Northeast Specific Plan Area (Crane Creek and Five Creek)
Rohnert Park’s creeks are a key part of the City’s open space network. They are valuable physical, aesthetic, recreational, and ecological assets. Protection of creeks protects not only surface water quality, but also reduces flood risks, preserves biodiversity and habitat, minimizes erosion of stream banks, and prevents downstream siltation.

The General Plan designates 3.5 miles of creekways in the new growth areas on the City’s eastside. Wide buffers—up to about 150 feet from the creek bank—could be required because high potential wetland areas alongside creeks in some areas extend to about 150-foot width.
Setbacks for Crane and Five creeks have been established in consultation with the Department of Fish and Game and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Biological & Natural Resources section sets forth a 50-foot setback for Five Creek and a 100-foot setback for Crane Creek.

Policy EC-13: Maintain creek protection zones extending a minimum of 50 feet (measured for the tops of banks and a strip of land extending laterally outward from the top of each bank) for creeks, with extended buffers where significant habitat areas or high potential wetlands exist. Where high potential wetland or other biological resources exist, require appropriately wide buffers to encompass and protect the resource. Development shall not occur within this zone, except as part of greenway enhancement (for example, trails and bikeways). Require City approval for the following activities within creek protection zones:
--Construction, alteration, or removal of any structure;
--Excavation, filling, or grading;
--Removal or planting of vegetation (except removal of invasive plant species); or
--Alteration of any embankment.

University District Special Plan - Ownership (from USACE Fill Application #21263N)
(1) Redwood Park Estates HO Assn (2) Santa Rosa Health System (3) Santa Rosa Health System (4) City of Rohnert Park (5) City of Rohnert Park (6) University District LLC (7) State of California (8) Sonoma State Academic Fund (9) Sonoma State Academic Fund (10) North Bay Title (11) Grossi, Sharon (12) Sonoma County Agricultural (13) Simpson, John D) and Alice (14) Ronco 81 Inc) (15) Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District

Policy EC-5: Require development in areas with high and moderate wetlands potential and habitat areas, as well as other areas where wetland or habitat for special-status species is present, to complete assessments of biological resources.

WHAT IS A SPECIFIC PLAN?
Specific Plans are governed by Sections 65450 through 65457 of the State Government Code. The State Guidelines state that "(a) specific plan is a tool for the systematic implementation of the general plan. It effectively establishes a link between implementing policies of the general plan and the individual development proposals in a defined area. A specific plan may be as general as setting forth broad policy concepts, or as detailed as providing direction to every facet of development from the type, location and intensity of uses to the design and capacity of infrastructure; from the resources used to finance public improvements to the design guidelines of a subdivision."
As envisioned by the City of Rohnert Park, a Specific Plan is essentially a master plan for a defined area. It is intended to ensure that larger areas of the City are planned in a manner that is compatible with the existing community and that each phase of the development is well integrated into any past and future phases of the project. To achieve this, a Specific Plan includes details of the development such as the proposed land use designations, a land use program setting forth minimum and maximum total dwelling units and the square footage and/or acreage for any other uses, a public facilities financing plan that explains how streets, water, wastewater, solid waste, and parks, all meeting city standards, will be provided to the project, a phasing plan, and development standards (e.g. minimum lot sizes, building setbacks, architectural guidelines, and landscaping standards.)

HOW IS A SPECIFIC PLAN ESTABLISHED?
The City's Zoning Ordinance allows for a Specific Plan (SP) zoning district designation that can be applied to any property (Sections 17.06.290 through 17.06.450 of the Municipal Code). It is primarily intended for expansion areas beyond the existing City limits, such as the "Wilfred/Dowdell" and "University District" areas, but can also be applied to "any other area of the city where the city council may determine that because of a project's size, mixed uses, adverse environmental impacts, or other factors, a specific plan should be considered." Since a Specific Plan is essentially a zoning district, the establishment of a Specific Plan is processed as the rezoning of property, or, in the case of an area outside of the City limits, as the prezoning required for an annexation request.
The preparation of a new Specific Plan or an amendment to an existing one may be initiated by either a resolution of the City Council or by an application from a property owner or owners with control of a majority of the acreage within an existing or proposed Specific Plan District or his/her agent. The City may also consider an application from property owner(s) who control less than a majority of the acreage within an existing or proposed Specific Plan district if the City Council, by resolution, determines that it is in the best interest of the City to allow the minority property owner(s) to proceed with the process and if the property owned by the minority property owner(s) is contiguous to the city's incorporated boundaries.
The consideration of a specific plan includes two stages: the review of a Preliminary Specific Plan and the adoption of a Final Draft Specific Plan. The Preliminary Specific Plan is intended to provide decision makers, the public, and other interested parties with an opportunity to review the proposal and to provide comments that would be useful in the preparation of the Final Draft. This approach allows a proponent to learn of potential concerns regarding a proposed Specific Plan so that they may be addressed prior to formal hearings on the project. The Preliminary Specific Plan is reviewed at noticed public hearings before both the Planning Commission and the City Council and is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as this review does not constitute a discretionary approval.
Once the Preliminary Specific Plan has been reviewed, an application for a Final Specific Plan may be made. The Final Specific Plan is a more detailed document than the Preliminary one and is subject to environmental review. As with any rezoning request, the Specific Plan is considered by the Planning Commission at a duly-noticed public hearing (or hearings, depending on the complexity of the Plan), and a recommendation is made to the Council, who subsequently acts on the proposal.

HOW IS A SPECIFIC PLAN APPROVED?
To approve a Final Specific Plan, the following findings must be made:
The Specific Plan or Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the City's General Plan;
The Specific Plan or Specific Plan Amendment will not adversely affect the public health and safety or result in incompatible land uses;
The Specific Plan or Specific Plan Amendment provides the framework to phase and pace growth within the Specific Plan area so as to ensure completion of all necessary public facilities concurrently with completion of the Specific Plan; or, alternately, a statement of public policy consideration can be adopted and/or an exception granted in accordance with General Plan policies GM-10, GM-11, and GM-12.
The Specific Plan or Specific Plan Amendment identifies adequate financing mechanisms for the infrastructure and public facilities required to support the development.
In the case of a Specific Plan Amendment, the following additional finding shall be made: The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not create internal inconsistencies within the Specific Plan and is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Specific Plan it is amending.
In the case of a Specific Plan located within unincorporated territory, the following additional finding shall be made: The proposed specific plan is consistent with the planning and prezoning designation provided for the Specific Plan area, pursuant to Government Code Sections 65300 and 65859, or alternatively functions as prezoning for the unincorporated territory.
As noted above, a Final Specific Plan constitutes a zoning district, so the Plan does not expire within a given time period and would continue to apply to the area unless it is amended. For property outside of the City limits, the Final Specific Plan would not take effect until the area is annexed to the City.

HOW IS A SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTED?
Applications for development within an SP District shall require the approval of a Development Area Plan, pursuant to Section 17.06.400 of the Municipal Code. The Development Area Plan will provide a summary of the project and will include graphic information showing areas of proposed development, streets, bike paths, infrastructure plans, plot plans for buildings within the area, building elevations, building floor plans, landscaping, and tentative subdivision maps, as appropriate. Each Development Area Plan shall consist of at least one phase of the Final Specific Plan and a minimum of twenty percent of the total acreage of the project (or ten acres, whichever is less), unless the land in question is designated for a public use or is proposed for use as affordable housing, in which case no minimum acreage shall apply. A Development Area Plan may be submitted at any time subsequent to the submittal of a Final Specific Plan application, except that a Plan for the entire project area or for the first phase of a multi-year development may be submitted concurrently with a Final Specific Plan application.
A development area plan shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council at duly-noticed public hearings, which such review to occur after or concurrent with Final Specific Plan adoption. To approve a development area plan application, the City Council must make the following findings:
1. Public infrastructure and services can be provided concurrently with the development; or
2. A statement of public policy consideration and/or an exception can be granted.
A Final Development Area Plan is good for only two years, unless construction begins within that time period or the Planning Commission grants an extension for up to two additional years. Projects that comply with the provisions of an approved Final Development Plan do not require subsequent site plan and architectural review and may go to the building permit stage.
http://www.rpcity.org/cityhall/specificplans.cfm

Federal Agencies with Regulatory Oversight Agency Law / Regulation Authority

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Clean Water Act (CWA), Section 404 - Regulates placement of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. Issues permit.
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Section 10 - Regulate work in navigable waters of the United States. Issues permit.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) - Federal NEPA lead agency for permits.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
CWA [Clean Water Act] - Enforcement of regulations, must approve issuance of USACE permits.
CEQA, NEPA - Commenting entity.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act - Reviews/comments on federal actions that affect wetlands and other waters, including 404 permit applications.
Endangered Species Act (ESA) - Corps must consult with FWS if threatened or endangered species may be affected by action.
CEQA, NEPA Commenting entity.
U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act - Reviews/comments on federal actions that affect coastal waters, including Section 404 permit applications.
ESA - USACEmust consult with NMFS if threatened or endangered species may be affected by action.
CEQA, NEPA - Commenting entity

Endangered Species Act (ESA) - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service
The 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA), as amended, establishes a broad public and federal interest in identifying, protecting, and providing for the recovery of threatened or endangered species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are charged with implementing and enforcing the ESA. USFWS has authority over terrestrial and continental aquatic species; NMFS has authority over species that spend all or part of their life cycle at sea, including coho and chinook salmon and steelhead trout.
USFWS oversees the implementation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 which prohibits the destruction or possession of individual birds, eggs, or nests in active use without a scientific collecting or special purpose permit from the Service.

California Department of Fish and Game §1600 Streambed Alteration Agreements
Under §1601 (public projects) and §1603 (private projects) of the California Fish and Game Code, DFG has jurisdiction over any activity in a creek or river in which there is at any time an existing fish or wildlife resource or from which such resources derive benefit. Projects affecting or potentially affecting such resources must obtain an agreement from DFG, which usually imposes conditions to protect the environment. See http://www.dfg.ca.gov/1600/ for application, instructions, and current filing fees
County and City Regulations
Activities in creeks or rivers may require local streambed alteration agreements. Local regulations should be researched as part of project planning.
Other Regulations
The above agencies are required to comply with a host of other regulations, including, but not limited to, the California Environmental Protection Act (CEQA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the state and federal Endangered Species Acts (ESA), the Historic Preservation Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. Typically, compliance also involves consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Native American Heritage Commission, and the Office of Historic Preservation (OPR) through its California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS). The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) must be consulted when listed anadromous fish are potentially present

PERMITS REQUIRED FOR WORK IN CREEKS AND RIVERS IN CALIFORNIA
Work in creeks and rivers in California is regulated by several public agencies, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under §404 of the federal Clean Water Act, the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) under §401 of the federal Clean Water Act and the state’s Porter-Cologne Act, the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) under §1600 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code, and the local city or county where the project takes place. If water is to be diverted or impounded from a surface or underground stream or other body of water, a permit or registration may be needed from the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Rights (California Water Code §1200 et seq.). Dams may require written approval from the California Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams (California Water Code §6000 et seq.)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers §404 Nationwide and Individual Permits
Under §404 of the federal Clean Water Act, the Corps regulates discharges of dredged or fill material into any channel that is a navigable water of the U.S. or its tributary or that has real or potential interstate commerce value. 1 A channel is defined as a watercourse that has a bed and bank with an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) 2. Functionally, the Corps regulates nearly all creeks and rivers. Nationwide Permits (NWPs) have been developed to allow projects that meet specific criteria and that do not result in adverse environmental effects; other projects that do not meet the criteria for a NWP must apply for an Individual Permit. In California, Corps offices are located in San Francisco ) http://www.spn.usace.army.mil/), Sacramento, and Los Angeles. The Sacramento District website at http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/cespk-co/regulatory/ includes a link to an online application form with instructions.
1 On January 9, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“SWANCC”) that use of isolated waters by migratory birds may not constitute the sole basis for Corps jurisdiction under §404
2 The Corps has jurisdiction over all perennial and intermittent streams and over ephemeral streams that have an ordinary high water mark (OHWM). District Engineers use their judgment on a case-by-case basis to determine whether an OHWM is present. Ephemeral streams are defined as having flowing water only during, and for a short duration after, precipitation events; they are located above the water table year-round
Regional Water Quality Control Board §401 Certifications
Under §401 of the federal Clean Water Act, the Corps is required to meet state water quality regulations prior to granting a §404 permit for work in a creek or river. In California, this is accomplished by application to the local RWQCB for certification that the requirements have been met. There is a $500-2,250 fee for this application, and the RWQCB may impose conditions to insure that the project does not result in negative environmental impacts.
Regional Water Quality Control Board Waste Discharge Requirements
When a project involves work in a stream that is not subject to regulation under §404 of the federal Clean Water Act, the project may require issuance or a waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) under the state’s clean water act, known as the “Porter Cologne Act.” The application form is the same as for the §401 Certification, and the filing fee is also $500-2,250.The North Coast Regional Board web site is http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb1/

Serene, livable, dense urban area by a creek park in Tuscany, Italy

Policy EC-14: As part of specific plans, require evaluation and implementation of appropriate measures for creek bank stabilization, and any necessary steps to reduce erosion and sedimentation, but preserve natural creek channels and riparian vegetation.

City pays up for silt runoff
Redding has paid a $450,000 fine for letting millions of gallons of muddy water gush from the Big League Dreams sports park during downpours nearly two years ago.12/02/2004
Dirty water from sports park costs Redding $450,000
By Scott Mobley, Record Searchlight December 2, 2004
Redding has paid a $450,000 fine for letting millions of gallons of muddy water gush from the Big League Dreams sports park during downpours nearly two years ago.
The city tapped its $13.5 million sports-park budget to cover the fine, Assistant City Manager Phil Perry said. State law lets public agencies set aside 10 percent of a construction contract to settle claims against the project, Perry explained. The city had kept that $1.3 million in an escrow account so the contractor could reap interest.
Big League Dreams sports park contractor Dale Construction had filed a temporary restraining order to keep the city from paying the fine out of the account. A Shasta County Superior Court judge denied the order. The city paid the fine Friday. "I'm glad it's paid," Perry said. Jim Underwood, the attorney representing Dale Construction, did not return a call seeking comment Tuesday.
The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board fined the city in August 2003 for letting silt-saturated water overflow a containment pond at the sports park.
The spill sent a coffee-colored plume nine miles down Clover Creek, the board said in its complaint against the city. Board officials had warned the city and the construction company that the ponds would not hold back a heavy rain.
Redding appealed the fine in January, acknowledging guilt but denying intentional wrongdoing. The city passed the fine on to Dale Construction after losing the appeal. The firm had signed a contract with the city holding it responsible for erosion control, then-City Attorney Brad Fuller said. Dale Construction appealed the regional board's "overzealous" Clean Water Act enforcement in March. The city agreed to join the appeal, which the State Water Resources Control Board tersely rejected in September.
Reporter Scott Mobley can be reached at 225-8220 or smobley@redding.com.
http://www1.redding.com/redd/nw_local/article/0,2232,REDD_17533_3368787,00.html

City taps contractor’s fund to pay $450,000 sports park fine
By Scott Mobley, Redding Record Searchlight December 1, 2004
Redding has paid a $450,000 water pollution fine stemming from erosion during construction at the Big League Dreams sports park two years ago. The city tapped money that was supposed to go to contractor Dale Construction pending completion of the project. Those dollars were held in escrow. Dale Construction had filed a temporary restraining order to keep the city from paying the fine out of the escrow account. A Shasta County Superior Court judge denied the order. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board fined the city in August 2003 for letting muddy water gush from the sports park construction site into Clover Creek and nearby wetlands during downpours in December 2002. The city blamed its contractor, who denied responsibility. Dale Construction appealed the regional board’s "overzealous" Clean Water Act enforcement.
The State Water Resources Control Board in September denied Dale’s appeal.
http://www1.redding.com/redd/nw_local/article/0,2232,REDD_17533_3366876,00.html

Midnight Creek Pollution Photo from Russian River First Flush Watershed Stream Monitoring October 2004
You Can Run But You Can't Hide!
- From the Creek Panthers and the Environmental Compliance Committee

Shame Photos of the Month – Flog Them The Aussie Way
http://www.rag.org.au/concrete/tomp.htm
http://www.rag.org.au/default.htm
Pictures taken Friday 26 November 1999. at about 2.00 to 2.10 pm Dennis Street Indooroopilly, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. No sediment control was in place in the gutter. Brisbane City Council footpath/gutter/road maintence work was being undertaken in the street. Photos in order of sequence taken. All pictures taken are displayed on this page. This is the work of a BCC contractor's sub contractor. This page is displayed in the general public interest to expose the environmental damage being done to Brisbane's waterways, creeks and the Brisbane River and Moreton Bay by the non-instalation of sediment controls by some of the concrete cutting industry and other industries. = This page is maintained by The Rivermouth Action Group Inc activist@rag.org.au as a community service.

Couple Fined $250,000 for Clogging Mendocino Creeks
State water regulators this week fined the owners of a Mendocino County road construction company $250,000 for allegedly causing sediment to clog two salmon-bearing creeks east of Willits. It is the largest fine issued by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board for sediment discharge on the North Coast since at least 1999, said Luis Rivera, the agency's assistant executive officer. The recipients of the fine, Jon and Deann Green, owners of Green Right O'Way Constructors Inc. in Willits, said the fine was unwarranted. The couple is discussing their options with their lawyer to fight it. "These guys, as far as I'm concerned, are totally out of hand," Jon Green said. State regulators alleged the Greens caused erosion by flattening a 65-acre ridge on their 520-acre parcel in 2001. The agency also contends the Greens failed to follow orders to fix the problem. - Glenda Anderson ganderson@pressdemocrat.com http://www.pressdemocrat.com/pmextra/#link3

Massive Sediment Spill Discovered in Las Virgenes Creek
http://www.healthebay.org/news/2004/06_30_lvsedspill/default.asp
Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - Gullies caused by erosion at the construction site on Las Virgenes Road on March 4, 2004. Photo: Heal the Bay Las Virgenes Creek channel inundated with sediment. The area covered by sediment was 22,283 square feet (measured using GPS mapping). Photo: Heal the Bay Map showing the construction site location on Las Virgenes Road and the extent of the sediment spill in a side channel to Las Virgenes Creek.. Heal the Bay's Stream Team Discovers, Maps and Reports Illegal Discharge On March 4, 2004, dedicated Stream Team member Matt Horns noticed deep gullies in the bare hillside of a construction site beside Las Virgenes Road near the intersection of Lost Hills Road. He investigated and found that recent rain had caused a massive flow of fine sediment into Las Virgenes Creek. Matt took photos and notes, and Heal the Bay's Stream Team Manger Mark Abramson submitted a report of the spill to Fish and Game and the LA Regional Water Quality Control Board. The builder, Shea Homes, had already received warnings about maintaining their sediment control measures in case of rainfall. Both agencies are taking enforcement actions which will likely result in fines for the builders.