1998/02/10 City Council MinutesRohnert Park City Council Minutes
February 10, 1998
The Council of the City of Rohnert Park met this date in regular session
commencing at 6:00 p.m. in the City Offices, 6750 Commerce Boulevard, Rohnert Park,
with Mayor Linda Spiro presiding.
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Linda Spiro called the regular session to order at approximately
6:35 p.m. and led the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL: Present: (5) Councilmembers Flores, Mackenzie, Reilly, Vidak - Martinez,
and Mayor Spiro
Absent: (0) None
Staff present for all or part of the meeting: City Manager Netter, City Attorney Flitner,
Assistant City Manager Leivo, City Engineer Gaffney, Finance Director Harrow, and
Community Development/Planning Director Schulenburg.
1. CLOSED SESSION: Mayor Linda Spiro reported on the closed session which commenced this
evening at 6:00 to discuss matters listed on the agenda attachment, representing an update,
with no action taken at this time. She advised, if time permits, the closed session would
continue after the regular Council meeting, as Council did not want to keep the public
waiting for the regular meeting agenda items.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Corrections to the January 13, 1998 meeting minutes were made by
Council and signified on original set of minutes. The January 27, 1998 meeting minutes
were deferred to the next Council meeting.
Upon motion by Councilmember Flores, seconded by Councilmember Mackenzie, the
minutes of January 13, 1998 were unanimously approved as amended.
3. APPROVAL OF BILLS: Upon motion by Vice Mayor Vicki Vidak - Martinez, seconded by
Councilmember Flores, City bills presented per the attached list in the amount of
$729,138.45 were unanimously approved.
4. ADDING INFORMATIONAL NON-AGENDAED MATTERS:
Mayor Linda Spiro asked Councilmembers or staff if there were any non - agendaed
informational items to add to the agenda. -- Councilmember Mackenzie signified two
items to add regarding (1) City Council Liaison with the Sister Cities Committee and
(2) designated parcel in vicinity of railroad tracks and Golf Course, which received a tie
vote at the previous Council meeting on his proposed Specific Plan Ordinance, for frirther
consideration at the next Council meeting of full attendance. -- Councilmember Flores
signified an item to add an STEP report under transportation matters. -- Mayor Spiro
signified an item to add to request preparation of a resolution or proclamation on the next
Council meeting agenda to recognize National Engineers' Week.
Meeting Procedures -- Mayor Linda Spiro recognized Councilmember Reilly, who reviewed
procedural concerns of recent Council meeting(s) pertaining to requesting public input on
agenda items during unscheduled public appearances. He expressed the preference of
previous procedure, for clarification and fuller understanding of the agenda items, to follow
the order of staff or Council reports, Council questions, public input, then conclude with
Council discussion and direction or action. With the recent procedure of making motions
prior to staff reports, questions or discussion, it has not been clear when the motions,
questions or discussions actually start or conclude. -- City Attorney Flitner responded to
('nnnnd rnnf;rminn +Hn4 mntinna -On ka M0140 nn +ka amonfl7 i4ama nrinr 4n
VVwiiVai i1i�KiiiVV VVallii iiuii� LiiKL 1al1Li•.• 11aV L1V 1iJ Viii VV iiiKYV vai LtiV {i�. Vilii{4 i{.Vi1aJ iJliVi 4V
receiving public comments and/or Council questions and discussion, and then amendment(s)
to the motion can be made, if desired. -- Mayor Spiro signified that whether or not motions
are made in advance, the Council would not vote on an item until it has been reviewed and
questions answered. -- Councilmember Mackenzie repeated his previous recommendation
to schedule work sessions on matters of great concern to the community, and also
suggested, due to time constraints of unscheduled appearances, that citizens present
concerns in writing so Council could have the benefit of full details of their remarks.
S. YOUTH CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES from 1997 -98 Youth of the Year Program
Mayor Linda Spiro welcomed Youth Representatives Senior Dena Ito and Junior Vivian
Snyder, who provided the youth report, which included the announcement that this is Spirit
Week at Rancho Cotate High School, with related activities.
6. UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES. Mayor Linda Spiro stated that in compliance with
State Law (The Brown Act), citizens wishing to make a comment may do so at this time,
with a 30 minute total time limit. Due to an estimated twenty -five speaker cards submitted,
Mayor Spiro requested speakers to limit comments to one minute each.
1) Harvey Goldberg, 7345 Castille Court, shared examples for two suggestions for the City to
consider as follows: (1) establish a voluntary bicycle restoration program; and (2) provide
stickers to promote water conservation. -- Councilmember Mackenzie suggested the first
item signified by Mr. Goldberg be referred to. the Bicycle Advisory Committee for
consideration and/or action.
2) Debbie Clarkson, 510 Corte Naranja, Rancho Verde, reviewed concerns related to
proposed west side development, wetlands with different types of species, flooded areas in
the vicinity of Rancho Verde Mobile Home Park, and questioned why there would be any
consideration to build houses in this area where it floods now.
The remaining speaker cards were signified for scheduled agenda items.
7 CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Linda Spiro asked if there were any questions regarding the matters on the Consent
Calendar which were explained in the City Manager's Council Meeting Memo.
Acknowledging the City Manager /Clerk's report on the posting of the meeting's agenda
Rt�Brt Per# �Cf�+rtef Mt (3} Felr�taYy 1, tom::
Resolution Nos:
98 -27 PROCLAIMING MARCH 14, 1998 AS "CPR SATURDAY"
98 -28 APPROVING PURCHASE OF LED TRAFFIC SIGNAL LENSES AND WAIVING
COMPETITIVE BID PROCESS
98 -29 NOTICE OF COMPLETION, HINEBAUGH CREEK BIKE PATH, PROJECT NO.
1997 -5
98 -30 NOTICE OF COMPLETION, OVERLAYS - 1997, PROJECT NO. 1997 -11
98 -31 CALLING FOR SEALED PROPOSALS FOR WALLCOVERING UPGRADE &
MISCELLANEOUS IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ROHNERT PARK PUBLIC
LIBRARY
98 -32 AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF GASOLINE TANK AND PUMP SYSTEM FOR
THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SEWER SERVICES
98 -33 ADOPTING INVESTMENT POLICY FOR IDLE FUNDS
ORDINANCE for ADOPTION:
No. 638 AMENDING ROHNERT PARK MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLE 15, SECTION
15.40.020 (CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND FEES ADJUSTMENT FOR INCREASE IN
COST OF CONSTRUCTION INDEX)
Upon motion by Councilmember Mackenzie, seconded by Councilmember Flores, the
Consent Calendar as outlined on the meeting's agenda, was unanimously approved.
8. URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY- Submittal to Voters in June 1998 Election
Councilmember Armando Flores reviewed reasons for recommending this item per his
statement of January 29, 1998 regarding his proposed Urban Growth Boundary Ballot
Measure (copy attached to original set of these minutes). He proposed the City Council
enact the resolutions listed on the agenda for holding the consolidated primary election on
June 2, 1998 and reviewed the specific changes for these documents to include the
language "by repealing the 4 Year Urban Boundary Policy ", "permits rebuttal arguments ",
and "repeal ", as signified by the highlighted areas of the revised resolutions distributed to
Council on this meeting date of February 10, 1998.
RESOLUTION FOR CONSIDERATION:
A motion was made by Councilmember Flores, seconded by Vice Mayor Vidak- Martinez,
to adopt Resolution No. 98 -34 Calling a Special Municipal Election, to be Held With
the Consolidated Primary Election on June 2, 1998, to Submit to the Voters of the
City a Resolution Which Amends the General Plan of the City of Rohnert Park and
Establishes a 20 Year Urban Growth Boundary, with Councilmember Mackenzie
signifying the desire to amend the resolution and, as a point of order, requested the City
Attorney to advise the status for amendment procedure. -- City Attorney Flitner advised
the necessity of a motion to amend, following public comments required, and to follow suit
for further amendments, prior to taking the final vote on the motion. -- Councilmember
Mackenzie waived his right to present the amendments, at this time, signifying he would
wait until after public comments.
.::
Rn NOW ( Pel Q, Imo:
In response to question from Councilmember Reilly asking who wrote the resolution for
consideration of the UGB measure, Councilmember Flores responded it was prepared through
a combination of his efforts with Assistant City Manager Leivo, City Attorney Flitner and
General Plan Legal Counsel Margaret Sohagi. Councilmember Reilly shared concerns related
to this process including the need for the vote of Council to incur additional expenditures for
designated consulting fees and requirement signified in the City's Municipal Code, Section
2.08.270, that the City Attorney shall prepare all ordinances. Councilmember Flores referred
to the previous request he made to the Mayor regarding this matter; advised that City
Attorney Flitner did prepare this document in consultation with Legal Counsel Margaret
Sohagi; the City Manager has discretion to proceed with certain expenditures and is expected
to use good judgment; and that the concerns expressed herein were confusing the plan with
the concept. -- City Attorney Flitner responded to Council inquiry that it was always his
understanding that the City Attorney prepares ordinances which could be prepared by others,
then reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. He confirmed his review of this evening's
document which was prepared through drafting efforts of Assistant City Manager Leivo with
review by Attorney Margaret Sohagi.
Discussion ensued during which Council shared differing opinions and concerns related to
this Urban Growth Boundary Ballot Measure proposed for the June 1998 election.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Linda Spiro opened the meeting to receive public comments on this
item at approximately 7:30 p.m. -- Due to the number of people desiring to speak on this
item, and from recommendation during preceding Council discussion, the Mayor agreed to
change the previously signified time limit from one to two minutes for each speaker.
Citizens submitted speaker cards and shared reasons via verbal and /or written comments
expressing support or opposition of this UGB ballot measure proposal as follows:
1) Former Mayor & Councilmember Dave Eck, 1311 Rosie Court OPPOSE without additions
as signified in his memo distributed to Council (copv attached to original set of these minutes).
2) Former Mayor & Councilmember Art Hollingsworth, 5704 Davis Cir. SUPPORT _
3) Cindy Bendalac, 161 Esmeyer Dr., San Rafael WAIT to review Task Force Reports
4) Joe Topper, 5787 Trailwood Dr., Santa Rosa (work in Rohnert Park) SUPPORT
5) Tony York, 7374 Rasmussen Way WAIT to review Task Force Reports
6) Al Semmler, 6225 State Farm Drive SUPPORT
7) Charles Kitchen 4945 Fern Place OPPOSE
8) Joi Losee 943 Holly Avenue WAIT to review Task Force Reports
9) Steve Miller, on behalf of 108 Holdings, Ltd.& S.C.Forty Acres, Inc. OPPOSE
per letter of 2/9/98 distributed to Council (copy attached to original set of these minutes).
10) Christa Shaw, Greenbelt Alliance, 520 Mendocino Ave., Santa Rosa OPPOSE
per Sonoma County Greenbelt Campaign flyer (copy attached to original set of these minutes).
11) Pamela Marks Canon Manor, 1731 Weiss Ln. SUPPORT
12) Dorothea Carpenter, 5 Salam Cir., Pittsburgh, PA OPPOSE without inclusion
of her 6 acres on Snyder Lane, north of Keiser Rd.
13) Jonathan McClelland 4740 Hall Rd. , Santa Rosa OPPOSE
14) Lou Begy, Jr., Attorney, 4204 Hermosa Ct. SUPPORT
15) Dan Hubley, 135 Alma Ave. SUPPORT
16) Greg Gunhom, 6225 State Farm Dr., for Operating Engineers Local 3 SUPPORT
R#� I'al+k �it�! �''uar#CCOMliiuii� (� Fe11i�u' I0, X998:
PUBLIC COMMENTS re. UGB Ballot Measure Proposal for June 1998 (cont'd)
17) George Steffensen, 403 Alta Ave. SUPPORT
18) Bob Weinmann, 5763 Dexter Cir. SUPPORT
per written statement distributed to Council (copy attached to original set of these minutes)
19) Dennis Patterson, Chairman of the Board of Directors,
Rohnert Park Chamber of Commerce, 5000 Roberts Lake Rd., representing
efforts with the City and SSU sponsoring the Community Summit, signified
this UGB Ballot Measure is a political decision and whether or not it is
approved, supported efforts to sustain quality of Rohnert Park.
20) Scott Laube, 1579 Gretchen, on Boundary Task Force WAIT to review Task Force Reports
21) J. Henley, 5200 Snyder Lane SUPPORT
22) Linda Branscomb 21 Anne OPPOSE
23) Van Logan, 2650 West Dry Creek Rd., Healdsburg OPPOSE
as General Partner of property on Snyder Ln. across from G Section,
per written statement distributed to Council (copy attached to original set of these minutes).
24) Art Sweeney, 5450 Country Club Dr. SUPPORT
distributed highlighted portions of (1) previous campaign statement
of Councilmember Mackenzie and (2) Municipal Code Section 2.08.270
regarding preparation of City documents (copy attached to original set of these minutes).
25) Pat Miller, 4959 Fern Pl. (submitted comments on card/had to leave early) SUPPORT
26) Jeff Nicks, 7810 Montero Dr. (submitted comments on card/did not speak) SUPPORT
27) Harvey Goldberg, 7345 Castille Ct. OPPOSE
eTIZ ► " I 1111m) DKI 1 1 k-M V ti 1:112 M DI oil KIKKII ► 10 alu-'al Y: I Im V I D167A
1) Dave Mochel, Commissioner, Rohnert Park Planning Commission OPPOSE
2) Rick Luttmann, PhD, 917 Dorine Ave. OPPOSE
3) Janice L. Heffron, Superintendent, 1601 East Cotati Ave. SUPPORT
Cotati - Rohnert Park Unified School District
There being no one further desiring to speak, Mayor Linda Spiro closed public comments
for this item at approximately 8:15 p.m.
The Mayor signified there was a motion on the floor by Councilmember Flores, seconded
by Vice Mayor Vidak- Martinez, to adopt Resolution No. 98 -34.
Councilmember Mackenzie referred to his memorandum dated February 10, 1998
distributed to Council, regarding Amendments to the Resolution to be placed on the June
Ballot, and shared that he was presenting these amendments to Cnnn ilmember Flnrec'
resolution because the voters' desires, expressed by their approval in 1996 of Measure "N",
should not be ignored. They are presented so that the spirit and the letter of "20 Year
Urban Growth Measures ", as successfully worked for in Sonoma County by the Sonoma
County Greenbelt Campaign, will not be disregarded. The resolution as written is a parody
of the measures in place in Healdsburg, Sebastopol, Santa Rosa and Windsor.
Councilmember Mackenzie proceeded with motions for amendments to the Urban Growth
Boundary Resolution - Exhibit "A ", as follows:
FIRST A31ENDMENT
A motion was made by Councilmember Mackenzie, seconded by Councilmember Reilly, to amend
B. Land Use Element Text Amendment (Under 0.030 General Plan Amendment [pages 2 & 3] }
A[2] Strike this section. Add the following language; "Amend the General Plan Land Use Map
by adding a line designating the Urban Service Boundary as that line which shall represent a
"20 Year Urban Growth Boundary". This line is shown on Figure LU -5g of the Sonoma County
General Plan, Land Use Plan Map/Rohnert Park - Cotati and environs.
B[3] Within Principle 4 substitute the following language, striking the last sentence; "Within this
boundary is the area in which the city's development will occur within a 20 year period." And
striking: "within this boundary is the area in which the City generally projects that development
will occur within a 20 year period." -- Discussion of this amendment included:
*Mayor Spiro signified the understanding for A[2] is that the city is already included in the
Sonoma County General Plan, so it is what it is regardless of what the City does.
*Councilmember Flores responded that three of the Members of the City Council had expressly
indicated in their platforms, more expansion to the southwest all the way to Railroad Avenue to the
west, which is considerably larger than this resolution. In the spirit of compromise, the boundaries
were reduced, which was not exclusive, but was all encompassing. That was the compromise
preference. In their platforms, they felt it would be more in the interest of the city to be more
expanded, but went to the compromise boundaries reflected in the item as proposed tonight.
*Councilmember Reilly withdrew his second. This motion *died for lack of a second. failed
with Ceuneilmember- Fieres, Viee Mayer- Vidak Mai4inez and Mayef Spiro dissenting.
*C O R R E C T 10 N ABOVE from 3110198 City Council meeting: Per Councilmember Reilly (addition underlined /deletion lined out)
SECOND AMF,NDMF,NT
A motion was made by Councilmember Mackenzie, seconded by Councilmember Reilly, to
amend B. (Same place as above) on Page 4 - B[5] Strike the language proposed for the new
Policy 4 and substitute the following: "An Urban Growth Boundary is established as shown on
the Land Use Planning Map with sufficient land to accommodate the city's growth for the next
twenty years. No new city development other than that authorized by the land use designations of
Open Space and Parks shall be permitted outside the Urban Growth Boundary. In order to
promote long range planning, it is intended that this policy remain in effect until December 31,
2018. Any amendments before that date shall only be made by an express vote of the people or
pursuant to procedures set forth as Exemptions in Section 0.050 of this document." And strike
ALL language in Conforming Amendments 0.040. -- Discussion of this amendment included:
•Mayor Spiro referred to discussions of this over the past four years. She did not plan to support
this amendment as she believed the document in front of the Council tonight is very useful. Past
discussions were about not having enough space and, though these are great arguments and she
appreciated the efforts involved in presenting them, the discussions of the past four years have
not resulted in changing her mind.
The motion failed 2 -3, with Councilmember Flores, Vice Mayor Vidak - Martinez and
Mayor Spiro dissenting.
THIRD AMF.NDMF.NT
A motion was made by Councilmember Mackenzie, seconded by Councilmember Reilly, for
this amendment on pages 8 and 9 - 0.050 Exceptions
Strike the second sentence in Section A. Add the following language: "The City Council may
amend the Urban Growth Boundary designated on the Land Use Map in order to accommodate
lands to be designated for residential uses, provided that no more than 10 acres may be brought
within the Urban Growth Boundary for this purpose in a calendar year. Such an amendment
requires that the City Council make the following findings:
1. That the land is adjacent to comparably developed areas and that urban services can be
delivered to the parcel in question.
2. That the proposed development will satisfy the requirement of the approved Housing
Element of the General Plan.
3. That the proposed development will primarily consist of low and very low income
housing pursuant to the housing element of this General Plan.
4. and, that there is no residentially- designated land available within the Urban Growth
Boundary to accommodate the proposed development.
Strike Sections B, D[7], E & F - Strike the language of 0.070 Amendment or Repeal.
Add the following language: "This initiative may be amended or repealed only by the voters
of the City of Rohnert Park ". -- Discussion of this amendment included:
*Mayor Spiro expressed concern about limiting to certain types of housing.
*Councilmember Reilly signified his understanding that this refers to land outside the UGB which
is being considered for the June ballot, so if there is a decision by this or future City Councils to
add more lines to the UGB, that certain findings would have to be made to go beyond this one,
which seemed to him to be what a UGB is about. If this is going to be put on the ballot, to take
away the right to make changes, it flies in the face of what this is going to do, and hoped it was
not going to the vote of the people to change Measure N and never again think this allows for
growth in a reasonable manner beyond this.
•Councilmember Flores called attention to the section supported by Councilmembers Reilly and
Mackenzie, to strike "F" which reads "Consistent with the intent of this policy, the City Council
may act by General Plan Amendment to change the 20 Year Urban Growth Boundary to provide
an extraordinary educational, social, cultural or economic opportunity for the City which
presents an overriding public benefit to Rohnert Park that cannot feasibly be accommodated
within the existing 20 Year Urban Growth Boundary. In order to make such a change, the City
Council must find that the proposed land use cannot feasibly be accommodated with the 20 Year
Urban Growth Boundary". Mr. Flores signified this is virtually the language of Measure N and
saw no difference in the philosophy, scope or intent.
•Councilmember Mackenzie stated some of the discrepancies were that Measure N was a 4 year
measure, for which he specifically campaigned, with the clear understanding of limiting the term,
and one -half of that will expire this year. The 20 years reflected within this boundary is area that
will occur within a 20 vear period. That is the whole nhilosonhv. To add the lanauaRe of
Measure N for a 20 year process, and then to add it back, flies in the face of reason. v
This motion failed 2 -3, with Councilmember Flores, Vice Mayor Vidak- Martinez and
Mayor Spiro dissenting.
Frualry<...... �
F0I1RTH AMENDMENT
A motion was made by Councilmember Mackenzie, seconded by Councilmember Reilly, for
this amendment to address Open Space Issues - Add in Chapter 0.030- Section 8 replacing, in
Section 6.6 of the Open Space Element of the General Plan, Objective 2 with the following
language: "Within the Urban Growth Boundary, and outside the current city limits, for each acre
approved for development by the city, there will be a match consisting of an acre donated to the
city for the purpose of maintaining the city's quality of life. This match of one acre of open space
land [as defined in the General Plan] will result in permanent open space becoming part of land
i hi� �L_ TT_L ___ !'�____It_ r_ _ 1_ through Specific use patterns W- Am- l the -l-an &OW111 boundary expressed through Specific Plans drawn up
under Rohnert Park City Ordinance Title 17 57.040 ". Discussion of this amendment included:
*Councilmember Reilly referred to the acre for acre proposal in Councilmember Mackenzie's
previous campaign statement, which was first proposed by former Councilmember Hollingsworth,
*at whieh time Mr. Reilly strongly opposed it, and was later proposed by Councilmember Flores.
Councilmember Reilly brought attention to this to signify that the credit for the acre for acre
proposal is not limited to one source, as it originated from Councilmember Hollingsworth.
*Mayor Linda Spiro reminded everyone that this was stricken out as illegal, so subsequently
cannot be pursued, no matter how good it sounds.
*Councilmember Flores commented he believed this was a 1992 statement suggesting that
probability.
*Mayor Spiro stated, however, open space cannot be taken for that situation without conquerable
adjustment, so she stood behind her previous statement.
*C O R R E C T 10 N Above from 3/10/98 City Council meeting: Per Councilmember Reilly (deletion lined out)
This motion failed 2 -3, with Councilmember Flores, Vice Mayor Vidak - Martinez and
Mayor Spiro dissenting.
The Mayor invited further discussion of the initial motion on the table, which proceeded as follows:
*Vice Mayor Vicki Vidak - Martinez reviewed aspects of the previous Measure N support which
was an issue on which she ran her campaign. She had wanted Stony Point Road to Petaluma Hill
Road, so the boundaries represented a compromise, from efforts of a committee that was put
together for this purpose, which turned out to be Councilmember Mackenzie's line. There has
been some dissension over this. Ms. Vidak- Martinez signified she has come to realize that
committees disagree and, with many views very close and the need to listen to the voters, she is
willing to support this ballot measure proposed for the June 1998 election. She referred to the
numerous letters received representing differing views on this issue; shared reasons for believing
that this line represents a compromise addressing the various concerns; and thought admirable
strides have been made within the past two years pertaining to this issue. There have been
numerous articles in the Voice, and Vice Mayor Vidak - Martinez has discovered, from recent
meetings she has attended, that the City does not have enough money due to stifled resources
with Measure N. Some of the needs include a convention center, infrastructure, Canon Manor,
SSU student housing, which are all good ideas, but the problem is that City revenues are largely
dependent upon sales tax, property tax, and needs land use to be generated. The City needs land
to be able to create revenues which will sustain our City and City revenues, therefore, she is proud
to support this compromise offered to the community in good faith to be looked at as a 20 year
growth boundary. Ms. Vidak - Martinez reviewed other beneficial aspects, which included the
value of having a part of this land in the County Separator; the solution is in the Open Space
Element; and the sewer capacity issue before us is not how to do these things, but about land use
and leadership with decisions to make improvements that are necessary. She sees this as an
important beginning and would like to see it happen.
1tart P�rtiyalae€ 11 F#riva�
*Mayor Linda Spiro expressed agreement with the preceding comments of the Vice Mayor, adding
that this 20 year UGB proposal is basically the same as the Santa Rosa, Sebastopol and Windsor
proposals for November. She reviewed the similarities and minor exceptions of these proposals
with Rohnert Park's, signifying that the measure is not unique to this county, but very similar to
the others. Mayor Spiro expressed appreciation for the efforts of Councilmember Flores involved
in presenting this UGB proposal which addressed her concerns.
•Councilmember Reilly signified he had fully intended at some point, hopefully before November,
to have a 20 year UGB proposal to consider based on certain lines to be presented, which may or
may not have ended up being the ones presented in this proposal. He reviewed concerns which
included this being an orchestrated Measure N anti - campaign; comparisons with rights of the
democratic process with lies; and the issue tonight is about the question of why is this proposal
rushing to June, and why not November, and wait for reports from the Task Forces. A lot of
people have been giving time and energy, and looked at this objectively. They were given lines to
consider, referred to as Mackenzie lines and Flores lines, and encouraged to go to the Community
Summit to obtain true input. Now, before hearing from those Task Forces, the same lines appear
and we are expected to think we did not waste our time. This could have been voted on a year
ago. What is more anti - American than trying to stifle the debate. We are not doing anything until
the year 2000 anyway due to sewer capacity. Mr. Reilly has heard pro- development people ask
why Measure N ?, why June? since you cannot build until the year 2000. He signified that
between now and then, the lines are going to move, and he was not going to vote on the same
lines that exist today. He questioned the logic of proceeding with the Boundaries Task Force
meeting scheduled tomorrow night, and though he would be there, thought this could have been
done a lot better, not so close to the June election, or would not have had everybody go to the
Economic Development /Community Summit.
*C O R R E C T 10 N Below from 3/10/98 City Council meeting: Per Councilmember Reilly (addition underlined /deletion lined out)
*Vice Mayor Vicki Vidak- Martinez responded that part of the answer to "why now" related to
what Supervisor *Cale -male has told us, that Rohnert Park is holding back County plans, such as
wastewater plans, etc. and that Rohnert Park needs to be part of what everyone is doing.
Ms. Vidak - Martinez signified that contrary to recent articles in the newspaper, she has seen a
definite compromise offered, and referred to comments and letters received representing both
opposition and support of the resolution being considered for the 20 year UGB, such as opposing
letters from Rick Luttmann and Dave Mochel, and support letter from the Cotati- Rohnert Park
School District.
•Councilmember Mackenzie reviewed his intention to write to the editor of the Voice responding
to the article on the front page of today's paper to correct comments attributed to him last year,
which were untrue and not substantiated by the record, as he has never supported the Flores line.
Mr. Mackenzie signified that we were charged by the then Council to come up with a consensus
line. The process was drawn out and, certainly, we were asked to come forward with a sphere of
a common line, then told to disregard it, and ended up voting on a number of lines including his
1996 proposal, and nothing happened. Afterwhich, Mr. Mackenzie signified he started
campaigning and, as stated, he had offered this as a line at that time. Then it became clear that the
City Council was unable to reach any compromise themselves, with the result of offering the
1996 UGB ballot measure, which passed a four year UGB to 2000 in which to sensibly plan for a
20 year UGB. A public hearing was held in that context. Circumstances dramatically changed in
June or July of that year. Though several contributed by walking and sharing information,
Councilmember Mackenzie signified he financed his own campaign. From the budget review at
the last Council meeting, urgency was certainly not apparent by the report on increased revenues.
We have heard nothing from the Hudson Report. Many hours were spent to produce this
MY—
document, which the Council applauded, and was supposed to be supplied for the Community
Summit. Then it was supposed to be available in December, was finally distributed in January,
and resulted in a total waste of money because everything in the document was totally ignored.
Councilmember Mackenzie signified that he clearly felt betrayed as a person who has invested
time in the Community Summit. He commented on concerns he has heard clearly from others
who participated in the Summit related to the northwest land, most of which is Dale Tatman's.
Mr. Mackenzie commented further that he and Planning Commissioner Shawn Kilat are on the
Task Force working toward elements to insure proper housing, and reviewed the extensive efforts
and I� mPP4in(Ye in��nl��csrl �nr norFi nivinoo +n ..t^41,:� Tn�l> L'.. «..� Tl,�« a.. t..,. ,,. aL.,. D,.....a —10 r...�..... .:..�_..
.«•..e ===vv�a=.bv uavva vu - rutL.V.F"1140 v1 �tu3 1QJr, 1 VlVG. 111611 1V 11QVG L11G 17VQ1U Vl .7U�JG1V1JV1
say nothing is happening, flies in the face of what is happening, and it is clear there is no
understanding of the efforts taking place. Councilmember Mackenzie signified the whole reason
he spent this time in preparing these amendments was, in fact, due to this lack of understanding
and is a *sham slue. He asked the Council to consider the letters put in front of them tonight
expressing concerns regarding this item. He commented it seems that when the resolution was
first drafted, the reference to "appeal" was omitted, and that this whole thing is nothing more than
an effort to do away with Measure N which was attempting to return control to the vote of the
people. Councilmember Mackenzie signified that the motion on the floor to adopt this resolution
takes away from that and this whole document is a lie.
•Councilmember Flores signified it was incredulous to him that putting this issue before the
electorate is a *sham shame. The City Council is placing a line in the General Plan which will
either be ratified by the electorate or not. It is complimentary to the efforts of the Task Forces
and it clearly reflects the position that the majority Council has taken in the past. The majority of
the City Council is expansive and is making a true compromise without regard to boundaries
proposed or who owns property, as Council must deal with many factors related to the interests
of many individuals. Mr. Flores signified he was supportive of Van Logan's plans but not after
being told that this initiative is complimentary and exclusive for two companies. The recent
budget review reflected reductions on the City's General Fund and the City clearly has
infrastructure needs with reserve funds that are not even sufficient for overlay needs in our
community. The only way to proceed is to let voters tell us what they want at the polls, which is
the reason the Council has been elected.
*C O R R E C T 10 N s Above from 3/10/98 City Council meeting: Per Councilmember Flores (addition underlined /deletion lined out)
Resolution No:
98 -34 CALLING A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION, TO BE HELD WITH THE
CONSOLIDATED PRIMARY ELECTION ON JUNE 2, 1998, TO SUBMIT TO
THE VOTERS OF THE CITY A RESOLUTION WHICH AMENDS THE
GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK AND ESTABLISHES A
20 YEAR URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY
The initial motion by Councilmember Flores, seconded by Vice Mayor Vidak - Martinez,
and approved 3 -2, reading of the resolution was waived and Resolution No. 98 -34 was
adopted by roll call vote as follows:
AYES: (3) Councilmember Flores, Vice Mayor Vidak- Martinez and Mayor Spiro
NOES: (2) Councilmembers Mackenzie and Reilly
ABSENT: (0) None
ABSTAIN: (0) None
Mayor Linda Spiro stated the Council has spent four years getting to this point and the voters
will now have the ultimate decision. -- Councilmember Reilly asked why the referenced area
on Snyder Lane, north of Keiser Road was not included in this proposal.
R.lakI<+uu In t[3I I? j I
Resolution No:
98 -35 ORDERING AN ELECTION TO BE HELD AND REQUESTING CONSOLIDATION
Upon motion by Councilmember Flores, seconded by Vice Mayor Vidak- Martinez, and
approved 3 -2, with Councilmembers Mackenzie and Reilly dissenting, reading of the
resolution was waived and Resolution No. 98 -35 was adopted.
RECESS Mayor Linda Spiro declared a recess at approximately 9:10 p.m.
RECONVENE Mayor Spiro reconvened the Council meeting at approximately 9:20 p.m. with all
Councilmembers present.
9. BUDGET 1997 -98 RECOMMENDED FEESICHARGES INCREASES
1) Garbage & Rubbish Disposal Rate Increase and Debris Bog Rate Increase
City Manager Netter advised the public hearing for this item was continued from the
December 9, 1997 City Council meeting and reviewed the staff report, as summarized in
the Council Meeting Memo.
PUBLIC HEARING. (cont'd from 12/9/97 City Council meeting) -- Mayor Linda Spiro continued
the public hearing at approximately 9:25 p.m.
Citizens submitted speaker cards and shared reasons via verbal and/or written comments
opposing this increase as follows:
1) Harvey Goldberg, 7345 Castille Court
2) Dorothy J. Ginnodo, 662 Racquet Club Circle
3) John Hudson, 399 Bonnie Avenue (letter attached to original set of these minutes)
4) A. G. Long, 5705 Dexter Circle
5) Charles Kitchen, 4945 Fern Place
There being no one further desiring to speak, Mayor Spiro closed the public hearing at
approximately 9:40 p.m.
City Manager Netter and Finance Director Harrow responded to Council questions
confirming the submittal of documentation from Empire Waste Management to justify this
rate increase, based on a Consumer Price Index formula, which includes an increase for
disposal rates by the County of Sonoma Landfill. Based on this joint formula, an approved
rate increase is calculated to be 2.85 %. Details of the rate increase were provided in the
staff report distributed to Council for this item.
Councilmember Mackenzie leaves /returns -- Councilmember Mackenzie left the chamber during
discussion of the following motion at approximately 9:50 p.m. and returned at
approximately 9:53.
�Q
411*0 ft.
#t?qu�tefi 1JdpiioER 11 k'itap fit#,;
Resolution No:
98 -36 SETTING SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL & RUBBISH OR REFUSE COLLECTION RATES
A motion was made by Councilmember Flores, seconded by Vice Mayor Vidak - Martinez,
to waive the reading and adopt Resolution No. 98 -36. Discussion of the motion included:
*Mayor Linda Spiro signified, for the record, to respond to preceding concerns expressed
during the public hearing by Mr. Long, that the City would be putting this out to bid the
next time, unless the next City Council decides otherwise, but that was the intention of this
Council.
*Councilmember Reilly explained the reason he would be voting no was due to the
franchise fee attached to this. If it could be linked to a pass - through, he would support it,
but if this is just setting aside funds for other *purposes pl`epel4, it is not appropriate.
We expect to pay for the cost of our garbage, but not for others in the future.
®Mayor Spiro stated, for the record, that we have all voted for this in the past, so this is a
new development, and believed this is more of an administrative procedure.
*Councilmember Reilly responded there is a need to look at the franchise fee.
*C O R R E C T 10 N Above from 3/10/98 City Council meeting: Per Councilmember Reilly (addition underlined /deletion lined out)
The above motion by Councilmember Flores, seconded by Vice Mayor Vidak - Martinez,
was approved 4 -1, with Councilmember Reilly dissenting, reading of the resolution was
waived and Resolution No. 98 -36 was adopted.
2) Wastewater Treatment and Disposal
City Manager Netter advised the public hearing for this item was continued from the
December 9, 1998 City Council meeting, and reviewed the staff report as summarized in
the Council Meeting Memo. City Manager Netter and Finance Director Harrow responded
to Council questions which included signifying that the Residential Rates are projected to
go into effect March 1, 1998 and Commercial Rates effective April 1, 1998. The proposed
increase is 10% and is based on the deficit project in the sewer operating account, which
was mainly affected by the increase in costs by the Santa Rosa Subregional Plan. Complete
details were provided in the separate staff report provided to Council for this item.
EXTEND COUNCIL 'MEETING: Upon motion by Councilmember Mackenzie, seconded by
Councilmember Flores, and unanimously approved, the Council meeting was extended
past 10:00 p.m. to finish necessary agenda items.
PUBLIC HEARING: (cont'd from 12/9/97 City Council meeting) Mayor Linda Spiro continued the
public hearing at approximately 10:07 p.m.
Citizens submitted speaker cards and shared reasons via verbal and/or written comments
opposing this increase as follows:
1) Ray Menzie, 6320 Commerce Blvd.
2) Alexis Tellis, c/o Sonoma Grove - recommended 3 %, or 3.4% at most, versus 10% increase
3) John Mackey, 7343 Castille Court
4) Charles Kitchen, 4945 Fern Place
5) John Hudson, 399 Bonnie Avenue
6) Harry Hartig, 7341 Castille Court
7) Joe Colacicco, 7347 Castille Court
'+C Pane Cii Owned ina es (13 F� O Ifs, tom::
There being no one further desiring to speak, Mayor Spiro closed the public hearing at
approximately 10:00 p.m.
City Manager Netter reviewed aspects of the City of Santa Rosa's plan to expand capacity
of the wastewater treatment plant, including his analysis that Rohnert Park is paying for the
expansion of the treatment plant up front, which has been in process for at least a couple of
years. Staff has been told Santa Rosa is waiting for the final EIR. City Manager
responded to further Council questions including confirmation that this item is a Council
policy decision. -- Discussion included Council comments on past and current wastewater
treatment processes with acknowledgment of resulting mandate that the City join the Santa
Rosa Subregional System.
Resolution No:
98 -37 ESTABLISHING RATES & CHARGES FOR SEWAGE TREATMENT AND
DISPOSAL
Discussion concluded upon motion by Councilmember Mackenzie, seconded by
Councilmember Reilly, and unanimously approved, to proceed with previous staff
recommendation to reduce the percentage of increase to 5% and authorize the reserves
for the time being to make up the balance until such time as the City knows what the Long
Term Wastewater Program will be, and direct staff to prepare an analysis to see if the City is
paying for expansion that has been built and show distribution of expenses, reading of the
resolution was waived and Resolution No. 98 -37 was adopted.
10. OTHER RESOLUTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION.
98 -_ RATIFICATION OF MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH SEIU, LOCAL
707 MAINTENANCE WORKERS
City Manager Netter advised deferral of this item.
98 -38 UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION TO APPROVE THE
SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL MODIFICATIONS FOR PROPOSED
MULTI -PLEX THEATER TO BE LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF GOLF
COURSE DRIVE AND THE DOUBLE TREE HOTEL AND DENYING THE
APPEAL (re. Planning File No. 1691 Edwards Theater Circuit)
City Manager Netter explained the staff report provided to Council for this item as
summarized in the Council Meeting Memo. The purpose of this resolution is to codify
previous Council action, signified during its meeting of January 13, 1998, and will convey
the conditions of approval and establish a formal record in this project file.
Upon motion by Councilmember Flores, seconded by Vice Mayor Vicki Vidak- Martinez, and
approved *3_2 44, with Councilmember Reilly *and Councilmember Mackenzie dissenting,
reading of the resolution was waived and Resolution No. 98 -38 was adopted.
*C 0 R R E C T 10 N Above from 3/10/98 City Council meeting: Per Councilmember Reilly (additions underlined /deletion lined out)
IL PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS:
1) File No. 1755 - Dale Tatman Subdivision - Rezoning 12 acre parcel from R -1 (40,000)
to R -1 (6,500) to accommodate a 40 -lot Single Family Residential Subdivision located on
the west side of Snyder Lane & south of Hagemann Lane
City Manager Netter advised the staff report was provided to Council for this item,
as summarized in the Council Meeting Memo. Mr. Netter reported that he talked to
Gary Tatman earlier this evening on the results of their meeting with representatives of the
churches, which Planning Director Schulenburg would review at this time.
• Report on meetings between churches and developer -- Planning Director Schulenburg
reviewed the staff report for this item confirming that Mr. Tatman met with representatives
of the four churches located to the south of his proposed development on January 20 & 22,
1998. Mr. Tatman believes that he has addressed all of the concerns, with the exception of
indication by Chip Worthington, Pastor of the Assemblies of God Church, subsequent to the
meetings, that he is still dissatisfied with the proposal and has sought assistance from the
Churches' Regional Board of Directors. In summary, the meeting discussions focused on
parking, landscaping, addressing, disclosure to potential homeowners of the Churches'
master plans (ultimate building locations), special events, potential noises associated with
church events, etc., driveway locations, and changing the street name to "Heavenly Way ".
Ms. Schulenburg advised that Mr. Tatman was present at this Council meeting to further
review the results of the meetings and respond to Council questions.
Council expressed appreciation for this report and to the individuals involved in the process
of this effort toward resolving concerns.
Ordinance for adoption:
No. 637 AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
REZONING TWO (2) PARCELS TOTALING 12.72 ACRES LOCATED ON THE
WEST SIDE OF SNYDER LANE, SOUTH OF HAGEMANN LANE, AND
GENERALLY NORTH OF ELEANOR AVENUE AND MORE PRECISELY
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 045 - 221 -07 & 045 - 221 -18
(Planning File No. 1755 Tateman)
A motion was made by Councilmember Flores, seconded by Vice Mayor Vidak - Martinez,
to waive the reading and adopt Ordinance No. 637. Discussion proceeded as follows:
*Councilmember Mackenzie signified, for the record, that while he commended the
efforts to address the above - reviewed concerns of the churches, none of his issues have
been addressed, like cul -de -sacs without any egress, and he was still disappointed that the
City did not follow through to discuss other uses.
The above motion by Councilmember Flores, seconded by Vice Mayor Vidak - Martinez,
was approved 3 -2, with Councilmembers Mackenzie and Reilly dissenting, reading of the
ordinance was waived and Ordinance No. 637 was adopted.
Rtit t'arkt�u�re0:Mis (I5) Fs tt#,18
2) File No. 1770 -Les Schwab Tire Centers -Call up appeal for reconsideration (Flores)
re. condition restricting roofing material for a 15,000 + /- sq. ft. retail and tire installation
facility proposed for 5353 and 5395 Redwood Drive
•Resolutions for consideration:
98 -_ Modifying the Planning Commission Conditions of Approval for File No. 1770:
Conditional Use Permit, Architectural and Site Plan, and Certification of the
Negative Declaration for a 15,000 Square Foot Tire Retail and Installation
Facility Proposed to be Located at 5353 and 5395 Redwood and Denying the
Appeal of Mr. Michael Oxman - Les Schwab Tire Dealer
---------- OR ---------
98 -_ Upholding the Planning Commission Action to Conditionally Approve File No.
1770: Conditional Use Permit, Architectural and Site Plan, and Certification
of the Negative Declaration for a 15,000 Square Foot Tire Retail and
Installation Facility Proposed to be Located at 5353 and 5395 Redwood and
Denying the Appeal of Mr. Michael Oxman - Les Schwab Tire Dealer
City Manager Netter explained this item as reviewed in the Council Meeting Memo.
Councilmember Flores called this up for reconsideration within the specified time period
and it was carried over to this Council meeting to enable review by the full Council. The
first course of business is for Council to decide if it wants to re -hear this item.
A motion was made by Councilmember Flores, seconded by Vice Mayor Vidak - Martinez,
and approved 4 -1, with Councilmember Mackenzie dissenting, to re -hear this appeal
related to the issue of the roof.
Planning Director Wendie Schulenburg reviewed the staff report which was originally
presented to the City Council at its meeting of January 13, 1998. She reiterated the Planning
Commission's rationale for requiring that Les Schwab utilize a roof material that was more
characteristic of recent west side development. According to Ms. Schulenburg, the
Architectural and Site Plan review process grants the City the authority to guide the design of
new facilities to ensure compliance with applicable development standards and the General
Plan. Recognizing that development along the Highway 101 frontages is highly visible, and as
such, is within the community viewshed and gateway, in recent years, the Council has worked
diligently towards improving the City's image along the Highway 101 Corridor. To reinforce
this objective, the City's General Plan included an implementation measure that would insure
that "the U. S. Highway 101 image of the City is continually improved and enhanced" through
well designed buildings and extensive use of landscaping. She stated that the City Council has
further supported this commitment by requiring a Council discretionary architectural review of
all development projects in the Highway 101 Corridor area. Considering the sensitivity of this
area as well as the required findings for Site Plan and Architectural Review, which states that
"new structures should be compatible with existing development and enhance the Cityscape,"
she noted that staff recommended and the Planning Commission concurred that the tire facility
should utilize materials that are similar to existing development, such as stucco or split face
block, instead of CMU, and a clay barrel tile roof, rather than the galvanized metal roof. The
company could retain its desired image by utilizing a color palette of cream, white or tan
stucco, rust accents and the red tile roof.
t t*artt3�C+lau>ie ll?e111#,
Ms. Schulenburg indicated that, with exception to the roof material, Mr. Michael Oxman,
Les Schwab representative, has agreed to all the conditions. Mr. Oxman has further tried to
resolve the aesthetic concerns by redesigning the building with greater articulation on the
eastery, freeway elevation. However, staff finds that, although the revised design is more
aesthetically pleasing than the original design, is still out of character for this sensitive gateway
area. She stated that the draft resolution upholding the Planning Commission's approval of
the project contains findings that support the Planning Commission's action. She concluded
with a recommendation that the City Council adopt the resolution that upholds the Planning
f ..mm;ao;nn'o nrtin;n.Ol QnnrnvQl 1174h 1-111- r.,nf matAr;n1 mnrl ;first ;nn
i.i V1111111JJ1V11 J V11�.,111W1 {LtJ t./LV tl{.11 Ytl 1111 {.liV aVVa ilauvaaasn nnnV �neveroaV na.
Councilmember
Mackenzie leaves -- Councilmember Mackenzie left the chamber at approximately 10:42 p.m. with
comment that he should leave due to his preceding vote not to hear the item.
Planning Director Schulenburg reviewed the revised plans of Les Schwab Tire Centers.
Councilmember
Mackenzie returns -- Councilmember Mackenzie returned to the chamber at approximately 10:45 p.m.
Michael Oxman, representing Les Schwab Tire Centers, P. O. Box 667, Prineville, Oregon,
expressed appreciation for this reconsideration. He referred to the photo on display showing
architectural changes to the building and reviewed reasons for their desire to retain the metal
roof, which included liking their buildings to look crisp and clean; requires less maintenance
and allows more time to do other things to enhance the quality of customer service.
Mr. Oxman made comparisons with surrounding facilities compatible with the appearance
of theirs and reviewed beneficial aspects of their company to the community, which
included being family owned; employment factors; and tax revenues beneficial to the City.
Mr. Oxman responded to Council questions including explanation that if approval was not
received for the metal roof in Rohnert Park, they would terminate their plans in this area and
look into other possible locations.
A motion was made by Councilmember Mackenzie, seconded by Councilmember Reilly, as a
result of this appeal and the design changes, that the Council request the Planning
Commission to re- examine the architectural design along with the drawings presented
tonight, and reconsider their action. Discussion proceeded as follows:
*Councilmember Reilly signified that since the question is whether to uphold the condition or
to modify that condition, would the Council not have to do one or the other, or put the
whole issue on hold. It seemed to him that the Council would uphold the Planning
Commission, and then refer the item back for further considerations.
*Planning Director Schulenburg responded she would want to discuss the process with the
City Attorney, but did not know if she would consider the changes significant enough to
send it back to the Planning Commission, so would not recommend sending it back.
Councilmember Reilly withdrew his second to the motion, due to the preceding comments
by the Planning Director.
Rt�lfrt irkfty:ou�ncii:Mtn> ( 17I Febi�gr� 1Q,98
Councilmember Flores signified that he believed the applicant has made a significant effort.
He has had individuals call, even competitors of tire dealerships, who have indicated they are
not concerned about the possibility of Les Schwab locating here. In this situation, the
Council has talked for many months, even years, about the fact of needing to enhance and
encourage businesses to locate in Rohnert Park. He agreed with Councilmember Mackenzie
on the need for fairness. The applicant has signified the intention to use the metal roof with
baked enamel paint that would not lose paint over the long term.
A motion was made by Councilmember Flores, seconded by Vice Mayor Vidak - Martinez, on
the basis of preceding comments, to approve this project with the modification reviewed at
this Council meeting. Discussion proceeded as follows:
*Vice Mayor Vicki Vidak - Martinez agreed with reasons expressed by Councilmember Flores
and signified this is a good project which will benefit the community. It will bring the City
revenues; provide employment; and Les Schwab has done a good job making significant
changes in the design.
•Councilmember Reilly expressed appreciation for the efforts of representatives of
Les Schwab and what they are trying to do. Mr. Reilly signified he is also for economic
development and shared comments relating to competitive redistribution. Providing the
opportunity for additional employment in the community is also a great contribution.
However, staff has made a recommendation and it seems the Planning Director has a plan,
and he believed that plan needs to be enforced. Councilmember Reilly shared that what he
was waiting for tonight was that the Planning Director had a modification to recommend,
but without that in mind, he was not willing to uphold it.
*Councilmember Mackenzie signified he had hoped to see what the five Planning
Commissioners had to say about this item regardless of what the Planning Director had to
say and, therefore, was not going to change his vote.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Spiro welcomed a statement from the Chamber of Commerce
representative and also signified there were two other people who wanted to speak on this
item. Councilmember Reilly responded, due to additional public comments, that he would
withdraw his preceding statement and would revisit it later.
1) Robin Bleckwehl President of Rohnert Park Chamber of Commerce 5000 Roberts Lake Rd.,
expressed appreciation for this opportunity to speak. She signified that Rohnert Park is the
location of the official California Welcome Center and is, in that vane, the gateway in
Sonoma County to the Wine Center. There has been efforts to design attractive facilities and
the City has established a set of guidelines that compliment the quality of life in our City. She
also believed in holding everyone to those standards and saw n� rP.as(ln for (hinging mr
standards. She signified that we are proud of how we look and we welcome Les Schwab
Tires to Rohnert Park, and encourage them to participate and support these particular efforts
in our community.
2) Shawn Kilat, Planning Commissioner, 1372 Rebecca Way, shared that the Planning
Commission voted unanimously on December 11, 1997, to approve this item as conditioned
in the staff report. Their main concern was the metal roof and did not talk that much about
the design. The debate here seems to center on image. Mr. Oxman's desire to retain the
identity of Les Schwab is appreciated, but on the other hand, there is the City of Rohnert
Park to consider, and should be considered to a greater degree. There are certainly situations
that could be determined a critical need, but there are currently six tire centers in Rohnert
Park. If this were a critical need, it might be worthy to approve the project, but did not think
those over riding circumstances exist.
3) Christian Rodgers, 1218 Hagemann Lane, reviewed reasons for opposing the metal roof and
shared comments from a supreme court case stating that aesthetics is as important as
monetary considerations when looking at a project. It is important to look at what is
beautiful, as well as healthy. Keep in mind our City's fundamental considerations.
Mayor Linda Spiro shared, for Council's information, that she met with the applicant earlier
today, along with Mr. Rogers. She assured the applicant that the Council is strong on
development and wanted Les Schwab Tires to come to Rohnert Park, but wanted it to be on
the same basis as others. Mayor Spiro was hoping they will still come back with a new
design, but she would have to support the Planning Commissions 5 -0 vote, not necessarily
because of that, but she made it clear this afternoon that she would be doing that.
Councilmember Mackenzie requested the previous motion be restated for clarification.
The motion restated by Councilmember Flores, seconded by Vice Mayor Vidak - Martinez,
failed 2 -3, with Councilmembers Mackenzie and Reilly and Mayor Spiro dissenting, to
modify the Planning Commission conditions imposed on the Les Schwab Tire Center
project, specifically with one exception with regard to accepting the metal roof.
This action resulted in upholding the Planning Commission action to conditionally approve
File No. 1770, based on the Planning Director's comments and findings, as outlined in
these minutes.
12 CO11111id .�',SdONICO162MITTEEISOARD APPOINTYIENEY.: (two year terms to expire 12131199)
1) Senior Citizens Advisory Commission
*To fill vacancy left by John Chase (LS nomination)
2) Sister City(s) Relations Committee
*To fill vacancy left by Julie Yonemura (At large appointment)
These items were deferred pending further consideration. Mayor Spiro referred to her
pervious request to check with the Senior Advisory Commission regarding the possibility
of modifying the 60 years old or older requirement for appointments to the Commission.
-- Councilmember Flores signified the need to maintain consistency and the need to have
senior citizens for the Senior Advisory Commission appointments. -- Mayor Spiro
responded that there have been two interested applicants who are approximately 55 years
of age, so it depends on the definition of senior.
Raft Prl +aaaeil Mutes (1�1 geary 1 t938
13. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) 1998 -99 Project Proposals
1) Countywide Funding Proposal
*Committee on Shelterless (COTS)
Assistant City Manager Leivo referred to the staff report for this item, as summarized in the
Council Meeting Memo, and advised that Representative Morris Turner was available to
respond to Council questions. -- Discussion included Councilmember Reilly commending
efforts of the Innovative Housing Program and the COTS Shared Housing Program, as both
do outstanding jobs. He was glad there are people who want to do these jobs and do
them well. Mayor Spiro signified, for the record, to let Councilmember Reilly's comments
stand for all five Councilmembers. Council concurred.
Resolution No:
98 -39 IN SUPPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE SHELTERLESS (COTS) CDBG
PROJECT APPLICATION FOR 1998 -99
A motion was made by Councilmember Reilly, seconded by Mayor Linda Spiro, and
unanimously approved, to waive the reading of the resolution and Resolution No. 98 -39
was adopted.
2) Local Project Proposals (City Funding)
*Comm unity-Based Prioritization
Assistant City Manager Leivo reviewed the staff report for this item, as summarized in the
Council Meeting Memo, and responded to Council questions.
RESOLUTION FOR CONSIDERATION:
A motion was made by Vice Mayor Vidak- Martinez, seconded by Councilmember Flores,
to adopt Resolution No. 98 -40 Establishing a Community -Based Prioritization for the
1998 -99 Community Development Block Grant Program, based on staff's priority
recommendations, as outlined in the staff report.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Mayor Linda Spiro invited public comments on this item at approximately 11:15 p.m.
1) Georgia Woods, 614 Charles, Santa Rosa, President of the project titled Supported
Independent Living submitted by Housing Connections (HC), expressed support of this
project and introduced Board Members of this newly formed non -profit organization.
2) Janet Rainville 1128 Elvera Rohnert Park, signified she was not speaking in her current
capacity as Sonoma Countv Housing Coordinator, but speaking on behalf of their
Supervisors and expressing support for the Housing Connections Project. She shared
reasons for this support and responded to Council questions.
There' being no one further desiring to speak, the Mayor closed public comments at
approximately 11:25 p.m.
i P+;r1eftguu�te0 Fauy.t#,151
A motion was made by Councilmember Reilly to include in the initial motion for this item,
consideration of deferring some of the City's program for sidewalk access ramps to promote
more CDBG funds for the Housing Connections Project. -- Discussion included City
Manager Netter signifying that the sidewalk access ramps was one of the recent concerns of
the Grand Jury, and installations are proposed to begin this April. -- Councilmember Reilly
asked about deferral of CDBG funds from the Mobilehome Earthquake Resistant Bracing
System Program for the Housing Connections Project, unless staff is aware of other money
available. -- Assistant City Manager Leivo responded that funds are getting close to
minimal on the CDBG funds for the Earthquake Resistance Bracing (ERB) Program.
Kathleen Kane, Representative of Sonoma County Community Development Commission,
reviewed aspects related to the proposed projects and federal Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) funds allocated in Sonoma County. She responded to various
Council questions including progress on the ERB Program, ability toward obtaining good
prices because of the numbers involved, and probability of the program being shut down if
Council wanted to cut it in half.
Further discussion included speculations on other Rohnert Park Community Development
Commission that may be available. -- Mayor Linda Spiro suggested proceeding with the
vote on the initial motion as proposed. -- Councilmember Reilly agreed to withdraw his
amendment to the motion, as long as staff looks into other funding possibilities and reports
back to Council on further options. Council agreed.
Resolution No:
98 -40 ESTABLISHING A COMMUNITY -BASED PRIORITIZATION FOR THE
1998 -99 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
The initial motion by Vice Mayor Vidak- Martinez, seconded by Councilmember Flores,
was unanimously approved, to waive the reading and Resolution No. 98 -40 was adopted.
14. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS:
1) League of CaliECities - North Bay Division Meeting, 2/5/98 (Spiro)
Mayor Linda Spiro advised the cancellation of this meeting due to rainy weather.
2) Performing Arts Center Committee (Spiro/Mackenzie" - DEFERRED
3) Skateboard Park (Mackenzie/Reilly) -- Councilmember Reilly advised the Committee
would provide a report on this item on the next Council meeting agenda.
15. TRANSPORTATIONMATTERS:
1) Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) - Rail Plan Fundin
re. pro -rated participation by Sonoma County cities for MTC provisions
Councilmember Flores referred to the information provided on this item, which he
reviewed at the January 13, 1998 City Council meeting, and advised Rohnert Park's
portion would be $7,468. -- A motion was made by Councilmember Flores, seconded by
Councilmember Mackenzie, and unanimously approved, to authorize the City's pro -rated
contribution in the amount of $7,468 for the Sonoma/Marin Rail Implementation Plan.
2) 1997 SCTA Annual Report -- City Manager Netter advised this item was provided for
Council's information.
PC+pr�e ...
1<b1€, ?.
16 COMMUNICATIONS. Communications per the attached outline were brought to the attention
of the City Council. No action was taken unless specifically noted in these minutes.
17 MATTERS FROMIFOR COUNCIL:
1) Joint meeting with Cultural Arts Commission re. community art proposals,
Tues., Feb. 24, 1998, 5:00 -6:00 p.m., prior to regularly City Council meeting
- INFORMATIONAL ITEM -
2) Mayors' & Councilmembers' Association - Discussion Group,
7:00 p.m., Thurs., Feb. 26, 1998 - Rohnert Park Convener
- INFORMATIONAL ITEM -
3) Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Spring 1998 General Assembly,,
Fri., Apr. 17, 1998 at the Berkeley Marina Mariott - Delegate: Councilmember Mackenzie
- INFORMATIONAL ITEM -
4) Fence in front of pig farm/Request from Rancho Grande MHP Seniors (Spiro)
-DEFERRED-
5) Forum for City Ethnic Diversity (Spiro) - DEFERRED -
6) Animal Shelter liaison (Mackenzie) - DEFERRED -
18. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT.•
1) National League of Cities - Membership 50% discount -- City Manager Netter reviewed
the information provided to Council for this offer with March 1 st deadline. -- Discussion
concluded upon motion by Councilmember Flores, seconded by Vice Mayor Vidak - Martinez,
and approved 3 -2, with Councilmembers Mackenzie and Reilly dissenting, to proceed with
joining this membership as reviewed herein.
2) Commissioners' Affair - Dinner/Theatre Thursday evening, April 23rd
City Manager Netter made this announcement. -- Councilmember Flores suggested
changing the name of this occasion, i.e. call it a function or an event. Council concurred.
3) Rains of 2/2/98 & EOC operation - Results /update - INFORMATIONAL -
4) RPPOA request for flag pole & plaque for Lew Yeomans at Southern Station
City Manager Netter explained this letter request dated January 29, 1998.
A motion was made by Councilmember Reilly, seconded by Councilmember Flores, the
above - reviewed item, in concept, was unanimously approved.
5) Northern Station Open House for Council /Staff, 4:30 -6:00 p.m., Tues., Feb. 24, 1998
City Manager Netter announced this event.
6) Review of CiIX Goals -- City Manager Netter advised he has set aside March 16, 17 or 18
as possible dates to consider for this review.
19. CITYATTORNEY'S REPORT.•
1) Any items from closed session -- City Attorney Flitner advised the Mayor's report on
closed session items was sufficient.
2) Fire Services Benefit Assessment - Validation Action -- City Attorney Flitner advised
the preliminary arguments and briefing on this item were scheduled in February and will be
included on the calendar for consideration the first part of April. He hoped the matter
would be resolved then.
20. UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES:
Mayor Linda Spiro asked if there were any additional unscheduled public appearances at
this time. No one responded
21. ADJOURNMENT. There being no further business, Mayor Linda Spiro adjourned the meeting
at approximately 11:35 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, February 24, 1998 for a Joint Meeting
with the Cultural Arts Commission at the City Offices, 6750 Commerce Boulevard.
Dep C' Jerk
jh/mim:021098mn
Mayor
MEMO TO: Rohnert Park City Council ..-
Re: Proposed UGB
From: David Eck
UGB
Add the Following Findings! The intent of this resolution and UGB is:
• To protect agricultural uses outside the UGB by promoting, on lands outside
the UGB, ongoing agricultural and other natural resource and open space
uses, such public and private outdoor recreation and productive investments
for farming enterprises.
• Improve the City's ability to provide municipal services, such as police and
L. fn sprawling i
ire and discourage the provision of City services to �p� a��Jl�ng development
on the City's fringes which greatly increases the cost of such services.
• Protect open space and community separators surrounding the City and its
neighbors.
• Manages the City's growth in a manner which will retain the rural character
the residents have indicated they want for the City
Add the General Plan Amendments!
• Until June, 2017, the UGB as depicted on the following map may be
amended only by a vote of the people or pursuant to the to any procedures
outlined below. I will not repeat these procedures. The are in Measure N and
can be found in all of the other County UGB's and are nicely stated in the
Novato UGB ordinance (I have provide a copy of the Novato language to the
City Manager.
• An Urban Growth Boundary is established according the map provided. For
the 20 year duration the of the UGB, development outside the UGB shall be
limited to non urban uses such as agriculture, open space, parks,
conservation and community separators. The City Shall not approve any
general plan amendments, rezoning, or zoning ordinance, specific plan,
master plan, tentative or final may or any other discretionary or ministerial
land use or development or entitlement for urban lands uses outside the
UGB except as provided elsewhere in this policy. (Again their are standard
exception in N and other UGB's)
• Those lands designated within the UGB and those in the planning area but
outside of the UGB will form an assessment district the purpose of purpose of
which will be to acquire opens space and development rights. Armando has
proposed an acre for acre. This concept has been shared by most prior
councils and was placed a prior General plan by motion of Art Hollingsworth.
The Council should direct staff to draft language to make this concept work.
Process For Expanding ULL (UGB)
• Start with the designated goals and planning areas of the Summit
Committee.
• Incorporate the goals such as housing, town centers, industry, commerce
into a General Plan.
• Hire an outside planning consultant to work with the City to develop a plan
that would take those areas and permanently plan them.
• Consolidate the areas into a few specific plan areas. For example 2A and
2C might 'De a single specific planning area.
• Create Benefit Assessment Districts - -up to three of them
• If any development were to occur it would be done in such a way that all
parcel owners would gain some of the benefit. Thus economic benefits to
those who develop would in be used to preserve the open space from those
who do not.
• Sonoma County Open Space District dollars along with funds from the
benefit Assessment District would be used to place the undeveloped land
into permanent open space and agricultural easements
• The open space would be used for agriculture and provide sites for
resulting reuse of wastewater.
1. This would require a storage site. Perhaps the Vast Oaks Site.
2. This plan would utilized the wastewater pipe already stubbed up to
the corner of Synder and the Expressway. The pipe could be run up
the expressway right of way for a relatively small cost
• Hire a planning consultants who specialize in clustering development units into
small planned unit areas an is familiar with redevelopment and infill planning.
Border Committee
From: Dave
Re: General Plan
The following items are what I feel should happen with the General Plan:
• Continue to move ahead with the Committee's and Councils recommended economic analysis of
the General Plan
• Declare that the lands to the north of the City are to be designated community separator /open space
and facilitate their acquisition by the Open Space District
• Have a stated goal for housing of meeting the "fair share" as compiled by ABAG or some other
planning agency
• In three years or less have a permanent UGB policy. The Novato model seems to be a good one
• Take the designated areas from the general plan committee and hirer an outside planning consultant
to work with the City to develop a plan that would take those areas and permanently plan them. It
would be my intention to consolidate the areas into a few specific plan areas. For example 2A and
2C would be a single specific planning area.. If any development were to occur it would be done in
such a wav that all Darcel owners would gain some ofthe benefit. This economic return coupled
with dollars from the Sonoma County Open Space District would place the remaining land into
permanent open space easements which would be available for agriculture with the resulting reuse of
wastewater. Their are planning consultants who specialize in clustering development units into small
planned unit areas.
• Consider the creation of one specific plan area to the north of SSU and one to the South of SSU.
And one to the West of the out to Stoney Point Road Have an outside planning team incorporate the
goals of the Community Summit into a development plan.
The Specific Plans would be planned to provide
Maximum open space
Employment Opportunities
Wastewater irrigation
Schools
Recreational facilities
Fair Share Housing
City Revenues
Minimum impacts on infrastructure
• Determine the legality of re- subdivision and increased clustering of units on the undeveloped
parcels (on the south) in Cannon Manor. This could be used to increase the sense of open space,
provide parks or other recreational facilities and would lower the costs of adding the infrastructure
required to bring the area up to minimal urban standards.
• Consider the possibility of feathering the transition of urban to open space with some sort of open
space for community use. Such uses would have to be consistent with the Open Space Districts
requirements for such uses.
pages
Date. # of
e� -I J®
Post-it' Fax Note 7671
To
Co. /Dept. rr
Phone #
Fax # 5-65 r ,
From
Co. - 7 Ax
r,
Ph o #
Fax '#
at
�. SLai
1.
FCEIV6,D
SHEPPARDI MULLIN, RICHTER &HAMPTON LLP
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SEVENTEENTH FLOOR
FOUR EMBARCADERO CENTER
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 -4106
TELEPHONE (415) 434 -9100
FACSIMILE (41S) 434 -3947
February 9, 1998
Mayor Linda Spiro and Members
of the Rohnert Park City Council
City of Rohnert Park
6750 Commerce Blvd.
Rohnert Park, CA 94928
Dear Mayor Spiro and Council Members:
FEB 1 0 1998
C%N
ROHNERT PARK
OUR FILE NUMBER
Council Correspondence
Copy to ea. Councilman
Copy to
Copy to ,7 -- /0_ s/
Copy to
V FA K i2eCP (v&
d4, f�• a
Our clients are the owners of several properties located inside and
adjacent to the city limits Rohnert Park. This letter is to state our objection on behalf
of the owners of 108 Holdings, Ltd and S.C. Forty Acres, Inc., to two proposed
resolutions to be considered by the Rohnert Park City Council on February 10, 1998.
These resolutions, proposed by Council member Armando Flores, call for an expansion
of the Rohnert Park Urban Growth Boundary to be placed on the ballot for Special
Election on June 2, 1998. We believe this action is premature and inappropriate for
several key reasons.
First, an action by the council to recommend a matter for initiative must
be preceded by a full environmental impact analysis and the identification of
mitigations for impacts caused by the adoption of such a permanent urban growth
boundary. Secondly, the City is in the middle of a General Plan Amendment process at
the direction of the Council, and these resolutions at this time would completely waste
the considerable effort the city has expended in a proper general plan amendment
process.
In addition, our client's properties are immediately adjacent to the
proposed boundary, and yet they did not receive any notice of the proposed action until
its coverage in the press last week. They have not had any opportunity to participate in
a public process regarding this resolution which would cionifnantl , affect their
properties.
L O S A N G E L E S ■ O R A N G E C O U N T Y ■ S A N 0 1 E G 0 ■ S A N F R A N C I S C 0
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON uP
City of Rohnert Park
February 9, 1998
Page 2
Timing; of Council Action
There has been considerable discussion in the past several years in
Rohnert Park regarding the City's interests in extending services and allow some
development beyond the current City limits. In the past year, the Council directed the
planning department tv begin preparation lUr a General Plan Aiiieituiiicrit addressing
the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). As part of that process, several task forces have
been working to supply information to the Planning Commission and the Council, and
to make recommendations based on at least nine alternative scenarios. As recently as
December 8, 1997, the nine alternatives were outlined for the Council and Planning
Commission, in order to begin the analysis according to the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Without warning, Council member
Flores has proposed to randomly select one of those alternatives for placement on the
ballot as a voter initiative.
We believe any such proposal should be prepared by the City Planning
Department Staff, and submitted to the Planning Commission for review and
recommendation before the Council. The current proposal circumvents the long
established public planning processes. There is simply no reason or urgency to cast
aside the efforts undertaken by the City staff and community members over the last
year. There is no rational basis for the location of the proposed boundary, and a
resolution to place this matter on the ballot would clearly be arbitrary and capricious.
Failure to Comply with CEQA:
1. There are distinct and significant environmental impacts, such as leap
frog housing and job development, related traffic, water and sewage impacts.
The proposed UGB will also cause increased densification inside the City limits
resulting in unanticipated burdens on parks, schools and infrastructure - all of
which are caused by the establishment of a long term Urban Growth Boundary
that has not been addressed any EIR or in an initial study prepared by the city to
date.
Cl„arl.7 ±h„ F.flt,osed T TGB zs en:. med as a broader C.nu u Vl%I
"permanent" growth limitation. Yet the resolutions conveniently ignore the fact
that the establishment of the UGB would not only further intensify development
pressure inside the UGB, as well as other urban areas within the County, but it
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
City of Rohnert Park
February 9, 1998
Page 3
would do so without the flexibility to accommodate changing demographics and
infrastructure needs of the community.
2. The proposal to establish a 20 year Urban Growth Boundary is
substantively different from the pre - existing four year Urban Growth Boundary
11 iorat0ni Ln " adopted '40 n� n Measure r., %e , J.o n if they are wnn igied to
serve a
similar policy goal, and therefore any environmental analysis in support of that
action would not apply to this proposal.
3. Recent case law, particularly as discussed in Citizens for Responsible
Government v. City of Albany, 56 Cal AppAth 1199 (1997), requires that
before a City may submit a matter to the voters which subsequently commits the
City to a definite course of action, the City must conduct an environmental
review leading to an environmental impact report or a negative declaration,
before it may approve or carry out the action. The "approval" or "action" in this
case is the Urban Growth Boundary which would become mandatory contingent
only on the outcome of the election. Therefore, any action taken by the Council
to adopt these resolutions without compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) would be invalid.
These and other omissions in the City efforts to adopt an Urban Growth
Boundary at this time, provide substantial evidence such that a fair argument can be
made that a full environmental analysis of this Urban Growth Boundary should be
conducted prior to any action by the Council.
Alternatives to the UGB.
While the protection of open space and agricultural land on the urban
periphery is a critical concern to the City, there has not been a serious consideration of
alternative methods to accomplish the growth control goals of a UGB. The city did not
consider the potential effectiveness of transferable development rights programs,
voluntary land exchanges, bargain sale acquisitions from landowners, and other
methods which are being used by the public and private sector nationwide. These
methods can establish urban houndnriec without eliminating the investment barked
expectations of landowners on both sides of the line. The proposed resolution for a
ballot initiative does not contain a proper nexus between the burden placed on the
property owner and the public interest being served because alternative methods to
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
City of Rohnert Park
February 9, 1998
Page 4
preserve open spaces have not been explored adequately by the City or in the proposed
resolution.
Moreover, encroachment on a UGB does not necessarily violate the basic
principles of the UGB to protect open space and agriculture. Where properties
similarly situated have had services extended, and where the inclusion of certain areas
would be low cost and contiguous to such projects, certain standards or guidelines
should form the basis of decisions whether services should be extended to these areas
over others.
Currently in Rohnert Park, the actual line of the UGB appears to have
been drawn solely on the basis of the original city limits, and not based on natural land
forms or to provide for property owner relief. It is unclear how the City can leave such
a far reaching policy decision to the initiative process, without providing the voters
with substantive basis of the proposal. The Council is not provided with any staff
report, let alone a technical analysis of these resolutions other than the most general
rhetoric of open space preservation. Without understanding the real issues involved in
growth control and land preservation, the Council, and the voter, are not able to make
an informed decision.
As a final note, the City would be wasting financial resources to call for a
special municipal election for this matter in June. The provisions of Measure N
provide the city with ample time to develop a GPA to be placed on the ballot during a
regular municipal election. Moreover, any vote on this matter would be invalid due to
the City's lack of compliance with CEQA.
In conclusion, the City Council's adoption of the resolutions would be
unlawful under CEQA, and the City has failed to follow the procedures set forth in
Section 15153 of the Guidelines. In addition, the action would deny all economically
viable use of the properties situated outside the UGB without a rational basis for the
location of the line - in the face of less confiscatory solutions to achieving the goals of
the UGB.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
City of Rohnert Park
February 9, 1998
Page 5
For these reasons we urge that the proposed resolutions be rejected and
that a proper analysis be conducted for the impacts cited above.
for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
cc: City Planning Commissioners tea,
City Manager s etter
Assistant City Manager Carl Leivo
City Attorney
Mr. Steve Miller, YCS Investments
SF 1:FLR\LEIIMVB16 1 0 76 740.1
Sonoma County Greenbelt Ci6io4Wn,ej ".
67-y
Communities throughout Sonoma County are creating urban growth boundaries
to control sprawl development and preserve our quality of life
What is the Sonoma Greenbelt : Why UGBs?
Campaign?
It's a campaign to protect Sonoma
County's Greenbelt lands and create
more livable communities by estab-
lishing urban growth boundaries
(UGBs) around each city in the
county. The campaign was launched
in 1993 by local groups and citizens in
partnership with Greenbelt Alliance.
Already, three cities in Sonoma
County have drawn the line on sprawl
by enacting UGBs. Last November,
urban growth boundary ballot
measures were supported by 71
percent of the voters in Healdsburg,
59 percent of the voters in Santa Rosa
and 66 percent of the voters in
Sebastopol. And in Rohnert Park,
voters adopted a 4-year boundary to
protect open space around the city
from imminent development until a
long range UGB, can be created.
What is a UGB?
An urban growth boundary (UGB) is
an officially adopted and mapped line
that divides city land to be developed
from county land to be protected for
natural or rural uses. Because UGBs
can be locked in for 20 years or more,
they are potent planning tools.
How do UGBs work?
To set a UGB, each city defines the
edge of its developable land. Inside
the boundary, the urban form is
compact. This area is reserved for
housing, businesses, city parks, and
other urban uses. infill development
is encouraged, and underdeveloped
land is designated for future develop-
ment. Outside the boundary, all
open lands are preserved for agricul-
ture, recreation, natural resource
protection, and similar rural uses.
Sonoma County has more land at risk
of sprawl development than any other
Bay Area county. More than 126,000
acres, or nearly 13 percent of all the
land in Sonoma County, is at risk of
urban or rural residential development
in the next 30 years. Development of
these "at risk" lands would harm the
county's farm -based economy, worsen
traffic congestion, hurt downtown
businesses, degrade air quality, and
cause a decline in the quality of life for
all county residents.
How will UGBs affect where we
live?
Adoption and enforcement of UGBs in
Sonoma County will:
keep jobs in Sonoma County by
protecting residents' quality of life,
which attracts and retains employees
and employers;
• protect fertile farmlands — the basis
of Sonoma County's $3 billion
: Sonoma Acre age
agricultural economy;
• keep the public costs of city and
county services in check by curbing
expensive sprawl;
• make roadways less congested and
public transit more efficient;
• enable development of more
affordable and accessible housing;
• reduce air pollution;
• protect the county's natural heritage
of watersheds, rivers, creeks, forests,
hillsides and wildlife habitat for our
own outdoor recreation and our
children's future.
How are UGBs being created?
After the city councils of Sebastopol
and Healdsburg adopted 20 year UGBs
around their communities, local
activists decided to bring the issue to
the voters to give the boundaries even
greater strength. In Santa Rosa, UGB
proponents persuaded their city
council to place a 20 year UGB on the
ballot. Last November, all
three measures passed by
wide margins. At the
same time, Rohnert
Park voters
GREENBELT ALLIANCE • 520 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 200 • Santa Rosa, California • 95401 • 707/575.3661
Urban
64,800
6.4%
High Risk
42,200
4.2%
Medlum Risk
83,900
8.3%
Low Risk
747 AM
73.6%
❑
Secure Greenbelt
77,600
7.6%
agricultural economy;
• keep the public costs of city and
county services in check by curbing
expensive sprawl;
• make roadways less congested and
public transit more efficient;
• enable development of more
affordable and accessible housing;
• reduce air pollution;
• protect the county's natural heritage
of watersheds, rivers, creeks, forests,
hillsides and wildlife habitat for our
own outdoor recreation and our
children's future.
How are UGBs being created?
After the city councils of Sebastopol
and Healdsburg adopted 20 year UGBs
around their communities, local
activists decided to bring the issue to
the voters to give the boundaries even
greater strength. In Santa Rosa, UGB
proponents persuaded their city
council to place a 20 year UGB on the
ballot. Last November, all
three measures passed by
wide margins. At the
same time, Rohnert
Park voters
GREENBELT ALLIANCE • 520 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 200 • Santa Rosa, California • 95401 • 707/575.3661
i intended to allow the community more Greenbelt
time to plan for a long range UGB that i
could be on the ballot in 2000. UGB
proposals are expected to be consid-
ered by other Sonoma County cities as
they update their general plans in 1997
and 1998. Once adopted by the city
council, the UGB can then be voted ?®
upon by city residents to lock it in. ® ��
Why do UGBs need to be O
O
adopted by the voters?
A city council- adopted UGB can be "' r
changed by a simple majority vote.
Pressure to extend the UGB will inevita-
bly come from real estate speculators
eager to develop farmland outside the �.
boundary. If city councils give into this An Urban '
pressure, sprawl development will Growth
continue and older areas of the city will Boundary
become neglected. This process costs (UGB)
taxpayers millions, destroys valuable
farmland and damages the fabric of our: Isn't the Sphere of Influence
communities. By contrast, voter- adequate to prevent growth?
approved UGBs can only be changed by
another vote of the people. A city's sphere of influence is supposed
to be it's ultimate boundary. It is set
How are UGBs different from by the Local Agency Formation
other planning tools? i Commission, an independent agency
UGBs are unique in that they are that also controls annexation. Too
i comprehensive and are the result of often, they merely set the direction of
cooperation between all interested :sprawl, rather than limit it. And no
parties. They create a single, long term, vote can be taken to lock in a sphere of
unified border between a city's urban 'influence for the long term.
core and the Greenbelt lands which How flexible are UGBs?
surround the community. Other
planning tools often try to protect :Because each city decides on its own
different resources or areas through boundary, the UGB is responsive to the
sometimes conflicting methods. community's needs. Once approved,
Future
Development
Zone
Current
City
,/•..... Limit
UGB
Urban
Center
the UGB can be changed only by
another vote of the people, except for
minor changes. This protects the UGB
from being compromised by constant
political change, and gives citizens
control over their community's future.
Who supports UGBs?
The 1996 UGB measures were en-
dorsed by The Santa Rosa Press Democrat,
The San Francisco Chronicle, the United
Winegrowers for Sonoma County, the
League of Women Voters of Sonoma
County, Community Alliance with
Family Farmers'North Coast Chapter,
Sierra Club and many other local
officials and public interest groups.
What can I do to help?
If you want to see our farms and
hillsides preserved, and our cities
revitalized, join the Greenbelt Cam-
paign! Contact the campaign leader in
your area (see left) to find out what
you can do. For general information,
call Christa Shaw at 707/575 -3661.
P E O P L E F O R O P E N S P A C E
GREENBELT ALLIANCE • 520 Mendocino Avenue, suite 200 a Santa Rosa, California a 95401 a 707/ 575 -3661
4 ale CA/
Weinman openers...
I fail to see why Rohnert Park should be the
only city in Sonoma County sitting on its
hands for two more years in this era of
economic growth. The %,ommuniy Summit and
its Task Forces pointed out time and again the
need for this city to prepare for the future by
offering business and commercial growth
opportunities to maintain its financial health.
This is not the time to be counter - productive,
not the time to be reactionary, but the time to
be pro - active. If drawing a line on a map
showing an expanded urban growth boundary
can show potential investors we're moving
ahead instead of hiding under our Measure N
blanket, let's do it.
To those who fear this means a deluge of tract
housing, all I can say, is OW OR Nothing can
be built until the infrastructure, including
sewer capacity, is guaranteed. When this will
happen no one knows. Probably after the year
2000 which is when Measure N expires. The
question then becomes: Why sit on our hands
when we can display an attitude of future
success now?
Placing this Urban Growth Boundary on. the .Tune ballot
would be a premature action and a deliberate attempt by three
elected public officials to award virtually exclusive development
rights to two companies, Quaker Hill Development Corporation
and Condiotti Enterprises.
This Council has authorized the expenditure of over
$125,000 of taxpayers' money, taken jz °oni the City's dwindling
reserves, to retain professional consultants for a, Technical
Update of the General Plan. Three of the four consultants has
yet to produce any report. This initiative is a mockery of the
legitimate planting process. It is a carefully orchestrated and
calculated campaign which exhibits an appalling disregard of
the time and efforts being expended by the Task Force men1bers
of the Community Summit,, none of whose reports have yet been
submitted to you, the City Council.
Whose interests are being served by this action? That is the
real question.
& 41,9
OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED SEWER AND REFU;
To: The City of Rohnert Park
From: John F. Hudson `� \1
399 Bonnie Avenue
Rohnert Park, California 94928
ZATE INCREASES
RECEIRCOPYtO
rrespondence
FEB 9 . Councilman
CITY O ROHNERT
As the owner of the above real property, I wish to object to the
proposed sewer rate increase and refuse collection rate increase
currently the subject of a public hearing before the Rohnert Park
city council scheduled for February 10, 1998. If the public hearing
is re- scheduled for a future date and /or the amount of the rate
increases is changed, I wish that these objections remain of record
as if they were reiterated for such occasion. Unless otherwise
indicated, citations herein are to the California Constitution.
If the sewer rate is deemed to be a "fee" or ° °charge" as defined by
Article XIII D §2 (e), the sewer rate increase is unlawful for the
following reasons:
1) The notice of public hearing was not served on all property owners
as required by Article XIII D § 6 (a) (1). The tenants directly
liable for payment have not been identified and served. Not all
freeholders have, in fact, been served with notice.
2) The notice of public hearing fails to set forth the basis on.which
the proposed rate increase was calculated as required by Article XIII D
§ 6 (a) (1).
3) The proposed increase in sewer rates does not appear to be the
product of a calculation as required by Article XIII Di§ 6 (a) (1).
4) The expense amounts stated in the notice of public hearing are not
calculated in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles,
are extremely implausible, and are published with actual intent to
deceive the public. The notice of public hearing is therefore vitiated
by fraud.
5') The stated purpose of the sewer rate increase, as set forth in the
notice of public hearing, is false. The actual purpose of the sewer
rate increase is to finance the capital cost of the expansion of the
sewer system. The notice of public hearing is therefore vitiated by
fraud.
6) Revenues from the sewer rates received by the city will exceed the
funds required to provide the sewer service in violation of Article
XIII D § 6 (b) (1).
6) The amount of the sewer rate payable ;on account of my parcel
exceeds the proportion of the cost of providing the sewer service
attributable to my parcel.
8) The revenues received from the sewer rate are used for general
governmental purposes in violation of Article XIII D § 6 (b) (5).
If the sewer rate is deemed to be an "assessment" as defined by
Article XIII D §2 (b), the sewer rate increase is unlawful because:
1) Public property in the assessment district is exempt from the
assessment and said public property receives the same benefit, special
or otherwise, that my property receives as a result of the assessment
in violation of Article XIII D § 4 (a).
2) The notice of public hearing was not accompanied by a ballot for
-1-
the assessee to indicate support or opposition to the proposed
assessment as required by Article XIII D § 4 (d).
3) My property receives no "special benefit" from the proposed
assessment, as the term "special benefit" is defined by Article XIII D
§ 2 (i).
4) The city has failed to identify those parcels which would receive a
"special benefit" from the assessment as required by Article XIII D
§ 4 (a).
5) The assessment is not supported by a detailed engineer's report
as required by Article XIII D § 4 (b).
6) The City of Rohnert Park has failed to bring the sewer service
assessment into compliance with Article XIII D by July 1, 1997 as
required by Article XIII D § 5. Therefore both the existing and proposed
sewer rates are unlawful.
7) Any objection to the sewer rate increase if deemed a "fee" or "charge"
and are applicable to assessments are incorporated herein by reference.
I also wish to object to the proposed refuse collection rate increase
if the rate is deemed a "fee" or "charge" as defined by Article XIII D
§2 (e) on the following grounds:
1) The notice of public hearing fails to set forth the basis on which
the proposed rate was calculated in violation of Srticle XIII D § 6 (a)
(1)•
2) The proposed refuse collection rate does not appear to be the product
of a calculation as required by Article XIII D § 6 (a) (1).
3) Revenues from the the refuse collection rate, both curreint• and
proposed, exceed the funds required to provide the service as prohibited
by Article XIII D § 6 (b) (1).
4) The revenues from the refuse collection rate will be used for general
governmental purposes in violation of Article XIII D § 6 (b) (5).
If the refuse collection rate is deemed to be an "assessment" as
defined by Article XIII D § 2 (b), the assessment is unlawful because
of the following reasons:
1) No ballot was enclosed with the notice of public hearing for me to
indicate my support or opposition to the proposed assessment.
2) The city has failed to bring the assessment into compliancb with
Article XIII D by July 1, 1997 as required by Article XIII D §5. THe
existing and proposed increase in the refuse collection assessment are
both unlawful.
3) My property receives no special benefit from the proposed or existing
assessemnt.
4) Public property in the assessment district receives the same benefit
from the assessment as does my property but is not being assessed in
violation of Article XIII D § 4 (a).
5) The assessment is not supported by a detailed engineer's report as
required by Article XIII D § 4 (b).
6.) The city has failed to identify those parcels which would receive
a "special benefit" from the assessment as required by Article XIII D
§ 4 (a).
7) Any ground stated for objection to the refuse collection rate increase,
if deemed a "fee" or "charge" is hereby incorporated herein by reference.
If the refuse collection rate is deemed to be both an "assessment" and
"fee" or "c ar ", th, rate increase is unlawful for failure to satisfy
1 of e re uiremen of an "assessment" and of a "fee" or "charge ".
ted: FebruarEy 9, 1 8
'i -2-
Fg a 7) ave—
,-777,
Council Correspondence
Copy to ea. Councilman
Copy to
Copy to
Copy to
1 7 CDC o�
,� ,+ �-•- -- �� `fi6r �:-- ��oye, GAG �
'� 7
r� / `/6
`�/ u
v
f
Feb. 9, 1998
The Mayor and City Council Members
City of Rohnert Park, CA
Dear Madam Mayor and Council Members,
Regarding the proposed resolution by Councilman Flores at your last meeting calling for a
special election in June to ask voters if they want City Council to amend the current General
Plan with new growth boundaries:
I respectfully request that you read aloud my comments below and enter them into the
recorded minutes.
As you know, City staff and the Planning Commission, at your direction, are currently
undertaking a so- called "technical update" of the current General Plan. This has turned into
an extensive revision process with Assistant City Manager Carl Lievo submitting draft
revisions that substantially change plan elements.
In terms of progress toward completion of the update, the Commission has not yet moved
beyond the stage of reviewing these draft elements. In fact, the Commission Chairman has
prevented me (improperly, I believe) from publicly reviewing extensive revisions during time
designated for this purpose on Planning Commission agendas.
Instead, I have been told I must submit my suggestions in writing to Assistant Manager
Lievo, whereupon he may exercise his own discretion to include, or not include, suggested
changes into new draft elements. I believe it is a responsibility of the Commission as a
whole, in full view of the public in open meetings, to debate and direct changes it deems
appropriate. Accordingly, it is questionable on this point as to whether the general public
has had ample opportunity to see and participate in changes proposed for the General Plan.
Furthermore, a commitment has been made to give time and special consideration to
recommendations of various "community" groups....most of which, incidentally, include
non - residents as members. The procedures for review and incorporation of these groups'
recommendations into the General Plan are outlined in a memo to you from Assistant
Manager Lievo dated Nov. 4, 1997. These groups have only now begun to finalize their
recommendations, and none yet have come before the Planning Commission for review.
Another step not yet undertaken is the review, consideration, and incorporation of
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) findings into the updated General Plan. Again, due in
part to the extensive and substantive nature of revisions proposed by staff to the Plan, it can
be ex ^ected min EIR nrnraccina - rill 6- brnnAer and mnra rmmnit -y alcn,
When all input has been received and incorporated, and the Commission has finished
reviewing draft elements, it must then hold legally- mandated public hearings to afford the
general public an opportunity to comment on proposed General Plan revisions. A final draft
of the updated General Plan will then be submitted to the Council for your review, hearings,
revisions, and submission to outside agencies.
The fundamental message here is that much work has not yet been completed on the
General Plan technical update you directed. Although I believe the Commission might now
be further along if the update had indeed been confined to technical points, progress is still
being made. Defining new city boundaries and debating their permanency, along with
related topics on the limits of population growth and our ability to sustain new growth are all
issues at the heart of the update process. Although a new General Plan will be months into
the future before completion, the timing is still on track and in line with the sunset date of
Measure N, which mandated an Urban Growth Boundary through the year 2000.
Furthermore, the regional sewage treatment plant will not have capacity to accommodate
more growth for several more years.
The point is that with all the effort currently underway, and all the work yet to do in
updating the current General Plan, it seems premature to be setting up provisions at this
time to facilitate large scale annexations before the update is finished. Although I think you
are correct in observing that the majority of Rohnert Park residents would like to see a true
Urban Growth Boundary in place around the City, there is no imperative at this time to try
setting one up ahead of and outside of the General Plan process.
Accordingly, I would respectfully request that you delay any further consideration of
Councilman Flores resolution pending completion of the General Plan update.
Respectfully yours,
David Mochel
Commissioner, Rohnert Park Planning Commission
FEB -08 -1998 19.57 K.IM BUTLER 795 7199
i
1�
February 5, 1998
Linda Spiro, Mayor
Rohnert Park City Council
City Hall
6750 Commerce Blvd.
Rohnort bark, CA 94928
Dear Mayor Spiro,
F.01
ozli
COTATI- AOHNER'>: PARR UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTPJC1'
Jinice L. Heffron
I would like to thank the Council and $tiff .for the support they of cmd the Dist. *ict to our
application to LAFCC requesting that Creeks,;de Middle School be annexed to the city. As
you know, LAFCO informed the District that they would not consider the aritlexativn of
Creekside Middle School until the city has completed a general plan update
The District remains concerned about the welfaty of the studcnts at Creekside Middle
School. The school needs to be annexed to the City of Rohnert Park. Its light of the tjeed
for the school to be annexed, the District respectfully requests that the city complete the
genera! plan update as quickly as possible.
Sincerely,
!nice I.. Heffron
Superintendent
CC. jot! Netter, City Manager
Isld
1601 East Conti Ave. • Rohnen Fark, CA 94028 • Phone (707) 792 <47W tt Fax (701 792 -4537
101relmawil
917 Dorine Avenue
Rohnert Park, CA
February 8, 1998
Fax:707 -585 -8052 rib 9 '98 27;1) P.02
ZY
94928 -1716
Editor, The Commu -city Voice
320 Professional Center Dr
Rohnert Park, CA 94928
FAX: 584 -2233
Editor:
Council Correspondence
Copy to ea. Councilman
Copy to
1
Copy to_ p
Copy to
There seems to be a disturbing movement afoot in the community, led by
the perpetually befogged Jud Snyder and egged on by the Don't- Take -N-
for-an- Answer pro - growth cabal on the City Council, to call a prema-
ture lifting or the Urban Growth Boundary restrictions established by
the voters in 1996 when they approved Measure N.
As one who not only voted for and even actively campaigned for Measure
N, but who also still supports it, I would like to remind you and your
readers of the purpose of Measure N: to call a "time-out" in the
headlong rush of certain parties to "develop" lands around Rohnert
Park -- to their own advantage and to the disadvantage of the rest of
us. Measure N, after all, had a four -year horizon, not a twenty -year
horizon as did all other UGB measures approved in Sonoma County at the
same time. It was envisioned that the four years would be used to
come to consensus about what kind of future growth wolild he appropri-
ate for Rohnert Park -- through such mechanisms as last fall's Commu-
nity Summit. It was never intended as a permanent- concrete tomb for
the city to live and die in.
And indeed, it has come to pass that interested parties in the commu-
nity met together last year at the Community Summit to create a common
vision for the future of the City. Task forces were formed and are
proceeding even now to work out the details of a comprehensive plan
f
or the city's growth. We are proceeding, in other words, exactly
according to plan. The work is not yot done, however, and that is why
it would be premature to .lift the restrictions imposed by Measure N at
this point. Measure N has two more years to run. That is not a long
time as these civil processes go. I expect the planning regimen set
in motion by the Community Summit will be just about ready to wtdP up
when Measure N expires.
This is why it would be a TOTAL DISASTER if those forces pushing for a
now ballot this fall to undo Measure N were to succeed. First of all,
regardless of whether the citizens reaffirm their earlier position or
not, the good will that has been eiiyendered betweer . long -time toes and
the consensus - building that has been accomplished by the Summit will
all be destroyed it here is another brutal polarizing political
battle.
Secondly, if the opponents of Measure N should prevail, the city wiles
be in for another round of uncontrolled. growth of upper- middle -class
tract housing that will enrich already wealthy developers, expand and
enlarge all the city's exi etin problems, and :lot ,Move ids one inch
forward toward resolving a number of difficulties the Summit exposed,
Fax :707- 585 -8052 Feb 9 '98 2s :_2 P.03
such as inadcquatc hou3:ng for Sonoma State students and young facul-
ty, the absence of a Town Canter, increasing traffic congestion, a
mismatch between the available resident work force and existing em-
Vjvylueslll_ vrrQLLui/iLiea is the City, ate.
Let there be NO SON- OF -N!'.
�G
Rick Luttmann, PhD
cc: City Council (Spiro, Vidak- Martinez, Flores, MacKenzie, Reilly)
City Manager Joe Netter
Asst City Manager Carl Leivo
(Fax 793 -7274)
w � <
Fax 707- 585 -805? Feb 9 '98 11 P.0'_
SCHOOL OF NATURAL SCIENCE
PHONE (707) 664 - 2171
FAX# (707) 664 - 3012
DATE— Y & �.
TO:
4
/.
FAX #: -� f � -- z
1801 East Cotati Ave
Rohnert Par!c, CA 94928
From: � v 't i`�1.1R N/L.! Phone:��- -.-- --
Department: _..
r,
Total Number of Pages (Including Transmittal Sheet):
Please Note: if Transmission Is not Legible, call (707) 664.2171