2024/06/25 City Council Resolution 2024-045 RESOLUTION NO. 2024-045
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
APPROVING 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;
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;
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;
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;
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");
WHEREAS, the purpose of the proposed General and Specific Plan 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;
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;
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;
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 2024 Addendum;
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;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information
contained in the project application for the proposal and recommended approval of the proposed
2024 Addendum;
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;
WHEREAS, on June 25, 2024, the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park held a
public hearing at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify regarding the 2024
Addendum; and
WHEREAS, at the June 25, 2024 public hearing, the City Council reviewed and
considered the information contained in the 2024 Addendum for the proposed project as well as
information presented by staff and the public.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council 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. City Council makes the following findings concerning the
Addendum to the University District EIR—Snyder Lane Commons Project:
1. The City Council has independently reviewed, analyzed, and considered the 2006
EIR and 2024 Addendum and all written documentation and public comments on
the proposed Project; and
2. The 2024 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 2024 Addendum reflect the City's
independent judgment as to the environmental impacts of the proposed Project;
and
Resolution 2024-045
Page 2 of 4
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 City Council adopts the Addendum to the University District EIR—Snyder
Lane Commons Project attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A.
Section 4. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute documents
pertaining to same for and on behalf of the City of Rohnert Park.
DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED this 25th day of June, 2024.
CITY OF H ERT PARK
ATTEST: Susan H. Adams. Mayor
f
Sylvi�opez uva ,-E.`lty erc
iicP OVE A$ TO FORM: -
V .)
helle M. Kenyon. City Attorney
Attachments: Exhibit A: Addendum to the University District EIR—Snyder Lane Commons
Project(2024 Addendum)
ELWARD:AVL RODRIGUEZ: LiSANBORN: GIUDICE: ADAMS. ,e
5 ES: ( ) NOES: ( ABSENT: ( ABSTAIN: (
Resolution 2024-045
Page 3 of 4
EXHIBIT A
<ADDENDUM TO THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT EIR
SNYDER LANE COMMONS PROJECT >
Resolution 2024-045
Page 4 of 4
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
Resolution 2024-045 Exhibit A
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 document s:
• 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
Sn
y
d
e
r
L
n
Sn
y
d
e
r
L
n
Rohnert Park Expy
Pe
t
a
l
u
m
a
H
i
l
l
R
d
COPELAND CREEK
CRANE CREEK
HINEBAUGH CREEK
University District Specific Plan
Project Location
Rohnert Park City Limits
University District Specific Plan
Project Location
0 1,000500
Feet9
Da
t
e
:
3
/
1
5
/
2
0
2
4
U
s
e
r
:
k
h
o
l
m
e
s
P
a
t
h
:
Z
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
j
1
4
2
3
5
0
9
\
M
A
PD
O
C
\
W
O
R
K
I
N
G
\
5
0
4
0
S
n
y
d
e
r
L
a
n
e
.
a
p
r
x
M
a
p
:
M
a
p
L
a
y
o
u
t
:
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Petaluma
Sonoma
Rohnert Park
SeEastopol
Windsor
Santa Rosa
Santa Rosa
£¤101
ÄÆ11
ÄÆ121ÄÆ11
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
3URMHFW/RFDWLRQ
\
SOURCE: Bing Maps 2024, Sonoma County
5040 Snyder Lane Project
Project Location
),*85(
Keiser Ave
Sn
y
d
e
r
L
n
Sn
y
d
e
r
L
n
Rohnert Park Expy
Pe
t
a
l
u
m
a
H
i
l
l
R
d
Sn
y
d
e
r
L
n
CRANE CREEK
COPELAND CREEK
HINEBAUGH CREEK
Rohnert Park City Limits
University District Specific Plan
Property
0 800400
Feet9
Da
t
e
:
3
/
2
9
/
2
0
2
4
U
s
e
r
:
k
h
o
l
m
e
s
P
a
t
h
:
Z
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
j
1
4
2
3
5
0
9
\
M
A
PD
O
C
\
W
O
R
K
I
N
G
\
5
0
4
0
S
n
y
d
e
r
L
a
n
e
.
a
p
r
x
M
a
p
:
M
a
p
L
a
y
o
u
t
:
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
UD
S
P
P
SOURCE: 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 Project
Pa
t
h
:
Z
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
j
1
4
2
3
5
0
9
\
M
A
P
D
O
C
\
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
SOURCE: AXIS, 2023 FIGURE 3
Landscape Planting Plan
5040 Snyder Lane Project
Pa
t
h
:
Z
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
j
1
4
2
3
5
0
9
\
M
A
P
D
O
C
\
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
SOURCE: 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 o f 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 (Roh nert 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 eas t; 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 ne ar
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 (Impac t 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 h ave 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 parameter s 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 U DSP 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 pr oposed 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). Timberland 3 (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 a nd
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 triba l 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 Na tive
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 resou rces. 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 LOT
SN
Y
D
E
R
L
N
Legend
Figure 2
Snyder Lane Commons
Rohnert Park, California
Site Plan
0 30 60
Scale (Feet)
SN
Y
D
E
R
L
N
Required Traffic Noise Barrier, 6-feet tall
KEISER AVE
Required Traffic Noise Barrier, 7-feet tall
OA
K
C
I
R
R5R5
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