenue and Railroad Avenue. In order to accommodate growth associated with buildout of the University District Specific Plan, widening of Petaluma Hill Road to accommodate a center turn lane will need to be completed for a distance of approximately 500 feet to both the north and south of Keiser Avenue. As a result, northbound Petaluma Hill Road would include a northbound left-turn lane, and drivers turning left from Keiser onto northbound Petaluma Hill would have a center refuge area. Approvals for the roadway widening must be obtained from both the City of Rohnert Park and the County of Sonoma. Construction by Vast Oak developer scheduled for 2024 (concurrent with MM TRA- 14a). MM TRA-6a: Widen Snyder Lane between Keiser Avenue and Southwest Boulevard As indicated in Mitigation Measure TRA-4b, Table 4.3-4 in the General Plan indicates that Snyder Lane will be upgraded to a four-lane major arterial between the south side of the G Section neighborhood and Southwest Boulevard. Under 2012 conditions, this widening will need to be extended through the Rohnert Park Expressway intersection in order to improve conditions at the Rohnert Park Expressway/Snyder Lane intersection. The City has completed Snyder Lane widening between San Franscico Drive and Southwest Boulevard (including the Snyder Lane/RPX intersection). The remainder of the widening project is being designed and funded as a City Capital Improvement SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 49 MAY 2024 Table 5. Applicable UDSP EIR Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures Project, which includes the Snyder/Keiser intersection signalization described in MM-TRA-4a. The project is scheduled for construction in 2024 and 2025. The project will pay the City’s PF Fees to support its fair share of this required improvement MM TRA-6B: Reconfigure Rohnert Park Expressway/Snyder Lane Intersection Table 4.1-5 of the General Plan, in addition to Figure D-15 of Appendix D in the General Plan EIR, shows the future intersection lane configurations at Rohnert Park Expressway/Snyder Lane upon widening of Snyder Lane. The recommended lane configuration makes no changes to Rohnert Park Expressway. The northbound Snyder Lane approach would be reconfigured to include dual left-turn lanes, a through lane, and a shared through-right lane. The southbound approach would include a left-turn lane, dual through lanes, and a right-turn lane. This configuration also allows the signal to operate with protected left turns on Snyder Lane rather than the existing split phase operation. The City has completed this MM. MM TRA-7A: Install Traffic Signal or Roundabout at Rohnert Park Expressway/Sonoma State University Access Intersection A traffic signal or roundabout would need to be installed at the intersection in order to accommodate 2012 plus Project Buildout traffic. A traffic signal should include left-turn lanes on Rohnert Park Expressway. The new southbound project street should include separate right turn and left-through lanes. Alternatively, a dual-lane roundabout could be installed at the intersection. A roundabout should include dual lane approaches on Rohnert Park Expressway and single lane approaches from SSU and the University District Specific Plan area. This MM has been completed by the Vast Oak developer. MM TRA-9a: City of Rohnert Park Coordination with SCTA and Sonoma County The City of Rohnert Park shall work with the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) and the County to determine a fair-share portion of funds to alleviate congestion in Penngrove and, if deemed appropriate, collect a fair-share allocation from developers of the University District Specific Plan. The City has calculated a fair share fee for the University District which it collects and transmits to SCTA annually. The project will pay its University District Regional Traffic Fee. MM TRA-14a: Signalize Petaluma Hill Road/Keiser Avenue Intersection Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection will reduce LOS F delays on the eastbound approach during peak hours, under 2020 plus University District Specific Plan buildout conditions to acceptable operations. Construction by Vast Oak developer scheduled for 2024 (concurrent with MM TRA-5b). Water Resources MM WR-1a: Implement Recommendations of Storm Water Quality Management Plan and The measures identified in the storm water quality management plan and storm drainage detention analysis shall be implemented to reduce runoff and to capture flows so that the existing stormwater system’s capacity is not exceeded. As a performance standard, measures to be implemented from those reports shall provide for no net increase in peak stormwater discharge relative to current conditions, and SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 50 MAY 2024 Table 5. Applicable UDSP EIR Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures Storm Drainage Detention Analysis ensure that 100-year flooding and its potential impacts are maintained at or below current levels. The project will implement measures provided in the report. Prior to approving specific development projects, the City will require that project applicants demonstrate that their project is consistent with the recommendations and conclusions of these reports and will implement the measures identified in the reports. If the reports do not adequately address the drainage impacts of the specific development, the City will require applicants to prepare additional analysis and incorporate measures consistent with the scope and performance standards associated with the reports to ensure that drainage and flooding impacts are avoided. MM WR-2a: Street Sweeping To minimize the amount of pollutants entering the storm drain system, project roadways and other paved areas shall be cleaned regularly using street sweeping equipment. Additionally, litter and debris that may accumulate on the streets of the project site shall be regularly collected and properly disposed. These activities shall be the responsibility of the City of Rohnert Park and/or its contractors. MM WR-2b: Best Management Practices to Maximize Stormwater Quality The storm water quality management plan and storm drainage detention analysis described above in Mitigation Measure WR-1a will include BMPs to maximize stormwater quality, and meet the University District Specific Plan requirement that a significant water quality treatment program is implemented. The BMPs will include a combination of source control, structural improvements, and treatment systems to the extent required to ensure compliance with the CWA and regulations noted above. BMPs may include but not be limited to the following: ▪ A dry detention basin(s), which is typically dry except after a major rainstorm when it will temporarily fill with stormwater, designed to decrease runoff during storm events, prevent flooding, and allow for off-peak discharge. Basin features shall include maintenance schedules for periodic removal of sedimentation, excessive vegetation, and debris that may clog basin inlets and outlets. ▪ Grass strips, high infiltration substrates, and grassy swales shall be used where feasible throughout the project site to reduce runoff, serve as biofilters, and provide initial stormwater treatment. This type of treatment would apply particularly to parking lots. ▪ Physical devices shall be placed at outlets of pipes and channels to reduce the velocity or the energy of exiting water. Outlet protection helps to prevent scour and to minimize the potential for downstream erosion by reducing the velocity or energy of concentrated stormwater flows. ▪ Pervious/porous pavement shall be used to reduce runoff when economically feasible. The pavement is a unique cement-based concrete product that has a porous structure that allows rainwater to pass directly through the pavement and into the soil. SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 51 MAY 2024 Table 5. Applicable UDSP EIR Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures The City, its contractors, and/or applicants for specific development projects within the University District Specific Plan area shall select a combination of BMPs that is expected to minimize runoff flows and remove contaminants from stormwater discharges. The final selection and design of BMPs shall provide maximum contaminant removal, represent the best available technology that is economically achievable, and shall explicitly identify the expected level of effectiveness at contaminant removal. The City and/or its contractors shall inspect following construction to ensure that all identified BMPs have been properly installed. The project shall adopt a regular maintenance and monitoring schedule to ensure that these BMPs function properly during project operations. If necessary, the City shall require that additional BMPs be designed and implemented if those originally constructed do not achieve the identified performance standard. MM WR-4a: Implement a Spill Prevention and Control Program The City, its contractors, and/or applicants for specific development projects within the University District Specific Plan area shall develop and implement a spill prevention and control program to minimize the potential for, and effects from, spills of hazardous, toxic, or petroleum substances during construction activities. The program shall be completed before any construction activities begin as part of the process to obtain the required NPDES General Permit. Implementation of this measure would comply with state and federal water quality regulations and reduce the impact to a less-than- significant level. The federal reportable spill quantity for petroleum products, as defined in 40 CFR 110 is any oil spill that 1) violates applicable water quality standards, 2) causes a film or sheen upon or discoloration of the water surface or adjoining shoreline, or 3) causes a sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface of the water or adjoining shorelines. If a spill is reportable, the contractor’s superintendent would notify the Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety and the DTSC, which have spill response and clean-up ordinances to govern emergency spill response. A written description of reportable releases must be submitted to the RWQCB. This submittal must include a description of the release, including the type of material and an estimate of the amount spilled, the date of the release, an explanation of why the spill occurred, and a description of the steps taken to prevent and control future releases. The releases would be documented on a spill report form. MM WR-4b: Implement Measures to Maintain Groundwater or Surface Water Quality If an appreciable spill has occurred and results determine that project activities have adversely affected surface or groundwater quality, the City shall be responsible for ensuring that a detailed analysis will be performed by a registered environmental assessor to identify the likely cause of contamination. This analysis will conform to American Society for Testing and Materials standards, and will include recommendations for reducing or eliminating the source or mechanisms of contamination. Based on this analysis, the City, its contractors, and/or applicants for SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 52 MAY 2024 Table 5. Applicable UDSP EIR Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures specific development projects within the University District Specific Plan area will select and implement measures to control contamination, with a performance standard that groundwater quality must be returned to baseline conditions. These measures will be subject to approval by the City. SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 53 MAY 2024 4 References Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) 1999. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: Assessing the Impacts of Projects and Plans. California Department of Conservation (DOC) 2013. California Geological Survey. Updated Mineral Land Classification Map for Portland Cement Concrete-Grade Aggregate in the Noth San Francisco Bay Production-Consumption Region, Marin, Napa, Sonoma, and Southwestern Solano Counties, California. Accessed at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mineralresources/#webmaps. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE) 2023. State Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Sonoma County. June 15, 2023. Accessed at https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we- do/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones/fire-hazard-severity-zones- maps-2022. City of Rohnert Park 2005. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the University District Specific Plan (SCH # 200312014). City of Rohnert Park 2006. Final Environmental Impact Report for the University District Specific Plan (SCH # 200312014). Adopted March 2006 City of Rohnert Park 2006. University District Specific Plan. Adopted May 2006. City of Rohnert Park 2014. CEQA Addendum - Evaluation of Proposed Amendments to the University District Specific Plan. Prepared February 2014. City of Rohnert Park 2022. Final Initial Study – Negative Declaration for the Rohnert Park Housing Element. Dudek 2019. Historical Resources Evaluation Report for the Kiser Avenue Reconstruction Project. March 2019. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 2008. National Flood Insurance Program. Flood Insurance Rate Map. Panel 881 of 1150. Map Number 06097C0881E. Effective Date December 2, 2009. Integral Consulting Inc. 2023. California Tiger Salamander Habitat Assessment for the Creath Property Project in Rohnert Park. Johnson Marigot Consulting 2020. Special-Status Plant Survey Report – Creath Property. September 2020. Johnson Marigot Consulting 2022. Aquatic Resource Delineation Report – Creath Property. April 2022. SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT / ADDENDUM 14235.09 54 MAY 2024 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Appendix A – Aquatic Delineation Report Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Creath Property Sonoma County, California April 2022 Prepared for: Creath Family Trust Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Creath Property Sonoma County, California April 2022 Prepared by: Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Sadie McGarvey 433 Visitacion Ave Brisbane, California 94005 On behalf of: Creath Family Trust Cory Creath 205 Scott Street Mill Valley, CA 94941 Creath Property i Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Aquatic Resource Delineation Report April 2022 Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Creath Property Contents SECTION 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Study Area Location .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Watershed .................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Climate ........................................................................................................................................................ 2 1.4 Surrounding Land Use .......................................................................................................................... 2 1.5 Topography ............................................................................................................................................... 2 1.6 Existing Site Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 2 1.7 Soils ............................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.8 Hydrology .................................................................................................................................................. 3 SECTION 2. Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Waters of the United States ................................................................................................................ 3 2.1.1 Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States .................................................. 5 2.1.2 Wetland Determinations ............................................................................................................ 7 2.2 Waters of the State ................................................................................................................................. 9 SECTION 3. Methods ......................................................................................................................... 9 SECTION 4. Results ........................................................................................................................... 10 SECTION 5. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 10 SECTION 6. References .................................................................................................................. 11 Creath Property ii Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Aquatic Resource Delineation Report April 2022 Tables Table 1. Classification of Wetland-Associated Plant Species Appendicies Appendix A. Figures Figure 1. Site and Vicinity Map Figure 2. USGS Topographic Map Figure 3. Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) Map Figure 4. Sample Point Location Map Appendix B. Arid West Wetland Determination Data Forms Appendix C. Representative Site Photographs Creath Property 1 Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Aquatic Resource Delineation Report April 2022 SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION This report describes the extent and location of potential waters of the United States (U.S.) and State (collectively referred to as WOTUS) within the Creath Property Study Area (Study Area), subject to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) jurisdictions (respectively) pursuant to Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. Section 1344). This investigation of potentially jurisdictional WOTUS follows the methods described in A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (USACE 2008a) and the Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), supplemented with guidance as directed by the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0) (USACE 2008b). The assessment of presence/absence of WOTUS presented within this report represent a calculated estimation of the jurisdictional area within the site and are subject to modification following a USACE review process. All provided maps are consistent with the most recent Map and Drawing Standards for the South Pacific Division Regulatory Program. 1.1 STUDY AREA LOCATION The approximately 2.6-acre Study Area is comprised of a single parcel (APN 045-253-007-000) and is located just insides of the eastern boundary of the City of Rohnert Park, Sonoma County, California (the approximate center of the site is at 38.353784°N, 122.685031°W). The Study Area is located immediately southeast of the intersection of Keiser Avenue and Snyder Lane and extends south to the boundary of the Lawrence E. Jones Middle School parking lot, and to the east by the mid-construction Bristol Residential Development Project. Overall, the Study Area is relatively flat with elevations ranging from approximately 150 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) at the northwestern corner to approximately 115 fee AMSL at the southeastern border; a shallow roadside ditch occurs along the northern perimeter adjacent to Keiser Ave. 1.2 WATERSHED The Study Area is located within the approximately Laguna de Santa Rosa watershed, a 254 square-mile sub-watershed of the roughly 1500 square mile Russian River watershed. The Study Area is within the 12-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 180101100701 (Appendix A: Figure 3). The Study Area is situated between Crane Creek to the north and Hinebaugh Creek to the south. Hinebaugh Creek flows into Copeland Creek, which is a tributary to the Laguna de Santa Rosa. The Laguna de Santa Rosa drains much of the Santa Rosa Plain, and is a major tributary of the Russian River. This watershed encompasses most of the county’s developed regions and human population, and as such, it is important to Sonoma County's water quality, flood control, and biodiversity. Creath Property 2 Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Aquatic Resource Delineation Report April 2022 1.3 CLIMATE The study area is located approximately 30 miles north of the San Francisco Bay and 20 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean, which moderate the Mediterranean climate of the region. Typical of a Mediterranean climate, the area has cool, wet winters and warm, dry summers. In the summer, fog and light precipitation from the Pacific Ocean moves in during the evenings and mornings. The closest NOAA weather station for which weather is summarized is Petaluma, CA (8 miles south-southeast of the Study Area). In Petaluma annual precipitation (typically rainfall) generally falls between October and May and averages 24.9” inches. The warmest month, on average, is August with an average temperature of 66.6° F. The coolest month on average is January, with an average temperature of 47.3° F (weatherbase.com). 1.4 SURROUNDING LAND USE The Study Area is bordered by a school development to the south, land undergoing residential development to the east, Kaiser Ave. to the north, and the large two-lane Snyder Lane to the east. Across Snyder lane are residential developments. 1.5 TOPOGRAPHY Study Area is located approximately 2 miles west of the foothills of the south-central extent of the Mayacamas Mountain Range. Overall, the site is relatively flat, occurring on a gentle south-facing slope, with elevations ranging from approximately 125 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) at the north-central boundary to approximately 120 feet AMSL at the southern corner. 1.6 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The Study Area is an approximately 2.6-acre parcel situated among primarily developed lands in northeastern Rohnert Park. Vegetation in the Study Area consists of non-native annual grassland with scattered native and non-native trees and shrubs, particularly along the edges of the Study Area. No wetlands were identified in the Study Area. The Study Area is surrounded by fencing. The northwestern corner of the Study Area is a relatively flat area where a homestead had previously been. This area supports large coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) trees, and is dominated by ornamental plantings. The southern half of the site and extending along the entire eastern edge is ruderal grassland. Along the southern fence line is a row of well-established cottonwood trees (Populus fremontii); their equal spacing indicates that they were planted at that location to provide a visual or wind break between properties. The majority of the Study Area was covered with dried and mowed grasslands interspersed with native and non-native herbaceous plants such as hayfield tarweed (Hemizonia congesta Creath Property 3 Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Aquatic Resource Delineation Report April 2022 ssp. lutescens) and prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola). The prominent grass present and identifiable was Harding grass (Phalaris aquatica). 1.7 SOILS According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), one soil map unit occurs within the Study Area (USDA, NRCS 2021): Clear Lake Clay, Sandy Substratum, Drained, 0 to 2 Percent Slopes, Major Land Resource Area (MLRA) 14. Clear Lake Clay, Sandy Substratum, Drained, 0 to 2 Percent Slopes, MLRA 14 is a poorly drained soil comprised of alluvium derived from volcanic and sedimentary rock and found on basin floors. This clay soil has a slow permeability and a high runoff class. Available water holding capacity is moderate to high; the water table occurs as much as 5 feet below the surface in the late summer but can be very near the surface during the rainy season. This soil is rarely subject to flooding, but commonly ponds water. Clear Lake clay, 0 to 2 Percent Slopes, Sandy Substratum, MLRA 14 is on the California Hydric Soils List for Sonoma County. Soils observed during the delineation field survey were consistent across the site. Soils occurring within the Study Area are generally characterized as loamy clay texture class with a 10YR 3/1 color. 1.8 HYDROLOGY The Study Area primarily derives its hydrology from direct precipitation; however, the northern portion of the site appears to receive runoff from Keiser Avenue, and it is likely that the western portion of the site receives runoff from Snyder Avenue. Water appears to percolate onsite and/or overland flow offsite to the west or south, eventually entering into the City stormdrain system that outlets into Hinebaugh Creek. SECTION 2. REGULATORY SETTING 2.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES Waters of the United States are regulated by USACE and the RWQCB in accordance with Section 404 and 401 the Clean Water Act, respectively. The scope of federally jurisdictional “waters of the United States” has been the subject of significant litigation and regulatory revisions and is subject to an ongoing federal rulemaking. (See “Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States,’ 86 Fed. Reg. 69372 (Dec. 7, 2021)). At present, pursuant to federal district court order, the Corps is enforcing the “pre-2015” version of the federal jurisdictional definition. Under the pre-2015 rules, pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 328.3(a) [51 F.R. 41250, November 13, 1986], the term “waters of the United States” means: Creath Property 4 Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Aquatic Resource Delineation Report April 2022 (1) All water which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; (2) All interstate waters including interstate wetlands; (3) All other waters such as interstate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters: i. Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or ii. From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or iii. Which are used or could be used for industrial purpose by industries in interstate commerce; (4) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition; (5) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a)(1)-(4) of this section; (6) The territorial seas; and (7) Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than water that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (a)(1)-(6) of this section. Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirement of CWA (other than cooling ponds defined in 40 CFR 123.11(m) which also meet the criteria of this definition) are not waters of the United States. Wetlands are defined as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” [33 C.F.R. § 328.3(b), 51 F.R. 41251, November 13, 1986]. Wetlands can be perennial or intermittent and isolated or adjacent to other waters. Adjacent means “bordering, contiguous, or neighboring,” and “wetlands separated from other waters of the United States by man-made dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes and the like are ‘adjacent wetlands’” [33 C.F.R. § 328.3(c), 51 F.R. 41251, November 13, 1986]. Methods to determine the presence of wetlands are outlined below in Section 3.1. The limit of USACE jurisdiction for non-tidal watercourses (without adjacent wetlands) is defined in 33 C.F.R. § 328.4(c)(1) as the “ordinary high water mark” (OHWM). The OHWM is defined as the “line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes Creath Property 5 Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Aquatic Resource Delineation Report April 2022 in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas” [33 C.F.R. § 328.3(e), 51 F.R. 41251, November 13, 1986]. The bank-to-bank extent of the channel that contains the water-flow during a normal rainfall year generally serves as a good first approximation of the lateral limit of USACE jurisdiction. The upstream limits of other waters are defined as the point where the OHWM is no longer perceptible. Waters of the United States do not include waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act [33 C.F.R. § 328.3(a), 51 F.R. 41250, November 13, 1986]. Additionally, waters of the U.S. generally do not include non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land; artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased; artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing; artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons: and waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the U.S. [51 F.R. 41217, November 13, 1986]. 2.1.1 Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States As stated in Section 2.1, pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 328.3(a) [51 F.R. 41250, November 13, 1986], waters of the United States include tributaries to and wetlands adjacent to waters identified as waters of the United States. The Supreme Court’s decision in the consolidated cases Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States, 126 S. Ct. 2208 (2006) (referred to as “Rapanos”) addressed which aquatic features qualify as tributaries and adjacent wetlands under the Clean Water Act. The separate opinion of Justice Kennedy in Rapanos, which is treated by federal courts as controlling law in California, concluded that adjacent wetlands are “waters of the United States” “if the wetlands, either alone or in combination with similarly situated lands in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of other covered waters more readily understood as ‘navigable.’ When, in contrast, wetlands’ effects on water quality are speculative or insubstantial, they fall outside the zone fairly encompassed by the statutory term ‘navigable waters.’ More generally, under the test articulated by Justice Kennedy in Rapanos, the key question under Section 404 is whether a waterbody has a “significant nexus” to currently or conceivably navigable waters. This fact-based inquiry requires a determination, based on consideration of hydrologic and ecological factors, of whether the waterbody may “significantly affect the chemical, physical and biological integrity of other covered waters more readily understood as ‘navigable’.” Creath Property 6 Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Aquatic Resource Delineation Report April 2022 In 2008, USACE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provided guidance on implementing the Rapanos decision, identifying the criteria to be considered when determining jurisdictional status and those wetlands and other waters over which the agencies will assert jurisdiction categorically versus on a case-by-case basis. The 2008 USACE guidance is nonbinding and calls for a fact-specific analysis as to whether there is a “significant nexus” between a feature and navigable waters in cases where the feature is not categorically considered a water of the U.S. Key points of the guidance document are summarized as follows: The federal agencies will assert jurisdiction over the following waters: • Traditional navigable waters • Wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters • Non-navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent where the tributaries typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically three months) • Wetlands that directly abut such tributaries The federal agencies will decide jurisdiction over the following waters based on a fact-specific analysis to determine whether they have a significant nexus with a traditional navigable water: • Non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent • Wetlands adjacent to non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent • Wetlands adjacent to but that do not directly abut a relatively permanent non-navigable tributary. The federal agencies generally will not assert jurisdiction over the following features: • Swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow) • Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only uplands and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water The agencies will apply the significant nexus standard as follows: • A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by all wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly Creath Property 7 Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Aquatic Resource Delineation Report April 2022 affect the chemical, physical and biological integrity of downstream traditional navigable waters • Significant nexus includes consideration of hydrologic and ecologic factors 2.1.2 Wetland Determinations Consistent with the Corps’ 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and its 2008 Arid West Regional Supplement (USACE 2008b) to be determined a wetland, the following three parameters must be met if normal circumstances are present: 1. a majority of dominant vegetation species are wetland associated species; 2. hydrologic conditions exist that result in periods of flooding, ponding, or saturation during the growing season; and 3. hydric soils are present. The criteria necessary to meet these three wetland parameters is outlined below. Vegetation Hydrophytic vegetation is defined as “the sum total of macrophytic plant life that occurs in areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce permanent or periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling influence on the plant species present” (Environmental Laboratory 1987). The USACE definition of wetlands includes "a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions," with prevalence determined by the dominant plant species comprising the plant community (op. cit.). The "50/20 rule" is used to determine dominant plant species at each sample point location. The rule states that for each stratum in the plant community, dominant species are the most abundant plant species (when ranked in descending order of abundance and cumulatively totaled) that immediately exceed 50 percent of the total dominance measure for the stratum, plus any additional species that individually comprise 20 percent or more of the total dominance measure for the stratum (HQUSACE 1992). Dominant plant species observed at each sample point are classified according to their indicator status (probability of occurrence in wetlands) (Table 1). If the majority (greater than 50 percent) of the dominant vegetation on a site is classified as obligate (OBL), facultative wetland (FACW), or facultative (FAC), then the site is considered to be dominated by hydrophytic vegetation. Creath Property 8 Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Aquatic Resource Delineation Report April 2022 Table 1. Classification of Wetland-Associated Plant Species Plant Species Classification Abbreviation Probability of Occurring in Wetland Obligate OBL Almost always occur in wetlands. Facultative Wetland FACW Usually occur in wetlands, but may occur in non-wetlands. Facultative FAC Occur in wetlands and non-wetlands. Facultative Upland FACU Usually occur in non-wetlands, but may occur in wetlands. Upland UPL Almost never occur in wetlands. Plants That Are Not Listed NL (UPL) Assumed upland species. Hydrology Wetlands, by definition, are seasonally inundated or saturated at or near (within 12 inches of) the soil surface. To be classified as a wetland, a site should have at least one primary indicator or two secondary indicators of wetland hydrology. Primary indicators of wetland hydrology may include but are not limited to: oxidized root channels in the upper 12 inches, water-stained leaves, and local soil survey data. In addition to the primary indicators, there are a variety of secondary wetland hydrology indicators. Secondary indicators include, but are not limited to: water marks, drift lines, sediment deposition, drainage patterns, visual observation of saturated soils, and visual observation of inundation. When no primary indicators of wetland hydrology are observed at a sample point, two or more secondary indicators are required to confirm wetland hydrology. Soils A hydric soil is defined as a soil that is formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (NRCS 2003). Indicators that a hydric soil is present include soil color (gleyed soils and soils with bright mottles and/or low matrix chroma), aquic or preaquic moisture regime, reducing soil conditions, sulfidic material (odor), soils listed on hydric soils list, iron and manganese concretions, organic soils (Histosols), histic epipedon, high organic content in surface layer in sandy soils, and organic streaking in sandy soils. A soil pit is excavated to the depth of refusal at each sample point. The soil is then examined for hydric soil indicators. Creath Property 9 Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Aquatic Resource Delineation Report April 2022 The matrix color and mottle color (if present) of the soil are determined using the Munsell Soil Color Charts. 2.2 WATERS OF THE STATE The RWQCB also is authorized under Section 13263 of the Porter-Cologne Act to regulate discharges to waters of the State through issuance of permits referred to as waste discharge requirements (WDRs). In Section 13050(e), the act defines waters of the State to mean any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of California. This definition may include wetlands and drainages that are outside federal jurisdiction. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) further clarified the definition of wetlands that qualify as waters of the State through adoption of the State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (Procedures) (SWRCB 2021). Under the Procedures, the State defines wetlands as follows: “An area is wetland if, under normal circumstances, (1) the area has continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by groundwater, or shallow surface water, or both; (2) the duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and (3) the area’s vegetation is dominated by hydrophytes or the area lacks vegetation.” The Procedures further state that waters of the State include all waters of the U.S., including all “features that are consistent with any current or historic final judicial interpretation of ‘waters of the U.S.’ or any current or historic federal regulation defining ‘waters of the U.S.’ under the Clean Water Act.” USACE wetland delineation procedures are to be used to identify State-regulated wetlands, and the following wetland types are waters of the State: 1. natural wetland; 2. wetlands created by modification of a surface water of the State; and 3. artificial wetlands that meet certain criteria. SECTION 3. METHODS A field survey was conducted on March 10, 2022, by Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC (JMC) personnel Sadie McGarvey. The boundaries of potential WOTUS were investigated using standard field methodologies, and sample point locations were mapped using a Juniper Systems Geode Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) with sub-meter accuracy. All sample point data was recorded on Arid West Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms (Appendix B). The sample point locations obtained from the mapping effort were projected onto an aerial map using QGIS, Version 3.22.1 (see Appendix A: Figure 4). Munsell Soil Color Charts (Kollmorgen Instruments Co. 1990) were used to aid in identifying hydric soils in the Creath Property 10 Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Aquatic Resource Delineation Report April 2022 field. The Jepson eFlora (Jepson Flora Project 2022) was used for plant nomenclature and identification. Plant wetland indicator status was provided by The National Wetland Plant List 2020 wetland ratings (USACE 2020). Representative photographs of the project site are provided in Appendix C. SECTION 4. RESULTS No potential WOTUS were observed or mapped in the Study Area. A total of 9 sample points were taken throughout the Study Area. These sample point locations were chosen to assess presence/absence of wetland characteristics at various locations throughout the Study Area, or to represent upland conditions in locations where soil pits were taken or other observations were made. A map of points analyzed for potential wetland status is provided in Appendix A, Figure 3. Representative photographs of the general site conditions are included in Appendix C. Soil matrix color was consistent across the sample points (10YR 3/1). A single sample point exhibited 5% depleted concentrations (10YR5/2), however, there was insufficient depletions to merit a hydric soil status. Several sample points exhibited deep soil cracking, which is expected due to the heavy clay nature of the onsite soils. Observed indicators of hydrology within the Study Area included algal matting, however, no inundation is visible on historic aerial imagery. Two shallow linear depressions were investigated due to their aerial signatures and observed topography. These features appear to be the locations of buried pipes, with a layer of gravel located 10 inches in below the surface. SECTION 5. CONCLUSION No potential WOTUS were observed or mapped in the Study Area or believed to be jurisdictional pursuant to Section 401 or 404 of the Clean Water Act. These conclusions are subject to modification following USACE’s approved jurisdictional determination process. Creath Property 11 Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Aquatic Resource Delineation Report April 2022 SECTION 6. REFERENCES Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi. HQUSACE (Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1992. Clarification and Interpretation of the 1987 Manual. Memorandum from Major General Arthur E. Williams. Dated: 6 March 1992. Jepson Flora Project (eds.) 2022. Jepson eFlora, https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/ [accessed January 2022]. Kollmorgen Instruments Company. 1990. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen Corporation. Baltimore, Maryland. NRCS (Natural Resource Conservation Service). 2003. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 5.01. G.W. Hurt, P.M. Whited, and R.F. Pringle (eds.). USDA, NRCS in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, Fort Worth, TX. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2021. State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. USACE (United States Army Corps of Engineers). 2008a. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States. R.W. Lichvar and S.M. McColley. ERDC/CRREL TR-08-12. Hanover, NH: Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. USACE. 2008b. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-08-28. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. USACE. 2020. National Wetland Plant List, Version 3.5. Accessed March 2022. Available from: https://cwbi-app.sec.usace.army.mil/nwpl_static/v34/home/home.html. USACE and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States. Accessed September 27, 2021. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-02/documents/cwa_jurisdiction_following_rapanos120208.pdf. Creath Property Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Aquatic Resource Delineation Report April 2022 APPENDICIES Appendix A. Figures Appendix B. Arid West Wetland Determination Data Forms Appendix C. Representative Site Photographs Creath Property Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Aquatic Resource Delineation Report April 2022 APPENDIX A. Figures Figure 1. Site and Vicinity Map Figure 2. USGS Topographic Map Figure 3. Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) Map Figure 4. Sample Point Location Map Creath Property Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Aquatic Resource Delineation Report April 2022 Figure 1. Site and Vicinity Map Creath Property Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Aquatic Resource Delineation Report April 2022 Figure 2. USGS Topographic Map Creath Property Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Aquatic Resource Delineation Report April 2022 Figure 3. Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) Map Creath Property Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Aquatic Resource Delineation Report April 2022 Figure 4. Sample Point Location Map Creath Property Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Aquatic Resource Delineation Report April 2022 APPENDIX B. Arid West Wetland Determination Data Forms US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ”3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Creath Property Sonoma County 3/10/22 Creath Family Trust CA 1 Sadie McGarvey S19 T6N R7W none 0 Central California Coastal Valleys 38.35350658 -122.68493529 NAVD88 Clear Lake Clay, Sandy Substratum, Drained, 0 to 2 Percent Slopes, Majo Hydric ✔ ✔ ✔ Helminthotheca echioides 10 FAC Geranium dissectum 15 NL Phalaris aquatica 35 XFACU Vicia sativa 15 FACU Festuca bromoides 25 X FACU 100 0 2 0 ✔ US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 1 0-10 10YR3/1 100 loamy clay gravel inclusions ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ”3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Creath Property Sonoma County 3/10/22 Creath Family Trust CA 2 Sadie McGarvey S19 T6N R7W none 0 Central California Coastal Valleys 38.35370080 -122.68546714 NAVD88 Clear Lake Clay, Sandy Substratum, Drained, 0 to 2 Percent Slopes, Majo Hydric ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔✔ Phalaris aquatica 20 X FACU Helminthotheca echioides 10 XFAC 30 Topographic low area resulting from structure removal 70 1 2 50 3010 8020 30 110 3.67 ✔ US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 2 0-10 10YR3/1 100 loamy clay ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Algal matting US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ”3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Creath Property Sonoma County 3/10/22 Creath Family Trust CA 3 Sadie McGarvey S19 T6N R7W none 0 Central California Coastal Valleys 38.35357548 -122.68547131 NAVD88 Clear Lake Clay, Sandy Substratum, Drained, 0 to 2 Percent Slopes, Majo Hydric ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔✔ Phalaris aquatica 40 X FACU Juncus xiphioides 30 XOBL Vicia sativa 30 XFACU 100 1 3 33 ✔ US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 3 0-10 10YR3/1 95 10YR5/25CMloamy clay Insufficient depletions to meet hydric soil indicator F7 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ”3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Creath Property Sonoma County 3/10/22 Creath Family Trust CA 4 Sadie McGarvey S19 T6N R7W none 0 Central California Coastal Valleys 38.35335795 -122.68533660 NAVD88 Clear Lake Clay, Sandy Substratum, Drained, 0 to 2 Percent Slopes, Majo Hydric ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔✔ 0 Shallow linear depression - presumed to be a buried pipe ✔ Vegetation suppression within the depression, lined with Phalaris aquatica US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 4 0-10 10YR3/10 loamy clay 10-12 gravel ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ”3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Creath Property Sonoma County 3/10/22 Creath Family Trust CA 5 Sadie McGarvey S19 T6N R7W none 0 Central California Coastal Valleys 38.35322910 -122.68542558 NAVD88 Clear Lake Clay, Sandy Substratum, Drained, 0 to 2 Percent Slopes, Majo Hydric ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔✔ Phalaris aquatica 80 X FACU Juncus xiphioides 10 OBL 90 10 0 1 0 ✔ US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 5 0-10 10YR3/1 100 loamy clay ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ”3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Creath Property Sonoma County 3/10/22 Creath Family Trust CA 6 Sadie McGarvey S19 T6N R7W none 0 Central California Coastal Valleys 38.35329001 -122.68430999 NAVD88 Clear Lake Clay, Sandy Substratum, Drained, 0 to 2 Percent Slopes, Majo Hydric ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔✔ Vicia sativa 15 FACU Juncus mexicanus 50 XFACW Vulpia bromoides 30 XFACU Geranium dissectum 15 NL 100 1 2 50 50 100 18045 7515 110 355 3.2 ✔ US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 6 0-10 10YR3/1 100 loamy clay ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ”3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Creath Property Sonoma County 3/10/22 Creath Family Trust CA 7 Sadie McGarvey S19 T6N R7W none 0 Central California Coastal Valleys 38.35338266 -122.68444790 NAVD88 Clear Lake Clay, Sandy Substratum, Drained, 0 to 2 Percent Slopes, Majo Hydric ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔✔ Phalaris aquatica 5FACU 5 95 0 1 50 205 520 4 ✔ Significant veg suppression US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 7 0-10 10YR3/1 100 loamy clay ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ”3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Creath Property Sonoma County 3/10/22 Creath Family Trust CA 8 Sadie McGarvey S19 T6N R7W none 0 Central California Coastal Valleys 38.35350288 -122.68457826 NAVD88 Clear Lake Clay, Sandy Substratum, Drained, 0 to 2 Percent Slopes, Majo Hydric ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔✔ Phalaris aquatica 5XFACU Rumex crispus 5 XFAC Sinapis arvensis 5 XNL 15 85 1 3 33 ✔ Significant veg suppression US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 8 0-10 10YR3/1 100 loamy clay ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ”3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Creath Property Sonoma County 3/10/22 Creath Family Trust CA 9 Sadie McGarvey S19 T6N R7W none 0 Central California Coastal Valleys 38.35369511 -122.68446566 NAVD88 Clear Lake Clay, Sandy Substratum, Drained, 0 to 2 Percent Slopes, Majo Hydric ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔✔ Phalaris aquatica 40 X FACU Vicia sativa 20 XFACU Vulpia bromoides 25 XFACU Trifolium fragiferum 15 FAC 100 Upland characterization point 0 3 0 ✔ US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 9 0-10 10YR3/1 100 loamy clay ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Creath Property Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Aquatic Resource Delineation Report April 2022 APPENDIX C. Representative Site Photographs Photograph 1. Northwest corner of the Study Area, looking north from Sample Point 2. Photograph 2. Southern portion of the Study Area, looking east from Sample Point 4. Creath Property Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Aquatic Resource Delineation Report April 2022 Photograph 3. Central portion of the Study Area, looking north from Sample Point 4. Creath Property Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Aquatic Resource Delineation Report April 2022 Photograph 4. Representative photograph of the areas exhibiting algal matting, looking north from Sample Point 7. Appendix B – Special-Status Plant Survey Report SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SURVEY REPORT CREATH PROPERTY Rohnert Park, Sonoma County, California September 2020 Prepared by: Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Haley Henderson 433 Visitacion Avenue Brisbane, California 94005 On behalf of: Mr. Cory Creath Creath Family Trust 205 Scott Street Mill Valley, CA 94941 Creath Property Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Special Status Plant Survey Report September 2020 NORTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SURVEY REPORT Contents SECTION 1. SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 1 SECTION 2. SURVEY AREA LOCATION AND CURRENT CONDITIONS ............................... 2 2.1 Location ................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................. 2 2.2.1 Ruderal Grassland ...................................................................................................................... 2 SECTION 3. SPECIAL-STATUS PLANTS ....................................................................................... 4 3.1 Santa Rosa Plain Programmatic Biological Opinion .............................................................. 4 SECTION 4. SURVEY METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................... 5 SECTION 5. SURVEY RESULTS AND CONCLUSION .................................................................. 6 SECTION 6. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Creath Property Site and Vicinity Map Figure 2. Creath Property Site Map LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Plants Observed on the Creath Property Table 2. Special-Status Plant Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of the Creath Property Creath Property Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Special Status Plant Survey Report 1 September 2020 SECTION 1. SUMMARY In the spring of 2020, Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC (JMC) personnel conducted a floristic, protocol-level rare plant survey on the Creath Property (the Property). The Property is located near the City of Rohnert Park, Sonoma County, California (Figure 1). Although, no special status plants have ever been documented on the Property, based on site location and initial site visits it was recommended that comprehensive floristic surveys be conducted to document all plants observed, confirm presence or absence of the federally listed species, and to determine the presence or absence of any additional special-status plant species. The survey included completion of three site visits conducted during the peak bloom period of the species considered to have the potential to occur regionally. In addition, in accordance with protocol requirements reference populations for relevant species were also visited. No special status plants were identified during the survey. A complete list of the 83 species observed with the Property is included in Table 1. Creath Property Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Special Status Plant Survey Report 2 September 2020 SECTION 2. SURVEY AREA LOCATION AND CURRENT CONDITIONS 2.1 LOCATION The approximately 3-acre Property is comprised of a single parcel and is located just outside of the eastern boundary of the City of Rohnert Park, Sonoma County, California (38.353784°N, 122.685031°W) (Figures 1 and 2). The Property is located immediately southeast of the intersection of Keiser Avenue and Snyder Lane and extends south to the boundary of the Lawrence E. Jones Middle School parking lot, and to the east by a property formerly dominated by fallow field that is now under construction for residential development. In addition, the City of Rohnert Park is completing roadway improvements within the right-of-way north and west of the Property. Overall, the site is relatively flat with elevations ranging from between 120 - 125 feet above mean sea level. 2.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS The property is fenced, and an abandoned house has recently been removed. Surrounding the former footprint of the house is a flat graded gravel driveway within which a coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) trees are growing. Ornamental plantings occur around the former residence. Trees observed around the residence include a cottonwood tree, dead or impacted small redwood trees, and a mix of other ornamental trees (e.g. prune species). Disturbance associated with roadway construction was observed especially within the northwestern most corner of the property. The southern and eastern edge of the property is dominated by ruderal grassland. Along the fence line on the southern boundary a row of cottonwood trees (Populus fremontii) are well established. Their equal spacing indicates that they were planted to provide a visual or wind break between the properties. Historical aerial imagery shows large trees lining the property along Keiser Avenue, but these trees were removed as part of the City of Rohnert Park’s road improvement project. 2.2.1 Ruderal Grassland The majority of the Property consists of ruderal weedy grasslands typically found in disturbed vacant lots. Observed species included non-native herbaceous plants interspersed with occasional native, disturbance adapted species. These ruderal assemblages are often indicative of high levels of disturbance associated with frequent mowing and soil disturbance. Dominant species observed within the ruderal grassland include non-native grasses such as slender wild oats (Avena barbata), little rattlesnake grass (Briza minor), various brome speices (Bromus catharticus, B. diandrus, and B. hordeaceus), various rye speices (Festuca myuros and F. perennis), and Harding grass (Phalaris aquatica). Other herbaceous species such as wild lettuces (Lactuca saligna and L. serriola), poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), Creath Property Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Special Status Plant Survey Report 3 September 2020 geranium (Geranium carolinianum and G. dissectum), wild radish (Raphanus sativus), curly dock (Rumex crispus), and vetch (Vicia sativa and V. villosa) were observed. Native species such as California poppy (Eschscholzia californica), hedge nettle (Stachys sp.), and tall flatsedge (Cyperus eragrostis) were observed interspersed with the non-native and invasive species. Species observed within proximity to the former residence were more typical of recent disturbance and include overgrown non-native weedy species such as bristly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca echioides), pineapple weed (Matricaria discoidea), strawberry clover (Trifolium fragiferum), and California burclover (Medicago polymorpha). To the south of the former homestead footprint is a small grove of ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) trees and a cypress tree (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa), with weedy and ornamental plantings such as fruit trees (Prunus sp. and Pyrus communis), bamboo (Phyllostachys aurea), callalily (Zantedeschia aethiopica), and lily-of-the-nile (Agapanthus sp.) mixed into the understory. Creath Property Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Special Status Plant Survey Report 4 September 2020 SECTION 3. SPECIAL-STATUS PLANTS According to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants of California, a total of five special-status plant species have been documented within three miles of the Property and/or within the same U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5’ topographic quadrangle (quad) as the Property (Cotati quad). Three of the regionally-known special-status plant species (Sonoma sunshine [Blennosperma bakeri], Burke’s goldfields [Lasthenia burkei], and Sebastopol meadowfoam [Limnanthes vinculans]) are not expected occur on the Property (see the section on the Santa Rosa Plain Programmatic Biological Opinion below). The Property does provide suitable habitat (i.e. grassland) for the two remaining species: congested-headed hayfield tarplant (Hemizonia congesta ssp. congesta), and saline clover (Trifolium hydrophilum). Table 2 includes as summary of regionally occurring rare plant species including their listing status, habitat type, and documented occurrences. 3.1 SANTA ROSA PLAIN PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND CONSERVATION STRATEGY The Property falls within the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy Study Area, within an area defined as having no effect on listed plants. Further, within the Programmatic Biological Opinion (Programmatic) for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Permitted Projects that Affect the California Tiger Salamander and Three Endangered Plant Species on the Santa Rosa Plain, California (Corps File No. 223420N) (2007 Programmatic Biological Opinion), the USFWS has identified the Property as an area where three of the regionally-known federally listed plant species (Burke’s goldfields, and Sebastopol meadowfoam) do not occur. Creath Property Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Special Status Plant Survey Report 5 September 2020 SECTION 4. SURVEY METHODOLOGY JMC personnel, Paula Gill and Sadie McGarvey conducted three focused rare plant site visits on the Property coinciding with the peak bloom period for target plant species; site visits were conducted on April 20, May 14, and June 18, 2020. Surveys were conducted following guidelines established by CDFW (CDFG 2000, 2009, CDFW 2018) and CNPS (CNPS 2001). In addition, because this site is within the Santa Rosa Plain, surveys were conducted in compliance with the USFWS’ Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed Plants on the Santa Rosa Plain (USFWS 2005) for a single year. Prior to each survey, a known a reference population was visited to confirm phrenology of bloom of each species of plant addressed within the Santa Rosa Plain Programmatic: Sonoma sunshine, Burke’s goldfields, and Sebastopol meadowfoam. Remaining special status species were reviewed prior to each survey using known imagery (photographs and illustrations), herbarium specimens, and literature available through reputable sources such as The Jepson Herbarium. The reference populations were confirmed to be in bloom at the preserve on Alton Lane in Santa Rosa, to the west of Fulton Road, at the time of the April and May 2020 surveys. Surveys were floristic in nature with all encountered plants identified to a level necessary to determine rarity and often to a greater level. Transects were walked systematically with a varying width to ensure all area could be seen based on the thickness and type of vegetation. For example, the transects trough overgrown weedy vegetation surrounding the previous house footprint needed to be closer together to ensure all plants could be seen, whereas in areas where vegetation was low growing, wider transects could be walked. This also varied throughout the season. Identification techniques included the use of regional and state floristic guides and keys, as well as consultation with photographic databases. When plants were unable to be identified on site, samples and photographs were taken to allow greater time to be taken with a dichotomous key or other identification techniques. Creath Property Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Special Status Plant Survey Report 6 September 2020 SECTION 5. SURVEY RESULTS AND CONCLUSION A complete list of plants found within the survey area is in included in Table 1, it includes a total of 83 species observed during the 2019 site visit and the 2020 floristic survey. No special-status species have been observed/documented onsite. Creath Property Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Special Status Plant Survey Report 7 September 2020 SECTION 6. REFERENCES CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2000. Guidelines for assessing the effects of proposed developments on rare and endangered plants and plant communities. December 9, 1983, revised May 8, 2000. . 2009. Protocols for surveying and evaluating impacts to special status native plant populations and natural communities. November 2009. 7 pps. CDFW. 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. Retrieved March 6, 2019 from https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline2019. . 2019. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) – Commercial version dated March 5, 2019. Retrieved March 6, 2019 from https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/cnddb/view/updates.aspx. CNPS. 2019. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v8-03 0.39). Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed 2019]. California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2019. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v8-03 0.39). Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed 6 March 2019]. USFWS. 2005. Guidelines for conducting and reporting botanical inventories for federally listed plants on the Santa Rosa Plain (modified from the September 23, 1996 Service guidelines for conducting and reporting botanical inventories for federally listed, proposed and candidate plants.) INTERNET (http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/santa_rosa_conservation.html) Appendix D. Creath Property Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Special Status Plant Survey Report September 2020 Figures Figure 1. Creath Property Site and Vicinity Map Figure 2. Creath Property Site Map Creath Property Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Special Status Plant Survey Report September 2020 Figure 1. Creath Property Site and Vicinity Map Creath Property Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Special Status Plant Survey Report September 2020 Figure 2. Creath Property Site Map Creath Property Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Special Status Plant Survey Report September 2020 Tables Table 1. Plants Observed on the Creath Property Table 2. Special-Status Plant Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of the Creath Property Creath Property Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Special Status Plant Survey Report September 2020 Table 1. Plants Observed on the Creath Property Species Name Common Name Agapanthus sp. Lily-of-the-Nile Arum italicum Italian lords and ladies Avena barbata Slender wild oats Brassica nigra Black mustard Briza minor Little rattlesnake grass Bromus catharticus Rescue grass Bromus diandrus Ripgut brome Bromus hordeaceus Soft chess Cardamine hirsuta Hairy bitter cress Carex praegracilis Field sedge Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle Conium maculatum Poison hemlock Convolvulus arvensis Field bindweed Cortaderia jubata Pampas grass Crypsis schoenoides Swamp pricklegrass Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass Cyperus eragrostis Tall flatsedge Danthonia californica California Oatgrass Eleocharis macrostachya Common spikerush Epilobium brachycarpum Autumn willowweed Epilobium ciliatum Fringed willowherb Erigeron canadensis Canada horseweed Erodium botrys Big heron bill Erodium moschatum Whitestem filaree Eschscholzia californica California poppy Festuca bromoides Brome fescue Festuca myuros Rattail sixweeks grass Festuca perennis Italian wildrye Foeniculum vulgare Fennel Geranium carolinianum Carolina geranium Geranium dissectum Cutleaf geranium Geranium molle Crane's bill geranium Gnaphalium sp. Cudweed Helminthotheca echioides Bristly ox-tongue Hemizonia congesta ssp. lutescens Hayfield tarweed Hordeum brachyantherum Meadow barley Hordeum marinum Seaside barley Hordeum murinum Foxtail barley Iris sp. Ornamental iris Juncus bufonius Common toad rush Juncus patens Spreading rush Juncus xiphioides Iris leaved rush Creath Property Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Special Status Plant Survey Report September 2020 Kickxia elatine Sharp point fluellin Lactuca saligna Willow lettuce Lactuca serriola Prickly lettuce Lathyrus hirsutus Caley pea Lepidium strictum Peppergrass Lupinus sp. Lupine Lysimachia arvensis Scarlet pimpernel Lythrum hyssopifolia Hyssop loosestrife Malva parviflora Cheeseweed Matricaria discoidea Pineapple weed Medicago polymorpha California burclover Phalaris aqatica Harding grass Phalaris aquatica Harding grass Phyllostachys aurea Bamboo Pinus ponderosa Ponderosa pine Pistacia chinensis Chinese pistachio Poa annua Annual blue grass Poa pratensis Kentucky blue grass Polygonum aviculare Prostrate knotweed Polypogon monspeliensis Rabbitsfoot grass Populus fremontii Fremont cottonwood Prunus sp. Cherry plum Pyrus communis Common pear Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Raphanus sativus Wild radish Rosa californica California wild rose Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry Rumex crispus Curly dock Rumex obtusifolius Broadleaf dock Salix babylonica Weeping willow Senecio sp. Ragweed Sequoia sempervirens Coast Redwood Sinapis arvensis Charlock Sisyrinchium bellum Blue eyed grass Sonchus asper Spiny sowthistle Stachys sp. Hedge nettle Trifolium fragiferum Strawberry clover Vicia sativa Spring vetch Vicia villosa Hairy vetch Xanthium strumarium Cocklebur Zantedeschia aethiopica Callalily Creath Property Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC Special Status Plant Survey Report September 2020 Table 2. Special-Status Plant Species Known to Occur of the Vicinity of the Creath Property Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat type Occurrence information Probability of Occurring on The property Sonoma sunshine Blennosperma bakeri Federally endangered, CNPS 1B.1 Mesic valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pools The closest record for this species occurs approximately 1.9 miles northwest of the Property (CNDDB Occurrence No. 18). None. Pursuant to the Programmatic Biological Opinion, this species is not expected to occur on the Property. Congested-headed hayfield tarplant Hemizonia congesta ssp. congesta State listed, CNPS 1B.2 Valley and foothill grassland The closest record for this species occurs approximately 2.2 miles southwest of the Property (CNDDB Occurrence No. 12). None. This species has not been observed on the Property during protocol-level rare plant surveys. Burke's goldfields Lasthenia burkei Federally endangered, CNPS 1B.1 Meadows and seeps (mesic), and vernal pools The closest record for this species occurs approximately 1.4 miles northwest of the Property (CNDDB Occurrence No. 41). None. Pursuant to the Programmatic Biological Opinion, this species is not expected to occur on the Property. Sebastopol meadowfoam Limnanthes vinculans Federally endangered, CNPS 1B.1 Vernally mesic meadows and seeps, valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pools The closest record for this species occurs approximately 1.5 miles west of the Property (CNDDB Occurrence No. 56). None. Pursuant to the Programmatic Biological Opinion, this species is not expected to occur on the Property. Saline clover Trifolium hydrophilum State listed, CNPS 1B.2 Marshes and swamps, valley and foothill grassland (mesic, alkaline), and vernal pools This species is known to occur on the same quad (Cotati Quad) as the Property (CNDDB Occurrence No. 49). None. This species has not been observed on the Property during protocol-level rare plant surveys. Appendix C – California Tiger Salamander Habitat Assessment Memorandum Integral Consulting Inc. 433 Visitacion Avenue Brisbane, CA 94005 telephone: 925-895-4302 www.integral-corp.com MEMORANDUM To: Ryan Olah, United States Fish and Wildlife Service From: Sadie McGarvey, Integral Consulting Inc. Date: November 9, 2023 Subject: California Tiger Salamander Habitat Assessment for the Creath Property Project in Rohnert Park, Sonoma County, California. Introduction This memo has been prepared to document current site conditions at the Creath Property Project (Project) site, provide regional context, and discuss the lack of suitable habitat for California Tiger Salamanders (Ambystoma californiense) (CTS). The Project site is located in northeastern Rohnert Park, Sonoma County, California, immediately southeast of the intersection of Keiser Avenue and Snyder Lane. The site extends south to the boundary of the Lawrence E. Jones Middle School parking lot, and to the east by the mid-construction Bristol Residential Development Project (Figure 1. Project Site and Vicinity Map). The Project site is located within the Cotati U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5’ topographic quadrangle (quad) (38.353784°N, 122.685031°W) (Figure 2. USGS Topographic Map for the Cotati Quadrangle). The proposed Project includes the construction of an approximately 2.6-acre residential development, with 38 townhome style condominiums, and associated infrastructure, utilities, and landscaping, as well as a playground and stormwater diversion (Figure 3). Project implementation would include the mass grading of the entire Project site (with the exception of locations where trees are to be protected in-place), and construction of project components. Current Site Conditions The Project site is dominated by non-native grassland with scattered native and non- native trees and shrubs, surrounded primarily by developed lands. The Project site is located within a portion of the Santa Rosa Plain area not generally thought to support CTS. The closest CTS record occurs approximately 1.5 miles northwest of the Project site CTS Habitat Memo November 9, 2023 F (CNDDB Occurrence No. 80), documenting adults and larvae captured and released at the Horn 3 Conservation Bank, which supports created vernal pool complexes. The Project site falls within the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy Study Area, as well as the Action Area of the 2020 Programmatic Biological Opinion, however, per USFWS’s 2016 Recovery Plan for the Santa Rosa Plain, the Project site is not located within the Santa Rosa Plain Area, and is likewise not within any “core” or “management” areas for CTS. The Project site is not located within the critical habitat designated for the Sonoma County CTS Distinct Population Segment (DPS) in 2011 (Federal Register 76:54346- 54372), and physical or biological features (PBFs) that are essential to the conservation of this species (e.g., aquatic breeding habitat, adjacent upland habitat with suitable underground refugia, and upland dispersal habitat) do not occur on the Project site. Project History Integral Consulting Inc. personnel Sadie McGarvey (state and federally permitted CTS biologist), Paula Gill (botanist), and Haley Henderson (botanist) conducted surveys throughout the Project site to characterize current site conditions, including an assessment of the site’s suitability for special-status species including CTS. Surveys to assess biological resources and suitable habitat for sensitive species were conducted on September 26, 2019, January 30, April 20, May 14, and June 18, 2020, and March 10 and 19, 2022. During surveys conducted across three years, upland refugia (burrows) were not observed on the Project site. Aquatic resource delineation surveys conducted in March 2022 indicated that no wetlands (i.e., potential CTS breeding habitat) occur on the Project site. Conclusion The Project site does not provide suitable breeding habitat, nor does it occur within dispersal distance from known breeding sites. In addition, residential and commercial development surrounding the project site precludes connection to extant CTS populations. Further, multiple years of aquatic and terrestrial surveys for CTS on neighboring properties (Vast Oak and UD LLC properties - located southeast of the Project site) resulted in negative findings for presence of CTS. Accordingly, the onsite habitats may be considered suitable oversummering and/or upland dispersal habitat based on habitat components alone and only out of the Project site’s regional context. As the Project site is outside of critical habitat, is beyond the accepted dispersal distance from extant populations, and is isolated within a developed part of the Santa Rosa Plain area not known to support CTS, the Project site does not represent CTS habitat. CTS are not expected to occur onsite and Project implementation is not expected to result in impacts to CTS. No further surveys are recommended. CTS Habitat Memo November 9, 2023 Figures F Figure 1. CTS Habitat Memo November 9, 2023 Figures F Figure 2. CTS Habitat Memo November 9, 2023 Figures Figure 3. Appendix D – Burrowing Owl and Nesting Bird Survey Results Integral Consulting Inc. 601 Montgomery Street Suite 888 San Francisco, CA 94111 telephone: 415.393.4750 www.integral-corp.com MEMORANDUM To: Cory Creath From: Integral Consulting Date: April 1, 2024 Subject: Burrowing Owl and Nesting Bird Survey Results Project No.: Creath Project (C3847) INTRODUCTION This report provides the results of the burrowing owl and nesting bird preconstruction surveys conducted by Integral Consulting on the Creath Property (Project site). The Project site is located at the southeastern corner of Snyder Lane and Keiser Avenue, in the City of Rohnert Park, California. The survey was conducted at the request of the City of Rohnert Park and is specifically focused on whether or not the site is likely to represent habitat for burrowing owls. The survey focused on presence or absence of burrowing owl, and potential nesting habitat for burrowing owl, at the project site, and additionally surveyed for active nesting birds protected pursuant to California Fish and Game Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Discussed below are the current condition of the Survey Area (defined below), as well as the survey methodology, results, and conclusion. Current Site Conditions The Survey Area is comprised of the approximately 2.4-acre Creath Property. The site is bordered by Snyder Lane and existing low-density residential to the west, Keiser Avenue and low density residential to the north, Oak Circle and medium density residential to the east, and an existing school (Lawrence Jones Middle School) to the south. The site is dominated by annual grassland with scattered oak, and cottonwood trees, and the remnant foundation of a homesite that has been removed. Survey Methodology Surveys for burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) and nesting birds were conducted between 2:00 PM and 5 PM on March 28, 2024. The weather was cool (65 F) and there was a very slight breeze. On-site birds were active and audible and visible. Integral Burrowing Owl Survey Memo April 1, 2024 Page 2 of 3 biologist Cameron Johnson surveyed the Project site. Survey efforts consisted of walking meandering transects throughout the entire site and surrounding areas searching for signs of burrowing owls and potential owl habitat as well as observing trees onsite for nests and nesting activity. All trees/shrubs on the site were inspected for evidence of nesting activity (recent or historic). Indirect evidence of nesting or established roosts includes the presence of fresh white-wash (excrement) in a tree or on the ground near a potential nesting/roosting location, down or molt feathers located in relatively high concentrations in a tree or on the ground near a potential nesting location, and/or evidence of kills or pellet piles indicating use of a potential nesting location by nesting raptors. In addition, Mr. Johnson conducted focused surveys within the grasslands to determine suitability for burrowing owl nesting and to document presence/absence of burrowing owls, with a particular emphasis on areas near ground squirrel colonies. All grasslands were inspected for potential burrows, nesting behavior, and/or indirect evidence of nesting. Indirect evidence of nesting for burrowing owls includes the presence of fresh white-wash (excrement) or pellet piles on the ground at burrow entrances indicating use of a potentially occupied burrow. Note that this survey does not meet the survey protocol for burrowing owl by California Department of Fish & Wildlife. Results There were not any burrowing owls or signs of owl activity observed on site. No ground squirrel burrows, or any other suitable burrowing owl nesting habitat were observed onsite. While other bird species were present on the site, no evidence of active nesting or nesting behavior was observed. Conclusions No burrowing owls or potential burrowing owl habitat was observed during preconstruction surveys. Additionally, there were no other species of nesting birds or nesting activities observed during the surveys. Although this survey effort does not meet the protocol for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, this site does not contain any evidence of ground squirrel (or any other species) burrows. It is unlikely that burrowing owl will occupy this site given the lack of nesting habitat components. Burrowing Owl Survey Memo April 1, 2024 Page 3 of 3 WILDLIFE SPECIES LIST (OBSERVED DURING SURVEY EFFORT) Common Name Scientific Name American Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos American Robin Turdus migratorius Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna Band-tailed Pigeon Patagioenas fasciata California Towhee Melozone crissalis Cooper's hawk Accipiter cooperi Dark-eyed junco Junco hymalis European starling Sturnus vulgaris House Finch Haemorhous mexicanus Lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltria Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Song swallow Tachycineta thalassina Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura Wild turkey Meleagris gallapavo American Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos American Robin Turdus migratorius Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna Band-tailed Pigeon Patagioenas fasciata California Towhee Melozone crissalis Cooper's hawk Accipiter cooperi Dark-eyed junco Junco hymalis European starling Sturnus vulgaris House Finch Haemorhous mexicanus Lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltria Appendix E – Environmental Noise Assessment Environmental Noise Assessment Snyder Lane Commons Residential Development Rohnert Park, California BAC Job # 2023-082 Prepared For: AXIX/GFA Architecture + Design Cory Creath 1000 Brannan Street, Suite 404 San Francisco, CA 94103 Prepared By: Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. Paul Bollard, President June 29, 2023 Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC) P.O. Box 7968  Auburn, CA 9ffffffff5604 (530) 537-2328 BACNOISE.COM Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC) Environmental Noise Assessment Snyder Lane Commons – Rohnert Park, California Page 1 Introduction The Snyder Lane Commons residential development (project) is located in City of Rohnert Park, California. The project proposes the development of approximately 36 multi-story residential units with backyards and common outdoor activity areas. The project site is bordered by Snyder Lane to the west, Keiser Avenue to the north, existing residences to the east, and the parking lot of Lawrence E Jones Middle School to the south. The project area and site plan are provided as Figures 1 and 2, respectively. Due to the noise-sensitivity of the proposed project and the proximity of the project site to local roadways and school parking lot, Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC) was retained by the project developer to prepare this noise assessment. Specifically, the purposes of this assessment are to quantify noise levels associated with future traffic and the school parking lot, to compare those levels against the applicable City of Rohnert Park noise standards for acceptable noise exposure, and to recommend noise mitigation measures where appropriate. This report contains BAC’s evaluation. Noise Fundamentals and Terminology Noise is often described as unwanted sound. Sound is defined as any pressure variation in air that the human ear can detect. If the pressure variations occur frequently enough (at least 20 times per second), they can be heard, and thus are called sound. Measuring sound directly in terms of pressure would require a very large and awkward range of numbers. To avoid this, the decibel scale was devised. The decibel scale allows a million-fold increase in pressure to be expressed as 120 dB. Another useful aspect of the decibel scale is that changes in levels (dB) correspond closely to human perception of relative loudness. Appendix A contains definitions of Acoustical Terminology. Figure 3 shows common noise levels associated with various sources. The perceived loudness of sounds is dependent upon many factors, including sound pressure level and frequency content. However, within the usual range of environmental noise levels, perception of loudness is relatively predictable, and can be approximated by weighing the frequency response of a sound level meter by means of the standardized A-weighing network. There is a strong correlation between A-weighted sound levels (expressed as dBA) and community response to noise. For this reason, the A-weighted sound level has become the standard tool of environmental noise assessment. All noise levels reported in this section are in terms of A-weighted levels in decibels. Community noise is commonly described in terms of the “ambient” noise level, which is defined as the all-encompassing noise level associated with a given noise environment. A common statistical tool to measure the ambient noise level is the average, or equivalent, sound level (Leq) over a given time period (usually one hour). The Leq is the foundation of the Day-Night Average Level noise descriptor, Ldn or DNL, and shows very good correlation with community response to noise. 0 100 200 Scale (Feet) Figure 1 Snyder Lane Commons Rohnert Park, California Project Area KEISER AVE Project Boundary (Approximate) Legend SCHOOL PARKING LOTSNYDER LN Legend Figure 2 Snyder Lane Commons Rohnert Park, California Site Plan 0 30 60 Scale (Feet)SNYDER LNRequired Traffic Noise Barrier, 6-feet tall KEISER AVE Required Traffic Noise Barrier, 7-feet tall OAK CIRR5R5 R#R#Parking Lot Analysis Receivers R1R1R2R2R3R3R4R4 121 120 115 114 101 OPEN SPACE COMMUNITY GARDEN 134127126 Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC) Environmental Noise Assessment Snyder Lane Commons – Rohnert Park, California Page 4 Figure 3 Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels of Common Noise Sources The Day-Night Average Level (DNL) is based upon the average noise level over a 24-hour day, with a +10-decibel weighting applied to noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours. The nighttime penalty is based upon the assumption that people react to nighttime noise exposures as though they were twice as loud as daytime exposures. Because DNL represents a 24-hour average, it tends to disguise short-term variations in the noise environment. DNL-based noise standards are commonly used to assess noise impacts associated with traffic, railroad, and aircraft noise sources. Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC) Environmental Noise Assessment Snyder Lane Commons – Rohnert Park, California Page 5 Criteria for Acceptable Noise Exposure Rohnert Park General Plan The Rohnert Park General Plan 2020 is currently being updated for the year 2040. The draft of the Rohnert Park General Plan 2040 (Section 9.6) includes the following policy applicable to this project: HS-6.4 Acoustical Analysis Requirements. The City shall require new development within existing or projected 65 DNL noise levels to undergo a technical acoustical analysis, conducted by a professional acoustical engineer, which shall serve as the basis for designing mitigation measures. HS-6.5 Noise-Sensitive Design. The City shall require site planning techniques to reduce noise exposure for all new development within the 65 DNL noise contours, avoiding visible sound walls when possible except along US 101 and along the Northwestern Pacific (NP) Railroad right-of-way. HS-7.2 Residential Uses. The City shall maintain and enforce 45 DNL as the standard for interior noise levels and 60 DNL as the standard for exterior noise levels for all residential land uses and require appropriate siting of residential uses and/or mitigation measures to meet these standards. The 2040 General Plan is consistent with the 2020 General plan which establishes an exterior noise level standard of 60 dB DNL at outdoor activity areas (backyards) of single-family residential uses exposed to transportation noise sources (i.e., traffic and railroad). The intent of this standard is to provide an acceptable exterior noise environment for outdoor activities. Evaluation of Future Noise Exposure at the Project Site Future Traffic Noise Traffic Noise Prediction Methodology The Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) was used to predict traffic noise levels at project subdivisions. The model is based upon the CALVENO noise emission factors for automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks, with consideration given to vehicle volume, speed, roadway configuration, distance to the receiver, and the acoustical characteristics of the site. The FHWA Model was developed to predict hourly Leq values for free-flowing traffic conditions and is considered to be accurate within 1.5 dB in most situations. Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC) Environmental Noise Assessment Snyder Lane Commons – Rohnert Park, California Page 6 The FHWA Model was used with future traffic volume data to predict future traffic noise levels from the two (2) roadways surrounding the project site. The future average daily traffic (ADT) was calculated from the University District Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) using the 2020 Plus Specific Plan Buildout scenario. Predicted Future Traffic Noise Levels The predicted future traffic noise levels were projected to the noise-sensitive areas of the development based on a 4.5 dB decrease per doubling of distance from the noise source. The results of those projections are summarized below in Table 1. The FHWA Model inputs are shown in Appendix B. Table 1 Predicted Future Traffic Noise Levels at the Project Roadway Lots Receiver Location Offsets [dBA] Predicted DNL [dBA] Noise Standard [dBA] Additional Mitigation Required? Keiser Ave 101 - 114 Backyard 0 57 60 No 1st-floor interior -25a 31 45 No 2nd-floor interior -23a,b 33 45 No Snyder Ln 115 - 120 Backyard 0 67 60 Yes 1st-floor interior -25a 41 45 No 2nd-floor interior -23a,b 43 45 No Snyder Ln 114, 121 Backyard 0 66 60 Yes 1st-floor interior -25a 41 45 No 2nd-floor interior -23a,b 43 45 No Snyder Ln Community Garden Outdoor Activity Area -5c 57 60 No Notes a. A -25 dB offset was as applied for exterior-to-interior noise levels due to standard residential construction. b. A +2 dB offset was applied at all upper-floor building facades to account for reduced ground absorption of sound at elevated positions. c. A -5 dB offset was applied due to shielding from intervening buildings. Source: Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc (2023) Analysis of Future Exterior Traffic Noise Exposure at Outdoor Activity Areas As indicated in Table 1, future traffic noise levels at the proposed primary outdoor activity areas (backyards), located nearest to the Keiser Avenue are predicted to be satisfactory relative to the City of Rohnert Park General Plan exterior noise level standard of 60 dB DNL. However, future Snyder Lane traffic noise levels at the proposed primary outdoor activity areas are predicted to exceed the exterior noise level standard. As a result, further consideration of exterior Snyder Lane traffic noise mitigation measures would be warranted for the project. Traffic Noise Mitigation BAC evaluated the effectiveness of noise barriers constructed along Snyder Lane for the purposes of reducing future traffic noise exposure to a state of compliance with the General Plan exterior noise level standard. Table 2 shows the predicted noise level for various barrier heights. Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC) Environmental Noise Assessment Snyder Lane Commons – Rohnert Park, California Page 7 Table 2 Predicted Future Traffic Noise Levels with Noise Barriers Roadway Lots Receiver Location1 Barrier Height [ft] Predicted DNL [dBA] Snyder Ln 115 - 120 Backyard 6 61 7 60 8 58 Snyder Ln 114, 121 Backyard 6 60 7 58 8 56 Notes 1. Location of barrier is shown on Figure 2. Source: Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc (2023) Table 2 indicates that a minimum 7-foot-tall noise barrier is required for lots 115 – 120 and a 6- foot-tall noise barrier is required for lots 114 and 121. Figure 2 shows the location of the required noise barriers. The traffic noise barriers could take the form of masonry wall, earthen berm, or a combination of the two. A wood (or wood composite) fence would also be a sufficient noise barrier provided that the fence slats overlap by a minimum of 2-inches and are screwed to the framing rather than nailed. (Note: The purpose of the overlapping slats and using screws as opposed to nails is to ensure that prolonged exposure to the elements doesn’t result is visible gaps through the fence which would reduce barrier effectiveness.) Other barrier materials may be acceptable but should be reviewed by an acoustical consultant prior to construction. It should be noted that the identified barrier height assumes that the difference in elevations between the roadway and adjacent residential pad/backyard are within ±2 feet. Should differences in elevations be greater than ±2 feet, an additional analysis would be warranted. Nonetheless, the barrier height is relative to pad/backyard or roadway elevation, whichever is greater. Analysis of Future Interior Traffic Noise Exposure within Residences Standard residential construction (stucco siding, STC-27 windows, door weather-stripping, exterior wall insulation, composition plywood roof) typically attenuates exterior noise levels by 25 dB. Therefore, as shown in Table 1, future interior traffic noise levels are predicted to range from 31 to 41 dB DNL at the first-floor building interiors proposed nearest to the roadways. Due to reduced ground absorption of sound at elevated positions and lack of attenuation from the existing sound walls, noise levels at the upper-floor interiors of those residences are calculated to range from 33 to 43 dB DNL. As a result, no further consideration of interior traffic noise mitigation measures would be warranted for the project. However, mechanical ventilation (air conditioning) should be provided for all residences in this development to allow the occupants to close doors and windows as desired to achieve compliance with applicable noise level criterion. Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC) Environmental Noise Assessment Snyder Lane Commons – Rohnert Park, California Page 8 It should be noted that construction of a traffic noise barrier would further reduce future interior traffic noise levels at the nearest first-floor facades. School Parking Lot Noise Parking Lot Noise Prediction Methodology As a means of determining potential noise exposure due to event parking lot activities, BAC utilized specific parking lot noise level measurements conducted by BAC. Specifically, a series of individual noise measurements were conducted of multiple vehicle types arriving and departing a parking area, including engines starting and stopping, car doors opening and closing, and persons conversing as they entered and exited the vehicles. The results of those measurements revealed that individual parking lot movements generated mean noise levels of 70 dB SEL at a reference distance of 50 feet. The maximum noise level associated with parking lot activity typically did not exceed 65 dB Lmax at the same reference distance. An existing school parking lot is located immediately south of the project area. The parking area is shown on Figure 1. For a conservative assessment of parking area noise generation, it was assumed that the parking area could fill or empty completely during a peak hour of event operations. However, it is likely that parking area activity would be more spread out. The following analysis of event parking lot noise levels assumes 100 vehicles. Parking area noise exposure was determined using the following equation: Peak Hour Leq = 70+10*log (N) – 35.6 Where 70 is the SEL for a single automobile parking operation at a reference distance of 50 feet, N is the number of parking area operations in a peak hour, and 35.6 is 10 times the logarithm of the number of seconds in an hour. Predicted Parking Lot Noise Levels Using the equation provided above, the cited vehicle capacity assumptions, and measured BAC parking lot noise measurement data, data were projected from the effective noise center of the proposed parking areas to the nearest receivers based on a sound level decay rate of -6 dB per doubling of distance from the source. The results of that analysis are presented in Table 3. Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC) Environmental Noise Assessment Snyder Lane Commons – Rohnert Park, California Page 9 Table 3 Predicted Vehicle Circulation Noise Levels at the Nearest Receivers Offsets [dBA] Predicted Noise Level [dBA] Receiver (Lots)1 Receiver Location Peak Hour Leq Peak Hour Lmax DNLd R1 (130-134) backyard 0 42 62 39 1st-floor interior -25a 42 36 14 2nd-floor interior -23a,b 42 38 16 R2 (127-129) backyard 0 43 59 40 1st-floor interior -25a 42 33 14 2nd-floor interior -23a,b 42 35 16 R3 (124-126) backyard 0 41 57 38 1st-floor interior -25a 41 31 13 2nd-floor interior -23a,b 41 33 15 R4 (121-123) backyard 0 39 54 36 1st-floor interior -25a 39 29 11 2nd-floor interior -23a,b 39 31 13 R5 (Community Garden) outdoor activity area -5c 38 46 30 Notes 1. Receiver locations are shown on Figure 2. a. A -25 dB offset was as applied for exterior-to-interior noise levels due to standard residential construction. b. A +2 dB offset was applied at all upper-floor building facades to account for reduced ground absorption of sound at elevated positions. c. A -5 dB offset was applied due to shielding from intervening buildings. d. Day-Night Average Level was conservatively estimated assuming two hours of daytime peak parking lot activity and one hour of nighttime peak parking lot activity. Source: Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc (2023) Analysis of Parking Lot Noise Levels The Table 3 data indicate that exterior noise levels generated by worst-case parking lot activity operations are predicted to range from 36 to 40 dB DNL at the nearest receivers, which would satisfy the 60 dB DNL exterior noise level standard for residential uses by a wide margin. In addition, standard residential construction (stucco siding, STC-27 windows, door weather- stripping, exterior wall insulation, composition plywood roof), results in an exterior to interior noise reduction of at least 25 dB with windows closed and approximately 15 dB with windows open. As a result, worst-case parking lot noise levels are expected to satisfy the 45 dB DNL interior noise level standard. Conclusions The project is predicted to be exposed to future traffic noise levels in compliance with the Rohnert Park General Plan 45 dB DNL interior noise level standard for residential uses. However, a portion of the development is predicted to be exposed to future traffic noise levels in excess of the General Plan’s 60 dB DNL exterior noise level standard. To comply with the General Plan’s exterior noise level standard at the project site, a traffic noise barrier would be required at the height and location shown on Figure 2. Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC) Environmental Noise Assessment Snyder Lane Commons – Rohnert Park, California Page 10 These conclusions are based on the future traffic data cited in Appendix B, the project site plan shown on Figure 2, and on noise reduction data for standard residential dwellings and for typical STC rated window data. Deviations from the above-mentioned resources could cause future traffic noise levels to differ from those predicted in this assessment. In addition, BAC is not responsible for degradation in acoustic performance of the residential construction due to poor construction practices, failure to comply with applicable building code requirements, or for failure to adhere to the minimum building practices cited in this report. This concludes BAC’s traffic noise evaluation for the Snyder Lane Commons residential development in Rohnert Park, California. Please contact BAC at (530) 537-2328 or paulb@bacnoise.com with any questions regarding this assessment. Appendix A Acoustical Terminology Acoustics The science of sound. Ambient Noise The distinctive acoustical characteristics of a given space consisting of all noise sources audible at that location. In many cases, the term ambient is used to describe an existing or pre-project condition such as the setting in an environmental noise study. Attenuation The reduction of an acoustic signal. A-Weighting A frequency-response adjustment of a sound level meter that conditions the output signal to approximate human response. Decibel or dB Fundamental unit of sound. A Bell is defined as the logarithm of the ratio of the sound pressure squared over the reference pressure squared. A Decibel is one-tenth of a Bell. CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level. Defined as the 24-hour average noise level with noise occurring during evening hours (7 - 10 p.m.) weighted by a factor of three and nighttime hours weighted by a factor of 10 prior to averaging. Frequency The measure of the rapidity of alterations of a periodic signal, expressed in cycles per second or hertz. IIC Impact Insulation Class (IIC): A single-number representation of a floor/ceiling partition’s impact generated noise insulation performance. The field-measured version of this number is the FIIC. Ldn Day/Night Average Sound Level. Similar to CNEL but with no evening weighting. Leq Equivalent or energy-averaged sound level. Lmax The highest root-mean-square (RMS) sound level measured over a given period of time. Loudness A subjective term for the sensation of the magnitude of sound. Masking The amount (or the process) by which the threshold of audibility is for one sound is raised by the presence of another (masking) sound. Noise Unwanted sound. Peak Noise The level corresponding to the highest (not RMS) sound pressure measured over a given period of time. This term is often confused with the “Maximum” level, which is the highest RMS level. RT60 The time it takes reverberant sound to decay by 60 dB once the source has been removed. STC Sound Transmission Class (STC): A single-number representation of a partition’s noise insulation performance. This number is based on laboratory-measured, 16-band (1/3- octave) transmission loss (TL) data of the subject partition. The field-measured version of this number is the FSTC. Appendix B-1 FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model Inputs Snyder Lane Commons File Name: FHWA Segments - Future Run Date: 6/28/2023 % Med. % Hvy. Speed Distance # Roadway Description ADT Day % Night %Trucks Trucks [MPH][ft] 1 Snyder Ln South of Keiser Ave 18,310 80 20 2.0 2.0 40 90 2 Keiser Ave East of Snyder Ln 979 80 20 2.0 2.0 40 65 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2024-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE TEXT OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN AREA LOCATED NORTH OF COPELAND CREEK, WEST OF PETALUMA HILL ROAD, AND SOUTH OF KEISER AVENUE (VARIOUS APNS) WHEREAS, in 2023 the City of Rohnert Park adopted its required Housing Element, including an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, which, among other things, provided for high density residential development on the 2.4 acre parcel located at the southeast corner of Snyder Lane and Keiser Avenue within the University District Specific Plan Area; and WHEREAS, the applicant, Cory Creath for Snyder Ventures, LP, filed Planning Applications proposing amendments to the General Plan (PLGP23-0001), an amended Specific Plan (PLSP23-0001), a Development Area Plan (PLDP23-0001), and a Tentative Map (PLSD23-0002) to allow the subdivision and development of property for the Snyder Lane Commons project (“Project”) located at the southeast corner of Snyder Lane and Keiser Avenue, within the University District Specific Plan Area (APN 045-253-025), in accordance with the City of Rohnert Park Municipal Code (“RPMC”); and WHEREAS, the purpose of the proposed amendments is to allow for an increased density and an increase of twenty residential units for the Snyder Lane Commons project, consistent with the City’s adopted Housing Element; and WHEREAS, the proposed Project requires changes to the Land Use element of the General Plan, which are set forth in Exhibit A, attached to and incorporated herein, which includes an increase of twenty units within the University District Specific Plan Area; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the University District Specific Plan Project (State Clearinghouse Number 2003112011) and Addendums to the EIR have been prepared and approved which show potential impacts related to the development of the site; and WHEREAS, the proposed changes as a result of the Project have been analyzed in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and because no new environmental impacts were found, an addendum to the previously adopted University District Specific Plan Project Environmental Impact Report (UDSP EIR) was prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines § 15164); 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 May 23, 2024, 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: Section 1. Recitals. The above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. CEQA Review. The City prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to address the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that may be associated with the planning, construction, or operation of the UDSP 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. The City certified the Final EIR on May 23, 2006 and approved Addendums to the Final EIR on April 8, 2014 and November 8, 2016. In accordance with the requirements of CEQA, City staff and consultants reviewed the project in light of the more detailed project-specific information now available and determined that a supplemental or subsequent EIR was not required by CEQA Guidelines section 15162. Therefore, an addendum (the 2024 Addendum) has been prepared to make minor technical revisions or additions to the certified EIR. The 2024 Addendum concluded that there are no changes in the project or new information that would result in a new or substantially more severe impact than was disclosed in the 2006 Program EIR, 2014 Addendum, and 2016 Addendum and has been recommended for adoption. Section 3. Findings. Planning Commission makes the following findings concerning the General Plan amendments proposed by Planning Application No. PLGP22-0001: 1. 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 May 23, 2024. 2. That the proposed Project with the proposed General Plan amendments is consistent with the remainder of the General Plan. The Specific Plan, as originally adopted, contains an analysis of General Plan consistency. This includes a discussion of the Plan’s ability to provide greater housing diversity through multiple residential densities, including varied lot and home sizes that address wider market areas, and affordable housing. The proposed amendments do not change this analysis. In fact, the proposed amendments enhance the Project’s consistency with these goals, including General Plan Goals LU-F (Create new mixed-use University District; offer a wide mix of residential opportunities), LU-I (Provide a range of housing variety in type and price), 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). In addition, the 2023 Housing Element amended the City’s General Plan to include higher density housing on the proposed project site. 3. 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 an increase of twenty units on one lot within the University District Specific Plan Area. The amendments continue to implement the General Plan policies and goals and enhance consistency between the Land Use, Community Development and Housing Elements. 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 furthers the objectives and policies of the General Plan and does not obstruct their attainment. 4. 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 2014, the City fully evaluated the extent to which the University District Specific Plan achieved 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 amendments are minor in nature, ensure that the City’s adopted Housing Element can be implemented through the University District Specific Plan, 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 the Housing Element of the General Plan. 5. 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 and specifically supports implementation of the Housing Element. Section 4. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt the Findings hereinabove and approve Planning Application No. PLGP23-0001, General Plan Amendments for the University District Specific Plan Area located north of Copeland Creek, west of Petaluma Hill Road, and south of Keiser Avenue (various APNs), as set forth in the General Plan Amendments attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, in its entirety. DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED on this 23rd day of May, 2024 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 EXHIBIT A Amendments to Table 2.4-1 (Land Use Program: University District Specific Plan Area) [Note: Updated indicated below in bold/underlined text. Underlined text to be added and strike-out text to be removed] LU-14 Ensure that the land use program is within the ranges indicated on Table 2.4-1, including the minimum and maximum number of units for each residential land use classification. Table 2.4-1: Land Use Program: University District Specific Plan Area Gross Acreage1 Housing Units Minimum-Maximum Building Area (1,000 s.f.) Minimum-Maximum Rural Estate Residential 10-15 20-26 - Low Density Residential 50-75 200-410 - Medium Density Residential 55-100 600-900 - High Density Residential 5-15 200-500 - Mixed Use 10-30 0-150 100 Parks 10-20 - - Public/Institutional 5-20 - - Open Space and Buffers 50-70 - - Total 300 1,400-1,6451,665 Minimum of 100 1. Excludes acreage for the Rohnert Park Expressway between the easterly City limits and Petaluma Hill Road, and Keiser Avenue. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2024-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN AREA LOCATED NORTH OF COPELAND CREEK, WEST OF PETALUMA HILL ROAD, AND SOUTH OF KEISER AVENUE (VARIOUS APNS) WHEREAS, in 2023, the City adopted its required Housing Element, including an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, which, among other things, provided for high density residential development on the 2.4-acre parcel located at the southeast corner of Snyder Lane and Keiser Avenue within the University District Specific Plan Area; and WHEREAS, the applicant, Cory Creath for Snyder Ventures, LP, filed Planning Applications proposing amendments to the General Plan (PLGP23-0001), an amended Specific Plan (PLSP23-0001), a Development Area Plan (PLDP23-0001), and a Tentative Map (PLSD23-0002) to allow the subdivision and development of property for the Snyder Lane Commons project (“Project”) located at the southeast corner of Snyder Lane and Keiser Avenue within the University District Specific Plan Area (APN 045-253-025), in accordance with the City of Rohnert Park Municipal Code (“RPMC”); and WHEREAS, in conjunction with Planning Application No. PLSP23-0001, the Project proposes approval of amendments to the University District Specific Plan, attached to and incorporated in this Resolution as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the main purpose of the proposed amendments is to allow for an increase of twenty units within the University District Specific Plan Area and a change to high-density residential, consistent with the City’s adopted Housing Element; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the University District Specific Plan (UDSP) Project (State Clearinghouse Number 2003112011) and Addendums to the EIR have been prepared and approved which show potential impacts related to the development of the site; and WHEREAS, the project has been analyzed for compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the proposed changes were analyzed in an addendum to the previously adopted University District Specific Plan Project Environmental Impact Report (UDSP EIR), prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines § 15164); 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 May 23, 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. PLSP23-0001 for the proposed amendments to the University District 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. The City prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to address the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that may be associated with the planning, construction, or operation of the UDSP 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. The City certified the Final EIR on May 23, 2006 and approved Addendums to the Final EIR on April 8, 2014 and November 8, 2016. In accordance with the requirements of CEQA, City staff and consultants reviewed the project in light of the more detailed project-specific information now available and determined that a supplemental or subsequent EIR was not required by CEQA Guidelines section 15162. Therefore, an addendum (the 2024 Addendum) has been prepared to make minor technical revisions or additions to the certified EIR. The 2024 Addendum concluded that there are no changes in the project or new information that would result in a new or substantially more severe impact than was disclosed in the 2006 Program EIR, 2014 Addendum, and 2016 Addendum and has been recommended for adoption. Section 3. Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings concerning the amended Southeast Specific Plan proposed by Planning Application No. PLSP23- 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 University District 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 and will increased the consistency between the Community Design and Housing Elements. The proposed amended plan will increase the amount of housing provided in the University District Specific Plan 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 will not affect public health and safety or result in incompatible land uses. The proposed twenty new units can be served by existing and planned infrastructure that has been constructed to support the University District Specific Plan and are in character with surrounding neighborhoods. The proposed land use changes provide variation in residential typologies as envisioned for the Specific Plan Area. 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. The backbone public facilities necessary to serve the site of the proposed high density housing are complete. Water, sewer drainage, access, and street lighting improvements are available to the site from Oak Circle and were designed to accommodate future development. The remaining public facilities necessary to fully support this portion of the specific plan area include intersection improvements and signalization at the Keiser/Snyder and Keiser Petaluma Hill Road intersections. Both of these improvements are designed and funded and scheduled to start construction in 2024. The combination of existing and planned public facilities and the timing for completing planned public facilities ensures that growth will not outpace public facilities service levels. 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 facilitated by this specific plan amendment will pay mitigation fees including the City’s Public Facilities Fee, Water Capacity Charge, and Regional Traffic Fee to allow for construction of adequate offsite improvements, consistent with both the University District Specific Plan and its adopted EIR. The project facilitated by this specific plan amendment will annex to the Bristol Community Facilities District to support its fair share of public services and maintenance and will be subject to the City’s Master Maintenance Agreement to ensure private facilities are well maintained. 5. The proposed specific plan amendment will not create internal inconsistencies within the specific plan and is consistent with the purpose and intent of the specific plan it is amending. The amended Specific Plan would remain internally consistent, as tables, figures, and text throughout the Plan would all be updated to reflect the proposed changes. The Specific Plan amendments would continue to be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Specific Plan, including the objective to foster diverse residential development. Section 4. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt the Findings stated hereinabove and approve Application No. PLSP23-0001 amending the University District Specific Plan as shown in Exhibit A, in its entirety. DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED on this 23th day of May, 2024 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 EXHIBIT A UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN <ATTACH HERE> ` ADOPTED MAY 23, 2006, RESOLUTION NO. 2006–143 AMENDED APRIL 8, 2014, RESOLUTION NO. 2014–034 AMENDED FEBRUARY 14, 2017, RESOLUTION NO. 2017–023 AMENDED MAY 12, 2020, RESOLUTION NO. 2020–039 AMENDED ________, 2024, RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XXX City of Rohnert Park 1 Table of Contents 1. Overview of the Specific Plan ........................................................................................................... 3 2. Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 4 General Description of UDSP............................................................................................................... 4 Specific Plan Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 4 Community Planning Goals .................................................................................................................. 5 Development Planning ......................................................................................................................... 9 3. Policy Framework .......................................................................................................................... 10 General Plan Compatibility ................................................................................................................. 10 4. Land Use Plan ............................................................................................................................... 12 Specific Plan Land Use Designations ................................................................................................. 15 5. Transportation, Utilities and Phasing .............................................................................................. 17 Development Programs ..................................................................................................................... 17 Grading Plans .................................................................................................................................... 17 Utility Infrastructure Systems, Generation and Demand...................................................................... 17 Wastewater Generation, Hydrology / Water Quality and Water Demand ............................................. 24 Transportation and Circulation Infrastructure ...................................................................................... 25 Solid Waste Programs ....................................................................................................................... 33 Community Lighting ........................................................................................................................... 33 Development Infrastructure Phasing and Residential Phasing Plan .................................................... 33 6. Parks, Open Space and Public Facilities ........................................................................................ 35 Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 35 Parkland ............................................................................................................................................ 35 Open Space ...................................................................................................................................... 36 Public Facilities .................................................................................................................................. 40 7. Facilities Financing Plan ................................................................................................................ 41 General Plan Financial Criteria .......................................................................................................... 41 Development Financial Requirements ................................................................................................ 41 Financing Mechanisms ...................................................................................................................... 41 Development Agreement ................................................................................................................... 42 Maintenance and Service Financing Mechanisms .............................................................................. 42 8. Housing Program ........................................................................................................................... 43 Affordable Housing Programs ............................................................................................................ 43 9. Implementation Program ................................................................................................................ 44 Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 44 Implementing Elements ..................................................................................................................... 44 10. Environmental Conservation Program ........................................................................................ 46 Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 46 Summary of Biological Assessments.................................................................................................. 46 2 Tables Table 1 Properties within the University District Specific Plan Page 4 Table 2 Relationship of the Specific Plan to the General Plan Page 11 Table 3 University District Specific Plan Land Use Page 12 Table 4A Land Use Summary Page 14 Table 4B Lot/Unit Count Page 14 Table 5 UDSP Wastewater Generation and Water Demand Page 24 Table 6A UDSP Development Phasing Plan Page 33 Table 6B UD LLC and VO Infrastructure Phasing Program Page 34 Table 7 UDSP Estimated Population Page 35 Table 8 UDSP Park Land Demand Page 35 Table 9 UDSP Public School Demand Page 40 Table 10 UDSP Affordable Housing Plan Page 43 Table 11 Jurisdictional Feature and Acreage for UD LLC and VO Page 47 Table 12 Special Status Plant Species to Occur on UD & VO Page 53 Table 13 Special Status Wildlife Species to Occur on UD & VO Page 55 Figures Figure 1 UDSP Vicinity Map Page 6 Figure 2 UDSP Aerial Map Page 7 Figure 3 Specific Plan Areas Page 8 Figure 4 UDSP Land Use Plan Page 13 Figure 5 Vast Oak, UD LLC and Bristol Site Plan Page 16 Figure 6 VO and UD LLC Development Phasing Plan Page 18 Figure 7 VO and UD LLC Conceptual Grading Plan Page 19 Figure 8 VO and UD LLC Waste Water System Plan Page 20 Figure 9 VO and UD LLC Storm System Plan Page 21 Figure 10 VO and UD LLC Potable Water System Plan Page 22 Figure 11 VO and UD LLC Recycled Water System Plan Page 23 Figure 12A VO and UD LLC Street Sections Page 27 Figure 12B VO and UD LLC Street Sections Page 28 Figure 12C VO and UD LLC Street Sections Page 29 Figure 12D VO and UD LLC Street Sections Page 30 Figure 13 VO and UD LLC Public Transit Plan Page 32 Figure 14 VO and UD LLC Public Parks Plan Page 37 Figure 15 Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation Plan Page 38 Figure 16 Vehicular and Pedestrian Bridges at Hinebaugh Creek Page 39 Figure 17 Front Yard and Front Door Orientation in Vast Oak North Page 63 Appendices Appendix A Development Standards Page 58 Appendix B Design Guidelines Page 73 3 1. OVERVIEW OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN The University District Specific Plan (“Specific Plan” or “UDSP”), annexed to the City in 2007, includes five properties on 300 acres. The University District LLC (“UD LLC”) and Vast Oak Properties (“Vast Oak”), also known as “University Park”, consist of 87% of the UDSP while Cotati – Rohnert Park Unified School District (“CRPUSD”), Bristol, and Creath comprise the balance. The UDSP is a master planned pedestrian oriented community with that provides diverse housing and a commercial center near education and cultural facilities pursuant to General Plan policies. A specific plan is a mechanism to provide greater level of detail than provided in a General Plan for sites of interest to a city. The specific plan process provides a comprehensive development program based upon site conditions, environmental considerations and public policy. A specific plan establishes the character and location of development within an orderly program. This Specific Plan provides greater detail, establishing development based upon character, location, phasing, site and environmental conditions. The Specific Plan is organized as follows: Chapter Summary Executive Summary Describes planning goals, implementation, schedules, and key components integrated into the community design and phasing. Policy Framework Discusses the relationship between the Specific Plan and General Plan for land use, resources, infrastructure and financing. Land Use Plan Describes land use goals and designations, including density ranges, types of units, public / institutional and open space / park. Transportation, Utilities, Phasing Identifies development, planning, infrastructure, as well as identifies infrastructure needs for properties. Parks, Open Space, Facilities Addresses impacts and mitigation of population on schools, parks. Facilities Financing Plan Discusses financing criteria for properties to fund development costs and infrastructure, and long term funding for maintenance. Housing Program Addresses housing diversity goals and affordable obligations, including strategies to provide diverse housing opportunities. Implementation Program Environment Conservation Appendices Describes CEQA, Specific Plan and Subdivision Map Act processes, as well as agreements that ensure development rights and mitigation. Clarifies design, infrastructure, and phasing. Discusses the assessment of biological resources and impacts of development upon resources. Appendices include the following: Appendix A - Development Standards Appendix B - Design Guidelines 4 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY General Description of UDSP The Specific Plan location is shown in Figure 1, the UDSP properties are shown in Figure 2, and the six specific plans shown in the General Plan are shown in Figure 3. The UDSP is located south of Keiser Avenue, west of Petaluma Hill Road, and north of Sonoma State University (“SSU”), Green Music Center (“GMC”) and Copeland Creek. Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) for UDSP properties are shown in Table 1. The UD LLC and Vast Oak properties have been continuously farmed for fifty years, though mass grading and wetlands construction has been implemented since 2007. No structures exist on the Creath and Bristol properties. The CRPUSD property currently is the location of a community garden. UD LLC and Vast Oak are planned for residential, mixed use, open space, basins and parks, while the land uses for the other properties are based on the General Plan land use designations. Table 1 Properties within the University District Specific Plan Properties APN Acres UD LLC 047-131-026 047-131-027 34.34 Vast Oak 045-262-001 045-262-002 045-262-003 045-262-004 047-131-019 047-131-024 047-131-025 226.58 CRPUSD 045-253-018 29.69 Bristol 045-253-009 045-253-010 045-253-011 045-253-012 6.94 Creath 045-253-02507 2.403.06 Total 300.61299.95 Specific Plan Objectives The plan fosters diverse residential and mixed use development, including a Commercial Center that links to SSU and the GMC. Other objectives include provision of on – site open space and detention basins, public parks, and on – site trails for pedestrian and bicycle connections that link to existing off – site trails and sidewalks that provide access to educational and cultural facilities and City neighborhoods. 5 Community Planning Goals The Specific Plan focuses on the following General Plan goals: o Locate the Commercial Center across from the GMC along Rohnert Park Expressway where it is most visible to traffic and easily accessible to GMC, SSU and UDSP neighborhoods via pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular transportation. o Link the Commercial Center with pedestrian sidewalks, bicycle trails and lanes, and roadways, reinforcing the Commercial Center and private plaza as a focal point for the Specific Plan. o Provide north – south and east – west “Linear Parkway” roadway, bicycle and pedestrian trail connections from Rohnert Park Expressway to Keiser Avenue, and from Kerry Road to the Commercial Center. Provide Class 1 Bicycle trails along open space. o Provide open space with creeks, creek buffers, and wetlands at the Scenic Corridor as well as a single vehicular creek crossing at Hinebaugh Creek to reduce impacts. o Address water quality and detention impacts through on – site basins and on – lot water quality treatment measures. o Dedicate an on – site “sheet graded” Vast Oak North site to satisfy the affordable requirement of the UD LLC and Vast Oak properties. o Satisfy UD LLC and Vast Oak parkland requirements through a combination of the Vast Oak land dedication and the improvement of Vast Oak public parks and Class 1 Bicycle trails. o Satisfy CRPUSD parkland requirements with the provision of dedicated parkland within their property, while in – lieu fee payment might be an alternative for the Bristol and Creath properties. o Reduce Specific Plan potable water impacts by using recycled water at front yards, landscape parkway strips, public parks, and other on-site water conservation measures. 6 7 8 9 Development Planning The following criteria were incorporated into the Development Planning of the UDSP: • Site Constraints and Planning Criteria Planning is influenced by site constraints, maintenance standards, open space, water quality and drainage, resource agencies’ criteria, and management criteria. • Infrastructure and Phasing Criteria Each property is required to have the financial capability to fund necessary infrastructure to support itself. Phasing Plans and Development Schedules will define timing and infrastructure that support each phase or property. Infrastructure for Vast Oak will facilitate its phased development and connections for UD LLC and school district property. Infrastructure for other Specific Plan properties will be defined with their development plans. • Residential Development Up to 1,6645 UDSP residential units, including Estate, Low, Medium -, Public / Institutional / Medium, High - and Mixed Use Density units. Up to 1,454 UD LLC and VO units are included, while other properties units have 0 to 191 units. The minimum UDSP units would be 1,400 and the maximum is 1,6645. Second units are not included in this unit count. • Mixed Use Includes a Commercial Center and private plaza that may include retail / office and other commercial uses and act as a focal point of the Specific Plan. Also includes residential as defined in the Development Standards and Land Use sections. • Parkland and Open Space Includes public parks on the Vast Oak and CRPUSD properties, as well as Class 1 Bicycle Trails. The UD LLC and Vast Oak Parkland Dedication Ordinance requirements will be satisfied on the Vast Oak properties. Open space is provided on Vast Oak and UD LLC, including Scenic Corridor wetlands along Petaluma Hill Road, Hinebaugh and Copeland Creeks and buffers, as well as open space along UD LLC. The open space will be owned, funded and maintained by the Vast Oak and UD LLC association. • Pedestrian Oriented Planning The Specific Plan features two streets on Vast Oak that include bike trails, sidewalks, vehicular lanes and parking, to allow and promote pedestrian, bicycle as well as vehicular traffic to connect to UDSP residences, Vast Oak parks, the UDSP Commercial Center, to Rohnert Park Expressway and Keiser Avenue. • Implementation Methods Standards and policies are required to be established, including entitlement, infrastructure, phasing and development schedules that adhere to the Growth Management Ordinance. Development agreements will solidify approvals as the basis for financing and management. 10 3. POLICY FRAMEWORK The City’s 2020 General Plan provides policy framework that identifies Objectives, Themes, Land Use Goals and Policies which guide site and community planning of the Specific Plan. This relationship is depicted in Table 2. General Plan Compatibility The UDSP adheres to numerous General Plan goals and policies, including those found in Section 1.4 Objectives and Themes, Section 2.2 for Land Use Framework, Section 2.4 Goals and Policies: Land Use, Section 3.1 Goals: Urban Forms, Views and Edges, Section 4 Transportation, Section 4.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation, Section 5 Open Space, Parks and Public Facilities, and Sections 5.4 and 5.5, among others, for housing diversity, infrastructure, phasing, parks, maintenance, funding of infrastructure and services, drainage, open space, planning with SSU, walkable site planning with bicycle and pedestrian trails, and accessibility to parks. General Plan compatibility is achieved through the following: • Commercial Center is located across from GMC and SSU to promote greater interaction with cultural and education facilities, while accessible by vehicle, bicycle and walking for University District Specific Plan residents. The Commercial Center is adjacent to Scenic Corridor with a Class 1 bicycle trail so that views to the east are still maintained and available to the public. • Twin Creeks Public Park is located in a centralized area of Vast Oak, its size and shape provides greater active recreational opportunities and parkland use. • Keiser Avenue to Copeland Creek vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian connection is achieved with the “Linear Parkway” concept that includes bike lanes, pedestrian sidewalks, vehicle lanes and on – street parking on a north – south connection Kerry Road from Keiser Avenue to Rohnert Park Expressway, as well as an east – west connection from Kerry Road to the Commercial Center and then south to the GMC. The Linear Parkway connects with the east – west Class 1 Bicycle Trails along Hinebaugh Creek and bicycle lanes along Rohnert Park Expressway and Keiser Avenue. Bike trails will be included in UD LLC as part of the Tentative Map process. • Adhere to 200’ - 0” minimum structural buffer between Redwood Park Estates and the Vast Oak West phase with no buildings in this area. The General Plan requirement of 100’ – 0” has been surpassed so that no single story requirement is necessary. Adhere to the J Section buffer requirement of a 100’ – 0” minimum. Two story structures are allowed behind the first residential lot adjacent to the buffer at the J Section. The Medical Center / Oakview Terrace buffer along Vast Oak West phase require a minimum 60’ – 0” without buildings pursuant to General Policy CD – 7, without a single – story requirement adjacent to this building buffer. • Achieve hydrology and drainage mitigation goals through on – site construction detention basins, on – site detention and / or water quality basins, on – site temporary and permanent detention basins, as well as possible off – site detention basins. • Address greater housing diversity through provision of multiple residential densities, including varied lot and home sizes that address wider market areas, and affordable housing. • Continues to provide substantial open space with creeks, creek buffers and wetlands. Key elements of the General Plan found in the Specific Plan are noted in Table 2 as follows: 11 Table 2 Relationship of the Specific Plan to the General Plan Objective Specific Plan Addresses Objective in the Following Ways Keep the City's Small – Town Feel • Commercial Center with private plaza as focal point for residents, faculty, students, and visitors. Maximize accessibility along RPX for pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle traffic, and promote interaction with GMC and SSU. Establish Better Connections with Sonoma State University • Provide trails, sidewalks and bicycle lanes that link the Specific Plan at Keiser Avenue to existing trails and sidewalks that connect to SSU and Rancho Cotate High School. The Commercial Center will provide gathering spaces for SSU and GMC. Increase Housing Affordability and Diversity • Satisfy housing diversity by providing opportunities for singles, couples and families of differing of socioeconomic backgrounds. Meet affordable housing goals by dedicating a “sheet graded” high density residential property for development of an affordable community. Increase Open Space Ratios within the City • Create open space with scenic corridors and creek buffers, as well as parks which will be improved. The Specific Plan will include the scenic corridor setback along the west side of Petaluma Hill Road. Increase Pedestrian and Bicycle Access • Provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities that provide access to existing trails and sidewalks to SSU, Rancho Cotate High School, Lawrence Jones Middle School, the City Community Center, and the existing neighborhoods. Build Infrastructure in Anticipation of Future Growth • Construct on-site and off-site infrastructure necessary to support each phase, with reciprocal easements for Vast Oak phases, and stubbed utilities to facilitate the development of contiguous Vast Oak Phases or other properties. Oversize utilities as needed to serve adjoining plan areas and other properties within the Specific Plan. Establish Better Cross-Town Connections • Provide improvements to RPX and Keiser Avenue to serve cross – town connections. Provide trails, sidewalks and bicycle lanes in the Specific Plan to facilitate non-motorized transportation and access to adjacent areas. Provide public transit opportunities when determined feasible by Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA). Provide for Slow, Managed, Predictable Growth • Adhere to the Growth Management Ordinance as a basis for the development agreements between the City and Specific Plan properties. Allow for infrastructure necessary for each phase through reciprocal and easements, and facilitate development of future phases and contiguous Specific Plan properties, if feasible and reimbursement is provided. Create Options for City's Edges with Soft Boundaries and Scenic Corridors • Provide Estate, Low and Mixed Use residential densities along the City’s designated Scenic Corridor along Petaluma Hill Road, including a trail at the Commercial Center. Require view fencing at the Estate lots along the northerly Scenic Corridor. 12 4. LAND USE PLAN The Land Use Plan illustrates a development pattern that meets General Plan goals for location, type and density, as well as policies to promote open space, such as creeks, buffers, and scenic corridors. The Land Use Plan addresses all properties in the Specific Plan, using land use designations determined by the General Plan for properties not controlled by the applicants. Table 3 shows the breakdown of acreages, densities and units by land use designation. The Specific Plan Land Use Plan, shown in Figure 4, includes the mix and location of development types, with a further breakdown of information on Table 4. Table 3 University District Specific Plan Land Use Designation Acreage Density (units/acre) Housing Units Minimum- Maximum Net Estimated Units in Designation Estate Residential 11.78 0.1 – 2.21 0 – 26 26 Low Density Residential 636.828 4.1 – 6.0 200 - 400 3682 Medium Density Residential 75.93 6.1 – 12.0 600 – 900 666 Public / Institutional / Medium Density Residential 23.24 6.1 – 24.0 200 - 300 203 High Density Residential 119.733 12.1 – 24.0 200 – 500 25418 Mixed Use 24.34 8.1 – 24.0 0 - 250 150 100,000 sq ft Open Space 53.87 N/A N/A N/A Parkland 19.57 N/A N/A N/A Public / Institutional 15.67 N/A N/A N/A Total 300.61299.95 --- 1,400 – 1,6645 1,6645 units 100,000 sq ft 13 14 TABLE 4A LAND USE SUMMARY LAND USE VAST OAK UD LLC CREATH BRISTOL CRPUSD TOTAL ESTATE 11.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.78 LOW 52.97 0.00 3.06 0.00 6.94 3.91 66.6863.82 MEDIUM 63.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.17 75.93 P / I / MEDIUM 0.00 23.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.24 HIGH 9.33 0.00 0.002.40 0.00 0.00 119.733 MIXED – USE 24.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.34 PARK 18.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.35 19.57 PUBLIC / INST. 5.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.94 15.67 OPEN SPACE 40.45 11.10 0.00 0.00 2.32 53.87 TOTAL 226.58 34.34 3.062.40 6.94 29.69 299.95300.61 TABLE 4B LOT / UNIT COUNT LAND USE VAST OAK UD LLC CREATH BRISTOL CRPUSD TOTAL ESTATE 26 0 0 0 0 26 LOW 304 0 160 42 20 382 MEDIUM 553 0 0 0 113 666 P/I/MEDIUM 0 203 0 0 0 203 HIGH 218 0 036 0 0 218 MIXED – USE 150 0 0 0 0 150 PARK N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PUBLIC / INST. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A OPEN SPACE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A TOTAL 1,251 203 1636 42 133 1,6645 15 Specific Plan Land Use Designations Estate Residential (0.1 – 2.21 du / gr. ac.) Includes Single Family Detached (“SFD”) homes on 14,000 square foot minimum lots. Low Density Residential (4.1 – 6.0 du / gr. ac.) Includes SFD homes on 4,000 square foot minimum lots, including motor – court lots. Medium Density Residential (6.1 – 12.0 du / gr. ac.) Includes SFD and Single Family Attached (“SFA” with four or fewer units per building) homes on lots up to a maximum of 5,500 square feet, including alley and motor – court lots. Public / Institutional / Medium Density Residential (6.1 – 12.0 du / gr. ac.) Includes SFD, SFA and MF homes on lots up to a maximum of 5,500 square feet, including alley and motor – court lots, as well as open space, trails, permanent or temporary private and public storm water detention / water quality basins and facilities, including fencing, and maintenance roads. High Density Residential (12.1 – 24.0 du gr. / ac.) Includes Alley and Motor – Court SFD, SFA and Multi-Family stacked – flat, carriage, townhome, zero – lot line and condominium ownership and rental homes. Mixed Use (8.1 – 24.0 du / gr. ac.) Includes Commercial Center with commercial, office, retail, a plaza area, and Residential that includes Motor – Court SFD and SFA as well as Multi-Family stacked – flat, carriage, townhome, live / work condominium ownership and rental homes. Public / Institutional Includes public uses such as educational facilities, institutional, public infrastructure, and transportation facilities, as well as creeks, creek buffers, private and public detention and water quality basins / facilities, public streets, paved and unpaved maintenance roads, fencing, Class 1 bicycle trails, pedestrian trails, lighting, parking, signage, utilities, and roads. Open Space Includes creeks, buffers, scenic corridors, wetlands, public and private streets, paved and unpaved maintenance roads, fencing, Class 1 bicycle trails, pedestrian trails, bridges, lighting, parking, signage, benches, trash receptacles, emergency vehicle access, utilities, drainage facilities, and roads. Park Includes public parks and private recreation areas, including Class 1 bicycle trails. The standards and guidelines for implementation of land uses within these designations will be in accordance with the Development Standards found in Appendix A and Design Guidelines contained in Appendix B. An illustrative site plan for the development of University Park is shown in Figure 5. 16 17 5. TRANSPORTATION, UTILITIES AND PHASING Development Programs Development programs for UDSP properties are necessary to ensure that infrastructure necessary to serve each phase and property is provided, including the “concurrency” between the demand for facilities, improvements and infrastructure, and the provision of these facilities and improvements to not impact existing infrastructure and residences in the City. Each property’s Preliminary Infrastructure Plans are required to be reviewed by the City. The installation of these improvements will be on a phase – by – phase or property – by – property basis. Vast Oak and UD LLC Development Phases are shown in Figure 6. Grading Plans A preliminary Grading Plan for each Specific Plan property is required for City review. The UD LLC and Vast Oak Preliminary Grading Plan is shown in Figure 7 and is independent of the other UDSP properties. Sheet grading of a large portion of the Vast Oak properties has already occurred. Grading plans will be subject to refinement as part of the Tentative Map process. Utility Infrastructure Systems, Generation and Demand On-site infrastructure plans are required for each property and phase. UD LLC and Vast Oak Infrastructure plans are shown in Figure 8 through Figure 11, incorporating sanitary sewer, storm drainage / water quality improvements, potable water systems and recycled water systems. The final designs of infrastructure will be provided in the Tentative Map(s). Specific Plan properties will coordinate with utility providers on the installation of “dry” utilities, adhering to the standards of those utilities. When the standards of the utility companies conflict with the standards in the Specific Plan and City, the utilities’ standards will be used, such as above ground transformers to avoid impact of groundwater and drainage. Off-site Infrastructure is coordinated through the Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP), including fee allocations for all properties. PFFP infrastructure will be funded and installed by property owners to satisfy PFFP Fee Burdens, while on-site infrastructure improvements will be installed by property owners at their cost. Specific Plan properties are responsible for their PFFP Fund Burdens without reliance on any other Specific Plan properties to provide, fund or over – size any improvements that support development of that property. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Wastewater Generation, Hydrology / Water Quality and Water Demand Wastewater Generation Wastewater infrastructure will address demand identified by 2006 UDSP EIR for each dwelling unit and the commercial areas. UDSP properties will generate an estimated wastewater demand shown in Table 5. Figure 8 indicates the wastewater infrastructure for Vast Oak. Hydrology and Water Quality Drainage mitigation measures are required so that UDSP post - development downstream impacts match UDSP pre – development impacts, as well as follow City and SCWA Design criteria. UD LLC and Vast Oak propose detention and water quality improvements as shown on Figure 9, pursuant to the existing conditions defined in the August 2013 ENGEO Hydrologic Evaluation and approved by the City Engineer. Water Quality mitigation, including construction and post – development treatment, will adhere to the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (“RWQCB”). These on – Site UD LLC and Vast Oak detention basins mitigate the post – development impervious surface impacts of UD LLC and Vast Oak. Additionally, a portion of the UD LLC property will be used as either a temporary or permanent detention basin that mitigates the PFFP requirements for UDSP. Water Demand UDSP properties will adhere to potable water demand projections of the 2005 Water Supply Assessment and 2006 UDSP EIR, which allowed up to 458,810 gpd of potable water demand. UDSP properties will implement water conservation methods to reduce water demand, including high efficiency appliances, low – flow toilets, and recycled water irrigation at parks, parkways, and front – yards. UDSP properties may generate water demand per the January 2011 City Engineer projections shown in Table 5. The December 2012 John Nelson study indicates that water conservation measures could reduce UDSP water demand. to under 310,000 gpd. Figures 10 and 11 indicate the potable water and recycled water infrastructure for Vast Oak. Table 5 UDSP Wastewater Generation and Water Demand SP Development Properties Unit Type(s) Total du’s Waste- water Rates (gpd) Total Estimated Wastewater Generation Water Rates (gpd) Total Estimated Water Demand UD LLC SFD 203 203 41,209 287 58,261 VAST OAK SFD 1,033 203 209,699 287 296,471 MF 218 143 31,191 143 31,191 Comm. 100,000 sf 0.05 5,000 0.05 5,000 245,890 332,662 CRPUSD SFD 133 203 26,999 287 38,171 BRISTOL SFD 42 203 8,526 287 12,054 CREATH MFSFD 316 203143 3,2485,148 287143 4,5925,148 TOTAL SP --- 1,6645 units --- 327,7725, 872 gpd --- 446,296 5,740 gpd gpd = gallons per day sf = square feet Table 5 does not include Nelson’s conservation measures 25 Transportation and Circulation Infrastructure Street sections in Figures 12A through 12D indicate designs for UD LLC and Vast Oak that replace the City’s Manual of Standards and Municipal Code for these properties. The remaining UDSP properties may use the following or adhere to the City’s Manual of Standards. Summary of Street Section Types • Private Lane at Residential Lots at Alleys: The private drive aisle shall be 20-24’ wide with rolled curb and gutter and a minimum 3’ driveway apron or landscape pocket. Maintenance of the drive aisle shall be by the Homeowner’s Association (HOA), with either HOA ownership of the drive aisle or HOA granted easement maintenance rights over the drive aisle. Landscape pockets outside of fenced areas within private lots along drive aisle will be maintained by the HOA. Drive aisle paving is allowed to be a minimum of 20’ wide between residential lots, within a minimum of 26’ separation between garage doors of residential structures, per the Residential and Mixed Use Development Standards. Drive aisle will have a minimum paved width of 24’ at the intersection with a public street, allowing for necessary turning radius for emergency vehicles and trash vehicles. No parking is allowed on the drive aisle, though access to garage parking and open parking within the private lots is accessed through the drive aisle. See Figure 12A-1A. • Private Lane at Residential Lots at Motor Courts: The private drive aisle shall be 20-24’ wide with rolled curb and gutter and a minimum 18’ full driveway, a 3’ driveway apron or landscape pocket. Maintenance of the drive aisle shall be by the HOA, with either HOA ownership of the drive aisle or HOA granted easement rights for maintenance over the drive aisle. Front yard or side yard landscape areas outside of fenced areas within private lots along drive aisle will be maintained by the HOA, using the HOA recycled water if feasible. Drive aisle paving is allowed to be a minimum of 20’ wide between residential lots, within a minimum of 26’ separation between garage doors of residential structures, per the Residential and Mixed Use Development Standards. Drive aisle will have a minimum paved width of 24’ at the intersection with a public street, allowing for necessary turning radius for emergency vehicles and trash vehicles. No parking is allowed on the drive aisle though access to garage parking and open parking within the private lots is accessed through the drive aisle. See Figure 12A-1B and 12A-1C. • Local Neighborhood Street: The curb-to-curb– shall be 32’, with 10’ drive lanes and 6’ parking lanes on both sides of street. Right-of- way width shall be 42’ to 68’, with 4.5’ to 10’ parkway strip / top of curb and 4’ to 8’ sidewalks on each side of street. See Figure 12B-2. • Local Neighborhood Street with Open Space or Buffer: The curb-to-curb shall be 32’, with 10’ drive lanes at both sides of street. The Open space or Buffer side of the street may include 4.5’ parkway strip and an 8’ Class 1 Bicycle trail and 2’ shoulders, but no on – street parking. The Residential side of street will include a 4.5’ to 10’ parkway strip, a 4’ to 8’ sidewalk, on- street parking, with a 37.5’ and 42.5’ right – of – way width. See Figure 12B-3. • Local Minor Street: Curb-to-curb width shall be 36’, with 10’ drive lanes and 8’ parking lanes at both sides of street. Residential side of street shall have a 4.5’ to 10’ parkway strip and a 4’ to 6’ sidewalk. The Residential / Commercial side of the street shall have a 4.5’ to 6’ parkway strip and a 4’ to 10’ sidewalk, with a 52.5’ and 68’ right – of - way. See Figure 12C-4. 26 • Local Minor Street with Bicycle Lanes: The curb-to-curb width shall be 46’ with 10’ drive lanes, 5’ bicycle lanes, and 8’ parking lanes on both sides of street. The Residential side of street shall have 4.5’ to 10’ parkway strip and 4’ to 8’ sidewalk. The Residential / commercial side of street shall have a 4.5’ to 10’ parkway strip and a 4’ to 8’ sidewalk, with a 56.5’ and 80’ right – of - way. See Figure 12C-5. • Rohnert Park Expressway: The curb-to-curb width shall be 72’ minimum, with a 16’ or wider median with a 11’ turn pocket, two 11’ drive lanes and a 6’ bicycle lane on both sides of street, a 10’ parkway strip and a 6’ sidewalk on both sides of street, with a 104’ right-of-way. See Figure 12D-6. • Keiser Avenue: The curb-to-curb width shall be 34’, with 12’ drive lanes and a 5’ bicycle lane on each direction of traffic. 5’ parkway strip and 6’ sidewalk on both sides of street, within a 56’ right-of-way. The northerly curb and gutter, parkway strip and sidewalk will be installed by the Northeast Specific Plan as part of that development. See Figure 12D-7 which indicates the full street section to be installed by UDSP properties under their PFFP obligations. • Minor variations from these street sections can be allowed with individual Tentative Maps subject to City approval. 27 28 29 30 31 Street Names and Signage Consistent with City policy, UD LLC street names start with the letter “I”, while Vast Oak street names start with letters “K” below Hinebaugh Creek and “O” above Hinebaugh Creek. Street addresses are required at the front of units and at the rear of alley loaded homes. Alleys, lanes, motor – court drive aisles, and other private streets will have street names and second units will have addresses visible from the alley and public streets. Street, traffic control and other signage will match existing City standards. Traffic Studies Each property will address traffic mitigation measures applicable to that property as identified in the UDSP EIR for development and improvement installation, including PFFP infrastructure. Sidewalks and ADA Specific Plan properties will meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Public Transit Potential Public Transit locations are shown in Figure 13, with bus stops and transit routes in Vast Oak and along Rohnert Park Expressway near the Commercial Center and GMC. The UDSP public transit system, including bus stops, must be as approved by SCTA through the Tentative Map processes and will be subject to the SCTA requirements. Providing transit connections to the High Density Residential site in Vast Oak North will be emphasized. Alternate Methods of Transportation Sidewalks and trails are shown in Figure 15 and tie to City trails, connect to Petaluma Hill Road and Keiser Avenue. Trails are discussed in Parks, Open Space and Public Facilities Section. Air Quality and Congestion Management The Specific Plan and General Plan encourage the reduction of vehicular traffic impacts on air quality and congestion management, as well as promoting pedestrian and bicycle transportation. Public transit near the Commercial Center may reduce reliance upon vehicular transportation and placement of transit stops near the Commercial Center and GMC will facilitate pedestrian access to educational and cultural facilities, reducing impacts generated vehicular traffic. Postal Service Coordination of mail delivery, mailbox locations, mailbox types, and postal service issues are subject to the approval of the U. S. Postal Service prior to the delivery of postal service to the Specific Plan properties. The requirements of the Postal Service will supersede standards, excepting public safety, for delivery of postal services in the Specific Plan. Each property will provide a mailbox location layout as part of their Tentative Map submittal. 32 33 Solid Waste Programs Solid waste pickup has been coordinated with the disposal company regarding construction debris and long term service. Solid waste disposal and recycling pickup will be from public streets in front of residences fronting public streets and motor – courts fronting public streets. Solid waste pickup will be within alleys for multi – family and alley loaded homes, as well as from private drives for commercial and multi - family, subject to the refuse company’s confirmation that such pick – up is available during the Improvement Plan process. Community Lighting Minimize lighting impacts while achieving lighting standards for streets and trails, including using shields to reduce impacts at open space. Use City standards for fixtures and poles maintained by the City, and wall mounted lighting at homes along alleys maintained by an association. Development Infrastructure Phasing and Residential Phasing Plan Infrastructure must be feasible and not rely on other properties. Development Phasing Plans for the UDSP properties are shown in Table 6 A while the UD LLC and Vast Oak Phasing are shown in Figure 6 and the UD LLC and Vast Oak Off – Site / PFFP and On – Site Infrastructure Phasing Program shown on Table 6 B. The Infrastructure Phasing Program is required with the Tentative Map and identifies the schedule for infrastructure and provides the basis for the financial feasibility of each phase, while subject to the Development Agreement. Construction and sales phasing plans are at the sole discretion of the property owner as to number and size of phasing and sequence, and are not subject to review or approval by the City. Table 6A UDSP Development Phasing Plan SP Development Properties Estate Low Medium High P / I / Medium Mixed Use Total UD LLC 0 0 0 0 203 0 203 VAST OAK 26 304 553 218 0 150 1,251 CRPUSD 0 20 113 0 0 0 133 BRISTOL 0 42 0 0 0 0 42 CREATH 0 160 0 36 0 0 316 TOTAL SP 26 36682 666 25418 203 150 1,6645 100,000 square foot Commercial Center located in Vast Oak East 34 Table 6B University District Specific Plan – UD LLC and Vast Oak Properties Off–Site / PFFP and On–Site Infrastructure Phasing Program Infrastructure 1st Phase Later Phases Vast Oak West Vast Oak East Vast Oak North UDLLC Roadways & Traffic Control Devices (TCD)* • Use existing Rohnert Park Expressway (RPX) for 1st 400 Certificate of Occupancy • Commence construction of north – side RPX from Snyder to Petaluma Hill Road (PHR) by 25th MR bldg. permit. • Install RPX north – side and temp. south–side TCD with north – side roadway. • Commence south side RPX from Snyder to PHR by 800th Market Rate (MR) bldg. permit. • Install RPX / VO perm. south side TCD with south side roadway. • Modify RPX/Snyder & RPX/PHR intersections with south – side RPX roadways. • Connect to north – side and south – side RPX intersections at Phase. • Install In Tract Phase, connect to earlier Phase and stub for future Phase. • Connect to north - side and south – side RPX intersections at Phase. • Install In- Tract Phase, connect to earlier Phase and stub for future Phase. • Commence Keiser Phase1 from Snyder to Park, TCD at Keiser / Snyder, and bridge / road to Keiser prior to 850th MR bldg. permit. • Commence Keiser Phase 2 to PHR and TCD at Keiser/PHR. • Install In Tract Phase and connect to earlier Phase. • Connect to south side of RPX. • Modify TCD at RPX and UD. • Install In- Tract Phase roadways. Potable / Recycled Water* • Install Water Transmission / Distribution lines in RPX to 1st Phase. • Install Water Trans. / Distr. lines in RPX to PHR as part of RPX north – side roadway. • Install Water Transmission / Distribution lines to Potable Water Tank and construct Potable Water Tank prior to 400th bldg. permit. • Install In-Tract Phase utilities, connect to RPX lines, connect to earlier Phase and stub for future Phase. • Install In- Tract Phase utilities, connect to RPX lines, connect to earlier Phase and stub for future Phase. • Install In-Tract Phase utilities, connect to earlier Phase. • Install In- Tract Phase utilities, connect to RPX lines. Sewer* • Fund East Side Trunk Sewer (ESTS) North Reach and use after 400th MR bldg. permit. • Alternate connect to Kisco or new RPX sewer to Vast Oak (VO) West • Fund ESTS North Reach and use after 400th MR bldg. permit. • Install In- Tract Phase utilities, connect to RPX, connect to earlier Phase and stub for future Phase. • Install In- Tract Phase utilities, connect to RPX, connect to earlier Phase and stub for future Phase. • Install In-Tract Phase utilities, connect to earlier Phase. • Install In- Tract Phase utilities, connect to RPX. Storm* • Install VO West Water Quality (WQ) / Detention Basin in VO 1st Phase. • Construct temp. basin on UD LLC. • Coordinate with Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) on upstream Copeland Detention Basin. • Install In- Tract Phase utilities, connect to VO West Basin, stub for future Phase. • Install In- Tract Phase utilities, connect to VO West Basin, stub for future Phase. • Install In-Tract Phase utilities, connect to VO West Basin, stub for future Phase. • Construct UD WQ / Detention Basin. • Construct 10 acre UD temp. Basin or SCWA upstream Basin. 35 6. PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND PUBLIC FACILITIES Introduction Development impacts based upon estimated population assumptions shown in Table 7. Table 7 UDSP Estimated Population SP Development Properties Unit Type(s) Total du’s Pop. Rate/Unit Total Estimated Pop. UD LLC SFD 203 3.20 649.60 VAST OAK SFD 1,033 3.20 3,305.60 MF 218 2.00 436.0024 1,251 --- 3,741.6084 CRPUSD SFD 133 3.20 425.60 BRISTOL SFD 42 3.20 134.40 CREATH SFD 316 23.020 72 51115.20 TOTAL SP --- 1,6645 --- 5,023.20 02.64 Parkland Parkland requirements can be met by dedicating parkland acreage, Class 1 Bicycle Trails, and private recreation areas, as well as improving these areas or providing in-lieu fees. Table 8 indicates the required parkland acreage for UDSP properties. Figure 14 indicates the Vast Oak areas that satisfy UD LLC and VO requirements. Public parks will be dedicated to and maintained by the City. Class 1 Bicycle Trails throughout VO and UD LLC will be owned by the City but maintained by the VO and UD LLC Association. VO Class 1 Bicycle Trails are located along both sides of Hinebaugh Creek, shown in Figure 15, and will connect to existing City trails at the south side of Hinebaugh Creek west of Vast Oak. A vehicular / pedestrian / Class 1 Bicycle Trail bridge across Hinebaugh Creek, shown in Figure 16, will be located at the westerly portion of Vast Oak North and built as part of Vast Oak North Phase 1. UD LLC Class 1 Bicycle Trails will be proposed with its Small Lot Tentative Map. Table 8 UDSP Park Land Demand SP Development Properties Unit Type(s) Total du’s Commercial Sq. Ft. Park Rates/Ac. Required Park Ac. UD LLC SFD 203 0 0.016 3.25 VAST OAK SFD 1,033 0 0.016 16.53 MF 218 0 0.010 2.18 Comm. ---- 100,000 1.00 0.40 1,251 100,000 --- 19.11 CRPUSD SFD 133 0 0.016 2.13 BRISTOL SFD 42 0 0.016 0.67 CREATH SFD 316 0 0.0106 0.3626 TOTAL SP --- 1,6645 100,000 --- 25.5241 36 Open Space Open space may include among others, creeks, buffers, scenic corridors, wetlands, drainage facilities, public streets, maintenance roads, fencing, Class 1 bicycle and pedestrian trails, bridges, lighting, parking, benches, trash receptacles, vehicle access, utilities, and roads. UDSP open space areas are shown on Figure 4. 37 38 39 Figure 16 40 Public Facilities Cultural Facilities The GMC and Spreckels Center are enhanced with the hotel and retail development opportunities at UDSP, as well as pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle connections to existing City trail improvements. Public Facilities The increased residential population within UDSP would increase the use of the City’s public facilities. UDSP will participate in the PFFP for fair share funding of necessary City infrastructure and facilities that mitigate impacts of these developments. School District Boundaries / Student Generation Capacity Table 9 indicates the students that the Specific Plan might generate, based upon student generation projections provided by CRPUSD for the EIR. As the project would build - out over an extended period of time, student generation would occur gradually over the build - out period. CRPUSD currently has excess student capacity. Table 9 UDSP Public School Demand SP Development Properties Total du’s Comm. Sq. Ft. Student Generation Rates K-5 0.27 6-8 0.137 9-12 0.16 Total UD LLC 203 0 55 28 32 115 VAST OAK 1,251 100,000 338 171 200 709 CRPUSD 133 0 36 18 21 75 BRISTOL 42 0 11 6 7 24 CREATH 316 0 48 52 36 19 TOTAL SP 1,646 5 100,000 4484 2285 2663 9432 41 7. FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN General Plan Financial Criteria The General Plan Land Use and Growth Management Element includes the following: • GM-9 requires that a Public Facilities Financing Plan (“PFFP”) be a part of each Specific Plan. The public facilities plan “explains how streets, water, wastewater, solid waste (disposal) and parks, all meeting City standards, will be provided to the project.” GM-9 also requires the financing plan to demonstrate that “completion of all necessary public facilities concurrently with completion of the Specific Plan is economically, physically, and legally feasible.” • GM-10 requires definition of the “method(s) of financing or otherwise paying for the facilities and the plan for receiving approval of all regulatory agencies.” GM-10 also declares that “a public facilities plan that provides for the project’s fair share of the financing for the necessary public facilities, but does not provide for the completion of the public facilities prior to completion of the development due to lack of contribution by other responsible parties, will be deemed complete but will not be approved as part of development project approval unless the exceptions included in GM-11 or GM-12 apply.” This policy refers to a project’s share of “off- site” demands on public facilities, particularly roads and related financial obligations. • GM-13 requires that “new development maintain parkways, creek buffers and open spaces that are part of the development or are required to support it, and consider establishing multi- purpose assessment districts or other financing mechanism in order to assign the costs of infrastructure improvements equitably to benefiting sites.” • General Plan policies require that development fund and improve necessary infrastructure for the development of their property. The General Plan also requires that new development fund the ongoing maintenance of these facilities, as well as open space and creek buffers. The funding mechanisms for the long term maintenance of facilities in the Specific Plan need to insure that the funding is appropriate throughout the life of the community, avoiding shortfalls. Development Financial Requirements Each Specific Plan property must provide all of its off-site and on-site infrastructure and development mitigation measures without reliance on any other Specific Plan property. If a property is developed earlier than the adjacent properties and this property provides oversized infrastructure, entitlement analyses or development mitigation that benefits the adjacent properties, each of these Specific Plan properties will fund their “fair share” reimbursement for all costs that the other property funded on their behalf. The City may coordinate a fee credit system in the Development Agreement process to insure that each Specific Plan property pays its fair share or that a Specific Plan property may receive fee credits against its other City fee obligations. Financing Mechanisms Off-site infrastructure are allocated by the PFFP on a fair share basis per AB 1600 on the Specific Plan properties for City improvements and facilities. On-site infrastructure and mitigation, including land costs, are the responsibility of each property, subject to PFFP credits if applicable. A number of financing mechanisms may be used for development, including public and private financing for the infrastructure, including a Community Facilities District (“CFD”) which may provide for improvements and fees, and consultant costs involved in the CFD formation. 42 Development Agreement The Development Agreement (“DA”) details commitments regarding entitlement approvals, phasing and building permit. It addresses the timing and scope of Off-site, PFFP and On-site Infrastructure for each property, as well as the method of how the property satisfies its affordable obligation. Significant funds will be spent on infrastructure as well as entitlement and mitigation measures prior to any development activity occurring, which is why the DA is critical. Maintenance and Service Financing Mechanisms Development requires funding for long term maintenance and services, including maintenance of open space creeks, buffers, and water quality and detention basins and facilities. It requires maintenance of parkway strips within public right – of – way and Class 1 Bicycle Trail areas, both of which are owned by the City. Financing mechanisms will be established for maintenance of maintenance services through community associations and / or other mechanisms, such as CSAs, LLDs, CFDs, or GHADs. Maintenance Annuity Fees are coordinated through the Development Agreement process to address the impacts of development upon City services. 43 8. HOUSING PROGRAM Affordable Housing Programs Affordable Housing Programs for each UDSP property will achieve General Plan goals by accommodating on – site housing at a range of socioeconomic levels, or through in – lieu fee payments for those properties that qualify for this mitigation procedure. The estimated Specific Plan Affordable Housing Plan is shown in Table 10. Table 10 UDSP Affordable Housing Plan SP Development Properties Total du’s Required Affordable Housing On – Site Affordable Housing In - Lieu Affordable Housing UD LLC a 203 30.45 30.45 0.00 VAST OAK a 1,251 187.65 187.65 0.00 CRPUSD 133 19.95 19.95b 0.00b BRISTOL 42 6.30 0.00 6.30 CREATH 316 52.40 60.00 0.002.40 TOTAL SP 1,664 5 2496.75 24438.05 238.056.3 0 a 218 units of Rental Housing b 20 units of Below Market Rate Housing satisfied per CRPUSD determination Affordable obligations will be satisfied through the use of the City’s Housing Trust Fund and Inclusionary / In – Lieu Fee Requirements, specifically relying on Rohnert Park Municipal Code Sections 17.70.040 C (1) and (2) a - c. UD LLC and Vast Oak will meet their affordable requirements through the dedication of sheet graded land with stubbed utilities for on-site affordable rental housing, as defined in the Development Agreement, which will address dedication of land, and construction of the affordable units. 44 9. IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM Introduction Specific Plan properties will be developed per the EIR and development agreements, pursuant to timeframes determined by the property owner yet regulated within the Specific Plan or Development Agreement. Implementing Elements The key implementing elements of the development of the Specific Plan include: • CEQA Documents • General Plan Amendments • Specific Plan, Development Standards and Design Guidelines • Development Agreements • Subdivision Maps • Development Area Plans CEQA Documents California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires environmental review of projects that may have an adverse impact upon the environment. An Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) was prepared for the Specific Plan and addressed the environmental assessments and planning studies by evaluating the project specific impacts and by providing further guidance regarding potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures. The mitigation and monitoring measures of the project EIR will be developed to address ongoing monitoring and enforcement of mitigation measures that may be required by the City and / or the Resource Agencies. General Plan Amendments The General Plan provides criteria that defines the overall goals and policies of the City to ensure that integrated development is implemented and remains consistent to past and ongoing City requirements. While the UDSP is consistent with the General Plan’s vision for this area, amendments to the General Plan will be necessary to fully implement UDSP features. Specific Plan, Development Standards and Design Guidelines These documents provide the criteria as defined in the Specific Plan Ordinance, including Development Standards and Design Guidelines, to assure that an integrated development plan is implemented and establishes criteria for uses, structures, setbacks, parking, and provides requirements for Mixed-use and Residential development. Development Agreements Development agreements establish entitlements, obligations, permit allocations, as well as address the timing of phasing, dedications, payments, credits, and affordable requirements. Subdivision Maps Subdivisions occur pursuant to terms specified in the Specific Plan, Development Agreements, the Subdivision Map Act and the City’s requirements for Vesting Tentative Maps and Tentative Maps. Multiple final maps may be recorded based upon the underlying Tentative Map. Subject to City Staff being familiar with the process, approving final maps in a timely manner allows the property to receive financing for the installation of development mitigation improvements and PFFP fee payments. 45 Development Area Plans Development Area Plans (“DAP”) for each residential and mixed use neighborhood will be prepared pursuant to the requirements of the City Municipal Code. These DAPs provide, among other items, detailed information regarding floor plans and exterior elevations, lot configurations, driveways and flatwork locations, and parking. 46 10. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Introduction Includes a Natural Resources Conservation and Management Program for UD LLC and Vast Oak regarding conservation of natural resources coordinated with Resource Agencies and create standards for conservation and use of natural resources for the Specific Plan, where applicable. Summary of Biological Assessments The General Plan identified biological resources potentially occurring in the Planning Area, including wetlands, vernal pools (a type of wetland), rare plants, wildlife and special-status plants and wildlife. Special status plants and wildlife generally refer to those plants and wildlife that are afforded heightened protection under State or Federal conservation laws. UD LLC and Vast Oak surveys described herein augment General Plan resource assessments, which relied on existing information including some site-specific information and more general regional information (e.g., soil survey for Sonoma County, USDA 1972). The biological resource surveys conducted are extensive, and in many cases provide a continuous narrative of plants and wildlife on the site since 1994. Those assessments include a delineation of waters of the United States, including wetlands, and special-status plant and wildlife surveys conducted within UD LLC and Vast Oak. The following briefly describes different habitat types and special-status plants and wildlife occurring in a sub-part of UD LLC and Vast Oak. This abstract summarizes mitigation measures to offset impacts to biological resources within the UDSP. Biological Resources Habitats UD LLC and Vast Oak consist primarily of agricultural lands that support non-native annual grasses and forbs when not being cultivated for annual crops, such as oat grain and hay, Sudan grass hay, safflower, Crane melons and pumpkins. UD LLC is adjacent to Copeland Creek, which supports a narrow riparian corridor. Vast Oak is bisected by Hinebaugh Creek, which supports a sparse to dense riparian corridor. The jurisdictional wetlands are found primarily between Hinebaugh Creek and Rohnert Park Expressway. A short description of each habitat type follows and is taken from Stromberg (1999). Agricultural Fields/Non-Native Annual Grasslands Agricultural fields/non-native annual grasslands occur throughout most of UD LLC and Vast Oak. When the agricultural fields are left fallow, non-native species of annual grasses and forbs become established and dominate the vegetation cover in these fields. Riparian Riparian habitat occurs in UD LLC along Copeland Creek and in Vast Oak along Hinebaugh Creek. The riparian habitats are dominated by willow (Salix laevigata, S. lasiandra) with Himalaya blackberry (Rubus discolor) and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversiloba) in the understory. California buckeye (Aesculus californicus) is an occasional co-dominant tree species. Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States Two types of jurisdictional waters of the U.S. occur in the Specific Plan (see Table 11): (1) wetlands; and (2) other waters of the U.S. Wetlands occur throughout the agricultural fields and 47 consist of four different types: (1) farmed wetlands; (2) farmed wetland pastures; (3) artificial wetlands; and (4) seasonal wetlands. Table 11 Jurisdictional Feature and Acreage as Determined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in its Approval of the Jurisdictional Delineation November 2000 for UD LLC and Vast Oak Jurisdictional Feature Acreage Wetlands Farmed Wetlands 0.54 Farmed Wetland Pasture 15.10 Artificial Wetlands 1.64 Seasonal Wetlands 0.72 Other Waters of the United States Hinebaugh Creek 0.72 Ditches and other Defined Drainages 0.33 Total Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. 19.05 Other waters of the United States include the channel areas of Hinebaugh Creek and other small distributary channels used to move water across the Specific Plan. Farmed wetlands are seasonally ponded or saturated wetlands that occur in agricultural fields. The most common wetland plant species in the farmed wetlands include ryegrass, and common weedy species such as toad rush (Juncus bufonius), curly dock (Rumex crispus) and purple loosestrife (Lythrum hyssopifolium). Other native wetland species include Straight-beaked buttercup (Ranunculus orthorhynchus), Douglas meadowfoam (Limnanthes douglasii), flowering quillwort (Lilaea scilloides), downingia (Downingia sp.) and water starwort (Callitriche sp.). Farmed wetland pastures are seasonal wetlands dominated by facultative (FAC) species (plant species with equal probably of occurring in uplands and wetlands), including perennial ryegrass, bird’s foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), velvet grass (Holcus lanatus), bristly ox-tongue (Picris echioides), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), prickly sow thistle (Sonchus asper) and western blue- eyed grass (Sisyrinchium bellum). Artificial wetlands are wetlands created as part of or as a result of agricultural activities and are similar to farmed wetlands relative to the kinds of plant species found in these wetlands. Seasonal wetlands are depressional areas that are either ponded or contain saturated soils for at least two weeks during the growing season and occur outside the direct influence of agricultural activities primarily along Hinebaugh Creek and the low-lying bottomland area receiving overbank flow from Copeland Creek. The seasonal wetlands along the bottomland area are dominated by grasses, such as ryegrass, perennial rushes, such as slender rush (Juncus tenuis) and brown- headed rush (Juncus phaeocephalus) and sedges, such as dense sedge (Carex densa) and slough sedge (Carex obnupta). Red willow (Salix laevigata) line the drainage through this 48 bottomland area. Seasonal wetlands along Hinebaugh Creek support many of the same species described above, including ryegrass, curly dock, spikerush (Eleocharis macrostachya), and the aforementioned species of perennial rushes and sedges. Hinebaugh Creek is a low flow channel, defined by the ordinary high water mark along the bank, that is included in the “Other Waters of the United States.” Ditches and Other Defined Drainages include the distributary of Copeland Creek and the ditches that carry water from this distributary to Hinebaugh Creek. South of Rohnert Park Expressway, the bottom of the distributary channel is unvegetated and a few pockets of arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) occur along the top of the banks. The banks of the ditch are for the most part covered with a mixture of ruderal upland species dominated by poison hemlock, thistles, ripgut brome, ryegrass and other annual grass species. The channel north of Rohnert Park Expressway is dominated by wetland vegetation. Vegetation and Wildlife UDSP consists primarily of agricultural lands that are subject to regular cropping activity. One degraded creek, Hinebaugh Creek, crosses Vast Oak from east to west. Copeland Creek flows along the southern boundary of the UD LLC. The riparian habitats along Hinebaugh Creek and Copeland Creek support numerous species of migratory and resident songbirds, small and medium-sized mammals, and amphibians and reptiles. The agricultural fields support populations of small mammals that provide food for foraging raptors and larger mammals such as coyotes. The continual disturbance from agricultural activity limits the habitat value of the agricultural fields and to some extent the riparian areas along Copeland and Hinebaugh Creeks. The General Plan identified several special-status species as potentially occurring in the Rohnert Park Sphere of Influence, which includes UD LLC and Vast Oak. According to the General Plan, the tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) and foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) occur in the area around the Laguna de Santa Rosa, and the western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata) and western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) have been observed in the Copeland Creek area between S.S.U. and the GMC. The Natural Diversity Database and other information sources identify a number of other special- status species of plants (Table 12) and wildlife (Table 13) as occurring in the region and potentially in the Specific Plan. Although habitat for several of these species is present at the site, no special-status species of plants have been found during the numerous plant surveys that have been conducted at the site. Four invertebrate species have the potential to occur in the region, including the California freshwater shrimp (Syncaris pacifica), California linderiella (Linderiella occidentalis), Ricksecker’s water scavenger beetle (Hydrocharis rickseckeri), and San Francisco forktail damselfly (Ischnura gemina). Because Hinebaugh Creek and Copeland Creek are dry for much of the year, suitable habitat for the California freshwater shrimp is absent the project site. Suitable habitat for the California linderiella (vernal pools and grassy swales) is also absent. Portions of Hinebaugh Creek may provide potential habitat for Ricksecker’s water scavenger beetle and San Francisco fork-tailed damselfly. Twenty-five special-status wildlife species inhabit the region or occurred in the region historically and were considered to have some potential to occur on the project site (Table 13). The central California coast steelhead has been reported in Copeland Creek, which is immediately adjacent to the southern boundary of UD LLC. Two other special-status species were detected on-site 49 during field studies: white-tailed kite and grasshopper sparrow. Three special-status species were detected along Copeland Creek during field studies: foothill yellow-legged frog, western pond turtle and yellow warbler. The site is outside of the range of the federally threatened California red-legged frog as delineated by the USFWS (1996). Nocturnal surveys for northern red-legged frogs were conducted between 1995 and 2002, and none were observed. The project site is within the range of the federal endangered species and California Species of Special Concern, the California Tiger Salamander (“CTS”). Aquatic surveys for larval tiger salamanders were carried out in potential breeding habitat between 1994 and 2002 and none were detected. Surveys using federal protocols are ongoing, including drift fencing and aquatic surveys. No CTS have been found as of the date of the submittal of the Specific Plan Amendment. Five other special-status species are considered to have a moderate potential to occur in UD LLC and Vast Oak, including the following: California horned lark, loggerhead shrike, tricolored blackbird, pallid bat, and Yuma myotis. One other special-status species, the ferruginous hawk, has a moderate potential to occur at UD LLC and Vast Oak during the winter since appropriate foraging habitat is present and it has been observed in the area in the past. The rest of the specials-status species are considered to have a low potential to inhabit UD LLC and Vast Oak. Preliminary Mitigation for Impacts to Biological Resources The Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan recommended a number of mitigation measures for three of the four categories of impacts identified in the General Plan EIR where the impacts were judged to be potentially significant. The following summary identifies the impact categories where potential significant impacts were anticipated in the General Plan and identifies how the appropriate mitigation measures have been incorporated into the development plan for UD LLC and Vast Oak. The specific elements of mitigation were developed through the permitting process in consultation with the resource agencies responsible for the biological resources impacted by development of the Specific Plan. EC-4: Cooperate with the State and Federal agencies to ensure that development does not substantially affect special status species appearing on any State or Federal list of rare, endangered, or threatened species. Require assessment of biological resources prior to approval of any development within 300 feet of any creeks or high potential wetlands, as depicted in [General Plan] Figure 6.2-1, or within habitat areas of identified special status species, as shown in [General Plan] Figure 6.2-3. UD LLC and Vast Oak had multiple meetings with the State and Federal agencies responsible for management of the biological resources at the site, including the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Department of Fish and Game. For impacts to special-status species, UD LLC and Vast Oak continue to work with the agencies to identify the level of impacts and the appropriate mitigation for impacts to special-status species that are known to occur at UD LLC and Vast Oak or that may be affected by development of the UD LLC and Vast Oak. In consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a survey plan based on the accepted protocols, was developed and is being implemented on UD LLC and Vast Oak. The drift fencing portion of the surveys have been completed and the aquatic surveys were completed prior to June 1, 2003. To date no CTS have been observed or captured during conduct of the protocol 50 survey and a Letter of No effect has been issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for UD LLC and Vast Oak. Storm water runoff from the developed portions of the site are subject to passive treatment, either through vegetated swales, on – site water quality storm detention or a combination of both before entering the underground storm water pipes. Post-construction storm water treatment facilities will be developed in consultation with the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. UD LLC and Vast Oak have proposed site plan designs that incorporate the criteria of the resource agencies, including increasing creek buffer dimensions, providing frontage roads adjacent to the most of the creek buffers and open space, reducing lighting impacts to the creeks, installing pedestrian crossings only at degraded areas of the creeks and installing a single roadway crossing at a degraded portion of Hinebaugh Creek. EC-6: Work with private, nonprofit conservation, and public groups to secure funding for wetland protection and restoration projects. U.D. LLC and Vast Oak will include use restrictions and management funding for open space and wetland areas, including working with private groups to manage these areas. EC-13: Require dedication of creek protection zones extending 50 feet (measured from the tops of the banks and a strip of land extending laterally outward from the top of each bank) for creeks, with extended buffers where significant habitat areas or high potential wetlands exist. Development shall not occur within this zone, except as part of greenway enhancement (for example, trails and bicycleways). Require City approval for the following activities within the creek protection zones: ▪ Construction, alteration, or removal of any structure; ▪ Excavation, filling, or grading; ▪ Removal or planting of vegetation (except for removal of invasive plant species); or, ▪ Alteration of any embankment. Hinebaugh Creek will be subject to periodic maintenance to maintain the low flow channel in the creek. Any maintenance activity will need to be authorized by the California Department of Fish and Game and possibly the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. Approval of plant removal activities for non-invasive plant species will be obtained prior to commencement of such activities. EC-14: As part of Specific Plans (see Policy LU-G), require evaluation and implementation of appropriate measures for creek bank stabilization, and any necessary steps to reduce erosion and sedimentation, but preserve natural creek channels and riparian vegetation. Impacts to and anticipated maintenance activities in Hinebaugh Creek have been described above. There may be some stabilization of the banks of Hinebaugh Creek in Vast Oak but any such stabilization will be kept to a minimum to reduce the impacts to the creek and its banks to the maximum extent practical. Impact 4.7-b: New development could result in elimination or potential degradation of areas with high potential to support wetlands and wildlife. Seven mitigation measures were identified in the General Plan EIR to address this impact category. These include the following mitigation measures: 51 EC-4: Cooperate with the State and Federal agencies to ensure that development does not substantially affect special status species appearing on any State or Federal list of rare, endangered, or threatened species. Require assessment of biological resources prior to approval of any development within 300 feet of any creeks or high potential wetlands, as depicted in [General Plan] Figure 6.2-1, or within habitat areas of identified special status species, as shown in [General Plan] Figure 6.2-3. See response for EC-4 under Impact 4.7-a above. EC-5: Require development in areas with high and moderate potential delineated in [General Plan] Figure 6.2-1 to complete assessments of biological resources. Multiple surveys conducted for special status plants and wildlife since 1994 provide updated information. The extent of jurisdictional waters of the United States has been determined and verified by the Corps of Engineers. This information updates the general information contained in the General Plan Figure 6.2-1. EC-6: Work with private, nonprofit conservation, and public groups to secure funding for wetland protection and restoration projects. See response for EC-6 under Impact 4.7-a above. EC-10: As part of development approval in any new growth area, require participation in a landscape assessment district, with responsibility for maintaining creek ways, open spaces, landscaped medians, and other similar features. UD LLC and Vast Oak will work to establish the mechanism to finance maintenance of creek ways, open spaces, and other similar features. EC-13: Require dedication of creek protection zones extending 50 feet (measured from the tops of the banks and a strip of land extending laterally outward from the top of each bank) for creeks, with extended buffers where significant habitat areas or high potential wetlands exist. Development shall not occur within this zone, except as part of greenway enhancement (for example, trails and bicycleways). Require City approval for the following activities within the creek protection zones: ▪ Construction, alteration, or removal of any structure; ▪ Excavation, filling, or grading; ▪ Removal or planting of vegetation (except for removal of invasive plant species); or, ▪ Alteration of any embankment. See response for EC-13 under Impact 4.7-a above. EC-14: As part of Specific Plans (see Policy LU-G), require evaluation and implementation of appropriate measures for creek bank stabilization, and any necessary steps to reduce erosion and sedimentation, but preserve natural creek channels and riparian vegetation. See response for EC-14 under Impact 4.7-a above. 52 HS-11: In cooperation with the Sonoma County Water Agency, maintain flood plain areas, drainage channels, and other drainage structures and improve drainage channel capacity in ways that will preserve the natural character of habitat areas, riparian corridors, and waterways to the maximum extent feasible. Any maintenance activities within the creeks will need to be approved by the resource agencies, particularly the California Department of Fish and Game and possibly North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. Other Applicable Mitigation Measures General Plan Policy LU-10A requires that Specific Plans prepared pursuant to the General Plan incorporate “a site-specific biological assessment of wetlands and creek sides by a City-approved biologist and a program for conservation/mitigation to the extent feasible.” The extent of jurisdictional waters of the United States has been determined and verified by the Corps of Engineers. Mitigation plans to offset the loss of wetland and other waters of the United States are currently being prepared and will be subject to approval by the resource agencies. General Plan Policy HS-5 calls for implementation of “environmentally sensitive drainage improvements including flow reduction and flood bypass systems in order to ensure protection of surface water quality and stream integrity.” The State Water Quality Control Board has directed its regional boards to incorporate more defined and stringent measures to treat storm water runoff generated by development. UD LLC and Vast Oak have received approval from the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board over development of acceptable post-construction storm water treatment facilities. Untreated storm water from the UD LLC developed areas will not flow directly into Copeland Creek. Storm water runoff from the developed portions of the site will be subject to passive treatment, either through vegetated swales, detention or a combination of both before entering the underground City storm water pipes. There will be similar steps taken for those portions of the Specific Plan Area that flow towards Hinebaugh Creek. Sedimentation control will also be addressed. Impact 4.7-c: New development under the General Plan could result in the introduction and spread of non-native invasive plant species. Three mitigation measures were identified in the General Plan EIR to address this impact category. These include the following mitigation measures: EC-7: Encourage planting of native vegetation in new development sites, parks, public areas, and open space. UD LLC and Vast Oak propose to use native and drought tolerant plants in the creek protection zones and buffer areas to the maximum extent possible. EC-8: As part of the City’s Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan, institute an ongoing program to remove and prevent the re-establishment on invasive plant species from ecologically sensitive areas, including City parks and other City-owned open space. Maintenance of the parks will include removal of invasive non-native species. This program (removal of non-native invasive plants) would likely be implemented as part of its routine maintenance of parks. If ponds are created on the parks, a bullfrog eradication program may be necessary to prevent establishment of bullfrog populations. The community CCRs will limit the 53 plant palette for landscaping in the developed areas to reduce the impact of non – native plant species upon the creeks and open space. EC-12: Protect oaks and other native trees that are of significant size through the establishment of a Heritage Tree Preservation Ordinance. Vast Oak proposes to preserve existing oak trees located in the northern end of Vast Oak, subject to their health. Large trees located in the riparian corridors will not be impacted by development of Vast Oak. Measures will be implemented to encourage regeneration of the existing oaks in Vast Oak. Table 12 Potential for Special-status Plant Species to Occur in the Specific Plan on UD LLC and Vast Oak Common Name (Scientific Name) Status1 Potential to Occur in Specific Plan Bent-flowered fiddleneck Amsinkia lunaris -/-/4 Not found - annual grassland suitable habitat Brewer’s milkvetch Astragalus breweri -/-/3 Not found - annual grassland suitable habitat Baker’s blenosperma Blenosperma bakeri FE/SE/1B Not found - seasonally moist wetland habitat in eastern part of site considered suitable habitat Dwarf downingia Downingia pusilla -/-/1B Not found - seasonally moist habitat along Hinebaugh Creek considered marginally suitable habitat Fragrant fritillary Fritillaria liliaecea -/-/1B Not found - habitat generally not suitable Purdy’s fritillary Fritillaria purdyi -/-/4 Not found - habitat not suitable Burke’s goldfields Lasthenia burkei FE/SE/1B Not found - seasonally moist wetland habitat considered marginally suitable habitat Sebastopol meadowfoam Limnanthes vinculans FE/SE/1B Not found - seasonally moist wetland habitat considered marginally suitable habitat Napa lomatium Lomatium repostum -/-/4 Not found - suitable habitat not present on site Table 12 (Concluded) Potential to Occur in Specific Plan 1 Federal/ State/ CNPS 54 Common Name (Scientific Name) Status Baker’s navarretia Navarretia leucocephala ssp. Bakeri FE/SE/1B Not found - suitable habitat occurs at site Many-flowered gilia Navarretia leucocephala ssp. Pleiantha FC/SE/1B Not found - marginally suitable habitat occurs at site Gairdner’s yampah Perideridia gairdneri ssp. Gairdneri -/-/1B Not found - heavier clay soils at site considered to provide suitable habitat Lobb’s buttercup Ranunculus lobbii -/-/4 Not found - marginal habitat in deep farmed wetland depressions Showy Indian clover Trifolium amoenum -/-/1B Not found - annual grassland suitable habitat Status Codes Federal Status FE Federally listed as Endangered under Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) FT Federally listed as Threatened under ESA FPE Federally proposed for listing as Endangered under ESA FPT Federally proposed for listing as Threatened under ESA FPD Federally proposed for Delisting FC Federal candidate species (former Category 1 candidates) MNBMC Fish and Wildlife Service: Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern State Status SE State listed as Endangered under California Endangered Species Act (CESA) ST State listed as Threatened under CESA SCE State candidate for listing as Endangered SCT State candidate for listing as Threatened CSC California Special Concern species designated by the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) CFP Fully Protected Species under the Fish and Game Code of California CP Protected Species under the California Code of Regulations CNPS (California Native Plant Society) Status List 1A Species presumed extinct in California List 1B Species rare and endangered in California and elsewhere List 2 Species rare and endangered in California but more common elsewhere List 3 Species about which additional data are needed List 4 Species of limited distribution 55 Table 13 Potential for Special-status Wildlife Species to Occur in the Specific Plan on UD LLC and Vast Oak Common Name (Scientific Name) Status State/Federal Potential to Occur in Specific Plan Fishes Central California coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) -/FT Present - Moves along Copeland Creek adjacent to site to and from upstream spawning areas. Amphibians California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense CSC, CP/FC Low - Did not breed on-site in ’94, ’95,’00, ‘01, ‘02 Northern red-legged frog Rana aurora aurora CSC, CP/- Low - Did not breed on-site in ’94, ’95, ’96,‘00, '01, ‘02 California red-legged frog Rana aurora draytonii CSC, CP/FT Outside range delineated by USFWS Foothill yellow-legged frog Rana boylii CSC, CP/- Present in Copeland Creek Reptiles Western pond turtle Clemmys marmorata CSC, CP/- Present in Copeland Creek Birds Cooper's hawk (nesting) Accipiter cooperi CSC/- Moderate - Did not nest on-site in ’94, ‘00 Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos CSC, CFP/- Low - Did not nest onsite in ’94, ‘00 Ferruginous hawk (wintering) Buteo regalis CSC/MNBMC Moderate - Suitable wintering habitat available Northern harrier (nesting) Circus cyaneus CSC/- Low - Did not nest onsite in ’94, ‘00 White-tailed kite (nesting) Elanus leucurus CFP/MNBMC Moderate - Observed onsite in ’95, ‘00 Merlin (wintering) Falco columbarius CSC/- Low - Wintering habitat available 56 Table 13 (Concluded) Common Name (Scientific Name) Status State/Federal Potential to Occur in Specific Plan Birds (Continued) Western yellow-billed cuckoo (nesting) Coccyzus americanus occidentalis SE/MNBMC Low - No recent nesting records; Did not nest onsite in ’94, ‘00 Long-eared owl (nesting) Asio otus CSC/- Low - No recent nesting records from Sonoma Co. Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia CSC/ MNBMC Low - No recent nesting records from Sonoma Co. California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia CSC/ - Moderate - Did not nest onsite in ’94, ‘00 Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus CSC/ MNBMC Moderate - Did not nest onsite in ’94, ‘00 Tricolored blackbird (nesting) Agelaius tricolor CSC/ MNBMC Moderate - Did not nest onsite in ’94, ‘00 Grasshopper sparrow (nesting) Ammodramus savannarum -/ MNBMC Present during nesting season in grasslands and fields in ‘00 Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia brewsteri CSC/ MNBMC Present on Copeland Creek in ‘00 Yellow-breasted chat (nesting) Icteria virens CSC/ - Low - Did not nest onsite in ’94, ‘00 Mammals Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus CSC/- Moderate - Suitable roosting and foraging habitat present Townsend's big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii CSC/ - Low - Marginal roosting habitat present Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis CSC/ - Moderate - Suitable roosting and foraging habitat present Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis CSC/ - Low - No roosting habitat present Status Codes Federal Status FE Federally listed as Endangered under Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) 57 FT Federally listed as Threatened under ESA FPE Federally proposed for listing as Endangered under ESA FPT Federally proposed for listing as Threatened under ESA FPD Federally proposed for Delisting FC Federal candidate species (former Category 1 candidates) MNBMC Fish and Wildlife Service: Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern State Status SE State listed as Endangered under California Endangered Species Act (CESA) ST State listed as Threatened under CESA SCE State candidate for listing as Endangered SCT State candidate for listing as Threatened CSC California Special Concern species designated by the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) CFP Fully Protected Species under the Fish and Game Code of California CP Protected Species under the California Code of Regulations 58 APPENDIX A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Description and Purpose These Development Standards for the UDSP provide standards for residential and other land uses, including building designs, parking, maintenance, setbacks, and second units. Development standards included below are provided for each of the land use descriptions in the UDSP Plan Area. These development standards set forth permitted uses, the minimum requirements for, lot size, lot width, floor area ratio, lot coverage, height, setbacks, garage prominence and variance of housing types within each development proposal. The intention of these standards is to provide guidance for development within each of the land use categories. For issues not specifically addressed by the developments standards or the Specific Plan, the City of Rohnert Zoning Ordinance shall apply and shall be based on the most compatible zoning designation as determined by the Development Services Director or his/her designee. Each development area is required to be approved through the City's Development Area Plan ('DAP') process. See DAP requirements Rohnert Park Municipal Code Chapters 17.06.400 and 17.06.410) as they apply for all applications. Chapter 1: Residential Development Standards This chapter establishes standards for the Residential uses as outlined in the City's Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 17.06.010 - Residential Zoning Districts. The residential districts are intended to achieve the following Purposes: A. Reserve residential areas for a broad range of dwelling types and densities, which meet the economic and social needs of the residents consistent with sound standards of public health and safety. B. Ensure the provision of light, air, privacy and open space. C. Protect residential neighborhoods from excessive noise, illumination, unsightliness, odors, dust, dirt, smoke, vibration, heat, glare, and other objectionable influences. D. Minimize congestion and avoid the overloading of public services and utilities. (Ord. 695, 2003) 1.1 Residential Land Use Designations Estate Density Residential: As described in the Land Use Plan section of the Specific Plan, the density range for this designation is 0.1 to 2.21 dwelling units per acre. The minimum lot size for single family detached homes within this designation is 14,000 square feet. See Sections 1.4 and 1.5 below for setback, building area, building height and parking requirement descriptions. Low Density Residential: As described in the Land Use Plan section of the Specific Plan with density ranging from 4.1 to 6.0 dwelling units/acre. The minimum lot size for single family detached homes, including alley and motor – court lots, within this designation is 4,000 square feet. See Sections 1.4 and 1.5 below for setback, building area, building height and parking requirement descriptions. 59 Medium Density Residential: As described in the Land Use Plan section of the Specific Plan, this designation includes single family detached and single family attached homes with a density range of 6.1 to 12.0 dwelling units/acre on lots up to a maximum of 5,500 square feet, including alley and motor – court lots. See Sections 1.4 and 1.5 below for setback, building area, building height and parking requirement descriptions. Public / Institutional / Medium Density Residential: As described in the Land Use Plan section, this designation includes conventional, alley and motor – court single family detached, single family attached and multi – family stacked flat, carriage, townhome, zero – lot line, condominium ownership and rental homes, with density ranging from 6.1 to 12.0. A dwelling units/acre on lots up to a maximum of 5,500 square feet as well as open space, trails, permanent and temporary private and public storm water detention / water quality basins and facilities, including fencing, and maintenance roads. See Sections 1.4 and 1.5 below for setback, building area, building height and parking requirement descriptions. Water quality and detention basins and drainage facilities, whether public or private, are allowed, including fencing, maintenance roads, walls and other requirements to facilitate these basins. Class 1 Bicycle trails, sidewalks, and irrigated and non - irrigated landscape areas are allowed in this area. High Density Residential: As described in the Land Use Plan section, this designation includes alley and motor-court single family attached and multi-family stacked - flat, carriage, townhome, zero - lot line and condominium ownership and rental homes with density ranging from 12.1 to 24.0 dwelling units/acre. See Sections 1.4 and 1.5 below for setback, building area, building height and parking requirement descriptions. For-sale and rental home are allowed. Mixed Use Density Residential: As described in the Land Use Plan section, this designation includes residential homes on motor-court single family detached and single family attached, as well as multi-family stacked - flat, carriage townhome, live-work, condominium ownership and rental homes. See Sections 1.4 and 1.5 below for setback, building area, building heights and parking requirement descriptions. For-sale and rental homes are allowed in this density. 1.2 Designs for Residential Density, Public/Institutional/Medium Residential Density, and Mixed Use Residential Density Single Family Detached Homes: Include front-, alley-, and motor-court loaded homes with garages and uncovered parking. Motor-courts are homes with pedestrian and vehicular access off of a public street, common driveway or paseo. Alley-loaded homes have a front door off of an alley, a paseo, or public - street, and vehicular access off of an alley on a separate parcel or easement. These homes may have front yards and side yards maintained by an association, while the fenced private open spaces are maintained by the homeowner. These homes can be located within all Residential and P-I / Medium Density Residential densities, except for High - Density Residential, and may have front or side-loaded driveways as well as alley-or motor- court loaded driveways and drive aprons. Second units are allowed within all densities. Attached Homes: Include front-, alley-and motor-court loaded homes with garages and uncovered parking. These are located on individual lots with four or few units per building, defined as Single-Family in the Municipal Code, or with multiple units on a large lot or more than four units per building, defined as Multi-Family. Motor-court homes have pedestrian and vehicular access off of a public street, shared driveway or paseo. Alley-loaded homes have a front door off of an alley, paseo or public street with vehicular access off of an alley. Attached homes may have features of detached homes, including fenced private open space, front / side 60 / rear--and alley loaded driveway and drive aprons. Maintenance of fenced lot/private open space may be by the homeowner and maintenance of front yards may be by an association, while alley, motor-court and common area may be maintained by an association either through ownership of a separate parcel or easements. These are within all densities except Estate and Low. Multi-Family Condominium and Apartment Rental Homes: “Multi-Family” homes are within High- and Mixed Use Densities and include Town-home, Carriage, Stacked-Flat and Live/ Work homes. These have three or more units and are either within an association or owned as a rental community that maintains exteriors and common area. No second units are allowed. Second Units: Second Units will follow the City's Municipal Code requirements. Setbacks and Development Standards: Building setbacks and heights, floor area ratio, and lot coverage for homes described above are shown within the Development Standards. Any conflict between the Guidelines and the Municipal Code will defer to the Development Standards. 1.3 Permitted Uses All residential uses shall utilize the City of Rohnert Park Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 17.06.030 Permitted Uses, as a guide. 61 Section 1.4 Residential Standards SETBACKS ARE MINIMUM, EXCEPT WHEN NOTED OTHERWISE See Specific Plan for min. lot sizes per density Estate Density – Detached Conventional Low Density - Detached Conventional Two Story Low Density Detached Conventional Single Story & Pop-Up Medium Density – Detached Conventional Medium – Density – Detached Alley and MC Medium – Density – Attached Alley and MC P / I / Medium Density - Conventional P / I / Medium Density Detached Alley and MC P / I / Medium – Density Attached Alley and MC High Density – Attached Alley and MC High Density Multi-Family Alley and MC Mixed Use Residential – Detached Alley and MC Mixed Use Residential – Attached Alley and MC Mixed Use Multi- Family Residential over Retail FRONT Garage Front – On 25’ 18’ 18’ N/A 18’ 18’ 18’ 18’ 18’ 18’ N/A N/A N/A N/A Garage Side – On (55’lot) 13’ 8’ 8’ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Porch Court 15’ 10’ 10’ 5’ 5’ 5’ 5’ 5’ 5’ 5’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 0’ Arch. / Fireplace / Media 13’ 8’ 8’ 5’ 5’ 5’ 5’ 5’ 5’ 5’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 0’ Living Area – All Floors 20’ 12’ 10’ 10’ 5’ 5’ 10’ 5’ 5’ 5’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 0’ SIDE Garage Front – On 5’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ Garage Alley and MC N/A N/A N/A N/A 4’ 4’ N/A 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ Living Area – All Floors 5’(1S)10’(2S) 5’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ Arch. / Fireplace / Media 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ Trellis / Porch / Court 5’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ Corner Conditions – Add 5’ 5’ 5’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ REAR Trellis / Garage 5’ 5’ 5’ 5’ 3’(A) 4’(MC) 3’(A) 4’(MC) 5’ 3’(A) 4’(MC) 3’(A) 4’(MC) 3’(A) 4’(MC) 3’(A) 4’(MC) 3’(A) 4’(MC) 3’(A) 4’(MC) 3’(A) 4’(MC) Living Area – All Floors 20’ 10’ 5’(1S),10’(2S) 10’ 3’(A) 4’(MC) 3’(A) 4’(MC) 10’ 3’(A) 4’(MC) 3’(A) 4’(MC) 3’(A) 4’(MC) 3’(A) 4’(MC) 3’(A) 4’(MC) 3’(A) 4’(MC) 3’(A) 4’(MC) BUILDING SEPARATION Rear – Garage to Garage N/A N/A N/A N/A 26’ (A) NA (MC) 26’ (A) NA (MC) N/A 26’ (A) NA (MC) 26’ (A) NA (MC) 26’ (A) NA (MC) 26’ 26’ 26’ 26’ Rear – Living to Living N/A N/A N/A N/A 26’(A) NA (MC) 26’(A) NA(MC) N/A 26’(A) NA (MC) 26’(A) NA(MC) 26’(A) NA(MC) 26’ 26’ 26’ 26’ Private Open Space / S.F. 600 500 400 400 300 300 400 300 300 200 100 200 200 100 Max. Floor Area Ratio 60 % 65 % 65 % 70 % 75 % 75 % 70 % 75 % 75 % 75 % 200 % 75 % 85 % 200 % Max. Lot Coverage 55 % 60 % 60 % 65 % 75 % 75 % 75 % 75 % 75 % 75 % 80 % 80 % 90 % 90 % Notes: Setbacks for attached units are measured from the edge of the structure to the back of the sidewalk, road, parking lot, or adjacent building, whichever is closer. Floor Area Ratio includes conditioned living area but not porches, garages, second units, decks, carports, and exterior stairs. Lot Coverage only includes the first floor living area, covered porches and garages. MC or (MC) = Motor Court (A) = Alley Pop-Up = second level living area over a portion of a single story home. (1S) = One-Story residential structure (2S) = Two-Story residential structure For Low Density Detached Conventional Single Story and Pop-Up, second floor windows located along the 4’ side-yard shall be clerestory windows to provide greater privacy to adjacent lot. On corner lots, buildings may encroach into corner setback areas, so long as no portion of building is closer than 5’-0” to property line and is located outside clear vision triangle area (as defined by RPMC Section 17.14.040). Trellis reference shall apply to Trellis, Pergola, or Shade Structure for setback and height requirements. See Section 1.5 for additional restrictions on these improvements, including overhang limitations. 62 63 1.5 Other Standards for Residential Uses Building Heights The maximum ridge height is from finished grade at the front of the foundation and shall not exceed 35 feet for 2 stories and 45 feet for 3 stories. City requirements for roof access and emergency service requirements take precedence over these Development Standards. Chimney and architectural projections are not intended for human occupancy and shall not be more than 8’-0” above the maximum height. This standard applies to both residential and commercial buildings. Accessory Structures Accessory structures such as sheds and cabanas shall follow the standards set forth by the City of Rohnert Park Zoning Ordinance. Site Coverage Includes Floor Area Ratio and Lot Coverage, shall comply with Section 1.4 Residential Standards. Private and Public Outdoor Space Subject to requirements of Section 1.4, balconies, bay windows, open stairs, porches, and other projections may project no closer than setbacks from property line as shown in Section 1.4 of the Specific Plan. Shade structures, pergolas, and trellis are not allowed to encroach into side – yard or rear – yard setbacks of the main house structure, including overhangs as defined in Section 1.4 Residential Standards. No projection shall encroach into the public right-of-way or adjacent properties. Air conditioning equipment may project into side yards but require three feet clearance from adjacent structures and fences. These encroachments shall meet the City’s noise ordinance. Builder installed front – yard bio – swales shall remain as is, though minor plant modifications may be possible subject to Association Architectural Review Committee (“ARC”) approval. Subject to Association approval, 3’ – 0” maximum width concrete walkways (flatwork) may be installed by homeowners from the lot driveway to the garage side-yard for trash / recycle toter storage behind fencing (as per the fence location installed per the City approved plot plan). Removal of landscape and irrigation in front yards shall not reduce the pervious percentage of the front yard below 50%. Any replacement of landscape materials shall adhere to Specific Plan Amendment approved plant material and be approved by Association ARC. Fencing, trellis and other structures, such as sheds and paly equipment, will not exceed the existing height of the fencing installed pursuant to the plot plan and at the time of the original issuance of certificate of occupancy. Fencing, gates or trash screens will not be allowed in front of the garage or the existing fence / gate location installed per the plot plan. No electrical and plumbing fixtures, such as water softeners or battery systems, will be allowed in the front yard. City ordinances and requirements will be adhered to as part of the Association approvals. Front Yard and Front Door Orientation in Vast Oak North In order to achieve a pedestrian friendly neighborhood, front doors of single-family homes should face the street whenever possible. To achieve this, garages should be at the rear of the lot from alleys or motor-courts, which would allow the front door to be oriented towards the local street and allow pedestrian access directly from the public access (Figure 17). 64 Figure 17 65 Parking & Driveway / Garage Standards The following addresses parking and garage standards at all densities that vary from Municipal Code for all residential density types. If a parking situation is not defined in Development Standards below, then the Municipal Code shall prevail. Residential Parking Standards • Side-by side covered parking spaces shall have minimum interior dimension of 10’-0” x 10’- 0” at the garage or covered parking structure • Compact covered parking spaces shall be a minimum of 10’-0” x 16’-0” measured from inside of the garage and covered parking structure, as well as from structures in uncovered areas. • Standards tandem covered parking spaces shall be a minimum of 10’-0” x 19’-0” as a single or 10’-0” x 36’-0” combined as measured from inside of the interior dimension of the garage. • 8’-0” by 16’-0” compact uncovered parking spaces are allowed within side-yard use easement areas, only behind lot fencing once approved by Association. • 18’-0” deep driveways are allowed in front-loaded, alley-loaded and motor court conditions. • Tandem, side-be-side and detached garages satisfy parking requirements for all homes. • Alleys and motor courts are private roadways that include drives, motor-courts, lanes, access-ways, and are owned as separate lots or have easements for Association maintenance of alleys and motor courts with more than four units. In the case of alley and motor court developments with four units or less, each unit will provide its fair share funding for maintenance and repairs. • No parking is allowed in private roadways, drives, lanes or access-ways at alleys and motor courts, as these are only allowed for vehicular and pedestrian access to garages and parking spaces for home and second unit. Access to parking within a lot, such as garage and uncovered space, is allowed access from alley, lane or motor-court. • A garage may have a 3' minimum and a 7' maximum drive apron depth or an 18'-0" minimum driveway depth. Alley - and Motorcourt loaded homes can have either full driveways or drive apron. Subject to Association approval, homeowner may install a maximum of 18” wide concrete surface on each side of the driveway or a 24” wide surface on one side of the driveway, only after confirming with Association that proposed impervious surface of front yard of the lot will not exceed 50% of front yard. • If more covered or uncovered parking spaces are provided within a lot, such as by driveways or other spaces, then these satisfy any required uncovered on-site or on-street visitor parking. No additional parking is allowed in the front yard from what was shown on plot plan. • On-street public roadway parking and on-site/on-lot driveway parking satisfies visitor parking requirements for all residential land uses including parking required for second units. Off-Street Parking and Loading Parking within the Residential and Mixed – Use districts shall follow Rohnert Park Municipal Code. 66 Chapter 2: Mixed Use Commercial Development Standards This chapter establishes standards for the Mixed Use Commercial Center uses (“Mixed Use Center”) as outlined in the City’s Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 17.06.040 – Mixed Use Zoning Districts. 2.1 Mixed Use Commercial Center Mixed Use Commercial Center. This designation provides for a variety of uses, including, but not limited to, grocery, personal services, neighborhood service retail, and entertainment. Parcels may include multiple land uses as individual buildings or within each building. See City’s Municipal Code for Development Standards not addressed below for this Land Use. The preferred pattern of development will be commercial uses, with residential and/or office uses located on the upper floor(s). Special urban design amenities (pedestrian facilities, landscaping, public spaces, etc.) would be included in the District to create recognizable, pedestrian friendly activity centers. On-site parking would be provided for residential uses and parking for businesses would generally be on-street, in parking structures, or on-site parking lots. Convenient vehicular and pedestrian/bicycle access from surrounding neighborhoods and transit service would also be components of this Mixed Use Commercial Center. Mixed Use Commercial Center is situated along RPX and serves as primary easterly entry point to the overall project. The Mixed Use Center incorporates retail, office, restaurants, hotel and residential uses and plays a major role in establishing the overall image of the University District. 2.2 Mixed Use Commercial Center Permitted Uses The following table establishes the permitted land uses for the Mixed Use Commercial Center. To use the chart, find the type of use in the category on the left-hand side of the table. Read across the row for the permitted use as follows: P = permitted C = conditionally-permitted by Planning Commission A = administrative permit Z = certificate of zoning compliance T = temporary conditional permit I = uses allowed as incidental to a primary use Uses not specifically listed are not permitted unless determined, by the Planning and Community Development Director, to be substantially similar to a listed one. 67 MIXED USE COMMERCIAL CENTER PERMITTED USES USE TYPE M.U. Amusement Center (e.g. video games, other indoor amusements) C Animal Hospital/ Veterinary Clinic C Antique Store P Bakery (Retail Sales) P Bank/Savings & Loan/Credit Union (drive-through windows not permitted) P Bar C Bar/Restaurant P Bar/Nightclub C Barber/Beauty Shop P Bath House/Spa C Bed & Breakfast Inns C Billiards Parlor C Club & Lodges C Cultural Institutions (e.g. museums) C Day Care Center (non-residential) P Dry Cleaning Outlet (only minor processing on-site) P Florist P MIXED USE COMMERCIAL CENTER PERMITTED USES USE TYPE M.U. Food Store Under 15,000 SF P Between 15,001 SF and 40,000 SF C Hardware Store P Health Club P Interior Decorator P Laboratory (in conjunction with a medical, dental, or optical use) P(I) Laundromat P Liquor Store (Off-Sale) C Live Entertainment C 68 Massage Therapy P Medical Clinic P Microbrewery P Office Professional and administrative P Medical and Dental P Parking Lot (Commercial) P(I) Photography Studio P Printing (small copy center) P Public Assembly C Public Facility e.g. police and fire stations, community centers, government offices P Religious Assembly C Homeless Shelter (as part of institution, 6 or less persons) P Residential Facility C Congregate Care/Assisted Living C Convalescent Hospital C Single Room Occupancy (15) P Senior Housing (independent living) P 69 MIXED USE COMMERCIAL CENTER PERMITTED USES USE TYPE M.U. Residential Use Live-Work P Multi-Family P Townhouse P Restaurant General P Outdoor & Sidewalk Café A Take Out/Delivery (drive-through windows not permitted) P With Bar & Live Entertainment C Retail, General, & Specialty P Studio (e.g. Dance, Martial Arts) C Tailor P Tattoo/Piercing Studio C Temporary Use/Event Arts & Crafts Show T Circus/Carnival T Flea Market/Swap Meet C Live Entertainment C Outdoor Exhibit T Recreational Event C Religious Assembly C Retail Sales T Seasonal Lot/Activity (e.g. Christmas trees, pumpkins) T Trade Fair C Theater (under 500 seats) C * No food preparation unless applied for and approved as part of project approval or separately. 70 2.3 Mixed Use Commercial Setbacks MIXED USE COMMERCIAL SETBACKS SETBACKS ARE MINIMUMS, EXCEPT WHEN NOTED OTHERWISE See Specific Plan for min. lot sizes per density type High - Density Multi –Family Alley and MC BUILDING SIZE Maximum Building Width 300’ Maximum Building Depth 300’ SETBACKS FROM PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY Ground Floor 0’-10’ Upper Floors With ground floor at 0’-5’ 10’ With ground floor at 5’-10’ 5’ SETBACKS FROM OTHER BUILDINGS ON SITE From Residential 20’ From Non-Residential Buildings 20’ From Carports 15’ FROM NON-STREET PROPERTY LINE Of SF attached or MF lot 20’ Of SF detached lot 25’ Non-Residential Buildings 25’ MISCELLANEOUS Building Height 3 stories or 45’ Max Setback from Parking or Aisle 15’ Max. Floor Area Ratio 2.00 Building Form - Primary Street Façade Build-to 50% Minimum Building Form - Side Street Façade Build-to Lines 30% Minimum Building Height is measured from finished grade at entry to the top of the ridge/parapet. MC or (MC) = Motorcourt; (A) = Alley; (MF) = Multifamily; (SF) = Single-Family 71 2.5 Other Standards for Mixed Use/Commercial Building Heights The maximum ridge height is from finished grade at the front of the foundation and shall not exceed 35 feet for 2 stories and 45 feet for 3 stories. City requirements for roof access and emergency service requirements take precedence over these Development Standards. Chimneys and architectural projections are not intended for human occupancy and shall not be more than 8’-0” above the maximum height. This standard applies to both residential and commercial buildings. Accessory Structures Accessory structures include structures such as enclosures for trash and mechanical equipment. Areas for service, storage, loading, and equipment should be located adjacent to parking away from streets and concealed from public view wherever possible. Accessory structures such as sheds and cabanas shall follow the standards set forth by the City of Rohnert Park Zoning Ordinance. Site Coverage The following establishes the dimensional requirements for lots in the Mixed Use areas and the Commercial Center. These Design Guidelines apply to all Mixed Use and Commercial Core building areas within the University District. Buildings shall not cover more than 80 % of the lot, except for parcels with structured parking within the Commercial Core. With parking structures associated with retail or mixed use buildings, lot coverage maximum shall be determined by the Planning Director, as these site plans require extensive evaluation on a case-by-case basis. Private and Public Outdoor Spaces Balconies, bay windows, open stairs, and porches, and other projections may project 4’ max. into adjacent yard setbacks and the setback is the distance that the building must be from the property line. The projection may not encroach into the public right-of-way or adjacent properties. Air conditioning equipment may project into side yards but need three feet clearance from adjacent structures and fences. These encroachments shall meet the City’s noise ordinance. Parking & Driveway/Garage Standards The following addresses parking and garage standards at all densities that vary from the Municipal Code for all residential density types. If a parking situation is not defined in the Development Standards below, then the Municipal Code shall prevail. Commercial and Mixed Use Parking Standards • Standard side–by–side parking spaces shall have minimum interior dimension of 9’-0” x 18’-0”. • 8’-0 by 16’-0” parking spaces are considered compact in an uncovered parking lot. • For Mixed Use, up to 20% of the parking spaces may be compact as defined in these guidelines. • Compact covered parking spaces shall be a minimum of 10’-0” x 16’-0” as measured from the inside of the garage and covered parking structure, as well as from structures in uncovered areas. • No parking is allowed in the private roadways, drives, lanes or access-ways, unless specifically designated, as these are only allowed for vehicular and pedestrian access to 72 garages and parking spaces for retail access. Access to parking within a lot, such as a garage and uncovered space, is allowed access from alleys, lanes and drive aisles. • Drive aisles shall be a minimum width of 24’ across. • Parking areas shall be efficiently designed and as easy to navigate as possible, elimination as much confusion as possible for customers. Off-Street Parking and Loading Parking within the Commercial Mixed Use shall generally follow the Rohnert Park Municipal Code except for instances listed in the Parking Ratios table below. Shared Parking Concept: If the proposed uses are a mixture of the below mentioned uses, a reduction of up to 20% is allowed for a combination of uses that share a common parking area, where the demand for parking occurs over different periods of time such as peak and non-peak hours. This parking concept and 20% reduction may be deducted from the parking ratios below: PARKING RATIOS TYPE OF ESTABLISHMENT ONE SPACE PER SPACES PER 1000 SF Eating & Drinking Cocktail Lounge, Bar, Restaurants (with seating) 100 SF of gross floor area 10.0 Take-Out, Specialty Foods (min. seating) 135 SF of gross floor area 7.0 Hotel guest room plus one space per 250 SF of banquet or conference seating area 4.0 * Where standard spaces are adjacent and perpendicular to landscaping or a walkway, the planting area or walkway may be increased by two feet in depth and the length of the adjacent parking decreased by two feet to allow for a two- foot overhang. ** Mixed Use Center and Commercial Core: 25% of the required parking spaces may be made up of compact spaces 73 Chapter 3: Public/Institutional, Parks, and Open Space Districts 3.1 Public Institutional, Parks, and Open Space Land Use Designations Public / Institutional. See Land Use Section and City’s Municipal Code for allowed uses and design criteria for this land use, though water quality and detention basins and drainage facilities, whether public or private, will be allowed in this land use. Includes fencing, maintenance roads, walls and other requirements for basins. Class 1 Bicycle trails, sidewalks, and irrigated and non – irrigated landscape areas are allowed. See City’s Municipal Code for Development Standards. Open Space. Land uses may include, among others, creeks, buffers, scenic corridors, wetlands, drainage facilities, public streets, paved and unpaved maintenance roads, fencing, Class 1 bicycle trails, pedestrian trails, bridges, lighting, parking, signage, benches, trash receptacles, emergency vehicle access, utilities. See City’s Municipal Code for Development Standards for this Land Use. Park. See Land Use Section and City’s Municipal Code for allowed standards. Chapter 4: Green Building and Smart Growth In compliance with the "Build It Green 2005 Edition of the New Home Construction Green Building Guidelines" adopted by the City Council on March 14, 2006 by Resolution 2006-67, the Developer of each residential neighborhood shall cooperate and work with City to establish "green" (i.e., environmentally sensitive) and "smart growth" development standards and requirements in accordance with the General Plan and Specific Plan. These standards and requirements will be submitted with Development Area Plans for each neighborhood and will be sufficient to ensure that: (i) all single-family detached units will achieve a minimum of 100 points, (ii) all single-family attached units will achieve a minimum of 90 points, and (iii) all multifamily units shall achieve a minimum of 80 points. Such standards and requirements shall address issues including sustainable site planning, safeguarding water quality and water efficiency, optimizing energy performance, conserving and recycling materials and resources, and improving indoor environmental quality. Each of the above specified minimum point requirements shall include a minimum of 10 points for recycled water, community and innovation credits. In addition, the Developer or its successor with respect to the Mixed-Use Commercial Center shall cooperate with City to develop green building standards for the Mixed-Use Commercial Center commercial and mixed-use buildings, which shall be incorporated into the Development Area Plan for the Mixed-Use Commercial Center. The Mixed-Use Commercial Center Development Area Plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City. 74 APPENDIX B CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION DESIGN GUIDELINES 1.1 Design and Community Vision Statement The UDSP Design Guidelines (“Guidelines”) promote planning and design fundamentals for pedestrian friendly neighborhoods with defined architecture and landscape architecture. These promote interaction with SSU, the GMC, residential and Mixed Use areas, schools, and open space. These provide criteria for innovative designs, including front -, alley - and motor-court loaded lots, as well as second units, to respond to the current and future housing market. The Guidelines concepts include the following: 1. Create neighborhoods that achieve the General Plan goals of quality architectural and landscape design for the Specific Plan neighborhoods and Mixed Use areas. 2. Create gathering spaces, such as parks and a plaza at the Mixed Use center, which promote connections to the GMC, educational facilities and open space. 3. Create a varied transportation network that promotes pedestrian and bicycle traffic, including the north – south “Linear Parkway” system between Keiser Avenue and Copeland Creek. 4. Provide flexibility for neighborhood planning, as well as innovative architectural and landscape design, so as to allow home designs to better address current and future market conditions. 5. Introduce a range of diverse housing types and lot sizes throughout all densities, including front -, alley – and motor-court loaded homes that promote alternative street scenes. 6. Allow public roads, trails, landscape parcels, and rights–of–way within all land uses, including parks, basins and open space. 75 CHAPTER 2 SITE & ARCHITECTURE DESIGN GUIDELINES This chapter includes guidelines for residential and Mixed Use commercial buildings and illustrate the desired character of the site, building and landscape design, and achieve a community with quality and a distinctive sense of place while encouraging flexibility, innovation, diversity, and neighborhood character. 2.1 General Planning Concepts a. Buildings should be oriented to walkways, paseos, motor courts, drives and/or streets, when feasible. b. Retail surrounding the Commercial Center should be oriented to the Plaza when feasible. c. Encourage a pedestrian-friendly environment through the use of amenities such as: • Shaded tree-lined streets with 4’-0’ minimum parkway strips. • Convenient on-street parking at parks and residential areas. • Public access to parks and to the Commercial Center. 2.2 Residential Guidelines Detached, Attached, and Multi-family homes within Estate -, Low -, Medium -, P / I / Medium, High -, and Mixed Use – Residential Densities should have architectural styles that complement the neighborhood yet maintain individuality, including the following: A. Site Design Site planning encouraged with strong pedestrian orientation. Building locations can frame prominent corners and highly visible portions of site. Parking areas can be less prominent through building enclosures and creative landscape. • Reduce driveways to the minimum width of 16’ and a depth of 18’. Massing & Building Form • Homogeneous styles, colors and materials create greater individuality while the architectural styles need to complement the master planned community. • At perimeter of multi–family neighborhoods, provide building corners with architectural enhancements. 76 • Porches and/or entries are strongly encouraged on select floor plans and elevations to be the primary element of each home on the street façade. • Home architecture or porches preferred closer to street than the garage doors. • Provide a minimum 3 elevations per floor plan and 3 architectural styles per neighborhood, though 4 architectural styles per neighborhood is preferred. Entries • Enhance the neighborhood character and complement the Specific Plan. • Visible from the street when feasible, except for second units, which will be accessed from the alleys, motor courts and paseos. Front doors at motor courts and alley loaded homes, as well as attached homes, can be located away from the street and off of paseos or motor courts. • Enhancements may include identification signs, lighting and enhanced hardscape and plantings which would draw from the palette of adjoining streets. • Provide enhancements that are small in scale and can be incorporated into the entry points of each project as a form of identification. • If included, porches, stairs and decks should be designed to reflect the appropriate scale and detail for the architectural style. • Porch and entry features should be one-story elements in limited quantities and may also be incorporated into two-story vertical elements to break up the building mass facing the street or to provide visual interest to the streetscape. Roofs A variety of roof plans is desired, dependent on architectural style, as roof forms and materials have impact on neighborhood, though roof forms must remain simple in form to allow for future photovoltaic applications by homeowners. • Roofs over one-story elements, such as those over porches or bays, provide additional articulation of the massing of larger, two-story residences. • Roof forms should accentuate building elements and functions. Colors, Materials, Finishes & Details • Roofing materials appropriate to architectural style and pitch and for future photovoltaic applications. 77 • Provide homes with a color palette that includes body, trim and accent colors. • Building colors and materials should reflect the neighborhood’s character with diversity for visual interest and unifies the homes with complementary images. • Each elevation with 3 colors minimum; 1 body, 1 trim and 1 accent. • Each neighborhood with a minimum of 3 roof profiles and building colors. o Individual color schemes must be appropriate to architectural styles with a harmonious selection of accent materials, roof profiles and colors. o No adjacent single-family detached home with same color. Attached and multi-family housing will have distinctive colors from unit to unit and building to building, or if a harmonious architectural style is preferred, use complementary colors. Duplexes with distinctive colors separating units to define maintenance areas. O Second units have same materials, forms and color of primary home. B. Garage Treatments & Configurations Use varied garage-door patterns and colors, and alternative garage configurations, such as one car, tandem, and detached garages. Garage door widths no more than 16 feet maximum. Standard Front - Loaded Garages When garages are 18’ minimum behind front property line, no garage should be less than 3' behind forward portion of home or porch. Three-car tandem garages preferred, if feasible, and on larger lots, such as 50’ x 80’. Standard Alley – Loaded Garages and Parking Garages and uncovered parking spaces have a minimum drive apron from alley /drive / access- way /lane as defined in Section 2.2. Parking space size and requirements defined in Section 2.2. Swing-in Front – Loaded Garages (Side-On) Swing-in garages reduce garage impacts on the streetscape though these are discouraged on lots less than 55' wide, and cannot be accessed from the roadway side on corner lots. Detached garages or carports at Multi – Family neighborhoods, tie into overall project design while reducing visual emphasis. To achieve this, these structures shall incorporate the following: 1. Utilize the same architectural style, massing elements, wall materials and finish, design details and colors as the residential dwelling units. 2. Use similar or compatible roof forms to the residential buildings. 3. Provide sectional garage doors with automatic door openers. 4. Carports shall be screened and not be visible from the street. C. Parking The focus of the multi-family buildings should be their street front image and pedestrian access so that they incorporate interior oriented parking solutions and enhance the street scene: 78 1. Where parking areas are visible from public streets, these areas should be screened from view with landscape or architectural solutions. 2. Distribute resident parking on site and within public streets to provide close proximity as possible to individual units. 3. Group unassigned or guest parking in evenly distributed locations. 2.3 Mixed Use Guidelines Commercial Core is envisioned as a place for social gathering and conducting personal and community related business in a pedestrian-oriented environment, within walking and biking distance from adjacent residential neighborhoods and the Sonoma State University community. A. Scale • The first floor level should be at street level or within 18". • Intermittent rain protection provided (e.g., awnings, canopies, arcades). • Facade divided into increments of 30’ +/- which may give overall façade the appearance of a series of smaller-scale building build adjacent to each other. • There should be well-defined entrances. • Glass at 50% or more of façade at street level for building transparency. • No front setback required for housing over first floor commercial space. • Central volumes should step down in mass only where appropriate. • Corner retail and/or live - work should integrate awnings and clerestory windows in to storefronts where appropriate. 79 B. Architecture • Loading and services areas should be integrated into the overall building composition and screened from the sidewalk views. • Architectural enclosures should be designed as integral elements of the building architecture. • Trellises, pergolas, or permanent awnings incorporated to serve as shade and weather protection. Arcades, overhangs, awnings, etc., should be used. • Arcades only used where appropriate to architectural style and, if incorporate, should be a minimum of 8’ in depth between building face and inner edge of column. Exposed rafter tails only shown were appropriate to architectural style. • Arcades should not obstruct the views onto window displays. When storefronts are located within an arcade, they should compromise a minimum of 50% of the ground floor openings. Arcades with blank wall facades are discouraged. • Architectural features such as towers placed in areas appropriate for site plan and architectural style, not necessarily asymmetrically placed in the façade. • For commercial buildings, downspouts integrated into design of façade. C. Materials & Color The color palette shall be appropriate to individual building materials and architectural style and relate to adjacent buildings. Garish contrasts in color combinations shall be avoided. • The building color palette should complement the Green Music Center and overall concept of the Mixed Use Center. • Building colors shall complement key building elements such as storefronts, ornaments, awnings, and roofing. • One color for entire surface area that obscures details is discouraged. Accent colors on trim, moldings, cornices, and other details encouraged. • Tenant’s buildings encouraged to use creativity in interpreting criteria in Guidelines. Buildings c ompatible in massing, form, color, and materials to achieve a sense of architectural continuity. • Strong correlation between exterior facades, sidewalk surfaces, and planting is critical to design theme. 80 • Materials should be appropriate to the building’s architectural style and character and suited to commercial construction. • Changes in materials should occur at inside corners where building plane changes direction. • Board and batten may be used on commercial and mixed use buildings when appropriate to the selected architectural style. • Mirror glazing should not be used. • Window and door glazing area should be a minimum of 40 percent of the storefront area on the primary store/building frontage. • Horizontal or vertical windows work well, while tall, narrow or square proportions are allowed if consistent with the architectural style. • Canvas awnings, when incorporated into building façade, should have a valance height appropriate to mass, scale and architectural style of building. Valances may be rigid or hanging, and colors based on building style. D. Streetscape Streetscapes furnished with enriched materials and furnishings that create a comfortable and convenient experience in a similar style, color and finish to create a refined experience. • Pedestrian scale street lighting, benches, bollards, bike racks, trash receptacles, street trees, and other sidewalk amenities should be provided. • First floor use of the building shall be pedestrian-oriented. • Buildings define streetscape by being built up to the right-of-way and should promote street activity. Primary entrances should be sited to face the street. • Outdoor seating and dining is encouraged within the Commercial Core area. • Provisions for outdoor alcohol sales with appropriate barriers and railing. • Vertical surfaces should be treated with anti-graffiti coatings. • Bicycle parking and utilities should be integrated into the landscape design to place these elements where they are needed in a discrete manner. • The pedestrian experience enhanced with accent paving at transition points along pathways and in front of retail stores. The inclusion of seating in outdoor public spaces, such as benches, chairs, or raised planter edges, is encouraged. 81 2.4 Lighting Lighting should create welcoming spaces, accentuate design, be used at gathering and active use areas, have ambient lighting at building entries, stairways and plantings and include: • Pole heights, spacing and installation should comply with City standards. • Lightings placement to maximize use of vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle circulation. • Use of low intensity and shielded lighting design to prevent light spillage. • Selection of functional, durable materials that follow theme of adjacent architecture in color and detailing. • Application of multi-use light features, allowing for event signage and banners. • Adequate lighting for commercial, parking and other public areas to enable their use after daylight hours and ensure public safety of property and pedestrians. Parking lot and lower accent light fixtures shall reflect design theme of Mixed Use center. Parking lot illumination coordinated with timers for hours of operation and security requirements of tenants. Lights at rear of building and service areas, whether wall or pole-mounted, shall be selected to provide cut-off features to prevent light source from being visible from adjacent properties. All lighting (signage, landscape, and parking lot) designed to minimize spillover to adjacent residential units, outdoor spaces, and streets. Wall mounted fixtures at front of retail buildings shall complement design of stores and fixtures. Lighting shall be minimum illumination directed downwards and shielded at lot lines so as not to be visible from an adjoining properties. 2.5 Trash Enclosures • Trash enclosures shall accommodate quantity and types of trash containers required by disposal company, centrally-convenient for residents, minimize impacts on adjacent residences with enclosures away from edges of community. Trash enclosures constructed with masonry walls in a style and finish consistent with architectural character of Mixed Use center, have complementary durable gates, hinged to self-supporting steel posts, trellis or covered structure overhead, and lighting at each enclosure. Trash enclosures shall have a trellis or other overhead structure. If possible, no gates will be required if trash-enclosure screening can be provided. 2.6 Mechanical & Roof Mounted Equipment & Utilities • Roof mounted solar equipment placed behind parapet wall or integrated with roof. • All plans conform to utility provider standards, i.e. PG&E clearance requirements. 2.7 Signage • Lettering may be increased by 2” for every foot of setback from property line. • Freestanding signs should not exceed 15’ feet in height. 82 CHAPTER 3 ARCHITECTURAL STYLES 3.0 Residential Architecture The following addresses architectural styles that are encouraged for this community, providing criteria that address designs and details appropriate and authentic to particular architectural styles, including elements that typically characterize a style. The use of any of these styles is appropriate within the UDSP densities, including in the mixed use density, as well as the use of other architectural styles though these styles need to be complementary to the adjacent neighborhoods and the overall community. 1. Craftsman 2. Cottage 3. French Country 4. English Country 5. Italian Country 6. Spanish Colonial 7. Italianate 8. Wine Country 9. Tuscan 10. Traditional 3.1 Craftsman Inspired by two California brothers – Charles Sumner Greene and Henry Mather Greene – these homes were the dominant style for smaller houses built through the country during the period from about 1905 to the early 1920’s. This style originated in Southern California and quickly spread throughout the country by pattern books and magazines. This style is still popular and has continued with numerous architectural renovations and revival projects. Standard Elements: Form & Roof: • Low pitched gable roofs (occasionally hipped) • Roof-rafters usually exposed • Multiple roof planes 83 • 4:12 or greater roof pitch • Only front elevations are to provide these elements Walls & Windows: • Shed or gable dormers • Window boxes and balconies • Transom windows Details: • Porches are either full, or partial-width, with roof supported by square columns • Decorative (false) beams or braces under gables • Columns, or column bases, frequently continue to ground level without breaks at porch level Colors: • Body: whites, light-tinted colors, and rich earth tones • Trim: whites and lighter tinted colors that complement the body color • Accent: light or dark shades that contract to the body color Enhancement Opportunities for this Style: • Triangular knee braces • Extra stickwork in gables or porches • Extended and/or elaborated rafter ends, when feasible with gutters 84 Craftsman Style Elevation 85 3.2 Cottage The Cottage home was traditionally a smaller home on the grounds of a much larger estate, often occupied by the workers of those estates. Architecturally, these homes were inspired by medieval English countryside homes and became popular in the Unites States during the 1920’s and 1930’s. Regional influences can have an effect on the look of these homes; however the standard elements generally remain consistent. Standard Elements: Form & Roof: • Asymmetrical one and two-story • Medium to steep roof pitch, often gambrel or hip with cross gables, sometimes with clipped gables • Shingle-look • Only front elevations are to provide these elements Walls & Windows: • Windows with small panes • Tall, narrow multi-light windows in bands Details: • Brick and stone wainscot at front elevation, or natural shake siding • Stucco, shingle and lap siding Colors: • Body: whites and light-tinted colors with the occasional bold earth tones • Trim: whites and lighter tinted colors as well as bold earth tones • Accent: bold earth tone colors Enhancement Opportunities for this Style: • A bold color on the door • Accent roof form • Accent materials at front elevations • Decorative half-timbering 86 Cottage Style Architecture 87 3.3 French Country The French Country style has its roots in the sunny hillsides of rural France and includes picturesque examples based on French farmhouses. This style shows many examples of basic French architecture and detailing, but is united by a characteristic roof. This style was found throughout the country in the 1920’s and 30’s, but gained more popularity after the 1960’s. Standard Elements: Form & Roof: • Tall, steeply pitched, hipped roof (occasionally gabled) • Eaves flared upward at wall connection • Symmetrical or towered building form • Only front elevations are to provide these elements Walls & Windows: • Brick, stone or stucco wall finish at front elevation only • Arched windows or dormers Details: • Formal façade detailing • Decorative (false) beams or braces under gables • Doors set in arched openings Colors: • Body: Light-tinted colors • Trim: Warm light tones and colors that complement the body color • Accent: High contrast colors and textures that contrast to the body color 88 French Country Architectural Style 89 3.4 English Country The English Country style home originally was constructed in Great Britain and made its way to the United States during the last quarter of the 19th century where it was incorporated into neighborhoods across America for the next 50 years. Standard Elements: Form & Roof: • One and two-story • Asymmetrical • Overhang of the second floors • Cross-gabled, steeply pitched roof sometimes with clipped gables • Only front elevations are to provide these elements Walls & Windows: • Arrangements of tall, narrow multi-light windows in bands at front elevation only • Clinker brick and decorative brickwork at front elevation only • Siding commonly seen is stucco, shingle and lap Details: • Half-round doors Colors: • Body: light colored body in an earth tone • Trim: dark colored earth tone complementary to the body color • Accent: dark colored earth tone complementary to the body color Enhancement Opportunities for this Style: • Decorative half-timbering with brick infill 90 English County Architectural Style 91 3.5 Italian Country The Italian Country style is found in the early 20th century buildings through the country but is considerably less common that the contemporary Craftsman, Tudor or Colonial Revival styles. Considered a more relaxed interpretation of the vast, architect-designed landmarks in major metropolitan areas prior to World War 1, this vernacular spread widely with the perfection of masonry veneering techniques across the West Coast and more particularly, wine regions. Standard Elements: Form & Roof: • Symmetrical and asymmetrical one and two-story massing • Lower pitched roof forms • Ceramic tile • Only front elevations are to provide these elements Walls & Windows: • Stucco Details: • Recessed entry porches • Full length first-story windows with arches above • Broad overhanging, boxed eaves with decorative brackets underneath • Symmetry about Palladian three arched porticos Colors: • Body: Ochres of rich cream tones • Trim: Deep green or brown • Accent: Deep greens Enhancement Opportunities for this Style: • Classical door surrounds • Molded cornices and belt courses 92 Italian Country Style Architecture 93 3.6 Spanish Colonial Spanish Colonial, also known as Spanish Eclectic, is an adaptation of Mission Revival enriched with additional Latin American details and elements. The style attained widespread popularity after its use in the Panama-California Exposition of 1915. The simple courtyards of the Spanish Colonial heritage with hanging pots, a flowering garden and sprawling shade trees are hardly surpassed as foreground design elements. Further architectural distinction is established through the use of roof tiles, stucco walls, heavily textured wooden doors and highlighted ornamental ironwork. Key features of this style were adapted to the Monterey County area and throughout much of California. The plans have been informally organized around a courtyard with the front elevation very simply articulated and detailed. The charm of this style lies in the directness, adaptability and contrast of materials. Standard Elements Form & Roof: • Two-story massing with strong one-story elements • Square or rectangular plan form massing • 4:12 to 5:12 roof pitch • 12” to 16” overhang • Simple hip or gable roof • Curved concrete, clay barrel or “S” shaped tiles • Only front elevations are to provide these elements Walls & Windows: • Light sand finish or light lace finish stucco • Vertical hung six and eight paned windows Details: • Stucco-over-foam window and door trim • Arched stucco column porches and fully rounded arches • Clay pipe or half oval attics Colors: • Body: • Trim: • Accent: Enhancement Opportunities: • Simple, articulated two-story boxed plan massing with no more than 50% one-story element across the front elevation • Shed roof over porch • Stucco sand finish • Feature recessed arched windows • Shaped rafter tails at feature areas, if feasible 94 Spanish Colonial Style Architecture 95 3.7 Italianate The Italianate Style, often called the Italian Revival, Renaissance or Mediterranean, was derived in part from the Beaux Arts style architecture popular at the turn of the 20th century. In the 1920’s, Americans became much more familiar with the various styles and architectural influences from Europe and henceforth, especially in warmer climates such as Florida and California, great examples of Italianate style homes can be found in many cities. Standard Elements: Form & Roof: • One and two-story • Elegant façade may be symmetrical or asymmetrical but always harmonious and proportional • Balanced, low-pitched hip roof • Tile roof, flat and barrel • Only front elevations are to provide these elements Walls & Windows: • Masonry exterior is most often stucco, stone or brick and often unadorned • Smaller and simple upper-story windows Details: • Entry slightly recessed or enclosed • Arch over doors along first floor Colors: • Body: Bold earth tones • Trim: Light colored trim complementary to the body style • Accent: Bold and complementary earth tone to the body color Enhancement Opportunities for this Style: • Eaves widely overhanging with decorative brackets • Pilasters or columns surrounding entry 96 Italianate Architectural Style 97 3.8 Wine Country Drawing from homes of the late nineteenth century and early twentieth centuries, this “wine country” or more agrarian rural and contemporary architectural style typically has a roof from to the front and a partial or full-width front porch. These homes have appropriate detailing that adds to the overall refinement of the architecture without detracting from it. The “Wine Country” home should be a familiar, welcoming residence. Standard Elements: Form & Roof: • Simpler plan and form • Simpler roof design, front to back gable or side to side gable • 5:12 to 12:12 roof pitch • Minimum 16” eaves and zero gable ends permitted • Flat or barrel concrete tile or roofing • Only front elevations are to provide these elements Walls & Windows: • Horizontal siding, board and batten siding, stucco or a combination of these • Symmetrical placement and careful attention to developing distinct fenestration rhythms • Square, circular or minimum 2:1 vertically proportioned rectangular windows • Grid patterns typically: 1, 2, 4 or 6/1; 2/2; 4/4; 6/6 • Window grids facing all public streets and other locations in clear public view Details: • Porches with simple columns and simple trim detailing • Porch railings should be simple in design when provided Colors: • Body: whites, light-tinted colors and rich earth tones • Trim: whites, or light shades complementary to the body color • Accent: light or dark shades in contrast to the body color Enhancement Opportunities for this Style: • Decorative shutters • Appropriately proportioned dormers, preferably active • Exposed rafter tails, when feasible with gutters • Trowel detailing on stucco elevations 98 Wine Country Architectural Style 99 3.9 Tuscan This vocabulary has its historical roots in the villas and villages of the inland French and Italian Mediterranean regions of Provence and Tuscany whose topography, vegetation and climate is very similar to that of Sonoma County. This palette of cut and rustic stone with hues of rose, buff and ochre, ornamental carved or cast stone, terra cotta roof tile, awning shutters, detailed iron work and plants potted in terra cotta has a strong historical precedence in the Bay Area. Standard Elements: Form & Roof: • Symmetrical and asymmetrical one and two-story massing • Main hip roof front to back 4:12 • Barrel “S” tiles • Only front elevations are to provide these elements Walls & Windows: • Generally smooth stucco • Four pane over four pane • Two over two vertical panes • Recessed Details: • Doors and windows recessed into thick walls • Loggias with columns • Columns between windows • Box bays Colors: • Body: rich, warm tones (tan to ochre) • Trim: Loam to brown • Accent: light gray blue to light gray green Enhancement Opportunities for this Style: • Tile surrounds • Wrought iron • Turned wood • Stone window and door surrounds • Stone columns and trellises 100 Tuscan Architectural Style 101 3.10 Traditional One of the most ubiquitous house styles is the Traditional. Commonly overlooked as a non- style, it quickly evolved from a simplified modern interpretation of the many revival styles of the 1920’s. These homes took a style such as Modern American, Modern Colonial or Modern English and stripped them of their parts, creating a simple and affordable home in that era. They were well constructed smaller homes with few decorative details. Standard Elements: Form & Roof: • One and two-story homes • Low- to medium pitched hipped or gabled roof • Narrow, boxed eaves Walls & Windows: • Windows may be single- or double-hung, often with two=over-two horizontal planes • Windows may wrap corners • Wall cladding may be mixed with wood in clapboards, plain or raked shingle. Details: • Flat=panel doors with small windows • Small, covered front porch • Little, if any, ornamentation Colors: • Body: white and light colored body • Trim: light colored trim • Accent: bold complementary color on front door and shutters Enhancement Opportunities for this Style: • Brick or veneer as accent materials • Substantial, but proportional chimney 102 Traditional Architectural Style 103 CHAPTER 4 LANDSCAPE, PARK & OPEN SPACE DESIGN GUIDELINES 4.0 Purpose The following promote consistent application of Landscape, Park and Open Space concepts throughout the community. These provide the design theme for the landscaped and open space environment, using elements to insure that the landscape will compliment and unify the diverse residential and Mixed – Use areas of the community. • Provide attractive street scenes with landscape parcels and parkways • Define the community clearly organized, pedestrian and bicycle friendly, and well connected to surrounding uses and amenities. • The selection of furnishings should be coordinated with the building. • Maximize the use of recycled water for irrigation. 4.1 Residential Landscaping Guidelines & Standards The landscape concept is to provide guidance for front yards at Detached and Attached homes, at public right – of – way parkway strips, at landscape parcels, as well as at multi-family areas, City maintained public parks, and other public spaces. • Select appropriate plant species based on climate and neighborhood style. • For each lot, use a mix of shrubs, ground cover and minimal turf as appropriate. • Trees should be a minimum height of 7’-10’ when planted, or match City standards in public right-of-way areas. • Use larger shrubs adjacent to fences, walls and facades where appropriate. • Plant accent shrubs to highlight entries where appropriate. • Provide a minimum of one backdrop tree per residential corner side yard home site. • Plant shrubs and/or ground cover from back of walkways to face of wall or fence, if feasible and appropriate. • Standard fencing of a “good neighbor” type should be used on all fence locations between private lots. 104 4.2 Mixed Use Center Landscaping Guidelines & Standards The landscape concept is to provide basic planting direction along the along streets and other public spaces, while allowing tenants to individualize their landscaping where appropriate. The following information describes suggested landscaping within mixed use and commercial areas. • Outdoor seating adjacent to businesses must be wider than 20 feet. • Landscape design shall be appropriate at corners and in front of commercial buildings and should not block visibility to tenants where possible. • Select appropriate plant species based on climate and architectural style. • Use a mix of shrubs and ground cover, as appropriate. • Plant foundation shrubs at the base of the buildings and walls as appropriate. • Trees should be a minimum height of 7’-10’ when planted, or max. City standards in public right=of-way areas. • Use larger shrubs adjacent to walls and facades. • Plant vines on walls, enclosures, fences, trellis/arbors and structures if appropriate. • Plant accent shrubs to highlight entries where appropriate. • Tree planting should shade and mitigate the effects of paving, reflected heat and light, direct and protect pedestrians interacting with parking areas, and visually screen parking areas from peripheral views. • Shade trees should be placed approximately every other facing parking space to achieve one tree per every five spaces. • Tree grates should be used primarily in commercial, retail and other high- use pedestrian areas that contain large amounts of paving. The tree grates should remain consistent in size and design throughout the Plan area. 4.3 Circulation - Vehicular and Pedestrian A pattern of separate pedestrian/bicycle and vehicular circulation routes shall be established, allowing for community wide travel as well as provide connections to adjacent and regional destinations. The pedestrian circulation pattern shall be established by providing extensive residential street walks, and designated Class I and III bikeways (as defined by the General Plan, Chapter 4-35) in the form of clearly marked multi-use trails to promote pedestrian and bicycle travel between destinations within and adjacent to the UDSP. Elements to be included in pedestrian circulation routes are: distinct routes marked by enhanced paving and themed 105 directional and informational signage, plant materials that denote pedestrian routes, pedestrian and bicycle linkages, crossings and transfer points to shopping, school and transit destinations. • Direct walkways may include treatments such as brick, colored paving or concrete. 4.4 Landscape Water Use and Planting Concepts Land uses shall be categorized into Landscape Water Use Zones, which are defined by general water use characteristics of landscape materials, (Moderate, Low, Very Low), and by Hydro- zones (High, Medium, Low) defined by frequency and duration of anticipated irrigation needs (Regular, Regular as needed, Supplemental). Recycled water can be used for irrigation of Public landscapes and Parks, and temporary establishment of limited vegetation at creek buffer areas. General Plant Materials Use of plant materials adaptive to the region’s horticultural conditions, drought tolerant, adapted or native (not indigenous) plants shall serve as the unifying landscape planting element throughout the UDSP. Tree planting shall serve to delineate a hierarchy of entries, focal points, major through-streets and neighborhood enclaves. Street tree species established on major directional axis and in conjunction with significant uses such as parks and plazas shall be continued throughout the project to establish a clear theme. Massing of plant materials to reinforce a localized landscape theme, the proper selection, placement, and installation of landscape materials will be key elements in establishing a cohesive, high-quality landscape. Landscape Planting Tree planting shall serve to delineate entries, focal points, through-streets and neighborhood enclaves. Street tree established on major directional axis shall be carried throughout the project. Plant Lists Plant lists contained at the end of this section provide developers, designers and builders with a general palette for each project area, from which specific plants can be selected. While there is some flexibility in the use of specific plant varieties from each list, and between lists, selections shall be made to enhance the theme of each project area, reinforce dominant planting such as street trees, and account for site conditions such as adjacent land use, slope conditions, exposure, compatible plant species, water use zones and requirements; and actual site parameters such as paving configurations, setbacks and view corridors. Plant materials chosen to suit the definitions of each Water Use Zone, as shown in the UDSP Plant Materials Matrix, shall further define landscape character for designers and builders. 4.5 Landscape Irrigation The UDSP is committed to water conservation and efficiency through innovative and accepted irrigation practices. Irrigation designers should use current water use guidelines and tables, state-of-the art irrigation equipment and automatic controllers capable of multiple programming. General criteria for residential landscape irrigation that complies with model water efficient landscape (Ordinance AB 1881) are as follows; 106 • Drip irrigation and/or other effective irrigation systems should be used in planting areas. • Turf areas should be minimized. If used, turf areas should be served by efficient watering systems. • All valves and equipment should be located adjacent to buildings where feasible and visually screened from public view. No irrigation equipment should be located in such a way as to create a safety hazard to persons or property. • Operating manuals and scheduling charts should be provided to all homeowners, maintenance companies, associations or agencies. The following establishes standards and guidelines for design, installation and management of irrigation systems. Skillful irrigation design methods, site analysis, appropriate selection of plant materials and landscape management practices can assure landscape development that avoids excess water demand and is less vulnerable to failure during periods of severe drought. Elements of irrigation to be addressed include general design and application standards, descriptions and guidelines for water sources (including reclaimed and potable water source use), water use hydro-zones based on proposed site uses, irrigation performance standards, design guidelines and equipment and installation standards. Current, relevant regional climate and weather data, as well as template documents developed by local water delivery agencies were used as technical references for development of these irrigation standards and guidelines. Measures shall be taken in planning and landscape design to minimize irrigation water use and eliminate water waste, by using established water conservation techniques such as soil amendments, hydro-zone planting design, mulching and water-need sensing irrigation systems. Irrigation in all planting areas shall be accomplished by means of automatically controlled, underground piping supplied spray, bubbler and/or low volume (drip) irrigation systems. Irrigation throughout Creek Corridors and environmental conservation areas shall be accomplished by means of a temporary, low volume irrigation system, and then abandoned. 4.6 Source Standards Irrigation systems shall be irrigated using potable water provided by the City and reclaimed water provided by the City of Santa Rosa Sub Regional System. The minimum information in the water quality report shall include total suspended particulates, levels of soluble calcium and magnesium and sodium. Chemical assessment of reclaimed water source is available from: 4.7 Water Use Zones Irrigation applications shall be divided into three water use zones as defined below; definitions and guidelines for each use zone shall be developed based on historic precipitation, plant types, microclimates, and evapo-transpiration rates. Irrigation standards for each water zone include the intended types of equipment designed to deliver the most efficient water application rate. 107 Specific plant hydro-zones (high, moderate, low) within each water use zone shall be delineated to deliver the appropriate amount of water. Planting areas, including turf, in the moderate and low water use zones, shall be irrigated within an 8-10 hour time period at night. Drip systems and bubblers shall be used during off-peak use times such as evenings or nights. Low flow devices shall be used in planting areas less than 8’ wide and planting areas within 24” of non- permeable surfaces unless the non-permeable surface drains entirely to landscaping. a. Moderate water use zones • Pop-up head spray systems and bubblers at high density/attached, single family residential and parks • Average precipitation: 4" per month • Plant hydro-zones to include high and moderate categories b. Low water use zones • Pop-up head spray systems, drip systems & bubblers at project entries and links to adjacent uses, public right-of-way, parkways and Mixed Use District landscapes • Average precipitation: 2.8" per month • Plant hydro-zones to include moderate and low categories c. Very low water use zones • Drip systems & bubblers at the creek corridor, mitigation areas, trails, and passive use areas of parks • Average precipitation: 2” per month • Plant hydro-zones to include low category 4.8 Irrigation Design Standards Water Application Devices All irrigation systems and application devices shall be efficiently designed and installed to reduce over-spray onto walks, walls, paved or non-pervious surfaces, and to prevent soil erosion. Backflow Prevention Devices All irrigation systems from potable water sources shall have an approved backflow prevention device downstream of the point of connection to the potable water source. Reclaimed water irrigation systems do not require a backflow prevention device. Automatic Irrigation Controllers & Valves All irrigation systems shall have a controller capable of multiple programming, water budgeting, rain shut-off, program backup, drip cycling, multiple start times, as well as the capacity to be programmed using historical, regional evapo-transpiration rates. 108 Private, Single-Family Home Irrigation Systems Private residential irrigation systems in side and rear yards shall have an automatic irrigation controller capable of water budgeting, rain shut-off, program backup, drip cycling, and multiple start times, remote control valves, below grade piping, drip emitters and pop-up heads for water application. Residential irrigation systems in front yards shall be supplied from the master neighborhood recycled water irrigation system. Public Use/Common Area Irrigation Systems Turf and shrub areas in moderate and low water use zones shall have underground piping with pop-up heads and ‘multi-connection pod’ drip emitters for water application. Tree Bubbler Systems Trees in all water use zones except temporary irrigation areas shall be valved separately from overhead spray, drip or rotor systems. Irrigation systems shall be designed so that the application rate does not exceed the infiltration rate of the soil, and minimize over spray. The soil infiltration rate shall be determined by the results of an agronomy soils analysis, conducted within each proposed landscape improvement area, and shall be improved using organic soil amendment at the recommendation of the soil agronomist. An irrigation programming schedule shall be required for each independent system. The programming schedule shall include a four-season breakdown of water application for both plant establishment and mature landscape phases; and include run time and frequency for each station. The programming schedule shall provide a complete watering cycle that avoids run-off and over spray. Efficient irrigation equipment shall be used in all applications. These design measures include programmable irrigation controllers and water-need sensing equipment, low precipitation and low volume sprinkler heads and pressure compensating emitter devices. Irrigation systems shall be separated (e.g. drip separate from bubbler systems) and additional control valves installed to account for site-specific characteristics (i.e. sun/shade, level/sloping, shrubs/lawn). Maximum sprinkler spacing in all planting areas shall be 50% of the diameter of the nozzle throw. Spacing of sprinklers shall take into account the prevailing winds at the site. All turf areas shall utilize pop-up rotary heads with a riser height of six inches. Irrigation for sloped planting areas shall be designed to provide systems running perpendicular to slope condition. Where spray heads are used, full triangular coverage shall be provided to slope planting areas. Low precipitation watering equipment shall be used on slopes exceeding 25%. Reclaimed Water Irrigation Systems The primary source of irrigation water for all public and common areas shall be from the reclaimed water source as provided by the Santa Rosa Subregional System. All equipment and 109 delivery systems designed must be designed and clearly marked for reclaimed water use. Single family front yard systems tied to master neighborhood irrigation systems shall be reclaimed water systems, and so marked in the field. Each system shall be designed for 70% delivery efficiency, based on spacing and layout of equipment, plant material type and supply pressure. 4.9 Technical Specifications All irrigation equipment specified shall be from known manufacturers with documented efficiency and performance standards and shall be designed and installed in accordance with all local and state laws, rules and regulations governing or relating to irrigation systems. Installation All irrigation systems shall be installed, tested and approved prior to planting. Testing shall include maximum pressure, system isolation, water delivery, coverage and all irrigation systems shall be designed and installed with phasing and permanent conditions considered. Water Application Devices All irrigation spray and rotor heads shall be pop-ups with the lowest angle, lowest flow characteristics, and lowest precipitation rates available. All application devices, including drip emitters, shall be pressure compensating. Protection & Screening of Above-Grade Irrigation Equipment All irrigation equipment such as backflow preventers, booster pumps, valves, quick couplers, and controllers shall be housed in secure, vandal-resistant, locked cabinets or boxes and shall be screened from view by landscape, grading or screen fencing. Backflow Prevention Devices All backflow prevention devices shall meet or exceed local and state specifications for pressure and temperature ratings, materials and safety rating. Automatic Irrigation Controllers & Valves All irrigation systems shall be linked separately to the controllers with approved remote control valves. Each irrigation system shall be broken into geographic sub-systems, isolated from the supply by clearly marked manual shut-off valves. Private, Single-Family Home Irrigation Systems Residential irrigation systems shall have a connection and approved backflow prevention device provided by the developer and shall conform to the standards set forth in Irrigation- Section 5, above. Reclaimed Water Systems All equipment in reclaimed water systems, or those anticipated to use reclaimed water, including piping, valves, and heads, shall be clearly marked with tags and by color as non-potable. Temporary Drip Systems Above-grade piping for temporary irrigation systems may be used in non-public use areas such as conservation areas. Piping and emitter devices shall be concealed from view with soil, mulch, or plant materials. All temporary drip systems shall be broken into geographic sub- 110 systems, isolated from the supply by clearly marked manual shut-off valves, allowing for phased abandonment. Sloped Planting Areas Anti-drain check valves shall be used on all heads and systems to prevent low-head line drainage and soil erosion. Tree Irrigation Systems All trees in public and common areas shall be irrigated by pop-up type bubblers. All trees in open space and mitigation areas shall be irrigated by below grade drip-emitter ‘collars’ with multiple emitters. UNIVERSITY DISTRICT: PLANT MATERIAL MATRIX BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME WATER Large Trees (50'-100') Acer rubrum Red Maple Moderate Cedrus deodara Deodar Cedar Low Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip tree Moderate Platanus racemosa California Sycamore Moderate Quercus agrifolia Oak Very Low Quercus lobata Valley Oak Low Quercus rubra Scarlet Oak Moderate Sequoia ‘Aptos Blue’ Coast Redwood High Ulmus parvifolia Chinese Evergreen Elm Moderate Umbellularia californica California Bay Moderate Zelkova serrulata Sawleaf Zelkova Moderate Medium Trees (30'-50') Arbutus ‘Marina’ Hybrid Madrone Low Carpinus betulus ‘fastigiata’ Columnar Hornbeam Moderate Celtis sinensis Chinese Hackberry Low Fraxinus a. ‘Autumn Purple’ Purple Ash Moderate Ginkgo biloba Ginkgo tree Moderate Magnolia spp. Magnolia Moderate Malus floribunda Crabapple Moderate Melaleuca quinquenervia Cajeput Tree Very Low Olea europaea ‘Swan Hill’ Fruitless Olive Very Low 111 UNIVERSITY DISTRICT: PLANT MATERIAL MATRIX BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME WATER Platanus acerifolia ‘Columbia’ Columbia Plane Tree Moderate Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Low Prunus serrulata ‘Washington’ Columnar Cherry Moderate Pyrus calleryana ‘Capital’ Columnar Flowering Moderate Pyrus calleryana ‘Chanticleer’ Chanticleer Flowering Moderate Sophora japonica Scholar’s Tree Low Small Trees (15'-30') Acer palmatum Japanese Maple Moderate Arbutus Unedo Strawberry Tree Low Cercis occidentalis Western Redbud Very Low Citrus spp. Orange/Lemon Moderate Cornus spp. Dogwood Moderate Crataegus laeugata Columnar Hawthorn Moderate Eriobotrya deflexa Bronze Loquat Moderate Geijera parvifolia Australian Willow Moderate Lagerstroemia spp. Crape Myrtle Low Maytenus boaria Mayren Tree Moderate Pittosporum undulatum Victorian Box Moderate Prunus cerasifera Purple-leaf Plum Low Large Shrubs (8'-15') Arctostaphylos spp. Manzanita Very Low Buddleia spp. Butterfly Bush Low Callistemon viminalis “Slim” Slim Bottlebrush Low Ceanothus spp Wild Lilac Very Low Dodonaea viscosa ‘Purpurea’ Purple Hopseed Bush Low Feijoa sellowiana Pineapple Guava Low Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon Very Low Leptospermum scoparium New Zealand Tea Tree Moderate Myrica californica Pacific Wax Myrtle Low Photinia fraserii Photinia Moderate Podocarpus spp. Fern Pine Moderate Prunus caroliniana Carolina Cherry Low Rhamnus californica Buckbrush Low 112 BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME WATER Medium Shrubs (3'-8') COMMON NAME WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER Abelia x grandiflora Dwarf Abelia Moderate Arctostaphylos spp. Manzanita Very Low Camellia sasanqua Sun Camellia Moderate Carpenteria californica California Anemone Low Choisya ternata Mexican Mock Orange Moderate Cistus hybrids Rockroses Low Coleonema spp Breath of Heaven Moderate Escallonia ‘Fradesii’ Escallonia Moderate Euonymus spp. Waxy Euonymus Moderate Galvezia speciosa Chaparral Pea Low Grevillea sp. Grevillea Low Lavandula dentata French Lavender Low Lavandula i. ‘Provence’ Provence Lavender Low Leonotus leonurus Lion’s Tail Low Loropetalum ‘Razzleberry’ Fringe Flower Low Myrtus communis ‘Compacta’ Dwarf Myrtle Low Nandina domestica Heavenly Bamboo Low Oenothera berlanderi Mexican Primrose Low Osmanthus fragrans Fragrant Osmanthus Moderate Penstemon spp. Garden Penstemon Moderate Phlomis fruticosa Jerusalem Sage Low Phormium spp. New Zealand Flax Low Photinia fraser ‘Indian Princess’ Dwarf Photinia Moderate Pittosporum spp Pittosporum Low Punica granatum ‘Nana’ Dwarf Pomegranate Low Rhaphiolepis spp. Indian Hawthorn Low Ribes sanguineum Current Low Romneya coulteri Coulter’s Poppy Very Low Rosa ‘Meidiland Hybrids’ Landscape roses Moderate Rosa californica Wild Rose Low Rosmarinus spp Rosemary Low Salvia spp Ornamental Sage Moderate Teucrium fruticans Bush Germander Low Viburnum tinus ‘Spring Bouquet’ Spring Bouquet Moderate Westringia fruticosa Australian Rosemary Low Xylosma c. ‘Compacta’ Xylosma Low 113 UNIVERSITY DISTRICT: PLANT MATERIAL MATRIX BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME WATER Small Shrubs/Perennials (1'-3') Acacia cognata “Cousin Itt” Little River Wattle Low Anigozanthus spp. Kangaroo Paw Low Artemisia spp. Coast Sage Very Low Baccharis pilularis Prostrate Coyote Bush Low Bergenia crassifolia Winter Bergenia Moderate Buxus m. japonica ‘Green Beauty’ Japanese Boxwood Moderate Coleonema pulchellum Breath of Heaven Moderate Correa spp. Australian Fuchsia Low Dietes spp. Fortnight Lily Low Epilobium canum California Fuchsia Low Erigeron karvinskianus Santa Barbara Daisy Low Erigonum grande var. rubescens San.Mig.Isl.Buckwheat Low Escallonia ‘Compakta’ Dwarf Escallonia Moderate Festuca glauca Blue Fescue Low Gaura lindamerii Arizona Rocket Moderate Geranium spp. Hardy Geraniums Moderate Hesperaloe parvifolia “Brakelights” Brakelights Red Yucca Low Helichrysum ‘Limelight’ Licorice Plant Moderate Hemerocallis spp. Daylilies Moderate Heuchera spp Alum Root Moderate Iris hybrids Bearded Iris Low Kniphopia uvaria Red-hot Poker Moderate Mahonia eurybracteata “Soft Caress” Soft caress Ore. grape Low Nepeta faassenii Cat Mint Low Santolina spp Santolina Low Sedum ‘Autumn Joy’ Red Rockcress Low Sollya heterophylla Australian Bluebell Low Stachys byzantina Lamb’s Ear Low Teucrium chamaedrys Blue Germander Low Trachelospermum jasminoides Star Jasmine Moderate Tulbaghia violacea Society Garlic Moderate Grasses Bouteloua gracilis Blue gamma Low 114 Calamagrostis ‘Karl Foerster’ Reed Grass Low Carex divulsa European gray sedge Low Carex tumulicola Berkeley sedge Low Festuca mairei Atlas Fescue Low Helictotrichon sempervirens Blue Oat Grass Low Juncus patens California grey rush Low Leymus condensatus ‘Canyon Prince’ Blue Wild Rye Very Low Blue Wild Rye Low Lomandra longifolia Blue Wild Rye Very Low Spiny headed mat Low Miscanthus s. ‘Morning Light’ Maiden Grass High Miscanthus s. ‘Zebrinus’ Zebra Grass High Molinia ‘Moor’s Flame’ Moor Grass Moderate Muhlenbergia rigens Deer Grass Low Pennisetum Massaicum Bunny Tails Low Groundcovers Achillea spp. Creeping Yarrow Low Arctostaphylos spp. Prostrate Manzanita Very Low Armeria maritima Sea Thrift Moderate Cotoneaster dammeri ‘Lowfast’ Prostrate Cotoneaster Moderate Fragaria chiloensis Creeping Strawberry Moderate Gazania hybrids Cape Daisy Moderate Helianthemum nummularium Sun Rose Low Juniperus spp Prostrate Juniper Low Lamium spp. Spotted Wood Mint Moderate Lantana spp. Lantana Low Myoporum parvifolium Prostrate Myoporum Low Rosmarinus o. ‘Prostratus’ Creeping Rosemary Low Salvia sonomensis Creeping Sage Low Scaevola ‘Mauve Clusters’ Purple Scaevola Low Verbena lilacina “De La Mina” Lilac verbena Low Vines Clematis armandii Evergreen Clematis Moderate Ficus pumila Creeping Fig Moderate Gelsemium sempervirens Carolina Jessamine Low Hardenbergia spp Lavender Trumpet Vine Moderate Jasminum polyanthemum Pink Jasmine Moderate Parthenocissus tricuspidata Boston Ivy Moderate Rosa spp Climbing Roses Moderate 115 Solanum jasminoides White Potato Vine Moderate Wisteria sinensis Chinese Wisteria Moderate UNIVERSITY DISTRICT: PLANT MATERIAL MATRIX BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME WATER *Water Use category refers to typical supplemental water need for each species, based on designations in: Water Use Classifications of Landscape Species (WUCOLS) by the University of California Cooperative Extension & California Department of Water Resources. Note: Tree and general planting shown in DAP submittals are subject to change in both plant counts and locations due to final locations of utilities, streetlights, City required equipment, bus stops, signage and mailboxes/related furnishings. Total tree and general planting count shall not be reduced by more than 5 % due to conflicts described above PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2024-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AREA PLAN AND TENTATIVE MAP FOR THE SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT LOCATED EAST OF SNYDER LN AND SOUTH OF KEISER AVE WITHIN THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN AND MAKING GOVERNMENT CODE 65863(b) FINDINGS (APN: 045-253-025) WHEREAS, the applicant, Cory Creath for Snyder Ventures, LP, filed Planning Applications proposing amendments to the General Plan (PLGP23-0001), an amended Specific Plan (PLSP23-0001), a Development Area Plan (PLDP23-0001), and a Tentative Map (PLSD23-0002) to allow the subdivision and development of property for the Snyder Lane Commons project (“Project”) located on the Creath property within the University District Specific Plan, southeast of Snyder Lane and Keiser Avenue (APN 045-253-025), in accordance with the City of Rohnert Park Municipal Code (“RPMC”); and WHEREAS, in conjunction with Application No. PLDP23-0001 and PLSD23-0002, the applicant seeks approval of an appendix to the Bristol Development Area Plan and for a Tentative Map for a 37-lot subdivision of 2.4± acres in the University District Specific Plan (“UDSP”) area as provided in the proposed Snyder Lane Commons Development Area Plan attached to and incorporated in this Resolution as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the proposed amendments and map is to facilitate development of the Project and to ensure that the northwest portion of the UDSP area is developed with cohesive, compatible uses; and WHEREAS, as the number of units is less than anticipated in the Housing Element, the City must make findings pursuant to Government Code section 65863(b) that: (1) the reduction is consistent with the adopted general plan; and (2) the remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared an Addendum to the University District Specific Plan EIR for the Snyder Lane Commons Project dated May 2024, which is incorporated herein by reference, to make minor technical revisions or additions to the certified EIR. The 2024 Addendum concluded that there are no changes in the project or new information that would result in a new or substantially more severe impact than was disclosed in the 2006 Program EIR, 2014 Addendum, and 2016 Addendum; 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 May 23, 2024, 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 Nos. PLDP23-0001 and PLSD23-0002 for the proposed Development Area Plan Amendment and Tentative Map. 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 and Tentative Map: Section 1. Recitals. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. CEQA Review. The City prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to address the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that may be associated with the planning, construction, or operation of the UDSP 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. The City certified the Final EIR on May 23, 2006 and approved Addendums to the Final EIR on April 8, 2014 and November 8, 2016. In accordance with the requirements of CEQA, City staff and consultants reviewed the project in light of the more detailed project-specific information now available and determined that a supplemental or subsequent EIR was not required by CEQA Guidelines section 15162. Therefore, an addendum (the 2024 Addendum) has been prepared to make minor technical revisions or additions to the certified EIR. The 2024 Addendum concluded that there are no changes in the project or new information that would result in a new or substantially more severe impact than was disclosed in the 2006 Program EIR, 2014 Addendum, and 2016 Addendum and has been recommended for approval. Section 3. Findings Regarding Development Area Plan. The Planning Commission hereby finds and recommends that the City Council make the following findings concerning the appendix to the Bristol Development Area Plan proposed by Planning Application No. PLDP23-0001 pursuant to Rohnert Park Municipal Code section 17.06.400(E): 1. The proposed development conforms to the specific plan. The 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, landscaping, pedestrian walkways, infrastructure summaries, and streetscape views. 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, connecting with existing City streets and utilities. All circulation connections will meet the standards of the City and will meet the needs of current and future residents. The proposed development has been designed to provide satisfactory public improvements, such as utilities and drainage facilities, which have been designed and conditioned to be constructed in conformance with City standards. The water service strategy is consistent with the City’s long-term water supply plans and its water capacity charge program. Section 4. Findings Regarding Tentative Subdivision Map. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings concerning the Tentative Subdivision Map pursuant to RPMC Section 16.10.090(E): 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. Criteria Satisfied. The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map is consistent with the General Plan designations for the area, as well as the specific plan that applies to the property, as amended. The proposed Tentative Map will implement the General Plan in that it would increase the City’s market rate and affordable housing stock and allow high-density residential development on a site identified for this purpose within the Housing Element. The proposed Tentative Map is consistent with the revised University District Specific Plan as it proposes to subdivide the property according to its requirements related to number of residential units, density, housing type, housing location, public improvements, open space and related amenities. The Tentative Map depicts the specific residential lots consistent with the Specific Plan. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type of development. Criteria Satisfied. 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. Criteria Satisfied. 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 36 townhome units and community amenities, 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 in the Specific Plan, as 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. Criteria Satisfied. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the University District Specific Plan Project (State Clearinghouse number 2003112011), along with Addendums in 2014 and 2016, have been prepared and approved which show potential impacts related to the development of the site with the proposed uses. An Addendum was prepared for this project to make minor technical revisions or additions to the certified EIR. The 2024 Addendum concluded that there are no changes in the project or new information that would result in a new or substantially more severe impact than was disclosed in the 2006 Program EIR, 2014 Addendum, and 2016 Addendum. No significant unavoidable impacts related to existing habitats were identified. 5. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not cause serious public health problems. Criteria Satisfied. The design of the project will have negative impacts on the health or wellbeing 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, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance. The construction of all units on the site has been conditioned to comply with all applicable City ordinances, codes, and standards including, but not limited to, the California Uniform Building Code, 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 standards and practices for the preservation of the public health, safety and welfare. Finally, the proposed connections to the street system will provide adequate emergency vehicular access. 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. Criteria Satisfied. The project will respect all existing easements, and any new easements required by the project have been made conditions of the map approval. 7. Any proposed phases and their proposed sequence of construction are identified on the submitted map. Criteria Satisfied. The project is a 36-unit townhome development proposal that will be constructed in a single phase. Section 5. Government Code Section 65863(b) Findings Regarding Residential Density. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings concerning the Project pursuant to Government Code Section 65863(b): 1. The reduction in residential density from the inventory of housing sites, is consistent with the adopted general plan, including the housing element. Criteria Satisfied. While the project is within the permitted density for the zone, the proposed project has fewer units than were included in the housing element inventory. Along with the adoption of the housing element, this site was redesignated for high-density residential land uses up to 24 units per acre, with an assumed capacity of 72 residential units (five low-income units, six moderate-income units and 61 above-moderate units). The high-density residential land use designation accommodates development from 12 to 24 units per acre. The proposal being considered is for high-density residential development at 15 units per acre, with a total of 36 units (three low-income units, three moderate-income units and 30 above-moderate units). While the proposed project does not match the development assumptions in the Housing Element, the proposed reduction in residential density remains consistent with the general plan, including the housing element, and implements policies related to housing, community design, and circulation. 2. The remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to meet the requirements of Government Code Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need pursuant to Government Code Section 65584. Criteria Satisfied. As of the 2024 housing element Annual Progress Report, the remaining unmet need for the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need was 1,366 units, including 337 affordable to very low-income households (VLI), 223 affordable to low-income households (LI), and 261 affordable to moderate-income households (MI). The remaining sites and programs identified in the housing element to meet the city’s share of the regional housing need have the capacity for 2,634 units, including 438 VLI units, 302 LI units, and 281 MI units. Therefore, even with this overall 36-unit reduction, and reduction in one low- income unit, three moderate-income units and 33 above-moderate units, the city has adequate remaining sites to meet the city’s share of the regional housing need. Section 6. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt the Findings stated hereinabove and recommend City Council approval of Application No. PLDP23-0001 for an Appendix to the Bristol Development Area Plan and PLSD23-0002 for the Snyder Lane Commons Tentative Map as provided as Exhibit A, in its entirety and subject to the recommended conditions of approval as provided in Exhibit B. DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED on this 23rd day of May, 2024, 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 . EXHIBIT A DEVELOPMENT AREA PLAN – SNYDER LANE COMMONS <ATTACH HERE> ARCHITECT: AXIS/GFA ARCHITECTURE + DESIGN 1000 BRANNAN STREET SAN FRANCISC, CA 94103 (415) 371-1400 CORY CREATH ccreath@axisgfa.com OWNER: SNYDER LANE VENTURES, LP. 205 SCOTT STREET MILL VALLEY, CA 94941 (415) 302-8736 CORY CREATH ccreath@axisgfa.com LANDSCAPE: PEDERSEN ASSOCIATES 24 H Street San Rafael, CA 94901 415 456 2070 Pete Pedersen ppedersen@pedersenassociates.com CIVIL: ADOBE ASSOCIATES, INC 1220 N. DUTTON AVENUE SANTA ROSA, CA 95401 707-541-2300 Zachary Ruiz ZRuiz@adobeinc.com VICINITY MAP TRUE NORTH / PROJECT NORTH N PROJECT SITE SNYDER LN KEISER AVE OAK CIR1 0 0 0 B R A N N A N S T R E E T S A N F R A N C I S C O, C A 9 4 1 0 3 w w w . a x i s g f a . c o m T 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 0 F 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 1 S U I T E 4 0 4 SHEET NUMBER ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL AND MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL PROJECT NUMBER DESCRIPTION DATESCALE PROJECT NAME AS SHOWN OWNER NAME NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION12/21/2023 10:48:53 AMG10.00 COVER SHEET SNYDER LANE COMMONS 5040 SNYDER LANE ROHNERT PARK, CA 15.041 205 SCOTT STREET MILL VALLEY ,CA 94941 SNYDER LANE VENTURES, LP SNYDER LANE COMMONS SCHEMATIC DESIGN 12/18/2023 5040 SNYDER LANE ROHNERT PARK, CA NO.DATE ISSUES & REVISIONS 1 12/05/22 Design Review 2 6/7/23 DR Revision 3 8/15/23 DR Revision 2 4 12/18/23 DR Revision 3 UDSP LOCATION MAP THE PROPOSED PROJECT CONSISTS OF 36 TOWNHOUSE UNITS. EACH UNIT IS THREE STORIES. EACH UNIT HAS A PRIVATE BACKYARD PATIO. EACH UNIT IS PROVIDED WITH TWO PARKING SPACES. IN ADDITION, THERE ARE 10 PARKING SPACES FOR VISITORS (TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING = 82).THE PROJECT WILL BE DESIGNED TO BE NET ZERO, WHICH IS ACHIEVED WITH ROOFTOP SOLAR PV. SEE THE ATTACHED REPORT BY PARTNER ENERGY THAT DESCRIBES THE ZNE CALCULATION.EACH UNIT WILL BE EQUIPPED WITH ONE EV CHARGING STATION.ALL APPLIANCES WILL BE ELECTRIC.THE TOWNHOUSES WILL BE "FOR SALE" AND ARE DESIGNED TO BE AFFORDABLE FOR FIRST TIME HOMEBUYERS. EACH UNIT HAS A "GARAGE" BUT RATHER THANBEING DESIGNED AS A SPACE FOR CARS, IT IS A SPACE FOR STORING THE TOYSOF AN ACTIVE LIFESTYLE (BIKES, BOARDS), OR FOR HOBBIES. THE UNITS ARE DESIGNED FOR FLEXIBILITY WITH SPACES THAT ACCOMMODATE WORK FROM HOME. THE TARGET BUYER IS EVERYONE FROM A YOUNG COUPLE PERHAPS STARTING A FAMILY,TO EMPTY NESTERS WHO MAY BE DOWNSIZING,.THE MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY INCLUDES SHARED "COMMON AREA" AMENITIES INCLUDING: • KIDS PLAY AREA• COMMUNITY GARDEN• COMMUNAL BBQ• QUIET ADULT CONVERSATION AREAS.PROJECT NAME: SNYDER LANE COMMONSPROJECT ADDRESS:5040 SNYDER LANE, ROHNERT PARK, CA SITE AREA: 3ACRESA.P.N.: 045-253-007-000ZONING:HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AS DESCRIBED IN THE DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT WHICH WOULD ALLOW UP TO 24 UNITS/ACRE, OR 72 UNITS TOTAL576 SF101576 SF102576 SF103576 SF104576 SF105576 SF106576 SF107576 SF108571 SF109571 SF110571 SF111571 SF112571 SF113571 SF114571 SF115571 SF116571 SF117571 SF118571 SF119571 SF120571 SF135571 SF136571 SF121571 SF122571 SF123571 SF124571 SF125571 SF126571 SF127571 SF128571 SF129571 SF130571 SF131571 SF132571 SF133571 SF134571 SF101550 SF102550 SF103550 SF104550 SF105550 SF106550 SF107571 SF108571 SF109550 SF110550 SF111550 SF112550 SF113571 SF114571 SF115571 SF116571 SF117571 SF118571 SF119571 SF120571 SF121571 SF122571 SF123571 SF124571 SF125571 SF126571 SF127571 SF128571 SF129571 SF130571 SF131571 SF132571 SF133571 SF134550 SF135550 SF136BLDG 1BLDG 2BLDG 3BLDG 5BLDG 4BLDG 6613 SF135613 SF136613 SF101571 SF102571 SF103571 SF104571 SF105571 SF106571 SF107613 SF108613 SF109571 SF110571 SF111571 SF112571 SF113613 SF114613 SF115571 SF116571 SF117571 SF118571 SF119613 SF120613 SF121571 SF122571 SF123571 SF124571 SF125613 SF126613 SF127571 SF128571 SF129571 SF130571 SF131571 SF132571 SF133613 SF1341 1 3 0 W E S T W O O D B L V Dw w w . a x i s g f a . c o m T 3 1 0 . 2 0 9 . 7 5 2 0F 3 1 0 . 2 0 9 . 7 5 1 6L O S A N G E L E S, C A 9 0 0 2 4SHEET NUMBERALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARINGHEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHEDWORK OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL AND MAY NOT BEDUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTENCONSENT OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONALPROJECT NUMBERDESCRIPTIONDATESCALEPROJECT NAMEAS SHOWNOWNER NAME12/21/2023 11:21:30 AMG10.02PROJECT INFORMATIONSNYDER LANECOMMONS5040 SNYDER LANEROHNERT PARK, CA15.041205 SCOTT STREETMILL VALLEY ,CA94941SNYDER LANE VENTURES,LPPROJECT SCOPEPROJECT SUMMARYNO.DATE ISSUES & REVISIONS1 12/05/22 Design Review2 6/7/23 DR Revision3 8/15/23 DR Revision 24 12/18/23 DR Revision 3SHEET INDEXSheet DisciplineSheetNumberSheet NameGENERALGENERAL G10.00 COVER SHEETGENERAL G10.02 PROJECT INFORMATIONCIVILCIVIL 1 SITE TOPOGRAPGHYCIVIL 1. TENTATIVE MAPCIVIL C1.0 TITLE SHEETCIVIL C2.0 OVERALL SITE PLANCIVIL C3.0 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLANCIVIL C3.1 PRELIMINARY FRONTAGE GRADING PLANCIVIL C4.0 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLANARCHITECTUREARCHITECTURE 10.01 SITE PLANARCHITECTURE 10.02 SITE CONDITIONSARCHITECTURE 10.03 SITE ELEVATIONSARCHITECTURE 10.04 SITE SECTIONSARCHITECTURE 10.11 BUILDING 1ARCHITECTURE 10.11B BUILDING 1 ELEVATIONSARCHITECTURE 10.12 BUILDING 2ARCHITECTURE 10.12B BUILDING 2 ELEVATIONSARCHITECTURE 10.13 BUILDING 3ARCHITECTURE 10.13B BUILDING 3 ELEVATIONSARCHITECTURE 10.14 BUILDING 4ARCHITECTURE 10.14B BUILDING 4 ELEVATIONSARCHITECTURE 10.15 BUILDING 5ARCHITECTURE 10.15B BUILDING 5 ELEVATIONSARCHITECTURE 10.16 BUILDING 6ARCHITECTURE 10.16B BUILDING 6 ELEVATIONSARCHITECTURE 10.21 FLOOR PLANS - TYPE AARCHITECTURE 10.22 FLOOR PLANS - TYPE BARCHITECTURE 10.40 EXTERIOR FINISHESARCHITECTURE 10.41 COLOR SCHEMESLANDSCAPELANDSCAPE L-1 LANDSCAPE SITE PLANLANDSCAPE L-2 PLANTING PLANLANDSCAPE L-3 LANDSCAPE IMAGESTOTAL SHEET COUNT: 32SUPPLEMENTALS1. COUNTY ASSESSOR'S PARCEL MAP2. TITLE REPORT3. TENTATIVE MAP4. INITIAL STORM WATER LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTAL5. ARBORIST REPORT6. SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SURVEY REPORT7. AQUATIC RESOURCE DELINEATION REPORT8. ZERO NET ENERGY BASIS OF DESIGN REPORTAREA OF LOT 104,653F.A.R.Level Area F.A.R.LEVEL 1 20,579 SF 0.20LEVEL 2 20,293 SF 0.19LEVEL 3 21,047 SF 0.20TOTAL 61,919 SF 0.59SCALE: 1/64" = 1'-0"G10.021LEVEL 1SCALE: 1/64" = 1'-0"G10.022LEVEL 2SCALE: 1/64" = 1'-0"G10.023LEVEL 3GROSS AREA - BUILDING1Level AreaLEVEL 1 4,604 SFLEVEL 2 4,441 SFLEVEL 3 4,649 SFTOTAL 13,694 SFBLDG 1BLDG 2 BLDG 5BLDG 4BLDG 3BLDG 6GROSS AREA - BUILDING2Level AreaLEVEL 1 3,423 SFLEVEL 2 3,341 SFLEVEL 3 3,508 SFTOTAL 10,272 SFGROSS AREA - BUILDING3Level AreaLEVEL 1 3,423 SFLEVEL 2 3,423 SFLEVEL 3 3,508 SFTOTAL 10,354 SFGROSS AREA - BUILDING4Level AreaLEVEL 1 3,423 SFLEVEL 2 3,423 SFLEVEL 3 3,508 SFTOTAL 10,354 SFGROSS AREA - BUILDING5Level AreaLEVEL 1 4,564 SFLEVEL 2 4,564 SFLEVEL 3 4,649 SFTOTAL 13,778 SFGROSS AREA - BUILDING6Level AreaLEVEL 1 1,141 SFLEVEL 2 1,100 SFLEVEL 3 1,226 SFTOTAL 3,467 SFSITE COVRAGEBUILDING AREA AREA OF LOT %21,047 SF 104,653 SF20%BLDG 1BLDG 2BLDG 5BLDG 4BLDG 6BLDG 7SPESIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT STANDERD LANDUSEAREAALLOWABLE UNITS PARKING72 2 PER UNIT + 1 PER 4 UNITSFOR GUESTS PROPOSEDLANDUSEAREAPROVIDEDUNITSPARKING3 ACRES36 2 PER UNIT = 72+ 1 PER 4 UNITS =9 PROVIDED 82RESIDENTIALRESIDENTIAL(HIGH DENSITY)DENSITY FACTOR24 MAXDENSITY FACTOR123 ACRES adobe associates, inc.1220 N. Dutton Ave., Santa Rosa, CA 95401P. (707) 541-2300 F. (707) 541-2301Website: www.adobeinc.com"A Service You Can Count On!"civil engineering I land surveying I wastewater adobe associates, inc.1220 N. Dutton Ave., Santa Rosa, CA 95401P. (707) 541-2300 F. (707) 541-2301Website: www.adobeinc.com"A Service You Can Count On!"civil engineering I land surveying I wastewater 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3222 1 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5444 4SNYDER LANEKEISER AVE OAKCIRCLE6 6 7 PARCEL A SHEET INDEX LEGEND ss SD LOT SIZE SUMMARY LOT COVERAGE SUMMARY LEGAL DESCRIPTION TOTAL NO. OF LOTS: SITE AREA:104,653 SF ( PRESENT ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: FLOODING STATEMENT: HIGH FIRE SEVERITY ZONE: SOILS STATEMENT: SEWER & WATER SUPPLY STATEMENT: SCHOOL DISTRICT: SITE INFORMATION SNYDER LANE COMMONSSUBDIVISION PLANadobe associates, inc.1220 N. Dutton Ave., Santa Rosa, CA 95401P. (707) 541-2300 F. (707) 541-2301Website: www.adobeinc.com"A Service You Can Count On!"civil engineering I land surveying I wastewaterPRELIMINARYSNYDER LANE COMMONS SUBDIVISION PLAN 5040 Snyder Lane Rohnert Park, California APN: 045-253-007 SITE VICINITY MAP UTILITIESENGINEER / SURVEYOR OWNER BASIS OF BEARINGS BENCHMARK TITLE SHEETC1.0 LOT SCHEDULE 1 2 3 4 5 SITE PLAN *SNYDER LANE IMPROVEMENTS ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY ADA LEGEND * PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS NOTE: 6 7 ABBREVIATIONS APPLICANT HATCHING LEGEND: NOTE: RWL RWL RWL RWL RWL RWL RWL S SRWL S SRWLSNYDER LANEKEISER AVENUE OAK CIRCLE118.40 FF 117.40 PAD CLUSTER #2 117.80 FF 116.80 PAD CLUSTER #3 118.00 FF 117.00 PAD CLUSTER #4 118.00 FF 117.00 PAD CLUSTER #5 118.40 FF 117.40 PAD CLSTR #7 119.75 FF 118.75 PAD CLUSTER #1 119.00 FF 118.00 PAD 119.00 FF 118.00PAD 118.60 FF 117.60 PAD 118.80 FF 117.80 PAD 118.60 FF 117.60 PAD 118.80 FF 117.80 PAD PARCEL A *SNYDER LANE IMPROVEMENTS ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY SNYDER LANE SECTION OAK CIRCLE SECTION SNYDER LANE COMMONSSUBDIVISION PLANadobe associates, inc.1220 N. Dutton Ave., Santa Rosa, CA 95401P. (707) 541-2300 F. (707) 541-2301Website: www.adobeinc.com"A Service You Can Count On!"civil engineering I land surveying I wastewaterPRELIMINARYOVERALL SITE PLANC2.0 *SNYDER LANE IMPROVEMENTS ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY SNYDER LANE SHOWN IMPROVEMENTS TO BE COMPLETED BY THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK * PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS NOTE: DEMOLITION LEGEND: 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 111 1 1 1 2 KEY NOTES: 2 3 3 3 3 OVERALL SITE PLAN HATCHING LEGEND: NOTE: STREET NOTES: 2 1 1 2 2 4 5 5 5 4 4 AUGUST 2028 S SRWL WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW W W W W W WWWWWWW W RWL RWL RWL RWL RWL RWL RWL W117.80 FF 116.80 PAD 118.00 FF 117.00 PAD 118.00 FF 117.00 PAD 118.40 FF 117.40 PAD 120.00 FF 119.00 PAD SNYDER LANEKEISER AVENUE 119.00 FF 118.00PAD OAK CIRCLE118.60 FF 117.60 PAD 118.80 FF 117.80 PAD CLUSTER #2 CLUSTER #3 CLUSTER #4 CLUSTER #5 CLSTR #7 CLUSTER #1 OAK CIRCLE 118.40 FF 117.40 PAD 119.00 FF 118.00PAD 118.60 FF 117.60 PAD 118.80 FF 117.80 PAD SNYDER LANE COMMONSSUBDIVISION PLANadobe associates, inc.1220 N. Dutton Ave., Santa Rosa, CA 95401P. (707) 541-2300 F. (707) 541-2301Website: www.adobeinc.com"A Service You Can Count On!"civil engineering I land surveying I wastewaterPRELIMINARY1 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN *SNYDER LANE IMPROVEMENTS ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY SEE SHEET C4.0 'UTILITY PLAN' FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRELIMINARY GRADING PLANC3.0 * PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS NOTE: LEGEND: KEY NOTES:SEE SHEET C3.1 FOR FURTHEROAK CIRCLE FRONTAGE DETAIL3 34 4 4 HATCHING LEGEND:STREET NOTES: 2 1 2 1 WWOAK CIRCLE WWWWWWWW W W W OAK CIRCLE OAK CIRCLESNYDER LANE COMMONSSUBDIVISION PLANadobe associates, inc.1220 N. Dutton Ave., Santa Rosa, CA 95401P. (707) 541-2300 F. (707) 541-2301Website: www.adobeinc.com"A Service You Can Count On!"civil engineering I land surveying I wastewaterPRELIMINARYPRELIMINARY OAK CIRCLE FRONTAGE GRADING PLAN SEE SHEET C4.0 'UTILITY PLAN' FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRELIMINARY FRONTAGE GRADING PLANC3.1 LEGEND:MATCHLINE - SEE BELOWFOR CONTINUATIONMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C3.0 FOR CONTINUATION 119.00 FF 118.00PAD BLDG. CLUSTER #5 BLDG. CLUSTER #1 MATCHLINE - SEE ABOVEFOR CONTINUATIONHATCHING LEGEND: 119.00 FF 118.00PAD 1 KEY NOTES: 1 1 11 1 STREET NOTES: 1 1 1 S SRWL WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW W W W W W WWWWWWW W RWL RWL RWL RWL RWL RWL RWL W3 3 SNYDER LANEKEISER AVENUE OAK CIRCLE1 2 1 11 4 5 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 5 3 4 4 9 3 4 3 3 1 1 9 2 2 8 8 6 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 4 7 117.80 FF 116.80 PAD 118.00 FF 117.00 PAD 118.00 FF 117.00 PAD 118.40 FF 117.40 PAD 120.00 FF 119.00 PAD 119.00 FF 118.00PAD 118.60 FF 117.60 PAD 118.80 FF 117.80 PAD CLUSTER #2 CLUSTER #3 CLUSTER #4 CLUSTER #5 CLSTR #7 CLUSTER #1 118.40 FF 117.40 PAD 119.00 FF 118.00PAD 118.60 FF 117.60 PAD 118.80 FF 117.80 PAD 4 3 1 1 SNYDER LANE COMMONSSUBDIVISION PLANadobe associates, inc.1220 N. Dutton Ave., Santa Rosa, CA 95401P. (707) 541-2300 F. (707) 541-2301Website: www.adobeinc.com"A Service You Can Count On!"civil engineering I land surveying I wastewaterPRELIMINARYPRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN *SNYDER LANE IMPROVEMENTS ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY SANITARY SEWER SCHEDULE 1 2 3 4 5 WATER LEGEND & SCHEDULE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 STORM DRAIN SCHEDULE PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLANC4.0 * PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS NOTE: KEY NOTES: 1 2 3 2 3 36 UNITS 82 PARKING SPACES COMMUNITY GARDEN PLAYGROUND ONE WAY ONE WAY 17'-0" 26'-0" OPEN SPACE 6'-0" 5'-0"17'-0" 26'-0" 17'-0" 16'-8" 17'-0" 26'-0" 17'-0" 6'-0" 17'-0"6'-0"4'-8"6'-0"R 20' -0" CARPORTSUNCOVERED PARKING CARPORTSUNCOVERED PARKING CARPORTS CARPORTS CARPORTS CARPORTSCARPORTS 8'-0" 10.16 1 10.11 110.12 1 10.13 1 10.14 1 10.15 1 1 10.04 2 10.04 BUILDING #1BUILDING #2 BUILDING #4 BUILDING #5BUILDING #3BUILDING #61234567891011121314 3433323130292827262524232221 35 36 18 17 16 15 20 19 TRASFORMER 1 10.03 4 10.03 2 10.03 3 10.03 10.02 2 4 10.04 3 10.04 109'-7" TRASH ENCLOSURE TRASH ENCLOSURE T KEISER AVE SNYDER LN OAK CIR74'-2" 144'-10" 6' ALUMINIUM FENCE6' ALUMINIUM FENCE W/ SOUND WALL BEHIND6' ALUMINIUM FENCE7' MASONRY WALL W/ SOUND WALL BEHIND6' FENCE6' ALUMINIUM FENCE 6' ALUMINIUM FENCE6'-0" W/ SOUND WALL BEHIND 6' ALUMINIUM FENCE 7' MASONRY WALL 7' MASONRY WALL W/ SOUND WALL BEHIND 6' FENCE 1 0 0 0 B R A N N A N S T R E E T S A N F R A N C I S C O, C A 9 4 1 0 3 w w w . a x i s g f a . c o m T 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 0 F 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 1 S U I T E 4 0 4 SHEET NUMBER ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL AND MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL PROJECT NUMBER DESCRIPTION DATESCALE PROJECT NAME AS SHOWN OWNER NAME NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION12/21/2023 10:48:15 AM10.01 SITE PLAN SNYDER LANE COMMONS 5040 SNYDER LANE ROHNERT PARK, CA 15.041 205 SCOTT STREET MILL VALLEY ,CA 94941 SNYDER LANE VENTURES, LP N NO.DATE ISSUES & REVISIONS 1 12/05/22 Design Review 2 6/7/23 DR Revision 3 8/15/23 DR Revision 2 4 12/18/23 DR Revision 3 SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"10.011SITE PLAN 17'-0"9'-0" 101102103104105106107108 2'-0" 8'-11" 4'-0" 8'-2"8'-10"6'-0" 5'-10"12'-6"COMMUNITY GARDEN PLAYGROUND OPEN SPACE 6'-0"4'-8"6'-0"LEVEL 1 EL +0' -0" LEVEL 2 EL +9' -4" LEVEL 3 EL +18' -8" ROOF EL +28' -0"10'-0"12'-6"11'-10" 1 0 0 0 B R A N N A N S T R E E T S A N F R A N C I S C O, C A 9 4 1 0 3 w w w . a x i s g f a . c o m T 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 0 F 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 1 S U I T E 4 0 4 SHEET NUMBER ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL AND MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL PROJECT NUMBER DESCRIPTION DATESCALE PROJECT NAME AS SHOWN OWNER NAME NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION12/21/2023 10:48:28 AM10.02 SITE CONDITIONS SNYDER LANE COMMONS 5040 SNYDER LANE ROHNERT PARK, CA 15.041 205 SCOTT STREET MILL VALLEY ,CA 94941 SNYDER LANE VENTURES, LP SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"10.022CARPORTS AND SIDEWALK FLOOR PLAN, TYP. SCALE: 1/32" = 1'-0"10.024PV DIAGRAM SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"10.023CARPORT PV NO.DATE ISSUES & REVISIONS 1 12/05/22 Design Review 2 6/7/23 DR Revision 3 8/15/23 DR Revision 2 4 12/18/23 DR Revision 3 CARPORT ROOF ABOVE SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"10.021CARPORT SECTION. TYP LEVEL 1 EL +0' -0" LEVEL 2 EL +10' -0" LEVEL 3 EL +20' -0" ROOF EL +30' -0" LEVEL 1 EL +0' -0" LEVEL 2 EL +10' -0" LEVEL 3 EL +20' -0" ROOF EL +30' -0" LEVEL 1 EL +0' -0" LEVEL 2 EL +10' -0" LEVEL 3 EL +20' -0" ROOF EL +30' -0" LEVEL 1 EL +0' -0" LEVEL 2 EL +10' -0" LEVEL 3 EL +20' -0" ROOF EL +30' -0"1 0 0 0 B R A N N A N S T R E E T S A N F R A N C I S C O, C A 9 4 1 0 3 w w w . a x i s g f a . c o m T 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 0 F 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 1 S U I T E 4 0 4 SHEET NUMBER ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL AND MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL PROJECT NUMBER DESCRIPTION DATESCALE PROJECT NAME AS SHOWN OWNER NAME NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION12/21/2023 10:48:28 AM10.03 SITE ELEVATIONS SNYDER LANE COMMONS 5040 SNYDER LANE ROHNERT PARK, CA 15.041 205 SCOTT STREET MILL VALLEY ,CA 94941 SNYDER LANE VENTURES, LP NO.DATE ISSUES & REVISIONS 1 12/05/22 Design Review 2 6/7/23 DR Revision 3 8/15/23 DR Revision 2 4 12/18/23 DR Revision 3 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"10.031NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"10.032WEST ELEV SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"10.033SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"10.034EAST ELEV NOTE: REFER TO SHEET 10.41 FOR COLOR SCHEMES LEVEL 1 EL +0' -0" LEVEL 2 EL +10' -0" LEVEL 3 EL +20' -0" ROOF EL +30' -0" LEVEL 1 EL +0' -0" LEVEL 2 EL +10' -0" LEVEL 3 EL +20' -0" ROOF EL +30' -0" 1 0 0 0 B R A N N A N S T R E E T S A N F R A N C I S C O, C A 9 4 1 0 3 w w w . a x i s g f a . c o m T 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 0 F 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 1 S U I T E 4 0 4 SHEET NUMBER ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL AND MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL PROJECT NUMBER DESCRIPTION DATESCALE PROJECT NAME AS SHOWN OWNER NAME NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION12/21/2023 10:48:30 AM10.04 SITE SECTIONS SNYDER LANE COMMONS 5040 SNYDER LANE ROHNERT PARK, CA 15.041 205 SCOTT STREET MILL VALLEY ,CA 94941 SNYDER LANE VENTURES, LP SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"10.041SITE SECTION 1 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"10.042SITE SECTION 2 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"10.044SITE SECTION 4 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"10.043SITE SECTION 3 NO.DATE ISSUES & REVISIONS 1 12/05/22 Design Review 2 6/7/23 DR Revision 3 8/15/23 DR Revision 2 4 12/18/23 DR Revision 3 NOTE: REFER TO SHEET 10.41 FOR COLOR SCHEMES BUILDING #1 TYPE B 13456782 TYPE A TYPE A TYPE A TYPE A TYPE A TYPE A TYPE B38'-8"18'-0" 18'-0" 18'-0" 18'-0" 18'-0" 18'-0" 18'-0" 18'-0" 146'-4" 144'-10" CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL 13'-0"15'-6"27'-2"55'-8"1 1 3 0 W E S T W O O D B L V D w w w . a x i s g f a . c o m T 3 1 0 . 2 0 9 . 7 5 2 0 F 3 1 0 . 2 0 9 . 7 5 1 6 L O S A N G E L E S, C A 9 0 0 2 4 SHEET NUMBER ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL AND MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL PROJECT NUMBER DESCRIPTION DATESCALE PROJECT NAME AS SHOWN OWNER NAME 12/21/2023 10:48:33 AM10.11 BUILDING 1 SNYDER LANE COMMONS 5040 SNYDER LANE ROHNERT PARK, CA 15.041 205 SCOTT STREET MILL VALLEY ,CA 94941 SNYDER LANE VENTURES, LP N SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"10.111SITE PLAN - BUILDING #1 SCALE:NTS 10.112BUILDING 1 SOUTH SCALE: NTS 10.113BUILDING 1 NORTH NO.DATE ISSUES & REVISIONS 1 12/05/22 Design Review 2 6/7/23 DR Revision 3 8/15/23 DR Revision 2 4 12/18/23 DR Revision 3 5 2 4 3 6 1 GROSS AREA - BUILDING1 Level Area LEVEL 1 4,604 SF LEVEL 2 4,441 SF LEVEL 3 4,649 SF TOTAL 13,694 SF NOTE: REFER TO SHEET 10.41 FOR COLOR SCHEMES LEVEL 1EL +0' - 0"LEVEL 2EL +10' - 0"LEVEL 3EL +20' - 0"TOP OF BUILDINGEL +30' - 0"LEVEL 1EL +0' - 0"LEVEL 2EL +10' - 0"LEVEL 3EL +20' - 0"TOP OF BUILDINGEL +30' - 0"LEVEL 1EL +0' - 0"LEVEL 2EL +10' - 0"LEVEL 3EL +20' - 0"TOP OF BUILDINGEL +30' - 0"1 0 0 0 B R A N N A N S T R E E TS A N F R A N C I S C O, C A 9 4 1 0 3w w w . a x i s g f a . c o mT 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 0F 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 1S U I T E 4 0 4SHEET NUMBERALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARINGHEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHEDWORK OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL AND MAY NOT BEDUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTENCONSENT OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONALPROJECT NUMBERDESCRIPTIONSCALEPROJECT NAMEAS SHOWNOWNER NAMENOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONBUILDING 1ELEVATIONSSNYDER LANECOMMONS5040 SNYDER LANEROHNERT PARK, CA15.041205 SCOTT STREETMILL VALLEY ,CA94941SNYDER LANE VENTURES,LP1112/05/22Design Review524361SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"BUILDING #1 - NORTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"BUILDING #1 - SOUTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"TYPICAL ELEVATION @ BUILDING ENDS32FC-W1* REFER TO SHEET 10.41 FOR COLORSCHEMESWOOD TEXTURED FIBER CEMENTBOARD & BATTEN (HARDIE OR SIMILAR)WOOD TEXTURED FIBER CEMENTPLANKS (HARDIE OR SIMILAR)WOOD TEXTURED FIBER CEMENTBOARD & BATTEN(HARDIE OR SIMILAR)PAINTED PROJECTIONS AND FASCIAALUMINUM-CLAD WOOD WINDOW ORSIMILARDOUBLE PANE GLAZINGALUMINUM-CLAD DOOR OR SIMILARDOUBLE PANE GLAZINGCABLE RAILINGPOWDER COATED ALUMINUM POSTS ORSIMILARPOWDER COATED ALUMINUM FENCE ORSIMILARMETAL DECK AND STAIRS WITHCOMPOSITE DECKINGNOTES AND FINISHESFC-G1FC-G2FC-W1PNT-B1WN-B1DR-B1RL-B1FN-G1DK10.11BFC-W1FC-W1FC-W1FC-W1FC-W1FC-G2FC-G2FC-G2FC-G1FC-G1FC-G1FC-G1FC-G1PNT-B1PNT-B1PNT-B1PNT-B1PNT-B1PNT-B1WN-B1PAINTED DOORS, TYP.FN-G1RL-B1RL-B1WN-B1WN-B1WN-B1WN-B1WN-B1WN-B1DR-B1RL-B1DKDK23126/7/23DR RevisionsDKPNT-B1PNT-B1PNT-B1WN-B1PAINTED DOORS, TYP.DR-B1DR-B1FC-W1ELEVATION LEGEND38/15/23DR Revisions 2412/18/23DR Revisions 3 BUILDING #2 TYPE B 91011121314 TYPE A TYPE A TYPE A TYPE A TYPE B 18'-0" 18'-0" 18'-0" 18'-0" 18'-0" 18'-0" 110'-4" 108'-10"38'-8"115'-10" 2'-9"2'-9"27'-2" 15'-6" 13'-0" CL CL CL CL CL CL CL 55'-8"1 1 3 0 W E S T W O O D B L V D w w w . a x i s g f a . c o m T 3 1 0 . 2 0 9 . 7 5 2 0 F 3 1 0 . 2 0 9 . 7 5 1 6 L O S A N G E L E S, C A 9 0 0 2 4 SHEET NUMBER ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL AND MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL PROJECT NUMBER DESCRIPTION DATESCALE PROJECT NAME AS SHOWN OWNER NAME 12/21/2023 10:48:37 AM10.12 BUILDING 2 SNYDER LANE COMMONS 5040 SNYDER LANE ROHNERT PARK, CA 15.041 205 SCOTT STREET MILL VALLEY ,CA 94941 SNYDER LANE VENTURES, LP N NO.DATE ISSUES & REVISIONS 1 12/05/22 Design Review 2 6/7/23 DR Revision 3 8/15/23 DR Revision 2 4 12/18/23 DR Revision 3 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"10.121SITE PLAN - BUILDING #2 SCALE: NTS 10.122BLDG 2 SOUTH SCALE: NTS 10.123BLDG 2 NORTH 5 2 4 3 6 1 VIEW 4 SCALE: 3/64" = 1'-0"10.124VIEW - SITE NW CORNER GROSS AREA - BUILDING2 Level Area LEVEL 1 3,423 SF LEVEL 2 3,341 SF LEVEL 3 3,508 SF TOTAL 10,272 SF NOTE: REFER TO SHEET 10.41 FOR COLOR SCHEMES LEVEL 1EL +0' - 0"LEVEL 2EL +10' - 0"LEVEL 3EL +20' - 0"TOP OF BUILDINGEL +30' - 0"LEVEL 1EL +0' - 0"LEVEL 2EL +10' - 0"LEVEL 3EL +20' - 0"TOP OF BUILDINGEL +30' - 0"LEVEL 1EL +0' - 0"LEVEL 2EL +10' - 0"LEVEL 3EL +20' - 0"TOP OF BUILDINGEL +30' - 0"1 0 0 0 B R A N N A N S T R E E TS A N F R A N C I S C O, C A 9 4 1 0 3w w w . a x i s g f a . c o mT 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 0F 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 1S U I T E 4 0 4SHEET NUMBERALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARINGHEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHEDWORK OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL AND MAY NOT BEDUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTENCONSENT OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONALPROJECT NUMBERDESCRIPTIONSCALEPROJECT NAMEAS SHOWNOWNER NAMENOT FOR CONSTRUCTION10.12BBUILDING 2ELEVATIONSSNYDER LANECOMMONS5040 SNYDER LANEROHNERT PARK, CA15.041205 SCOTT STREETMILL VALLEY ,CA94941SNYDER LANE VENTURES,LP112/05/22Design Review524361SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2SITE PLAN - BUILDING #3SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"3SITE PLAN - BUILDING #3* REFER TO SHEET 10.41 FOR COLORSCHEMESWOOD TEXTURED FIBER CEMENTBOARD & BATTEN (HARDIE OR SIMILAR)WOOD TEXTURED FIBER CEMENTPLANKS (HARDIE OR SIMILAR)WOOD TEXTURED FIBER CEMENTBOARD & BATTEN(HARDIE OR SIMILAR)PAINTED PROJECTIONS AND FASCIAALUMINUM-CLAD WOOD WINDOW ORSIMILARDOUBLE PANE GLAZINGALUMINUM-CLAD DOOR OR SIMILARDOUBLE PANE GLAZINGCABLE RAILINGPOWDER COATED ALUMINUM POSTS ORSIMILARPOWDER COATED ALUMINUM FENCE ORSIMILARMETAL DECK AND STAIRS WITHCOMPOSITE DECKINGNOTES AND FINISHESFC-G1FC-G2FC-W1PNT-B1WN-B1DR-B1RL-B1FN-G1DK1SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"TYPICAL ELEVATION @ BUILDING ENDSFC-W1FC-W1FC-G2FC-G1PNT-B1WN-B1WN-B1RL-B1DK23126/7/23DR RevisionsFC-W1FC-W1FC-G2FC-G1FC-G1PNT-B1PNT-B1PAINTED DOORS, TYP.FN-G1RL-B1WN-B1DR-B1DKPNT-B1PNT-B1WN-B1FC-W1FC-W1FC-G1PNT-B1PNT-B1WN-B1RL-B1WN-B1DKPAINTED DOORS, TYP.DR-B1DR-B1FC-W1WN-B1WN-B1ELEVATION LEGEND38/15/23DR Revisions 2412/18/23DR Revisions 3 BUILDING #3 18 17 16 15 20 19 TYPE B TYPE A TYPE A TYPE A TYPE A TYPE B110'-4"18'-0" 18'-0" 18'-0" 18'-0" 18'-0" 18'-0" 38'-8"108'-10"CL CL CL CL CL CL CL2'-9"2'-9"15'-6" 27'-2" 1 0 0 0 B R A N N A N S T R E E T S A N F R A N C I S C O, C A 9 4 1 0 3 w w w . a x i s g f a . c o m T 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 0 F 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 1 S U I T E 4 0 4 SHEET NUMBER ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL AND MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL PROJECT NUMBER DESCRIPTION DATESCALE PROJECT NAME AS SHOWN OWNER NAME NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION12/21/2023 10:48:40 AM10.13 BUILDING 3 SNYDER LANE COMMONS 5040 SNYDER LANE ROHNERT PARK, CA 15.041 205 SCOTT STREET MILL VALLEY ,CA 94941 SNYDER LANE VENTURES, LP SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"10.131SITE PLAN - BUILDING #3 SCALE: NTS 10.133BUILDING 3 EAST SCALE: NTS 10.132BUILIDNG 3 WEST NO.DATE ISSUES & REVISIONS 1 12/05/22 Design Review 2 6/7/23 DR Revision 3 8/15/23 DR Revision 2 4 12/18/23 DR Revision 3 5 2 4 3 6 1 N GROSS AREA - BUILDING3 Level Area LEVEL 1 3,423 SF LEVEL 2 3,423 SF LEVEL 3 3,508 SF TOTAL 10,354 SF NOTE: REFER TO SHEET 10.41 FOR COLOR SCHEMES LEVEL 1EL +0' - 0"LEVEL 2EL +10' - 0"LEVEL 3EL +20' - 0"TOP OF BUILDINGEL +30' - 0"LEVEL 1EL +0' - 0"LEVEL 2EL +10' - 0"LEVEL 3EL +20' - 0"TOP OF BUILDINGEL +30' - 0"LEVEL 1EL +0' - 0"LEVEL 2EL +10' - 0"LEVEL 3EL +20' - 0"TOP OF BUILDINGEL +30' - 0"1 0 0 0 B R A N N A N S T R E E TS A N F R A N C I S C O, C A 9 4 1 0 3w w w . a x i s g f a . c o mT 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 0F 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 1S U I T E 4 0 4SHEET NUMBERALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARINGHEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHEDWORK OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL AND MAY NOT BEDUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTENCONSENT OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONALPROJECT NUMBERDESCRIPTIONSCALEPROJECT NAMEAS SHOWNOWNER NAMENOT FOR CONSTRUCTION10.13BBUILDING 3ELEVATIONSSNYDER LANECOMMONS5040 SNYDER LANEROHNERT PARK, CA15.041205 SCOTT STREETMILL VALLEY ,CA94941SNYDER LANE VENTURES,LP112/05/22Design Review524361SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"3SITE PLAN - BUILDING #3SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2SITE PLAN - BUILDING #3* REFER TO SHEET 10.41 FOR COLORSCHEMESWOOD TEXTURED FIBER CEMENTBOARD & BATTEN (HARDIE OR SIMILAR)WOOD TEXTURED FIBER CEMENTPLANKS (HARDIE OR SIMILAR)WOOD TEXTURED FIBER CEMENTBOARD & BATTEN(HARDIE OR SIMILAR)PAINTED PROJECTIONS AND FASCIAALUMINUM-CLAD WOOD WINDOW ORSIMILARDOUBLE PANE GLAZINGALUMINUM-CLAD DOOR OR SIMILARDOUBLE PANE GLAZINGCABLE RAILINGPOWDER COATED ALUMINUM POSTS ORSIMILARPOWDER COATED ALUMINUM FENCE ORSIMILARMETAL DECK AND STAIRS WITHCOMPOSITE DECKINGNOTES AND FINISHESFC-G1FC-G2FC-W1PNT-B1WN-B1DR-B1RL-B1FN-G1DK1SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"TYPICAL ELEVATION @ BUILDING ENDSFC-W1FC-W1FC-G2FC-G1PNT-B1WN-B1WN-B1RL-B1DK12326/7/23DR RevisionsFC-W1FC-W1FC-G1PNT-B1PNT-B1WN-B1RL-B1WN-B1DKDR-B1DR-B1FC-W1FC-W1FC-G2FC-G1FC-G1PAINTED DOORS, TYP.WN-B1WN-B1DR-B1DKWN-B1FC-G2FC-G2PNT-B1PAINTED DOORS, TYP.RL-B1ELEVATION LEGEND38/15/23DR Revisions 2412/18/23DR Revisions 3 BUILDING #4 262524232221 TYPE BTYPE ATYPE ATYPE ATYPE ATYPE B 18'-0" 18'-0" 18'-0" 18'-0" 18'-0" 18'-0" 110'-4"38'-8"108'-10" CL CL CL CL CL CL CL27'-2"15'-6"1 0 0 0 B R A N N A N S T R E E T S A N F R A N C I S C O, C A 9 4 1 0 3 w w w . a x i s g f a . c o m T 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 0 F 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 1 S U I T E 4 0 4 SHEET NUMBER ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL AND MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL PROJECT NUMBER DESCRIPTION DATESCALE PROJECT NAME AS SHOWN OWNER NAME NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION12/21/2023 10:48:43 AM10.14 BUILDING 4 SNYDER LANE COMMONS 5040 SNYDER LANE ROHNERT PARK, CA 15.041 205 SCOTT STREET MILL VALLEY ,CA 94941 SNYDER LANE VENTURES, LP NO.DATE ISSUES & REVISIONS 1 12/05/22 Design Review 2 6/7/23 DR Revision 3 8/15/23 DR Revision 2 4 12/18/23 DR Revision 3 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"10.141SITE PLAN - BUILDING #4 SCALE: NTS 10.142BUILDING 4 NORTH SCALE: NTS 10.143BUILDING 4 SOUTH 5 2 4 3 6 1 VIEW SCALE: 3/64" = 1'-0"10.144VIEW - SITE SW CORNER N GROSS AREA - BUILDING4 Level Area LEVEL 1 3,423 SF LEVEL 2 3,423 SF LEVEL 3 3,508 SF TOTAL 10,354 SF NOTE: REFER TO SHEET 10.41 FOR COLOR SCHEMES LEVEL 1EL +0' - 0"LEVEL 2EL +10' - 0"LEVEL 3EL +20' - 0"TOP OF BUILDINGEL +30' - 0"LEVEL 1EL +0' - 0"LEVEL 2EL +10' - 0"LEVEL 3EL +20' - 0"TOP OF BUILDINGEL +30' - 0"LEVEL 1EL +0' - 0"LEVEL 2EL +10' - 0"LEVEL 3EL +20' - 0"TOP OF BUILDINGEL +30' - 0"1 0 0 0 B R A N N A N S T R E E TS A N F R A N C I S C O, C A 9 4 1 0 3w w w . a x i s g f a . c o mT 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 0F 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 1S U I T E 4 0 4SHEET NUMBERALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARINGHEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHEDWORK OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL AND MAY NOT BEDUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTENCONSENT OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONALPROJECT NUMBERDESCRIPTIONSCALEPROJECT NAMEAS SHOWNOWNER NAMENOT FOR CONSTRUCTION10.14BSNYDER LANECOMMONS5040 SNYDER LANEROHNERT PARK, CA15.041205 SCOTT STREETMILL VALLEY ,CA94941SNYDER LANE VENTURES,LP112/05/22Design Review524361SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"3SITE PLAN - BUILDING #3SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2SITE PLAN - BUILDING #3* REFER TO SHEET 10.41 FOR COLORSCHEMESWOOD TEXTURED FIBER CEMENTBOARD & BATTEN (HARDIE OR SIMILAR)WOOD TEXTURED FIBER CEMENTPLANKS (HARDIE OR SIMILAR)WOOD TEXTURED FIBER CEMENTBOARD & BATTEN(HARDIE OR SIMILAR)PAINTED PROJECTIONS AND FASCIAALUMINUM-CLAD WOOD WINDOW ORSIMILARDOUBLE PANE GLAZINGALUMINUM-CLAD DOOR OR SIMILARDOUBLE PANE GLAZINGCABLE RAILINGPOWDER COATED ALUMINUM POSTS ORSIMILARPOWDER COATED ALUMINUM FENCE ORSIMILARMETAL DECK AND STAIRS WITHCOMPOSITE DECKINGNOTES AND FINISHESFC-G1FC-G2FC-W1PNT-B1WN-B1DR-B1RL-B1FN-G1DKBUILDING 4ELEVATIONS1SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"TYPICAL ELEVATION @ BUILDING ENDSFC-W1FC-W1FC-G2FC-G1PNT-B1WN-B1WN-B1RL-B1DK32126/7/23DR RevisionsFC-W1FC-W1FC-G1PNT-B1PNT-B1WN-B1RL-B1WN-B1DKDR-B1DR-B1FC-W1FC-W1FC-G2FC-G1FC-G1PAINTED DOORS, TYP.WN-B1WN-B1DR-B1DKWN-B1FC-G2FC-G2FN-G1PNT-B1RL-B1PAINTED DOORS, TYP.ELEVATION LEGEND38/15/23DR Revisions 2412/18/23DR Revisions 3 BUILDING #5 3433323130292827 18'-0" 18'-0" 18'-0" 18'-0" 18'-0" 18'-0" 18'-0" 18'-0" 144'-10" 146'-4"38'-8"13'-0" 15'-6" 27'-2" CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL 55'-8"TYPE ATYPE B TYPE A TYPE A TYPE A TYPE A TYPE A TYPE B 1 0 0 0 B R A N N A N S T R E E T S A N F R A N C I S C O, C A 9 4 1 0 3 w w w . a x i s g f a . c o m T 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 0 F 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 1 S U I T E 4 0 4 SHEET NUMBER ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL AND MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL PROJECT NUMBER DESCRIPTION DATESCALE PROJECT NAME AS SHOWN OWNER NAME NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION12/21/2023 10:48:46 AM10.15 BUILDING 5 SNYDER LANE COMMONS 5040 SNYDER LANE ROHNERT PARK, CA 15.041 205 SCOTT STREET MILL VALLEY ,CA 94941 SNYDER LANE VENTURES, LP NO.DATE ISSUES & REVISIONS 1 12/05/22 Design Review 2 6/7/23 DR Revision 3 8/15/23 DR Revision 2 4 12/18/23 DR Revision 3 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"10.151SITE PLAN - BUILDING #5 SCALE: NTS 10.152BUILDING 5 NORTH SCALE: NTS 10.153BUILDING 5 SOUTH 5 2 4 3 6 1 N GROSS AREA - BUILDING5 Level Area LEVEL 1 4,564 SF LEVEL 2 4,564 SF LEVEL 3 4,649 SF TOTAL 13,778 SF NOTE: REFER TO SHEET 10.41 FOR COLOR SCHEMES LEVEL 1EL +0' - 0"LEVEL 2EL +10' - 0"LEVEL 3EL +20' - 0"TOP OF BUILDINGEL +30' - 0"LEVEL 1EL +0' - 0"LEVEL 2EL +10' - 0"LEVEL 3EL +20' - 0"TOP OF BUILDINGEL +30' - 0"LEVEL 1EL +0' - 0"LEVEL 2EL +10' - 0"LEVEL 3EL +20' - 0"TOP OF BUILDINGEL +30' - 0"1 0 0 0 B R A N N A N S T R E E TS A N F R A N C I S C O, C A 9 4 1 0 3w w w . a x i s g f a . c o mT 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 0F 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 1S U I T E 4 0 4SHEET NUMBERALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARINGHEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHEDWORK OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL AND MAY NOT BEDUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTENCONSENT OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONALPROJECT NUMBERDESCRIPTIONSCALEPROJECT NAMEAS SHOWNOWNER NAMENOT FOR CONSTRUCTION10.15BBBUILDING 5ELEVATIONSSNYDER LANECOMMONS5040 SNYDER LANEROHNERT PARK, CA15.041205 SCOTT STREETMILL VALLEY ,CA94941SNYDER LANE VENTURES,LP112/05/22Design Review524361SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"3SITE PLAN - BUILDING #3SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2SITE PLAN - BUILDING #3* REFER TO SHEET 10.41 FOR COLORSCHEMESWOOD TEXTURED FIBER CEMENTBOARD & BATTEN (HARDIE OR SIMILAR)WOOD TEXTURED FIBER CEMENTPLANKS (HARDIE OR SIMILAR)WOOD TEXTURED FIBER CEMENTBOARD & BATTEN(HARDIE OR SIMILAR)PAINTED PROJECTIONS AND FASCIAALUMINUM-CLAD WOOD WINDOW ORSIMILARDOUBLE PANE GLAZINGALUMINUM-CLAD DOOR OR SIMILARDOUBLE PANE GLAZINGCABLE RAILINGPOWDER COATED ALUMINUM POSTS ORSIMILARPOWDER COATED ALUMINUM FENCE ORSIMILARMETAL DECK AND STAIRS WITHCOMPOSITE DECKINGNOTES AND FINISHESFC-G1FC-G2FC-W1PNT-B1WN-B1DR-B1RL-B1FN-G1DK1SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"TYPICAL ELEVATION @ BUILDING ENDSFC-W1FC-W1FC-G2FC-G1PNT-B1WN-B1WN-B1RL-B1DK32126/7/23DR RevisionsFC-W1FC-W1FC-G1PNT-B1PNT-B1WN-B1RL-B1WN-B1DKDR-B1DR-B1FC-W1FC-W1FC-G2FC-G1FC-G1PAINTED DOORS, TYP.WN-B1WN-B1DR-B1DKWN-B1FC-G2FC-G2PNT-B1PAINTED DOORS, TYP.FC-W1DR-B1ELEVATION LEGEND38/15/23DR Revisions 2412/18/23DR Revisions 3 BUILDING #6 35 36 TYPE B TYPE B 38'-4"38'-8"17'-0"36'-10"18'-0"55'-8" 1 0 0 0 B R A N N A N S T R E E T S A N F R A N C I S C O, C A 9 4 1 0 3 w w w . a x i s g f a . c o m T 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 0 F 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 1 S U I T E 4 0 4 SHEET NUMBER ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL AND MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL PROJECT NUMBER DESCRIPTION DATESCALE PROJECT NAME AS SHOWN OWNER NAME NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION12/21/2023 10:48:48 AM10.16 BUILDING 6 SNYDER LANE COMMONS 5040 SNYDER LANE ROHNERT PARK, CA 15.041 205 SCOTT STREET MILL VALLEY ,CA 94941 SNYDER LANE VENTURES, LP NO.DATE ISSUES & REVISIONS 1 12/05/22 Design Review 2 6/7/23 DR Revision 3 8/15/23 DR Revision 2 4 12/18/23 DR Revision 3 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"10.161SITE PLAN - BUILDING #6 SCALE: NTS 10.162BUILDING 6 EAST SCALE: NTS 10.163BUILDING 6 WEST 5 2 4 3 6 1 GROSS AREA - BUILDING6 Level Area LEVEL 1 1,141 SF LEVEL 2 1,100 SF LEVEL 3 1,226 SF TOTAL 3,467 SF N NOTE: REFER TO SHEET 10.41 FOR COLOR SCHEMES LEVEL 1EL +0' - 0"LEVEL 2EL +10' - 0"LEVEL 3EL +20' - 0"TOP OF BUILDINGEL +30' - 0"LEVEL 1EL +0' - 0"LEVEL 2EL +10' - 0"LEVEL 3EL +20' - 0"TOP OF BUILDINGEL +30' - 0"LEVEL 1EL +0' - 0"LEVEL 2EL +10' - 0"LEVEL 3EL +20' - 0"TOP OF BUILDINGEL +30' - 0"1 0 0 0 B R A N N A N S T R E E TS A N F R A N C I S C O, C A 9 4 1 0 3w w w . a x i s g f a . c o mT 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 0F 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 1S U I T E 4 0 4SHEET NUMBERALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARINGHEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHEDWORK OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL AND MAY NOT BEDUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTENCONSENT OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONALPROJECT NUMBERDESCRIPTIONSCALEPROJECT NAMEAS SHOWNOWNER NAMENOT FOR CONSTRUCTION10.16BBUILDING 6ELEVATIONSSNYDER LANECOMMONS5040 SNYDER LANEROHNERT PARK, CA15.041205 SCOTT STREETMILL VALLEY ,CA94941SNYDER LANE VENTURES,LPSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"3SITE PLAN - BUILDING #3112/05/22Design Review524361SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2SITE PLAN - BUILDING #3* REFER TO SHEET 10.41 FOR COLORSCHEMESWOOD TEXTURED FIBER CEMENTBOARD & BATTEN (HARDIE OR SIMILAR)WOOD TEXTURED FIBER CEMENTPLANKS (HARDIE OR SIMILAR)WOOD TEXTURED FIBER CEMENTBOARD & BATTEN(HARDIE OR SIMILAR)PAINTED PROJECTIONS AND FASCIAALUMINUM-CLAD WOOD WINDOW ORSIMILARDOUBLE PANE GLAZINGALUMINUM-CLAD DOOR OR SIMILARDOUBLE PANE GLAZINGCABLE RAILINGPOWDER COATED ALUMINUM POSTS ORSIMILARPOWDER COATED ALUMINUM FENCE ORSIMILARMETAL DECK AND STAIRS WITHCOMPOSITE DECKINGNOTES AND FINISHESFC-G1FC-G2FC-W1PNT-B1WN-B1DR-B1RL-B1FN-G1DKFC-W1FC-W1FC-G2FC-G1FC-G2FC-G2PNT-B1PNT-B1PAINTED DOORS, TYP.WN-B1WN-B1DR-B1DR-B1DR-B1RL-B1DK1SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"TYPICAL ELEVATION @ BUILDING ENDSFC-W1FC-W1FC-G2FC-G1PNT-B1WN-B1WN-B1RL-B1DK13226/7/23DR RevisionsFC-G2ELEVATION LEGEND38/15/23DR Revisions 2412/18/23DR Revisions 3 NON-RATED WALL1-HOUR FIRE PROTECTED WALL1-HOUR RATED FIRE PARTITION2-HOUR RATED FIRE BARRIER3-HOUR RATED FIRE WALL4-HOUR RATED FIRE WALLCONCRETE WALLCONCRETE MASONRY UNIT WALLWALL TYPES1. ALL EXTERIOR DIMENSIONS ARE MEASURED TO GRID LINES & FACE OF SHEATHING, U.O.N.2. SEE WINDOW SCHEDULE A0.21 FOR ALL WINDOW & EXTERIOR LOUVER SIZES.3. ALL WINDOWS ARE LOCATED ON FLOOR PLANS A2.00 SERIES.4. SEE ELEVATIONS ON A4.00 SERIES FOR ALL EXTERIOR FINISH MATERIALS.5. ALL SIGNAGE REQUIRES SEPARATE PERMIT BY SIGN CONTRACTOR.6. SEE A9.01 FOR EXTERIOR PARTITION DETAILS.7. SEE A9.20 SERIES FOR EXTERIOR WINDOW DETAILS. SHEET NOTESBEDROOM/OFFICEBACKYARDHALLWAYSTORAGEBATHROOM2A4.101A4.10110.023'-2"12'-8"5'-0"2'-0"12'-0"37'-8"17'-10"3'-0"4'-0"17'-4"12'-0"34'-8"18'-0"16'-6"8'-0"9'-10"8'-6"3'-6"3'-6"2'-0"2'-7"2'-10"2'-8"3'-0" 11'-10" 3'-0"15'-0" 3'-0"287 SQFT2A4.101A4.103'-0"34'-8"5'-0"33'-4"3'-6"12'-6"9'-10"17'-10"8'-0"16'-6"LIN.BEDROOMBATHHALLWAYBATHROOMBEDROOM2A4.101A4.105'-0"11'-0"9'-2"2'-0"3'-0"5'-6"2'-0"12'-8"36'-4"37'-8"3'-0"9'-2"5'-0"18'-8"3'-0"34'-8"17'-10"8'-0"9'-10"ROOF ACCESS HATCH3A4.102A4.101A4.10110.02ROOF ACCESSMECHANICAL EQUIP.PV PANELSPV PANELSBALCONY BELOWBACKYARD BELOW1 1 3 0 W E S T W O O D B L V Dw w w . a x i s g f a . c o m T 3 1 0 . 2 0 9 . 7 5 2 0F 3 1 0 . 2 0 9 . 7 5 1 6L O S A N G E L E S, C A 9 0 0 2 4SHEET NUMBERALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARINGHEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHEDWORK OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL AND MAY NOT BEDUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTENCONSENT OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONALPROJECT NUMBERDESCRIPTIONDATESCALEPROJECT NAMEAS SHOWNOWNER NAME3/22/2024 4:40:18 PM10.21FLOOR PLANS -TYPE ASNYDER LANECOMMONS5040 SNYDER LANEROHNERT PARK, CA15.041205 SCOTT STREETMILL VALLEY ,CA94941SNYDER LANE VENTURES,LPKEYNOTESNO.DATE ISSUES & REVISIONS1 12/05/22 Design Review2 6/7/23 DR Revision3 8/15/23 DR Revision 24 12/18/23 DR Revision 3SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"10.211LEVEL 1 _ FLOOR PLAN - TYPE ASCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"10.212LEVEL 2 _ FLOOR PLAN - TYPE ASCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"10.213LEVEL 3_ FLOOR PLAN - TYPE ASCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"10.214ROOF PLAN - TYPE AGROSS AREA - TYPE ALevel AreaLEVEL 1 576 SFLEVEL 2 550 SFLEVEL 3 571 SFTOTAL 1,696 SF 12'-8" 3'-2"5'-0"2'-0"12'-0"BEDROOM/ OFFICE HALLWAY STORAGE BATHROOM 16'-6"37'-8"3'-0"34'-8"4'-0"17'-4"12'-0"25'-2"8'-0" 9'-10" 3'-0" 21'-10"3'-0"15'-0"BACK YARD 500 SQFT 4'-0" 3'-0"15'-10"28'-2"3'-0"LIVING ROOM 2'-5"34'-8"37'-1"8'-0" 9'-10"15'-6"21'-10"35'-9"16'-6" 17'-10" 4'-0" BEDROOMBATH HALLWAY BATHROOM BEDROOM 12'-8"5'-6" 3'-0"2'-0"10'-2"2'-0"LIN. 5'-0"12'-3"18'-8" 5'-0" 6"3'-0" 34'-8"1'-0"8'-0" 10'-4" 9" 19'-1"37'-4"38'-8"ROOF ACCESS HATCH BALCONY BELOW BACKYARD BELOW MECHANICAL EQUIP. 1 0 0 0 B R A N N A N S T R E E T S A N F R A N C I S C O, C A 9 4 1 0 3 w w w . a x i s g f a . c o m T 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 0 F 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 1 S U I T E 4 0 4 SHEET NUMBER ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL AND MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL PROJECT NUMBER DESCRIPTION DATESCALE PROJECT NAME AS SHOWN OWNER NAME NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION12/21/2023 10:48:52 AM10.22 FLOOR PLANS -TYPE B SNYDER LANE COMMONS 5040 SNYDER LANE ROHNERT PARK, CA 15.041 205 SCOTT STREET MILL VALLEY ,CA 94941 SNYDER LANE VENTURES, LP NO.DATE ISSUES & REVISIONS 1 12/05/22 Design Review 2 6/7/23 DR Revision 3 8/15/23 DR Revision 2 4 12/18/23 DR Revision 3 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"10.221LEVEL 1 _ FLOOR PLAN - TYPE B SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"10.222LEVEL 2 _ FLOOR PLAN - TYPE B SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"10.223LEVEL 3_ FLOOR PLAN - TYPE B SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"10.224ROOF PLAN - TYPE B GROSS AREA - TYPE B Level Area LEVEL 1 576 SF LEVEL 2 571 SF LEVEL 3 613 SF TOTAL 1,759 SF 1 0 0 0 B R A N N A N S T R E E T S A N F R A N C I S C O, C A 9 4 1 0 3 w w w . a x i s g f a . c o m T 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 0 F 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 1 S U I T E 4 0 4 SHEET NUMBER ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL AND MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL PROJECT NUMBER DESCRIPTION DATESCALE PROJECT NAME AS SHOWN OWNER NAME NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION12/21/2023 10:48:53 AM10.40 EXTERIOR FINISHES SNYDER LANE COMMONS 5040 SNYDER LANE ROHNERT PARK, CA 15.041 205 SCOTT STREET MILL VALLEY ,CA 94941 SNYDER LANE VENTURES, LP NO.DATE ISSUES & REVISIONS 1 12/05/22 Design Review 2 6/7/23 DR Revision 3 8/15/23 DR Revision 2 4 12/18/23 DR Revision 3 FC-G1 FC-W1 (ARCTIC WHITE) FC-G2 (AGED PEWTER) PNT-B1 WOOD TEXTURED FIBER CEMENT BOARD & BATTEN (HARDIE OR SIMILAR) WOOD TEXTURED FIBER CEMENT BOARD & BATTEN -(HARDIE OR SIMILAR) WOOD TEXTURED FIBER CEMENT PLANKS (HARDIE OR SIMILAR) PAINTED PROJECTIONS AND FASCIA RL-B1 (RAILING) MB-B1 (MAILBOX) CABLE RAILING POWDER COATED ALUMINUM POSTS OR SIMILAR -BLACK FINISH SCALE: NTS 10.407WN-B1 SCALE: NTS 10.408FNC-G1 (FENCE) ALUMINUM-CLAD WOOD WINDOW OR SIMILAR DOUBLE PANE GLAZING -BLACK FINISH POWDER COATED ALUMINUM FENCE OR SIMILAR -GRAY FINISH ALUMINUM CLUSTER MAILBOX ENCLOSURE OR SIMILAR-BLACK FINISH NOTE: REFER TO SHEET 10.41 FOR COLOR SCHEMES SCALE: NTS 10.409MASONRY FENCE SOUND WALL W/ STONE VENEER PILASRERS AROUND BUILDING 3 FACING SNYDER LANE SCHEME ASCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2COLOR SCHEME B - BUILDING 2 & 41 0 0 0 B R A N N A N S T R E E TS A N F R A N C I S C O, C A 9 4 1 0 3w w w . a x i s g f a . c o mT 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 0F 4 1 5 . 3 7 1 . 1 4 0 1S U I T E 4 0 4SHEET NUMBERALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARINGHEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHEDWORK OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL AND MAY NOT BEDUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTENCONSENT OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONALPROJECT NUMBERDESCRIPTIONSCALEPROJECT NAMEAS SHOWNOWNER NAMENOT FOR CONSTRUCTION10.41COLORSCHEMESSNYDER LANECOMMONS5040 SNYDER LANEROHNERT PARK, CA15.041205 SCOTT STREETMILL VALLEY ,CA94941SNYDER LANE VENTURES,LP1COLOR SCHEME A - BUILDING 1 & 5112/05/22Design Review3COLOR SCHEME C - BUILDING 3 & 626/7/23DR RevisionsCOLOR SCHEMELOCATION MAPSCHEME ASCHEME BSCHEME BSCHEME C C524361BC - BODY COLOR:BROWNSW COLOR TO MATCHOR SIMILARCOLOR SCHEME APC - PROJECTION COLOR:WHITESW COLOR TO MATCHOR SIMILARAC1AC2AC1 - ACCENT COLOR:DARK BROWN - WOOD PATTERNHPL PANEL COLOR TO MATCHOR SIMILARAC2 - ACCENT COLOR:LIGHT BROWN - WOOD PATTERNHPL PANEL COLOR TO MATCHOR SIMILARBCPCAC2AC1BCPCAC2AC1BCPCBC - BODY COLOR:BLUESW COLOR TO MATCHOR SIMILARCOLOR SCHEME APC - PROJECTION COLOR:WHITESW COLOR TO MATCHOR SIMILARAC1 - ACCENT COLOR:YELLOWHPL PANEL COLOR TO MATCHOR SIMILARAC2 - ACCENT COLOR:REDHPL PANEL COLOR TO MATCHOR SIMILARBC - BODY COLOR:GREYSW COLOR TO MATCHOR SIMILARCOLOR SCHEME APC - PROJECTION COLOR:WHITESW COLOR TO MATCHOR SIMILARAC1 - ACCENT COLOR:DARK BROWN - WOOD PATTERNHPL PANEL COLOR TO MATCHOR SIMILARAC2 - ACCENT COLOR:LIGHT BROWN - WOOD PATTERNHPL PANEL COLOR TO MATCHOR SIMILAR38/15/23DR Revisions 2412/18/23DR Revisions 3 8/15/23 DR REVISION #2 DESCRIPTION SPECIFICATION FEATURES Finish: Our naturally etched finishes will withstand the test of time. All finishes are individually treated insuring consistency. Our meticulous application results in a fixture that truly becomes “a one of a kind”. Electrical: Available in 8-15V Labels: ETL Standard Wet Label C-ETL Wet Listed Directional Light Model: Mr. Universe Model#: Mr. UniverseMaterial: Solid Brass Finish: Matte BronzeElectrical: 8-15V Engine: Lumens: FB-2W-CYL-TA16 150Color Temp: 2700K Optic: Spot-19d Flood-38dWide Flood - 54d Wide Angle Flood- 120d Mounting: 1/2” NPT. WWW.SPJLIGHTING.COM ORDERING INFORMATION MR. UNIVERSE Model# MBR V = Verde M = MossAG = Aged BrassMBR = Matte Bronze SB = Satin Brass B = Black R = RustyPVDP = PVD Polished PVDS = PVD Satin Finishes 1W 2W3W6W 80 150200300 2W Wattage 150 Lumens 2700K 4000K5000K 2700K Color Temp. 8-15V 8-15V Electrical Spot-19d Flood-38dW. Flood - 54dWaf- 120d FLOOD-38d Optics USA-C.COM • CA0AA.0153* Of Domestic & ForeignComponents 11/2” 1/2” NPT Male Thumb/slottedsolid brass set screw FB-2W-CYL-TA16 8/32” Phillip Screw 33/8” 15/8” 13/4” 23/8” Tempered Glass Adjustable Shroud ARCHITECTURAL LANDSCAPE & OUTDOOR LIGHTINGMr. Universe REFUSE/RECYCLE SHED TRELLIS WITH KIWI VINE PAVILION: METAL SHED ROOF WITH FLANKING TRELLIS PICNIC AND CAFÉ TABLES GARDEN STORAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 56 1 1 2 7 7 8 10 11 10 11 LEGEND K E I S E R A V E N U E O A K C I R C L ES N Y D E R L A N EA A N 56 9 10 COMPOSTING RAISED BEDS CORTON STEEL ACCESSIBLE WORK TABLE WATER CAPTURE TANK ON LEGS (SHOWN W/ 1,150 GAL TANK) MAILBOX 64032 FEET 816 16412 SCALE: 1/16" =1'-0" 42" FENCE AND GATE, TYP. BUILDING #1BUILDING #2 BUILDING #3BUILDING #4 BUILDING #5 BUILDING #6OPEN SPACE COMMUNITY GARDEN PLAY GROUND MATERIAL LEGEND LANDSCAPE LIGHTING LEGEND 14' LED POLE LIGHT One Lithonia Way • Conyers, Georgia 30012 • Phone: 1-800-705-SERV (7378) • www.acuitybrands.com © 2018-2022 Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. All rights reserved. Lithonia RSX1 Area LED Rev. 06/16/22 Page 1 of 9 COMMERCIAL OUTDOOR RSX1 LEDArea Luminaire Specifications Catalog Number Notes Type Introduction The new RSX LED Area family delivers maximum value by providing significant energy savings, long life and outstanding photometric performance at an affordable price. The RSX1 delivers 7,000 to 17,000 lumens allowing it to replace 70W to 400W HID luminaires. The RSX features an integral universal mounting mechanism that allows the luminaire to be mounted on most existing drill hole patterns. This “no-drill” solution provides significant labor savings. An easy-access door on the bottom of mounting arm allows for wiring without opening the electrical compartment. A mast arm adaptor, adjustable integral slipfitter and other mounting configurations are available. EPA (ft2@0°):0.57 ft2 (0.05 m2) Length:21.8” (55.4 cm)(SPA mount) Width:13.3” (33.8 cm) Height:3.0" (7.6 cm) Main Body7.2” (18.4 cm) Arm Weight: (SPA mount):22.0 lbs (10.0 kg) Hit the Tab key or mouse over the page to see all interactive elements. L W H Options Finish Shipped Installed HS House-side shield 7 PE Photocontrol, button style 8,9 PEX Photocontrol external threaded, adjustable 9,10 PER7 Seven-wire twist-lock receptacle only (no controls) 9,11,12,13 CE34 Conduit entry 3/4” NPT (Qty 2) SF Single fuse (120, 277, 347) 5 DF Double fuse (208, 240, 480) 5 SPD20KV 20KV Surge pack (10KV standard) FAO Field adjustable output 9,13 DMG 0-10V dimming extend out back of housing for external control (control ordered separate) 9,13 Shipped Installed *Standalone and Networked Sensors/Controls (factory default settings, see table page 9) NLTAIR2 nLight AIR generation 2 13,14,15 PIRHN Networked, Bi-Level motion/ambient sensor (for use with NLTAIR2) 13,15,16 BAA Buy America(n) Act Compliant *Note: PIRHN with nLight Air can be used as a standalone or networked solution. Sensor coverage pattern is affected when luminaire is tilted. Shipped Separately (requires some field assembly) EGS External glare shield 7 EGFV External glare full visor (360° around light aperture) 7 BS Bird spikes 17 DDBXD Dark Bronze DBLXD Black DNAXD Natural Aluminum DWHXD White DDBTXD Textured Dark Bronze DBLBXD Textured Black DNATXD Textured Natural Aluminum DWHGXD Textured White WW Ordering Information EXAMPLE: RSX1 LED P4 40K R3 MVOLT SPA DDBXD RSX1 LED Series Performance Package Color Temperature Distribution Voltage Mounting RSX1 LED P1 P2 P3 P4 30K 3000K 40K 4000K 50K 5000K R2 Type 2 Wide R3 Type 3 Wide R3S Type 3 Short R4 Type 4 Wide R4S Type 4 Short R5 Type 5 Wide 1 R5S Type 5 Short 1 AFR Automotive Front Row AFRR90 Automotive Front Row Right Rotated AFRL90 Automotive Front Row Left Rotated MVOLT (120V-277V) 2 HVOLT (347V-480V) 3 XVOLT (277V-480V) 4 (use specific voltage for options as noted) 120 3 277 5 208 3 347 5 240 3 480 5 SPA Square pole mounting (3.0" min. SQ pole for 1 at 90°, 3.5" min. SQ pole for 2, 3, 4 at 90°) RPA Round pole mounting (3.2" min. dia. RND pole for 2, 3, 4 at 90°, 3.0" min. dia. RND pole for 1 at 90°, 2 at 180°, 3 at 120°) MA Mast arm adaptor (fits 2-3/8" OD horizontal tenon) IS Adjustable slipfitter (fits 2-3/8" OD tenon) 6 WBA Wall bracket 1 WBASC Wall bracket with surface conduit box AASP Adjustable tilt arm square pole mounting 6 AARP Adjustable tilt arm round pole mounting 6 AAWB Adjustable tilt arm with wall bracket 6 AAWSC Adjustable tilt arm wall bracket and surface conduit box 6 Buy American DSXB LED Series LEDs Drive current Color temperature Distribution Voltage Control options Other options Finish (required) DSXB LED Asymmetric 12C 12 LEDs1 Symmetric 16C 16 LEDs2 350 350 mA 450 450 mA 3,4 530 530 mA 700 700 mA 30K 3000 K 40K 4000 K 50K 5000 K AMBPC Amber phosphor converted AMBLW Amber limited wavelength 3,4 ASY Asymmetric 1 SYM Symmetric 2 MVOLT 5 120 5 208 5 240 5 277 5 347 4 Shipped installed PE Photoelectric cell, button type DMG 0-10V dim-ming driver (no controls) ELCW Emergency battery backup6 Shipped installed SF Single fuse (120, 277, 347V) 4,7 DF Double fuse (208, 240V) 4,7 H24 24” overall height H30 30” overall height H36 36” overall height FG Ground-fault festoon outlet L/AB Without anchor bolts L/AB4 4-bolt retrofit base without anchor bolts 8 DWHXD White DNAXD Natural aluminum DDBXD Dark bronze DBLXD Black DDBTXD Textured dark bronze DBLBXD Textured black DNATXD Textured natural aluminum DWHGXD Textured white MRAB U Anchor bolts for DSXB 8 Accessories Ordered and shipped separately. D H D-SeriesLED Bollard Specifications Ordering Information Catalog Number Notes Type Introduction The D-Series LED Bollard is a stylish, energy- saving, long-life solution designed to perform the way a bollard should—with zero uplight. An optical leap forward, this full cut-off luminaire will meet the most stringent of lighting codes. The D-Series LED Bollard’s rugged construction, durable finish and long-lasting LEDs will provide years of maintenance-free service. Diameter:8” Round (20.3 cm) Height:42” (106.7 cm) Weight (max):27 lbs(12.25 kg) One Lithonia Way • Conyers, Georgia 30012 • Phone: 800.279.8041 • Fax: 770.918.1209 • www.lithonia.com © 2012-2014 Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. All rights reserved. Hit the Tab key or mouse over the page to see all interactive elements. EXAMPLE: DSXB LED 16C 700 40K SYM MVOLT DDBXD NOTES 1 Only available in the 12C, ASY version. 2 Only available in the 16C, SYM version. 3 Only available with 450 AMBLW version. 4 Not available with ELCW. 5 MVOLT driver operates on any line voltage from 120-277V (50/60 Hz). Specify 120, 208, 240 or 277 options only when ordering with fusing (SF, DF options), or photocontrol (PE option). 6 Not available with 347V. Not available with fusing. Not available with 450 AMBLW. 7 Single fuse (SF) requires 120, 277, or 347 voltage option. Double fuse (DF) requires 208 or 240 voltage option. 8 MRAB U not available with L/AB4 option. Fixture Type: Catalog Number: Project: Location: WAC Lighting retains the right to modify the design of our products at any time as part of the company's continuous improvement program. JuL 2016 waclighting.com Phone (800) 526.2588 Fax (800) 526.2585 Headquarters/Eastern Distribution Center 44 Harbor Park Drive Port Washington, NY 11050 Central Distribution Center 1600 Distribution Ct Lithia Springs, GA 30122 Western Distribution Center 1750 Archibald Avenue Ontario, CA 91760 RECTANGLE STEP LIGHTS 12V 4011 ORDERING NUMBER Color Temp CRI Finish Lumens 4011 12V 27 2700K 90 BBR BK BZWT Bronze on Brass Black on Aluminum Bronze on Aluminum White on Aluminum 17 17 17 38 30 3000K 90 BBR BK BZWT SS Bronze on Brass Black on Aluminum Bronze on AluminumWhite on Aluminum Cast Stainless Steel 17 17 1738 23 AM Amber - BBRBK BZ WTSS Bronze on Brass Black on Aluminum Bronze on Aluminum White on Aluminum Cast Stainless Steel 11 11 11 23 14 PRODUCT DESCRIPTION Horizontal rectangle step light designed for safety and style on stairways, patios, decks, balcony areas, walkways and building perimeters. Features an architectural design. Energy effi cient for long-lasting outdoor lighting solutions. Creates an attractive, romantic impression at night. FEATURES • Solid diecast brass, corrosion resistant aluminum alloy, or cast stainless steel construction • IP66 rated, Protected against high-pressure water jets • Conveniently adapts into existing 12V system • Invisible hardware • Maintains constant lumen output against voltage drop • UL 1838 Listed SPECIFICATIONS Input: Power: CRI:Mounting: Rated Life: 9-15VAC (Transformer is required) 2W / 3.1VA 90 Fits into 2” × 4” J-Box with minimum inside dimensions of 3"L × 2"W × 2"H Includes bracket for J-Box mount. 60,000 hours 4011-________ Example: 4011-30BK 5" 3" 2a" 18" 12" 1," 5" 18" 4' BOLLARD LIGHT WALL PACK LIGHT @ REFUSE/RECYCLE DSXB LED Series LEDs Drive current Color temperature Distribution Voltage Control options Other options Finish (required) DSXB LED Asymmetric 12C 12 LEDs1 Symmetric 16C 16 LEDs2 350 350 mA 450 450 mA 3,4 530 530 mA 700 700 mA 30K 3000 K 40K 4000 K 50K 5000 K AMBPC Amber phosphor converted AMBLW Amber limited wavelength 3,4 ASY Asymmetric 1 SYM Symmetric 2 MVOLT 5 120 5 208 5 240 5 277 5 347 4 Shipped installed PE Photoelectric cell, button type DMG 0-10V dim-ming driver (no controls) ELCW Emergency battery backup6 Shipped installed SF Single fuse (120, 277, 347V) 4,7 DF Double fuse (208, 240V) 4,7 H24 24” overall height H30 30” overall height H36 36” overall height FG Ground-fault festoon outlet L/AB Without anchor bolts L/AB4 4-bolt retrofit base without anchor bolts 8 DWHXD White DNAXD Natural aluminum DDBXD Dark bronze DBLXD Black DDBTXD Textured dark bronze DBLBXD Textured black DNATXD Textured natural aluminum DWHGXD Textured white MRAB U Anchor bolts for DSXB 8 Accessories Ordered and shipped separately. D H D-SeriesLED Bollard Specifications Ordering Information Catalog Number Notes Type Introduction The D-Series LED Bollard is a stylish, energy- saving, long-life solution designed to perform the way a bollard should—with zero uplight. An optical leap forward, this full cut-off luminaire will meet the most stringent of lighting codes. The D-Series LED Bollard’s rugged construction, durable finish and long-lasting LEDs will provide years of maintenance-free service. Diameter:8” Round (20.3 cm) Height:42” (106.7 cm) Weight (max):27 lbs(12.25 kg) One Lithonia Way • Conyers, Georgia 30012 • Phone: 800.279.8041 • Fax: 770.918.1209 • www.lithonia.com © 2012-2014 Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. All rights reserved. Hit the Tab key or mouse over the page to see all interactive elements. EXAMPLE: DSXB LED 16C 700 40K SYM MVOLT DDBXD NOTES 1 Only available in the 12C, ASY version. 2 Only available in the 16C, SYM version. 3 Only available with 450 AMBLW version. 4 Not available with ELCW. 5 MVOLT driver operates on any line voltage from 120-277V (50/60 Hz). Specify 120, 208, 240 or 277 options only when ordering with fusing (SF, DF options), or photocontrol (PE option). 6 Not available with 347V. Not available with fusing. Not available with 450 AMBLW. 7 Single fuse (SF) requires 120, 277, or 347 voltage option. Double fuse (DF) requires 208 or 240 voltage option. 8 MRAB U not available with L/AB4 option. DOWN LIGHT @ COMMUNITY GARDEN PAVILLION & ENCLOSURE DOWN LIGHT @ CARPORT BY OTHERS 9 11 12 13 14 15 PLACEMENT BOULDER SEAT BOULDERS SITE BENCHES & CHAIRS STONE BENCHES PLAY STRUCTURE 1111 11 11 11 DESCRIPTION SPECIFICATION FEATURES Finish: Our naturally etched finishes will withstand the test of time. All finishes are individually treated insuring consistency. Our meticulous application results in a fixture that truly becomes “a one of a kind”. Electrical: Available in 8-15V Labels: ETL Standard Wet Label C-ETL Wet Listed Directional Light Model: Mr. Universe Model#: Mr. Universe Material: Solid Brass Finish: Matte Bronze Electrical: 8-15V Engine: Lumens: FB-2W-CYL-TA16 150 Color Temp: 2700K Optic: Spot-19d Flood-38d Wide Flood - 54d Wide Angle Flood- 120d Mounting: 1/2” NPT. WWW.SPJLIGHTING.COM ORDERING INFORMATION MR. UNIVERSE Model# MBR V = Verde M = Moss AG = Aged Brass MBR = Matte Bronze SB = Satin Brass B = Black R = Rusty PVDP = PVD Polished PVDS = PVD Satin Finishes 1W 2W 3W 6W 80 150 200 300 2W Wattage 150 Lumens 2700K 4000K 5000K 2700K Color Temp. 8-15V 8-15V Electrical Spot-19d Flood-38d W. Flood - 54d Waf- 120d FLOOD-38d Optics USA-C.COM • CA0AA.0153* Of Domestic & ForeignComponents 11/2” 1/2” NPT Male Thumb/slotted solid brass set screw FB-2W-CYL-TA16 8/32” Phillip Screw 33/8” 15/8” 13/4” 23/8” Tempered Glass Adjustable Shroud ARCHITECTURAL LANDSCAPE & OUTDOOR LIGHTINGMr. Universe 12 13 14 14 15 13 10 10 6' TALL UNIT YARD FENCE , SEE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS 6' TALL TRAFFIC NOISE BARRIER FENCE PER "ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE ASSESSMENT" BY BOLLARD ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS, INC. SEE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS 7' TALL TRAFFIC NOISE BARRIER FENCE PER "ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE ASSESSMENT" BY BOLLARD ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS, INC. SEE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS 17 16 18 1616161616161616161616161617 1616161616161616161616161617 18 18 18 18 18 18 11 13 13 TRANSFORMER (BY OTHERS) SCORED AND COLORED CONCRETE PAVER STABILIZED CRUSHED ROCK AND FINES & DECOMPOSED GRANITE PLAY AREA SURFACE PLANTING AREA STONE MULCH/CRUSHED ROCK BIORETENTION AREA DIRECTIONAL LIGHT @ CROSSING Fixture Type: Catalog Number: Project: Location: 2" INGROUND SINGLE APERTURE 2091 ORDERING NUMBER Color Temp Finish 2091 2700K BS SS Bronzed Stainless Steel Stainless Steel PRODUCT DESCRIPTION Landscape 2" recessed inground luminaire washes walkways with a shadow-free smooth llumination. FEATURES • Factory sealed water tight xtures • Cold Weather Start: -40C to 50C • Solid stainless steel construction • Available Concrete Pour Adapter • Spring clip, 6' lead wire and direct burial gel lled wire nuts included SPECIFICATIONS Input: Power:Brightness: Color Temp:CRI: Rated Life: 9 - 15VAC (Transformer is required) 4.1W / 6.6VA 5 lm 3000K 85 70,000 hours 2091-30____ 2 w" IEC safety Standard Walk over Drive over Resistance to static load test Yes (1125lbs) Yes (4496lbs) Resistance to torque and shear loads test N/A Yes 1 d" 38" 3000K30 27 Fixture Type: Catalog Number: Project: Location: 2" INGROUND SINGLE APERTURE 2091 ORDERING NUMBER Color Temp Finish 2091 2700K BS SS Bronzed Stainless Steel Stainless Steel PRODUCT DESCRIPTION Landscape 2" recessed inground luminaire washes walkways with a shadow-free smooth llumination. FEATURES • Factory sealed water tight xtures • Cold Weather Start: -40C to 50C • Solid stainless steel construction • Available Concrete Pour Adapter • Spring clip, 6' lead wire and direct burial gel lled wire nuts included SPECIFICATIONS Input: Power: Brightness:Color Temp: CRI: Rated Life: 9 - 15VAC (Transformer is required) 4.1W / 6.6VA 5 lm 3000K 85 70,000 hours 2091-30____ Example: 209130SS 2 w" IEC safety Standard Walk over Drive over Resistance to static load test Yes (1125lbs) Yes (4496lbs) Resistance to torque and shear loads test N/A Yes 1 d" 38" 3000K30 27 SHEET NUMBER ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL AND MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL PROJECT NUMBER DESCRIPTION SCALE PROJECT NAME AS SHOWN OWNER NAME NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION10.01 SITE PLAN SNYDER LANE COMMONS 5040 SNYDER LANE ROHNERT PARK, CA 95404 15.041 205 SCOTT STREET MILL VALLEY ,CA 94941 SNYDER LANE VENTURES, LP NO.DATE ISSUES & REVISIONS FP 2 4 H S T R E E T S A N R A F A E L C A 9 4 9 0 1 1 7 9 2- C A R E G #2 3 0 0 H I R E G #7 2 7 3 DE R S E N A S S O CPA@PE I A T E S .C O M 4 1 5 4 5 6 2 0 7 0 4 1 5 4 5 6 2 0 8 6 PEDERSEN ASSOCI ATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 5/30/23 DESIGN REVIEW LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN L-1 12/ 8/23 DR REVISION #3 K E I S E R A V E N U E O A K C I R C L ES N Y D E R L A N EN 10 64032 FEET 816 16412 SCALE: 1/16" =1'-0" 42" FENCE BUILDING #1BUILDING #2 BUILDING #3BUILDING #4 BUILDING #5 BUILDING #6OPEN SPACE COMMUNITY GARDEN PLAY GROUND SNYDER LANE TREE & PLAY AREA QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA (COAST LIVE OAK) KEISER AVE. TREE & PARKING AREA PISTACIA CHINENSIS (CHINESE PISTACHE) OAK CIRCLE PRUNUS CERASIFERA (PURPLE LEAF PLUM) PARKING AREA MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA 'LITTLE GEM' (DWARF MAGNOLIA) SHARED PLANTERS MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA 'LITTLE GEM' (DWARF MAGNOLIA) AFROCARPUS GRACILIOR (FERN PINE) SMALL PATIO TREES LAGERSTOEMIA 'MUSKOGEE' (CRAPE MURTLE) CORNUS KOUSA (KOUSA DOGWOOD) PLANT LEGEND PLANTING AREA NATIVE AND NATURALLY SUMMER-DRY CLIMATE ADAPTED SHRUBS, SUCCULENTS, GROUNDCOVERS BIORETENTION AREA LEGEND Bioretention Area Plants (X)Latin Name Common Name Shrubs Acacia cognata 'Cousin Itt'Cousin Itt Little River Wattle Ceanothus 'Concha'Concha Ceanothus Frangula californica "Mound San Bruno'California Coffeeberry Phlomis fruticosa Jurusalem Sage Plumbago auriculata 'Monott''Royal Cape' Plumbago x Rosa Californica California Wild Rose Succulents Agave 'Blue Glow'Blue Glow Agave Senecio serpens Blue Chalk Stick Perennials x Juncus patens California Gray Rush Lomandra longifolia 'Breeze''Breeze' Dwarf Mat Rush Grasses Calamegrostis x acutiflora 'Karl Foerster'Feather Reed Grass x Carex divulsa Berkeley Sedge x Muhlenbergia rigens Deer Grass Groundcovers Baccharis pilularis 'Twin Peaks'Cayote Bush Lantana montevidensis Purple Trailing Lantana "Mow-Free" Sod by 'Delta Bluegrass Co. SHEET NUMBER ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL AND MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL PROJECT NUMBER DESCRIPTION SCALE PROJECT NAME AS SHOWN OWNER NAME NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION10.01 SITE PLAN SNYDER LANE COMMONS 5040 SNYDER LANE ROHNERT PARK, CA 95404 15.041 205 SCOTT STREET MILL VALLEY ,CA 94941 SNYDER LANE VENTURES, LP NO.DATE ISSUES & REVISIONS FP 2 4 H S T R E E T S A N R A F A E L C A 9 4 9 0 1 1 7 9 2- C A R E G #2 3 0 0 H I R E G #7 2 7 3 DE R S E N A S S O CPA@PE I A T E S .C O M 4 1 5 4 5 6 2 0 7 0 4 1 5 4 5 6 2 0 8 6 PEDERSEN ASSOCI ATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 5/30/23 DESIGN REVIEW PLANTING PLAN L-2 8/15/23 DR REVISION #2 12/ 8/23 DR REVISION #3 8/15/23 DR REVISION #2 SHEET NUMBER ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL AND MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL PROJECT NUMBER DESCRIPTION SCALE PROJECT NAME AS SHOWN OWNER NAME NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION10.01 SITE PLAN SNYDER LANE COMMONS 5040 SNYDER LANE ROHNERT PARK, CA 95404 15.041 205 SCOTT STREET MILL VALLEY ,CA 94941 SNYDER LANE VENTURES, LP NO.DATE ISSUES & REVISIONS FP 2 4 H S T R E E T S A N R A F A E L C A 9 4 9 0 1 1 7 9 2- C A R E G #2 3 0 0 H I R E G #7 2 7 3 DE R S E N A S S O CPA@PE I A T E S .C O M 4 1 5 4 5 6 2 0 7 0 4 1 5 4 5 6 2 0 8 6 PEDERSEN ASSOCI ATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS PAVER SUCCULENTS JUNCUS PATENS (CALIFORNIA GRAY RUSH) QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA (COAST LIVE OAK) SNYDER LANE TREE & PLAY AREA PISTACIA CHINENSIS (CHINESE PISTACHE) KEISER AVE. TREE & PARKING AREA PRUNUS CERASIFERA (PURPLE LEAF PLUM) OAK CIRCLE MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA 'LITTLE GEM' (DWARF MAGNOLIA) PARKING AREA & SHARED PLANTERS AFROCARPUS GRACILIOR (FERN PINE) SHARED PLANTERS LAGERSTOEMIA 'MUSKOGEE' SMALL PATIO TREES CORNUS KOUSA SMALL PATIO TREES TREES SHRUBS ROSA CALIFORNICA (CALIFORNIA WILD ROSE)ACACIA COGNATA 'COUSIN ITT' (COUSIN ITT LITTLE RIVER WATTLE) AGAVE 'BLUE GLOW' (BLUE GLOW AGAVE)SENECIO SERPENS (BLUE CHALK STICK) PERENNIALS LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA 'BREEZE' ('BREEZE' DWARF MAT RUSH) REFUSE/RECYCLE SHED AND WATER CAPTURE (1,000 GAL) GALV. TANK, 'MULLHOLAND' FENCE SYSTEM CAR PORT P.V. AND PEREMETER FENCE (BEYOND) LANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS (PURPLE TRAILING LANTANA) GROUNDCOVERS "MOW-FREE" SOD BY DELTA BLUEGRASS, CO.CAREX DIVULSA (BERKELEY SEDGE)CALAMEGROSTIS 'KARL FOERSTER' (FEATHER REED GRASS) GRASSES MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS (DEER GRASS) CEANOTHUS 'CONCHA' (CONCHA CEANOTHUS)FRANGULA CALIFORNICA "MOUND SAN BRUNO' (CALIFORNIA COFFEEBERRY) BACCHARIS PILULARIS (CAYOTE BUSH) PLUMBAGO AURICULATA 'MONOTT' ('ROYAL CAPE' PLUMBAGO) PHLOMIS FRUTICOSA (JERUSALEM SAGE) STORMWATER GARDEN SCHEMATIC SECTION/ELEVATION THROUGH COMMUNITY GARDEN & DRIVEWAY Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"4 5/30/23 DESIGN REVIEW LANDSCAPE IMAGES L-3 TRASH ENCLOSURE - FRONT ELEVATION Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"110'-0" OR MATCH CARPORT6'-0"4'-0"15'-6" 22'-0" 1'-6" STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF CANE BOLT PAINTED STEEL STRUCTURE, TYP. METAL FRAME PANELS PAINTED COLOR TO MATCH UNIT YARD FENCE, TYP. W/ DOWN LIGHT @ CEILING TRASH ENCLOSURE - REAR ELEVATION Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF PAINTED STEEL STRUCTURE, TYP. METAL FRAME PANELS PAINTED COLOR TO MATCH UNIT YARD FENCE, TYP.9'-0"10'-3" TRASH ENCLOSURE - SIDE ELEVATION Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"3 OPOSITE SIDE SIMILAR 7'-2"STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF GUTTER, CONNECT TO WATER HARVESTING SYSTEM 6'-0"PAINTED STEEL STRUCTURE, TYP. METAL FRAME PANELS PAINTED COLOR TO MATCH UNIT YARD FENCE, TYP. 12/ 8/23 DR REVISION #3 Page 1 of 12 EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE SNYDER LANE COMMONS TENTATIVE MAP AND AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AREA PLAN The conditions below shall apply to the Tentative Map (TM) and amended Development Area Plan (DAP) for the Snyder Lane Commons Project (Project) within the University District Specific Plan area. The Project shall be developed in accordance with the General Plan (GP), University District Specific Plan (UDSP), the University District Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report as amended (UDSP EIR - SCH # 2003122014), 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 and amended Development Area Plan as approved regardless of ownership at time of recording. General On-Going Conditions 1)The applicant shall comply with all documents approved by the City Council and adhereto all exhibits presented by the applicant at the Planning Commission and City Councilmeeting for approval of the University District Specific Plan- Snyder Lane CommonsProject unless subsequently revised by the City. 2)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 Divisionupon filing of any required Notice of Determination, along with any filing fee required bythe County Clerk/Recorder. The applicant should be aware that Section 21089(b) of thePublic 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. 3)The applicant shall comply with the UDSP EIR and shall pay the cost to monitor theMitigation Measures identified in the UDSP EIR as they relate to the Project. Therequirements contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)are incorporated into these conditions and the Project shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the MMRP. 4)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 thatmay be brought against the City arising out of its approval of this Tentative Map and Amended Development Area Plan and associated entitlements pertaining to the University District Specific Plan save and except that caused by the City’s active negligence or willful misconduct. 5)By accepting the benefits conferred under this approval, the applicant acknowledges allthe conditions imposed and accepts this approval subject to those conditions with fullawareness of the provisions of the Rohnert Park Municipal Code (RPMC), as applicable. Page 2 of 12 6) The use of the property by the applicant/grantee for any activity authorized by this approval shall constitute acceptance of all of the conditions and obligations imposed by the City on this approval. The applicant/grantee by said acceptance waives any challenge as to the validity of these conditions. 7) If the City is required to enforce any of the conditions of approval, the applicant shall pay all City’s 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. 8) All improvements shall be in substantial conformance with the approved amended Development Area Plan, including these conditions of approval. 9) The applicant shall pay all application, plan check and inspection, Public Facilties and Water Capacity fees, as well as any other miscellaneous fees, in effect as required by the City’s adopted fee schedules and the Rohnert Park Municipal Code. Prior to the Approval of Improvement Plans/Issuance of Grading Permit 10) Grading and 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 plan submittal shall include the City’s current form of application. The improvement 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 RPMC and the City’s Manual of Standards, which shall be referenced as appropriate on the plans. Water system improvements shall also be designed in accordance with the standards of State Water Resources Control Board’s Division of Drinking Water including requirements for horizontal and vertical separation. (Engineering Services) 11) Improvement Plans shall include a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan including winterization and erosion protection. The Grading and Improvement plans shall include all notes necessary to ensure conformance with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District guidelines for reducing construction impacts and minimizing dust emissions. (Engineering Services) 12) The grading and improvement plan submittal shall include a geotechnical report describing design requirements for the Project, including requirements for over- excavation, moisture conditioning and lime treatment. The applicant’s soils engineer shall sign the grading and improvement plants stating that they conform to the soils report recommendations. (Engineering Services) 13) The applicant shall submit drainage plans and calculations for review and approval by Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) and the City. Said plans shall meet or exceed SCWA standards and City standards. All proposed building finished floor elevations, including garages, shall be a minimum of 1 foot above the post construction 100-year water surface elevations. (Engineering Services) 14) The improvement plans shall include the design of private and public streetlighting and electric, gas and cable TV utilities, in accordance with City standards and utilitly company requirements. The location of any above-ground utility boxes, cabinets or Page 3 of 12 structures shall be appropriately screened and approved by the City. (Engineering Services) 15) The improvement plans shall include the design for undergrounding the overhead utilities along the project’s Snyder Lane frontage in accordance with the requirements of RPMC 16.16.020 (G). These improvements are included in the City’s Public Facilities Fee Program (PF Fee Program) and if the applicant is required to construct the undergrounding, the applicant will be eligible for reimbursement from the PF Fee Program in the form of credits for fees due at building permit and/or reimbursement from the City. (Engineering Services) 16) All private drive aisles shall comply with the City’s standards, including local amendments to the building code and fire code, for width and lighting. Minimum interior turning radii for fire apparatus shall be 20 feet and minimum exterior turning radii for fire apparatus shall be 40 feet. (Engineering and Fire Services) 17) No lot-to-lot drainage is allowed except where easements for drainage are provided. No drainage may discharge across sidewalks. (Engineering Services) 18) 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. (Engineering Services) 19) 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. (Engineering Services) 20) The improvement plans shall show a sewer lateral to each building in accord with City Standards. (Engineering Services) 21) 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. 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. (Engineering Services) 22) Final design and placement of walls and fences shall be in accordance with the approved Development Area Plan, as conditioned herein, and shall be approved by planning staff. All exterior fences should match the design of adjacent lots within the Specific Plan Area. The portion of the sound barrier along the six lots backing onto Snyder Lane that is exposed to the street should have a 1’ tall retaining wall and fill slope so only 6’ of the wall is exposed to the street. The sound barrier wall should match the design of the masonry walls in the Vast Oak subdivision of the University District. (Planning Services) 23) Final design of the trash enclosure structure shall be in accordance with the standards of RPMC 17.12.130(B) and shall be approved by planning staff. The trash enclosure structure shall be constructed with solid masonry walls, a decorative exterior surface finish compatible with the main structures, solid heavy gauge metal gates, and have Page 4 of 12 signage identifying the types of recyclable materials accepted for collection at the trash enclosure conspicuously posted within the enclosure. The enclosure shall have a roof with a floor drain plumbed to the sanitary sewer. (Planning Services) 24) All trees within five feet of the public right-of-way shall have root barriers that are approved by the Development Service Director or their designee. (Engineering Services) 25) The improvement plans shall include landscaping plans designed consistent with City standards, including its Recycled Water Users Guide and all requirements of the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. A permanent automatic sprinkler shall be installed to maintain all landscape materials and areas. (Engineering Services) 26) Recycled water shall be used for common area landscape irrigation. Landscaping on individual lots shall be irrigated with potable water. (Engineering Services) 27) All exterior lighting shall be designed so as to prevent any spillover lighting onto adjacent properties and rights-of-way. Lighting elements will be required to be recessed within their fixtures to prevent glare. New lighting levels provided shall 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. Exterior project lighting shall be reviewed and approved by Development Services Director. (Planning and Engineering Services) 28) The design of any entry monument signage shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to installation. (Planning Services) 29) All double-check valves provided for domestic water and fire sprinkler systems shall be concealed from public view. Plans shall be submitted to the Development Services Department and City Engineer for review and approval.(Planning and Engineering Services) 30) All private septic tanks, leach fields, water wells and related items in the final map area shall be abandoned and destroyed in a manner approved by the Department of Environmental Health Services. All water wells shall be abandoned and destroyed in a manner approved by the Department of Environmental Health Services. (Engineering Services) 31) The applicant shall submit plans and obtain separate building permits for retaining walls over four (4) feet in height, for the masonry sound walls, and for all other walls, fences and signs over six (6) feet in height. (Building Services) 32) 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. (Planning Services) 33) The project shall be served by master water meters located in the public right-of-way or public utility easement on Oak Circle. The onsite water system shall be private. Each lot shall have a separate private water submeter. In addition, the onsite fire line shall have a detector check, post indicator valve, and fire department connection located in the public Page 5 of 12 right-of-way or public utility easement; the onsite fire line and hydrants shall be private. (Engineering Services) 34) The applicant shall provide cable or conduit for each residential lot for cable television and 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. (Engineering Services) 35) Fire Hydrant spacing and placement should 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. (Department of Public Safety-Fire) 36) All areas to be graded and left undeveloped shall have a revegetation plan as part of the dust control program. The applicant shall guarantee the revegetation prior to issuance of grading permits. (Engineering Services) 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 the intersections with Oak Circle. The intersections shall comply with City requirements for sight triangles. (Engineering Services) 38) The applicant shall contact the solid waste franchised hauler and obtain their written approval of the proposed solid waste pickup locations. 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 grading/improvement plan submittal. (Planning Services) 39) 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 Planning Manager. The landscape screen shall not interfere with access. (Planning Services) 40) The 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. (Engineering Services) 41) The improvement plans shall include City-standard street lighting along Oak Circle and design for private lighting. The design shall be in accordance with City standards, including the City Manual of Standards and Zoning Ordinance as well as PG&E requirements. (Engineering Services) 42) 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 Page 6 of 12 from a public utility to a private utility and back to a public utility. (Engineering Services) 43) The following Construction Mitigation Measures shall be noted on and/ or incorporated into the grading and improvement plans: a. For any project requiring (as part of MMP) an on-site inspector to monitor grading, housing 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. b. The developer shall comply with construction hours pursuant to Rohnert Park Municipal Code Section 9.44.120. c. All construction material waste and other debris shall be recycled to the extent feasible. 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. d. No animals shall be brought on site by construction personnel during work hours. e. 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. f. The project shall comply with Special-Status Plant Survey Report prepared by Johnson Marigot Consulting LLC, dated September 2020. (Engineering Services) 44) The City will be vacating the existing school path parcel (Parcel B of Bristol Property Subdivision, Assessor’s Map Book 045, Pg. 35) to the applicant. The improvement plans shall include a design for closing the point of access to Lawrence Jones E. Middle School and incorporating this property into the design of the Project. The City will coordinate timing of the path closure with the applicant in order to ensure completion of a walkway along Snyder Lane, prior to closure.(Engineering Services) 45) The Improvement Plans shall include the installation of standard all-way Stop Signs at the east connection of Oak Circle and Keiser Avenue consistent with the recommendations in the Radar Speed Feedback Signs and LED Enhanced Stop Signs Engineering Needs Assessment for Traffic Safety Enhancements along Keiser Avenue, prepared by GHD (Engineering) Prior to Approval of Final Map 46) The final map shall be prepared by a licensed surveyor or civil engineer, showing all parcels, rights-of-way, and easement(s). (Engineering Services) 47) The final map shall be submitted with a completed Land Development Review Submittal Sheet, Final Map Completeness Checklist and Final Map Submittal Checklist as available on the City website, as well as any and all applicable fees. (Engineering Services) Page 7 of 12 48) The final map submittal shall include a title report (within last 30 days), supporting documents, and calculations for City Engineer review. All calculated points within the map shall be based on one common set of coordinates. All information shown on the map shall be directly verifiable by information shown on the closure calculation printout. The point(s) of beginning shall be clearly defined. All lot acreages shall be shown on the map and shall be verifiable from information shown on the closure calculation printout. (Engineering Services) 49) Prior to recording the final map, the Applicant shall enter into a Public Improvement Agreement and post the security required by the Rohnert Park Municipal Code Section 16.16.070 to guarantee the construction and completion of the public improvements shown on the improvement plans. (Engineering Services) 50) The local agency sheet of the final map shall include the following note: “Prior to the issuance of building permits, all applicable development impact fees shall be paid to the satisfaction of the Building Official and in accordance with City and local district ordinances.” (Engineering Services) 51) The Owner’s Statement and Acknowledgement shall include the following language: “The undersigned further relinquishes to the City of Rohnert Park all interest in sub-surface water rights below 300 feet that they may have”. (Engineering Services) 52) The final map shall satisfy Rohnert Park Municipal Code section 16.14.010 D. 2. regarding dedication of rights-of-way and easements. The final map shall show dedication of the necessary right-of-way in fee title, sidewalk easements, public utility easements and other easements for public water, sewer, and storm drain, as shown on the tentative map or as needed per the final improvement design. (Engineering Services) 53) Prior to the approval of the final map, the applicant shall provide evidence that its surveyor has been retained to set all monuments required by the map. (Engineering Services) 54) The final map shall identify who is responsible to own and maintain all parcels to be created with the map. (Engineering Services) 55) The final map submittal package shall include an exhibit, suitable for attachment to the Master Maintenance Agreements, which delineates improvements to be maintained by the City through its Community Facilities District, the Homeowners Association (HOA) and private homeowners. (Engineering Services) 56) The final map submittal package shall include a copy of the proposed covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs), which: 1. Outline the maintenance responsibilities of the HOA including but not limited to: • Private water, sewer and drainage systems, including water quality treatment systems • Private landscaping maintained by the HOA Page 8 of 12 • Private driveways, sidewalks parking areas and carports • Private lighting facilities • Private mailboxes and trash and associated lighting and waste receptacles. 2. Provide notice to future property owners of the nature and extent of existing agricultural activities, operations and facilities including but not limited noise, odors, dust, agricultural spraying, livestock and burning. 3. Provide notice to future property owners of the obligation to assume the responsibilities of the Community Facilities District (CFD) if the CFD is ever dissolved. 4. Provide notice to future property owners regarding the prohibition against parking recreational vehicles, including boats, onsite, consistent with the standards established in the University District Specific Plan. (Engineering Services) 57) Prior to the recording of the final map, the applicant shall submit a petition to annex to the Bristol CFD and shall cooperate with the City in completing the annexation including, but not limited to, submitting required ballots in support of the annexation. (Engineering Services) 58) Prior to the approval of the final map, the applicant shall secure all necessary rights-of-way and easements for both onsite and offsite road, utility, and drainage facilities. Rights- of- way and easements shall be dedicated on the map or provided by grant deed. The developer shall prepare all necessary legal descriptions and deeds. (Engineering Services) 59) Prior to City Council approval of the 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. (Engineering Services) 60) The final map shall have a note on the local agency page stating “All fences, sound walls and retaining walls shall be constructed on private property and maintained by the private property owner”. (Engineering Services) 61) Monumentation shall be provided to allow the re-establishment of all property corners of lots within the subdivision, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Engineering Services) 62) Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall pay a park-in-lieu fee in the amount of $187,895.82. (Planning Services) 63) 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. (Engineering Services) Page 9 of 12 Prior to Construction 64) 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. (Engineering Services) 65) 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. (Engineering Services) 66) Prior to initiation of activities, a preconstruction meeting shall take place with City, Contractor and Permittee. (Engineering Services) 67) Developer shall secure an encroachment permit from the City prior to performing any work within the City right of way, or constructing within a City easement. (Engineering Services) 68) All public rights of way, including easements, shall be open and accessible at all times. (Engineering and Building Services) 69) 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. (Engineering Services) 70) 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. (Engineering and Building Services) Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 71) Unless otherwise specified in these conditions, the conditions of approval shall apply to each building permit. (Building Services) 72) 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. (Building Services) 73) 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 Page 10 of 12 pad site and all compaction reports shall be submitted prior to a foundation inspection and in compliance with the soils and geo-technical recommendations. (Building Services) 74) A completed and approved wet fire hydrants system, or other system approved by the Building Official and Department of Public Safety (DPS), and all weather access shall be in place prior to any flammable or combustible material (such as wood) being brought onto the site. Fire access shall meet the DPS Fire Access Road Standard and shall be accessible at all times (Building and Fire Services) 75) 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. (Planning and Fire Services) 76) Prior to 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 Planning Manager for consistency with the approved construction plans. All plant replacements shall be to an equal or better standard than originally approved. (Planning Services) 77) Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a designed weather protection cover for the mailboxes for review by the Planning Manager. (Planning Services) 78) Prior to issuance of a building permits for any townhome unit, individual plot plans shall be prepared by the project proponent, submitted and reviewed and approved by the City. (Building Services) 79) Landscape Plans must be approved prior to the issuance of any building permit. (Engineering Services) 80) Prior to the issuance of the first residential building permit in the Project, Developer shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City, in a form approved by City, to be recorded against the Property, for the six (6) affordable units. The Affordable Housing Agreement shall include the following terms: ( a) the Affordable Units shall be deed-restricted at an affordability level consistent with the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (RPMC 17.07.20(N)); (b) the rent of the Affordable Units shall not exceed an affordable rent as provided in State law; (c) annual certificates of continuing program compliance must be submitted to the City; (d) assignment and transfer shall require approval by City; (e) Developer shall provide ongoing maintenance and management; (f) Developer or its successor shall submit a marketing plan to the City for the Affordable Units; and (g) Developer shall comply with City's Inclusionary Housing policies and regulations. 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. (Housing Services) Page 11 of 12 Prior to the Building Occupancy 81) Prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall pay Regional Transportation Fee for each lot affected by this fee per Mitigation Monitoring Program in place for the University District. (Building Services) 82) Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Developer shall provide a Phased Occupancy Plan, demonstrating the order in which homes will be occupied and how access will be provided to occupied homes, and how residents will be separated from ongoing construction of remaining homes. (Engineering Services) 83) Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall execute the City’s standard Master Maintenance Agreement to provide for the ongoing maintenance of water quality detention and treatment facilities and other privately maintained facilities. (Engineering Services) 84) Should the applicant seek a sales office/model home complex for its project, the applicant shall file an application for a “Master Model Home Signage Program” for review and approval by the Planning Commission. This approval must be obtained prior to the issuance of Certificate(s) of Occupancy for the model homes. (Planning Services) 85) The covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be prominently displayed in the Project’s sales or rental office prior to the issuance of Certificate(s) of Occupancy for the sales/rental office. CC&Rs shall be prominently displayed at all times. (Planning Services) 86) Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, all access drainage and utility improvements shall be substantially complete and operational, and all access routes, including sidewalks, and other areas open to the public shall be free of construction material or activities, and shall be fenced from remaining construction. (Engineering Services) 87) Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, all-way Stop Signs shall be installed at the east connection of Oak Circle and Keiser Avenue. (Engineering Services) 88) 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. (Building Services) 89) The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and clearances from the Rohnert Park Building and Public Safety Departments prior to occupancy of the project, including compliance with the following: a. The proposed structures will require a fully automatic fire sprinkler system, which meets the NFPA 13 standard. Permit (FS-10). This will include a current fire flow test from the Fire Department, 707-584-2641 Permit (FS-66) b. The Project will also require a fire alarm system, which meets U.L. certification for central station maintenance and runner service per local ordinance. An additional external horn/strobe will be required. Permit (FS-12) Page 12 of 12 c. A separate Fire Civil permit will be required. Permit (FS-3) Please submit all of the above plans and permit applications directly to the Fire Prevention Division. (707)584-2641. d. All doors to utility rooms and fire alarm panels shall be labeled. e. Fire extinguishers shall be provided as per CFC. f. Addresses shall be 12” illuminated per current fire code. g. A key box and a set of permanently labeled keys shall be provided for emergency responders’ use. Boxes are available from the Fire Prevention Division 707-584- 2641. h. Additional Operational Permits may be required prior to occupancy. i. Fire Lane Red curbs and signage shall be provided j. All driveways shall be considered Fire Lanes. (Fire Services) RESOLUTION NO. 2024-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, CALIFORNIA, FINDING THE VACATION OF CERTAIN EXCESS PATH RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED BETWEEN OAK CIRCLE AND LAWRENCE E JONES MIDDLE SCHOOL CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, on August 14, 2018, the City Council approved Resolution 2018-112, approving the Development Area Plan and Tentative Map for the Bristol Subdivision, including its conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, Condition of Approval 103 required dedication and construction of a direct access point between the subdivision and Lawrence E. Jones Middle School (the “path”); and WHEREAS, the path was intended to provide a non-automobile path for residents of the Bristol Subdivision at least until such time that the bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure on Keiser Avenue and Snyder Lane were complete; and WHEREAS, the final subdivision map for the Bristol Property, recorded on October 16, 2020 in Book 816 of Maps, Pages 12-15 (Document No. 2020094709), included the dedication of Parcel B for public use as a pedestrian path; and WHEREAS, with Resolution No. 2021-112, the City Council accepted, subject to improvement, the dedication of Parcel B; and WHEREAS, the path improvements were constructed with the Bristol Subdivision and has been in use by the public; and WHEREAS, public use of the path has expanded beyond the intended pedestrian and bicycle connection and now includes informal automobile-based drop-off and pick-up of middle school students from outside of the neighborhood: and WHEREAS, the informal drop-off and pick-up practices can create nuisance conditions in the Bristol Subdivision; and WHEREAS, the City’s Capital Improvement Program Project #2017-18 will complete pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure along Keiser Avenue and Snyder Lane which will eliminate the need for the path; and WHEREAS, staff has been in discussion with the Bristol Homeowner’s Association regarding vacation of the path and the Bristol Homeowner’s Association has requested that Parcel B be vacated in favor of the proposed Snyder Lane Commons development, which will provide for the closure of the path and landscaping of Parcel B; and WHEREAS, California Streets and Highways Code section 8300 et seq. permits the City Council to order the vacation of public streets, highways, and easements under specific conditions; and WHEREAS, Streets and Highways Code section 8313 and Government Code section 65402 require the Planning Commission to make a finding as to whether a proposed vacation is consistent with the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, pursuant to Government Code section 65402, the Planning Commission of the City of Rohnert Park finds that the vacation of Parcel B, as illustrated on the Bristol Subdivision Map, pursuant to the California Streets and Highways Code, is consistent with the General Plan. DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED on this 23rd day of May, 2024 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 Page 1 City of Rohnert Park Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: Item No: Prepared by: Agenda Title: Location: May 23, 2024 13.1 Eydie Tacata, Senior Public Works Analyst Discussion and Direction on Milestone #2 for the Countywide Active Transportation Plan and Rohnert Park Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update Citywide RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive a presentation and provide feedback on presentation contents, attached draft project list, and maps to help ensure local needs are prioritized. BACKGROUND: The Rohnert Park Active Transportation Plan (ATP) will be an update to the Rohnert Park Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan adopted in 2014. The ATP is being developed as part of the Countywide Active Transportation Plan through a grant awarded to the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) and contract held by SCTA. The ATP is intended to be consistent with the City’s General Plan and provide more project level detail to support General Plan implementation. City staff and SCTA have worked closely with the consultant team, Fehr & Peers, to gather data and establish existing conditions, engage the community, conduct technical analyses, and develop draft contents for the City’s Active Transportation Plan. Fehr & Peers is also part of the City’s General Plan consultant team. City staff and the consultant team presented an overview of the project to the Planning Commission on October 12, 2023. ANALYSIS: The following information is provided for the consideration of the Planning Commission and Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee at the May 23, 2024 Joint Special Meeting: •Attachment 1: Presentation is a status report on the Countywide ATP and Rohnert ParkATP updates. Also included are the draft vision and goals, a compilation of the draftGeneral Plan 2040 policies that support the ATP, an overview of the concept of the“prioritization” of projects, and ATP update schedule. •Attachment 2: Planned Projects includes the following draft project maps: o Existing Bikeway Network: Shows the existing bikeway network. Page 2 o 2024 Proposed Bikeways, Corridor Projects and Crossing Improvements: Shows draft proposed bikeways, corridor projects, and crossing improvements identified as part of ATP development. This proposal has been coordinated with the City’s approved development plans to support consistent and cost effective implementation. o Existing & Proposed 2024 Active Transportation Network: Shows the combined networks of existing facilities with the proposed 2024 projects. Attachment 2 also includes project lists developed from the prior 2014 Rohnert Park Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan project list, the City’s approved development plans, BPAC input over the years, recent community engagement through the Fall 2023 digital map, review of the City’s Draft 2040 General Plan and recent initial staff/consultant technical analyses. The BPAC will review the Planned Projects list in depth, starting at their regular meeting of May 20, 2024. The Joint Special Meeting is intended as one of several ongoing opportunities for input on the ATP over the next few months, as well as a specific outreach for feedback from the Planning Commission as the ATP relates to General Plan policies and implementation. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This presentation is not a project and is not subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Planning Manager Approval Date: 05/17/2024 Attachments: 1. Active Transportation Plan Milestone #2 Presentation 2. Planned Projects ATTACHMENT 1: Countywide Active Transportation Plan & Rohnert Park Active Transportation Plan Updates Presentation for Milestone #2 Meeting 11Milestone #2 Agenda1Planning Progress2Vision & Goals – Revised•Consistency with Rohnert Park Draft General Plan 20403Local Policies•Consistency with Rohnert Park Draft General Plan 20404Rohnert Park ATP: Maps, Projects (sample table), Prioritization5Next StepsSonoma Countywide Active Transportation PlanMay 23, 2024 OverviewTask 1: Establishing FoundationTask 3: Engagement & CoordinationTask 4: Projects & ProgramsTask 5: Funding & ImplementationTask 2: Technical AnalysisScope of WorkTask 6: Draft & Final PlansTask 7: Board Review & ApprovalLocal Plans:•Cloverdale•Cotati•Healdsburg•Rohnert Park•Sebastopol•Sonoma•Unincorporated County Creating spaces for people to walk, bike, and roll that are low-stress and lower risk to create more opportunities for more people to walk, bike, and roll.All Ages & AbilitiesRegional ConnectionPurpose of Plan UpdateImplementationIdentifying and planning regional routes between jurisdictions as part of the larger Countywide ATP.Prioritizing projects and identifying funding to focus and streamline implementation. 4Current Schedule20232024 2025JUNJULAUGSEPOCTNOVDECJANFEBMARAPRMAYJUNJULAUGSEPOCTNOVDECJANFEBTask 1 Establishing FoundationTask 2 Technical AnalysisTask 3 Public Engagement & Advisory Committee MeetingsTask 4 Proposed Projects and ProgramsTask 5 Funding and ImplementationTask 6 Draft and Final PlansTask 7 Board Review/ApprovalLEGENDWORK MEETINGSTASK DELIVERABLEWORKSHOP 5Public Engagement:- Advisory committee meeting in 7 jurisdictions and with 4 SCTA/County committees- In-person pop-ups in 7 jurisdictions- Community bike tours in 3 jurisdictions- SCBC Conference- Planning calls with 4 CBO partners-1,200 comments on the webmap- 500 survey responses on the webpageTechnical Engagement:- In-person staff workshop on Vision, Technical Analysis, and Draft Projects with 7 jurisdictions- 2 Countywide BPAC visitsROUND 1 ENGAGEMENT 6VISION STATEMENT -REVISEDOur guiding principles are to improve safety, connectivity, equity, and quality of life. Walking, biking, and rolling shall be safe and appealing modes for people of all ages and abilities to use for everyday transportation and recreation. 7Deliver a continuous active transportation network that links daily activities and housing, and that allows people of all ages and abilities to use a variety of transportation types easily, affordably, and dependably.Connected and ReliableCreate and sustain a high-quality and low-stress active transportation network. Employ Vision Zero and Safety Plan policies and strategies to advance this goal.Safe and Well-MaintainedGOALS AND DESCRIPTIONS -REVISEDTailor projects to the surrounding community contexts and user profiles. Support a diversity of uses and users and create community through active transportation programs and policies that prioritize walking, biking, and rolling .Community Oriented and Place-Based 8Deliver a continuous active transportation network that links daily activities and housing, and that allows people of all ages and abilities to use a variety of transportation types easily, affordably, and dependably.Create and sustain a high-quality and low-stress active transportation network. Employ Vision Zero and Safety Plan policies and strategies to advance this goal.Consistency with Draft General Plan 2040 Tailor projects to the surrounding community contexts and user profiles. Support a diversity of uses and users and create community through active transportation programs and policies that prioritize walking, biking, and rolling .Sonoma County-Wide Active Transportation PlanRohnert Park Draft General Plan 2040 Goal C-4: To support the ongoing development of an integrated transportation network that allows safe and convenient travel along and across streets for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, persons with disabilities, motorists movers of commercial goods, users and operators of public transportation, seniors, youth and families.Goal C-5 To encourage alternative travel modes, including transit, driving, biking and walking by improving the multimodel circulation system.Goal C-7 To enhance and improve the safety of all users of the transportation system. Goal C-6 To provide continuous, safe and efficient pedestrian routes and bikeways throughout the City. Local PoliciesGeneral Plan 2040 Policies -- Organized by ATP GoalsGoal: Connected & Reliable•C-4.1 Streets for All Users The City shall ensure that streets safely serve seniors, youth, those with disabilities, and all members of the community, and provide a network connecting residences, employment areas, services, health care facilities, schools, parks, retail areas, and public facilities. •C-4.2 New Streets Designed as Complete StreetsThe City shall design local streets to accommodate all street users with comfortable pedestrian environments as the priority, including street tree planting between the street and sidewalk, minimized curb cuts, sidewalks on both sides of streets, and low-impact development features, where feasible. •C-4.3 Existing Right-of-Way RepurposingWhere roadway modifications are proposed and the City owns an existing right-of-way that exceeds the required roadway width, the City shall use the excess width to create bikeways, pedestrian paths, and streetscape features Local PoliciesGeneral Plan 2040 Policies -- Organized by ATP GoalsGoal: Connected & Reliable•C-5.1 Multimodal Network Strategy and PrioritizationThe City shall identify and prioritize components of a multimodal network to increase continuity between pedestrian routes, bicycle routes, and public transit.•C-5.2 Promote Multimodal Mixed-Use DevelopmentsThe City shall design local streets to accommodate all street users with comfortable pedestrian environments as the priority, including street tree planting between the street and sidewalk, minimized curb cuts, sidewalks on both sides of streets, and low-impact development features, where feasible. •C-6.5 Regional Bicycle Network ConnectionsThe City shall collaborate with SCTA and SMART to link local bicycle trails with the regional bikeway network outside Rohnert Park and to complete the regional bikeway network consistent with the latest adopted SCTA Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Local PoliciesGeneral Plan 2040 Policies -- Organized by ATP GoalsGoal: Connected & Reliable•C-6.9 Continuous Pedestrian SystemThe City shall provide continuous sidewalks along all existing and future streets to accommodate pedestrians of all abilities. •C-6.10 Pedestrian-Friendly Sidewalk StandardsThe City shall establish pedestrian-friendly sidewalk standards including sufficient width to accommodate pedestrian use, intersection bulbs, adjacent landscaping, lighting, benches, and street trees. Local PoliciesGeneral Plan 2040 Policies -- Organized by ATP GoalsGoal: Safe and Well-Maintained•C-7.1 Safe Circulation System ApproachThe City shall regularly review multimodal collision and traffic speed data as part of a systemic process to determine the location of high-injury accidents and collisions involving pedestrians and bicyclists, which impact the public’s perception of safety along the multimodal transportation network. •C-7.3 Bicycle Network Comfort Considerations The City shall seek to maintain a backbone bicycle network that seeks to accommodate bicycle users of all comfort levels (i.e., low level of traffic stress). •C-7.4 Local Roadway Safety PlanThe City shall maintain and use the local roadway safety plan (LRSP) to promote multimodal safety and to allow the City to better compete for safety-related grant funding programs such as the Caltrans Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). Local PoliciesGeneral Plan 2040 Policies -- Organized by ATP GoalsGoal: Safe and Well-Maintained•C-4.4 Intersection CrossingsThe City shall ensure that intersections include appropriate accommodations for pedestrians, including safety enhancements at busy traffic intersections that will support active or highvolume bike or pedestrian use. •C-4.5 Mid-Block Pedestrian Crossings at Multi-Use Paths:The City shall install safety features consistent with State and Federal guidance at locations where existing multi-use paths cross streets at midblock in order to facilitate pathway connectivity. •C-6.8 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Through Capital Improvements ProgramThe City shall use its Capital Improvement Program to budget for bicycle and pedestrian improvements shown in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation Diagram Local PoliciesGeneral Plan 2040 Policies -- Organized by ATP GoalsGoal: Community Oriented and Placed-Based•C-6.1 Support the Implementation of Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements in Central Rohnert ParkThe City shall support the implementation of infrastructure that improves the pedestrian and bicycle experience along Rohnert Park Expressway between US 101 and the SMART station consistent with the form-based code for Central Rohnert Park. •C-6.2 Implement a Highway 101 bike and pedestrian crossing at Copeland CreekThe City shall continue to engage in planning design and seek funding to complete a Highway 101 bike and pedestrian crossing at Copeland Creek•C-6.3 Bike and Pedestrian Crossings in Central Rohnert Park The City shall continue to study the feasibility of separated bicycle pedestrian crossings, including crossings over Rohnert Park Expressway at the SMART Multi-Use Path and work with Caltrans, SCTA, and SMART to implement feasible projects. Local PoliciesGeneral Plan 2040 Policies -- Organized by ATP GoalsGoal: Community Oriented and Placed-Based•C-6.6 Bikeway Design StandardsThe City shall implement comprehensive design standards for bikeways, as part of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Standards shall ensure that adequate lighting, signage, and other amenities are provided. •C-6.7 Bicycle ParkingThe City shall provide adequate bicycle parking facilities at key destinations around the city. •C-7.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Education and OutreachThe City shall work with organizations, with the appropriate expertise, to develop educational and outreach materials and programs for cyclists, pedestrians, and drivers that promote safe bicycling and walking, particularly for children. 16Existing Bikeway NetworkRohnert Park ATP 172024 Proposed Bike Facilities & CrossingsRohnert Park ATP 18Rohnert Park ATPExisting & Proposed 2024 Active Transportation Network 19PRIORITIZATION CRITERIASafety– Along or parallel to Vision Zero HINEquity – Various criteria used for federal, state, and regional definitionsProximity to Existing Transit and Future SMART stations – 1/4 to 1 mile buffer depending on type of transit stop and bicycle or pedestrian improvementProximity to Schools/Colleges – 1/2 mile for walking and 1 mile for bikingRegional Priority – Bicycle project on the SCTA Network or MTC Regional AT NetworkHigh Access/Low Stress - low-stress project in priority geographies identified by County/MTCPotential Bonus Points for:Public/Local Priority– Projects with strong support from the community in Round 2 engagementEqual Weighting3 Tiers per Jurisdiction 20Tier 1 – High PriorityTier 2 – Medium PriorityPROJECT PRIORITIZATION RESULTSTier 3 – Low PriorityTier 1 projects are most aligned with local and regional active transportation goals – they will be prioritized for implementation first. 21Rohnert Park ATPDraft Priorities:Tier 1 Projects Bike Facilities & Crossing Improvements 22Rohnert Park ATPDraft Priorities:Tier 1 Projects Bike Facilities & Crossing Improvements 23Community Engagement1 Pop-upSpring 20241 Community MeetingDigital EngagementGathering Input on Draft Projects, Priorities & Policies 24Rohnert Park Milestone MeetingsTopicsEstimated TimeframesPlanning CommissionCommunity EngagementDraft Existing Conditions, Needs and OpportunitiesOctober 12, 2023Sept.-Nov. 2023Draft Project, Priorities, PoliciesMay 25, 2024May 18, 2024RP Summer Expo Pop-UpJune 12, 2024AT Plan Open House @ RP Community CenterJune – August 2024Digital EngagementPublic Draft PlanNovember 14, 2024Fall/Winter 2024 25Questions? ATTACHMENT 2: City of Rohnert Park Active Transportation Plan (Draft)– •Maps of Existing and Planned Projects •Lists of Planned Projects Rohnert Park Expwy Rohnert Park Expwy Petaluma Hill SMARTCotati Ave Copeland Creek Golf Course Dr B u r t o n A v e Snyder LnWilfred Ave Bodway PkwyRedwood DrMillbrae Ave Ol d R e d w o o d H w y Snyder Ln101 101 116 101 116 N Multi-Use PathBike LaneBuffered Bike LaneBike RouteBike BoulevardSeparated BikewayTraffic CalmingCorridor Study SMART Station Schools LibrariesJurisdiction Boundary Existing Bikeway Network 31 24 23 1 19 61 20 1 33 57 61 32 58 9 69 69 66 67 63 65 8 64 7 15 6056 14 62 3 10 56 17 2 27 5 22 6 25 4 18 68 21 16 26 59 34 13 37 3628 2938394041 44 45 46 47 50 51 53 55 Rohnert Park Expwy Rohnert Park Expwy Snyder LnPetaluma Hill SMARTCotati Ave Copeland Creek Golf Course Dr B u r t o n A v e Snyder LnWilfred Ave Bodway PkwyRedwood DrMillbrae Ave Ol d R e d w o o d H w y 101 101 116 101 116 N Multi-Use PathBike LaneBuffered Bike LaneBike RouteBike BoulevardSeparated BikewayTraffic CalmingCorridor Study Sidewalk Gap Crossing Improvement SMART Station Schools LibrariesJurisdiction Boundary 2024 Proposed Bikeway and Corridor Projects Note: The unlabelled crossing improvement projects near Ladybug Park are 35 (left) and 53 (right). 31 24 23 1 19 61 20 1 33 57 61 32 58 9 69 69 66 67 63 65 8 64 7 15 6056 14 62 3 10 56 17 2 27 5 22 6 25 4 18 68 21 16 26 59 34 13 37 3628 2938394041 44 45 46 47 50 51 53 55 Rohnert Park Expwy Rohnert Park Expwy Petaluma Hill SMARTCotati Ave Copeland Creek Golf Course Dr B u r t o n A v e Snyder LnWilfred Ave Bodway PkwyRedwood DrMillbrae Ave Ol d R e d w o o d H w y Snyder Ln101 101 116 101 116 Note: The unlabelled crossing improvement projects near Ladybug Park are 35 (left) and 53 (right). N Existing 2024Multi-Use PathBike LaneBuffered Bike LaneBike RouteBike BoulevardSeparated BikewayTraffic CalmingCorridor Study Sidewalk Gap Crossing Improvement SMART Station Schools LibrariesJurisdiction Boundary Existing and 2024 Proposed Active Transportation Network v. May 16 2024 1 Planned Projects Table 1 presents planned projects for enhancing walking, biking, and rolling conditions in Rohnert Park. Tier 1 indicates high priority, Tier 2 medium priority, and Tier 3 low priority. Table 1. Planned Infrastructure Improvements for Walking, Biking and Rolling Project # Project Location Project Description Priority 1 Hinebaugh Creek Trail Fill gaps on west side to connect to Rohnert Park Expressway West. Consider alternatives on east side to connect to Rohnert Park Expressway. Note findings of Hwy 101 Bike-Ped Crossings Feasibility Study on Hinebaugh Creek undercrossing constraints. Tier 1 8 Enterprise Drive between Commerce Boulevard and Seed Farm Drive Consider separated bike lanes in coordination with Central Rohnert Park PDA Plan and Downtown development. Also consider enhancement of connections from Copeland Creek Trail to Downtown to encourage use of Copeland Creek Trail as alternative to Enterprise Drive. Tier 1 9 Hunter Drive between Commerce Boulevard and Enterprise Drive Study the installation of Class II (bike lane), IIB (buffered bike lane), or IV (separated bike lane) facilities. Confirm Sonoma County Transit's use of Hunter Drive. Tier 1 10 State Farm Drive between Commerce Boulevard and Enterprise Drive Study feasibility of Class IV separated bike lanes along a portion of State Farm Drive to serve Central Rohnert Park PDA/Downtown in Downtown circulation studies Tier 1 23 Commerce Boulevard from Redwood Drive to Golf Course Drive Improve existing Class I multi-use path Tier 1 31 East-West Copeland Creek Trail Connection Copeland Creek Trail connection over US 101. Rohnert Park is in PID phase with Caltrans (2024). Tier 1 33 Country Club Drive from Golf Course Drive to Hinebaugh Creek Greenway Install Class I multi-use path between Golf Course Drive and Hinebaugh Creek Greenway. Install pedestrian enhancements to include high-visibility striping, ADA directional curb ramps, and bulbouts where feasible. Tier 1 55 Copeland Creek Trail (south side path) and Commerce Boulevard Crossing improvement. Coordinate with Project 31 and 60. In near-term (as separate project), provide wayfinding that encourages crossing at Commerce Boulevard/Avram signalized intersection. Tier 1 v. May 16 2024 2 Project # Project Location Project Description Priority 56 Redwood Drive from northern city limits to southern city limits Study Class IV separated bike lanes, or Dowdell/Labath as alternative. Enhance existing Class II bike lanes by upgrading to Class IV bike lanes. Tier 1 57 Golf Course Drive from SMART multi-use trail to Synder Lane Install Class I multiuse path along/parallel to Golf Course Drive. Implement in coordination with Project 41. Tier 1 58 Path from Donna Court to SMART MUP, through golf course Study feasibility a Class I multiuse path connection from Donna Court to SMART Trail multiuse path. Tier 1 60 Commerce Boulevard from Rohnert Park Expressway to Copeland Creek Install Class IV separated bike lanes on the west side of Commerce Boulevard. Tier 1 61 Snyder Lane from East Cotati Ave to northern city limits Install Class I multiuse path along east side of Snyder Lane when additional bicycle facility capacity is needed Tier 1 62 Southwest Boulevard from Snyder Lane to SMART multi-use path Install Class IV separated bike lanes. Tier 1 63 Southwest Boulevard from Burton Avenue to SMART multi-use path Implement Class IV separated bike lanes. Implement in coordination with Project 46, 47, 62, and 64. Tier 1 65 Seed Farm Drive from Southwest Blvd to Enterprise Dr Implement Class IV separated bike lanes. Tier 1 66 Golf Course Drive between Hwy 101 Off- Ramp SB and Redwood Drive Install Class IV separated bike lane. Requires lane reconfigurations at intersections and between intersections as described in Projects 38, 39, and 40. Tier 1 67 Commerce Blvd between Utility Court and Golf Course Drive Install Class IV, bidirectional separated bike lane on east side of Commerce Boulevard. Implement in coordination with Project 40. Tier 1 69 Rohnert Park Expressway between western and eastern City Limits Study feasibility for upgrading existing Class II bike lanes to Class IV separated bike lanes or a Class I multiuse path. Tier 1 2 Myrtle Avenue between City limits and Lancaster Drive Create low-stress Class III bicycle boulevard connection to Lancaster Drive. Tier 2 3 Camino Colegio from E Cotati Avenue to Broadway Parkway Enhance and extend Class IV separated bike lanes. Tier 2 4 Adrian Drive from Arlen Drive to City limits Install Class IIIB bike boulevard, implementing traffic calming measures to reduce the level of stress. Tier 2 6 Beverly Drive from Bernice Avenue to City limits Install Class IIIB bike boulevard, implementing traffic calming measures to reduce the level of stress. Tier 2 v. May 16 2024 3 Project # Project Location Project Description Priority 14 Labath Avenue between Business Park Drive and Laguna Drive Install Class IV separated bike lanes. Tier 2 18 Eleanor Avenue between Country Club Drive and Snyder Lane Install Class III bike route, study level of stress and consider upgrading to Class IIIB bike boulevard. Tier 2 21 Bodway Parkway between Valley House Drive and E Railroad Avenue Install Class IIB buffered bike lanes with roadway extension . Tier 2 22 Evergreen Elementary School - Elizabeth Avenue from Country Club Drive to Elvera Street, Ellis Street, Elvera Street, and Emily Avenue between Ellen Street Create low-stress Class IIIB bicycle boulevard connections to and from Evergreen Elementary School, residential neighborhoods, and surrounding parks. Install RRFB at mid-block crossing. Include traffic calming elements such as speed cushions to slow speeds along the roadway. Tier 2 24 Copeland Creek Trail and Sonoma County Water Agency Service Road Install bridge to connect the Copeland Creek Trail and Sonoma County Water Agency Service Road. Tier 2 26 E Cotati Avenue within City Limits Install Class IIB buffered bike lanes between western city limit and Camino Colegio to connect to Class I path, and complete Class I gap along SW corner of SSU on the north side of the roadway. At Bodway Parkway stripe high-visibility crosswalks Tier 2 32 Three Trail Connection Formalize a connection over Rohnert Park Expressway to connect the Laguna de Santa Rosa Trail, along with a connection to the Copeland Creek Trail and Washoe Creek Trail Tier 2 34 Country Club Drive from Hinebaugh Creek Greenway to Rohnert Park Expressway Install Class II bike lanes between Hinebaugh Creek Greenway and Rohnert Park Expressway. Consider lowering posted speed limit to 25 mph. Implement in coordination with Project 44. Tier 2 38 Redwood Drive and Golf Course Drive Crossing improvements at signalized intersection to improve conditions for people walking and biking. Tier 2 39 Hwy 101 SB Off-Ramp and Golf Course Drive Crossing improvement at signalized intersection to improve conditions for people walking and biking. Tier 2 40 Commerce Boulevard and Golf Course Drive Crossing improvement at signalized intersection to improve conditions for people walking and biking. Implement in coordination with Project 67. Tier 2 v. May 16 2024 4 Project # Project Location Project Description Priority 46 Seed Farm Drive and Southwest Boulevard Crossing improvement at signalized intersection to improve walking and biking conditions. Tier 2 64 Southwest Boulevard from Burton Avenue to Adrian Drive Implement Class IV separated bike lanes. Implement in coordination with Project 47 and 63. Tier 2 5 Santa Barbara Drive from Adrian Drive to Burton Avenue Install Class IIIB bike boulevard, implementing traffic calming measures to reduce the level of stress. Add wayfinding to draw bicyclists from Adrian Drive to lower-stress Santa Barbara Drive. Tier 3 13 Keiser Avenue and Snyder Lane Install signal and crosswalk at Keiser Avenue/Snyder Lane intersection. Tier 3 15 Business Park Drive between Labath Avenue and Redwood Drive Install Class IV separated bike lanes. Tier 3 16 Dowdell Avenue between Millbrae Avenue and Business Park Drive Install Class IIB buffered bike lanes Tier 3 17 Country Club Drive between Fairway Drive and Hudis Street Create low-stress Class III bicycle boulevard connections between Fairway Drive and Hudis Street. Install pedestrian enhancements to include high-visibility striping, ADA directional curb ramps, and bulbouts where feasible. Tier 3 19 Class I path between N Rohnert Park Trail and Fauna Avenue/Holly Avenue Create connection between Fauna Avenue and Holly Avenue, and install Class I path connecting north to N Rohnert Park Trail. Tier 3 25 Magnolia Avenue between Camino Colegio and Bodway Parkway Create low-stress Class IIIB bicycle boulevard. At Mitchell Drive and Manchester Avenue, stripe high-visibility crosswalks, install bulbouts, and daylight intersections. Consider traffic calming elements such as speed humps to slow speeds along the roadway. Tier 3 27 Liberty Avenue and Lindsay Avenue Create low-stress Class IIIB bicycle boulevard along Liberty and Lindsay Avenue. Also see project 53 for crossing improvements at Liberty/Lindsay intersection. Tier 3 28 Liman Way and Lancaster Drive Crosswalks (@Lancaster Dr and Liman Way Install RRFBs accessing Ladybug Park and University Elementary School at La Fiesta. At the crosswalks, daylight the intersection and install bulbouts to reduce crossing distance (@Lancaster Dr and Liman Way). Tier 3 v. May 16 2024 5 Project # Project Location Project Description Priority 35 Liman Way and Lancaster Drive Crosswalks(@ Lady Bug Park Install RRFBs accessing Ladybug Park and University Elementary School at La Fiesta. At the crosswalks, daylight the intersection and install bulbouts to reduce crossing distance (@Lady Bug Park). Tier 3 36 Liman Way and Lancaster Drive Crosswalks(@ La Fiesta Elementary Install RRFBs accessing Ladybug Park and University Elementary School at La Fiesta. At the crosswalks, daylight the intersection and install bulbouts to reduce crossing distance (@La Fiesta Elementary School). Tier 3 37 Camino Colegio and Magnolia Avenue Improve the Camino Colegio and Magnolia Avenue intersection to include high-visibility crosswalks, bulbouts, ADA compliant crosswalks, and extended medians to serve as pedestrian refuge islands. Tier 3 41 Golf Course Drive and SMART Multi-Use Trail and Roberts Lake Road Crossing improvement at signalized intersection to improve walking and biking conditions. Implement in coordination with Project 57. Tier 3 44 Country Club Drive and Racquet Club Circle Crossing improvement at unsignalized intersection. Implement in coordination with Project 34. Tier 3 45 Country Club Drive and Valley Village Mobile Home Park Entrance Crossing improvement at unsignalized intersection to improve walking conditions. Tier 3 47 Southwest Boulevard and Burton Avenue Crossing improvement at unsignalized intersection to improve walking and biking conditions. Implement in coordination with Project 63 and 64. Tier 3 50 Camino Colegio and Maple Drive Crossing improvement at an unsignalized intersection to improve walking conditions. Coordinate improvements with Project 3. Tier 3 51 Myrtle Avenue & Liman Way Crossing improvement at unsignalized intersection to improve walking conditions. Tier 3 52 Lords Manor Way and Lancaster Drive Crossing improvement at unsignalized intersection to improve walking conditions. Tier 3 53 Liberty Avenue and Lindsay Avenue Crossing improvement at unsignalized intersection to improve walking conditions. Tier 3 59 Bodway Parkway from East Cotati Avenue to Valley House Drive Study upgrade of facility to a Class IIB buffered bike lane. Narrow marked vehicle lanes or median. Use additional space for wider and buffered Class IIB bike lanes. Tier 3 68 Dowdell Avenue from Business Park Drive to Martin Avenue Enhance existing Class II bike lanes to Class IIB buffered bike lanes by narrowing marked vehicle lanes to 10 to 11 feet wide and using the remaining space to mark a buffer adjacent to existing bike lanes. Tier 3