2000/07/25 City Council MinutesCITY OF ROHNERT PARK CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES for:
CITY COUNCIL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
ROHNERT PARK FINANCING AUTHORITY
July 25, 2000
Tuesday
The concurrent meetings of the City of Rohnert Park for
the City Council, the Community Development Commission,
and the Rohnert Park Financing Authority met this date
in regular session for a regular meeting commencing at
6:00 p.m. in the City Offices, 6750 Commerce Boulevard,
Rohnert Park, with Mayor Vidak- Martinez presiding.
CALL TO ORDER:
Mayor Vidak- Martinez called the regular session to order
at approximately 6:03 p.m. and led the pledge of
allegiance.
ROLL CALL:
Present: (5) Councilmembers Flores, Reilly, Spiro; Vice
Mayor Mackenzie; and Mayor Vidak- Martinez
Absent: (0) None
Staff present for all or part of the meeting: City
Manager Netter, City Attorney Strauss, Assistant City
Manager Leivo, City Engineer Gaffney, and Planning and
Community Development Director Kaufman.
1. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES - JULY 11, 2000:
Upon MOTION by Councilmember Flores, seconded by Vice
Mayor Mackenzie, the minutes of June 27, 2000 were
unanimously APPROVED with the noted amendment below.
*Councilmember Reilly: (1) Page 7, Item 9, No. 3,
change Measure "M" to Measure "N."
2. UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES:
Mayor Vidak- Martinez stated that in compliance with
State law (The Brown Act), citizens wishing to make a
comment may do so at this time (limited to 3 -5 minutes
per appearance with a 30- minute limit).
City of Rohnert Park *CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES
July 25, 2000 Page(2 )
1. Charles Kitchen, 4457 Hollingsworth Circle, expressed
his opinion that the City should be more aggressive
in dealing with the Sonoma County Water Agency on the
issue of water meters. He said that the money going
towards the installation of water meters could be
used for other projects. He suggested approaching
the Water Agency with the idea of making meters
mandatory only if voluntary water conservation
does not work.
************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
3. CONSENT CALENDAR:
Mayor Vidak- Martinez asked if there were any questions
regarding the matters on the Consent Calendar, which
were explained in the City Manager's Council Meeting
Memo. Councilmember Flores signified removal of one
Consent Calendar item for further discussion as follows:
Resolution 2000 -144 per his recommendation.
Acknowledging the City Manager /Clerk's report on the
posting of the meeting's agenda
Approval of Bills /Demands for Payment concurrently for:
*City of Rohnert Park /City Council in the amount of
$1,930,885.28
*Community Development Commission in the amount of
$5,778.50
Accepting Cash /Investments Report for Month End, May 31,
2000 concurrently for:
*City of Rohnert Park /City Council
*Community Development Commission
* Rohnert Park Financing Authority
Resolution Nos.:
2000 -143 PROCLAIMING AUGUST 13 -19, 2000, AS "CALIFORNIA
JUNIOR MISS WEEK"
2000 -145 CALLING FOR SEALED PROPOSALS, COMMUNITY
CENTER TRUSS REPAIR, PROJECT NO. 2000 -06
2000 -146 AWARDING CONTRACT FOR STREET LIGHT AND TRAFFIC
SIGNAL MAINTENANCE FOR 2000 -2002 (REPUBLIC
ELECTRIC, NOVATO, CA)
2000 -147 CALLING FOR SEALED PROPOSALS FOR COPIER "COST
PER COPY" LEASE CONTRACT
2000 -148 EXTENDING THE CONTRACT AGREEMENT WITH CALTEST
ANALYTICAL LABORATORY FOR ANALYTICAL SERVICES
FOR THE WATER MONITORING PROGRAM
*City Council /Community Development Commission/
Rohnert Park Financing Authority
City of Rohnert Park *CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES
July 25, 2000 Page(3 )
2000 -149 REJECTING THE CLAIM OF DANIEL AMADOR BY
MOTHER, NATIVIDAD AMADOR (RE: ALLEGED INJURIES
FROM SWING BREAKING AT ALICIA PARK)
2000 -150 REJECTING THE CLAIM OF RACHELLE HANDERSON &
LAWRENCE ALEXANDER (RE: ALLEGED FALSE POLICE
REPORT)
2000 -151 REJECTING THE CLAIM OF DAN TEMPLETON (RE:
ALLEGED TIRE /WHEEL DAMAGE FROM RAILROAD
TRACKS)
Request for Community Funds by Babe Ruth League
Upon MOTION by Councilmember Spiro, seconded by Vice
Mayor Mackenzie, with the exception of Resolution No.
2000 -144, the Consent Calendar as otherwise outlined
on the meeting's agenda was unanimously APPROVED.
Resolution for consideration:
AWARD OF CONTRACT, ROHNERT PARK EXPRESSWAY
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE III, PROJECT NO.
1991 -04
Councilmember Flores noted Council's and staff's
enthusiasm as- the third phase of this project goes to
bid.
Upon MOTION by Councilmember Flores, seconded by Vice
Mayor Mackenzie, Resolution 2000 -144 was unanimously
APPROVED.
************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
4. FINAL GENERAL PLAN:
A. Presentation of Final General Plan and Final EIR by
Consultant Vicki Hill:
Ms. Hill briefly discussed her July 20, 2000, memo to
Council. She reported on the July 13, 2000, hearing at
the Planning Commission. She noted the Planning
Commission's recommendation for certification of the
Final EIR, and its recommended approval of the General
Plan including the Urban Growth Boundary as revised in
the July 12, 2000 "Rohnert Park General Plan: Adoption
Draft." Finally, she discussed the Planning
Commission's further modifications to the General Plan
as outlined in her July 20th memo; additional
corrections and clarifications brought forward by staff;
a memo from City Attorney Strauss regarding mobile home
park conversion; and an item for consideration regarding
a General Plan policy for mobile home park conversions.
*City Council /Community Development Commission/
Rohnert Park Financing Authority
City of Rohnert Park
July 25, 2000
B. PUBLIC HEARING:
*CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES
Page (4 )
Mayor Vidak- Martinez OPENED the public hearing at
approximately 6:17 p.m.
Citizens submitted speaker cards and shared verbal
and /or written comments expressing support or opposition
to the FINAL GENERAL PLAN. (Resolutions for adoption,
No. 2000 -152)
1. Hap Pool, 6096 Deborah Court, resident at said
address since 1976, was recognized and implored the
Council to vote no on any plan to expand the size of
the City of Rohnert Park either geographically or by
adding more houses within the current City limits;
to do otherwise, he noted, would be indefensible. He
asked the Council to vote no on the Urban Growth
Boundary (UGB), saying that the City is full; water
sources are dwindling; and vehicle capacity of the
streets and highways is overburdened. He said that
adding to the population would degrade the standard
of living and would be a disservice to the
constituency that elected the Council. He also
pointed out that-housing on the proposed new land
will not cost any less than housing does in Rohnert
Park right now, citing the costs of the land,
building materials, labor and fees. Finally, he
suggested that the Council spend its energies
trimming expenses rather than increasing them with
more infrastructure to bring in an added tax base.
2. John King, 1055 Adobe Road, Penngrove, was recognized
and noted the continuing trend which shows declining
groundwater resources, referring to three areas on
the water survey map previously shown to Council: (1)
the area adjacent to west Canon Manor, (2) the
northwest area, and (3) the Petaluma Hill Road area
by Sonoma State University. He indicated that
Hewlett - Packard made a statement last week that their
facility had to stop using their 500 -foot well since
they had too many complaints from neighboring property
owners that their water was being drafted. He said
that depletion of the groundwater creates an
additional hardship in those areas that do not have
the luxury of getting a lifeline from the aqueduct,
and that such areas need groundwater protection. He
called for Rohnert Park and other jurisdictions to
take a serious look at complete reliance on the
aqueduct and at getting off the groundwater for
*City Council /Community Development Commission/
Rohnert Park Financing Authority
City of Rohnert Park *CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES
July 25, 2000 Page(5 )
those citizens with no other options. Finally,
he signified that in the past similar growth
proposals have been voted down by people well
aware of the increased traffic, congestion, impact
on surrounding areas, and permanent forfeiture of
farmland. He asked the Council to vote no on the
EIR since, in his opinion, it cannot mitigate these
ongoing problems with groundwater and the associated
impact on the surrounding areas such as Penngrove.
3. Bob Fleak 157 Parque Recrero, GSMOL President of
Rancho Grande, was recognized and referred Council
to his letter which was previously distributed to
them. He asked Council to consider an ordinance for
an Overlay District in order to protect affordable
housing. He referred to documents pertaining to the
Ellis Act and cited Government Code Section 7060-
7060.7, which outlines how park owners cannot
interfere with local government authority over land
use. He discussed how park owners have tried to cloud
these issues with the Sierra Lakes and Hawaii
decisions. He then called forward Jack Richter,
Assistant Regional Manager for Region 2 Golden State
Mobilehome League, who was instrumental in setting up
an overlay program in American Canyon.
4. Jack Richter, 3000 Broadway, #11, American Canyon, was
recognized and presented Council with a handout,
Chapter 19.10: Mobilehome Park Overlay District" from
City of American Canyon /Title 19 Zoning," which is
ATTACHED to the original set of the minutes. He
explained how the City of American Canyon has an
overlay district set aside in its overall zoning plan
as the City recognized the need to provide and
maintain housing for low to moderate income people,
especially seniors who can no longer earn
additional income. He briefly discussed how the
City of American Canyon came up with an ordinance
which sets aside mobile home housing dedicated to
low -to- moderate income people. He noted that the
overlay district provides secure and dignified
housing to the people most in need of affordable
housing. He asked the City to consider some sort
overlay district to protect mobilehome parks from
being converted into upscale housing.
5. Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, Petaluma, was
recognized and signified that Petaluma and Penngrove
have serious flooding problems. He indicated that
*City Council /Community Development Commission /
Rohnert Park Financing Authority
City of Rohnert Park *CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES
July 25, 2000 Page(6 )
the southeast portion of the General Plan is located
in the Petaluma watershed, and that expansion into
that area will only worsen the groundwater problem.
He asked the Council not to pave Lichau Creek as it
may help with the groundwater issue in the future,
and he reminded Council that they are entering into
the Penngrove sphere of influence which may create
problems for them in the future.
6. Van Logan, 2560 West Dry Creek Road, HealdsburG, was
recognized and asked the Council to go with the
consultant's recommendation for the boundary between
the Northeast Specific Plan and the University
District at the northern property lines of the 17
lots along Keiser Avenue. He noted three reasons for
the boundary recommendation: (1) the lots that run
along the north side of Keiser Avenue are serviced by
roads and utilities that will be included in Keiser
Avenue; (2) Keiser Avenue has to be widened; and (3)
putting the land in the northeast area would just
confuse everything since those lands have no relation
to the northeast area except that they are in the
same city.
7. David Hardy, 1418 Parkway Drive, from C.U.R.B.
(Citizens United for Real Boundary)_, was recognized
and commended the City for successfully looking at
how to achieve the desired levels of growth: where
it occurs, what density, where to draw the line, and
what to put in it. He said the City in its General
Plan has substantially responded to what CURB has
suggested: The one - percent growth rate; The
UGB line which CURB substantially supported; The
water policy which denies any housing or development
until such time as it is determined that the water
is there for the project. He noted his concerns
over buffer equity, particularly how G- section would
get 100 -feet and residents on Snyder Lane would only
get 50 -feet off of the curb. In matter GM -10, he
urged occupancy as the standard for when things
happen. He also noted his dislike for speed bumps.
Finally, he urged the Council to certify the EIR
this evening, and then work on the General Plan can
follow. Once again, he commended the Council for
doing what it set out to do, and he expressed his
hope that the Council would work for a consensus on
the General Plan issues.
*City Council /Community Development Commission/
Rohnert Park Financing Authority
City of Rohnert Park *CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES
July 25, 2000 Page(7 )
8. John Burns, 1593 Parkway Drive, was recognized and
thanked the Council for the very public process that
the General Plan has undergone. He asked the Council
for clarification on two matters: (1) What the General
Plan says about the amount of setback behind Redwood
Park Estates, including J- section and the park behind
Creekside Middle School; and (2) What the General
Plan says about the first row of houses in the new
developments. He pointed out that a setback of 100 -
feet, such as is proposed for G- section, could be a
selling point for people moving into new homes. In
the spirit of equity, he called for a setback of
100 -feet for all areas that will be existing near a new
development. He also pointed out that he lives in
Redwood Park Estates, and keeping the first row of
houses single -story in a new development would help
preserve his view of Sonoma Mountain.
9. Cecile Talbert McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enerson,
LLP 1333 North California Boulevard, Suite 210,
Walnut Creek, was recognized and provided Council
with a letter which was ATTACHED to the original set
of minutes. As legal representation for Quaker Hill
Development Corporation, which holds an interest in
the majority of the property within the proposed
University District, Ms. Talbert of the McCutchen
law firm recapped four pieces of correspondence the
firm had submitted to the Planning Commission
regarding the City's General Plan. She asked the
Council to adopt the Planning Commission revisions
from the July 13 meeting, and she indicated that
further changes or clarifications are needed. She
then discussed as outlined in the letter five final
refinements that Quaker Hill is requesting the Council
to consider: (1) A revision in the language on FAR's
that would enable the City to consider FAR's in the
context of other design and site planning, and an
effort to expedite the Zoning Ordinance amendments
recommended or required by the General Plan; (2) Allow
multi - family housing in medium and low density areas;
(3) Making the approval process in the Zoning
Ordinance regarding second units more efficient and
streamlined through various techniques;. (4) Adoption
by the Council of the Planning Commission's
recommendation for relocation of the northern boundary
for the University District to Keiser Avenue; (5)
Confirmation by the Council of the addition of
"offices and financial businesses" to the Mixed Use
Designation, as well as three additional changes, as
*City Council /Community Development Commission/
Rohnert Park Financing Authority
City of Rohnert Park *CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES
July 25, 2000 Page(8 )
outlined in the letter, necessary to provide adequate
flexibility for the City and developers to create a
successful Mixed Use Center.
10. Garrett Hinds, 250 Rheem, Moraga, from the Dahlin
Group of Architects and Planners, was recognized and
provided Council with a two documents, which are
ATTACHED to the original set of minutes. He noted
his concern for the future of the University District
due to inconsistencies in the current zoning
definitions. Through the artistic rendition and the
photograph provided to Council, he demonstrated how
low - density and high- density housing types can be
harmoniously integrated to create a thriving,
pedestrian- oriented, tree -lined university
neighborhood, just as it states in CD -17 that
townhomes and single- family dwellings be integrated
in the University District. On the artistic
rendition, he elaborated on three housing types:
(1) Single- family, detached homes, 2500 to 3000
square feet, with two- to three -car detached
garages, ideal for students aiid professors to rent
the front or back; (2) 25 -foot wide townhomes, 1800
to 2400 square feet, with two -car direct access
garages and front doors out to a tree -lined street;
(3) Mansion - condos with 1100 to 1400 square foot
units, and potentially seven units in one building.
He asked the Council to allow town design
professionals like himself and others to work with
staff to develop a University District that meets
General Plan goals and allows the designers to work
without being constricted by current zoning codes.
Mr. Hinds confirmed for Councilmember Spiro as per
her inquiry that he brought the design ideas
forward based on current Floor Area Ratios (FAR's).
11. Linda Branscomb 21 Anne, was recognized and
received clarification from City Attorney Strauss as
to why a citizen cannot litigate if that citizen does
not attend the public hearing. The City Attorney
indicated that the notice Ms. Branscomb is referring
to reflects State law which says that in order to sue
a city on a land -use matter, the public is required
to give notice of the basis of that suit at the
public hearing or else the basis cannot be raised in
the litigation; the reason being that the Council
would then have an opportunity to make the change
before any litigation occurs. Ms. Branscomb noted
that she is not interested in suing the City; that
*City Council /Community Development Commission/
Rohnert Park Financing Authority
City of Rohnert Park *CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES
July 25, 2000 Page(9 )
she is happy with her relationship with the City;
but that because landlords and councils change,
she is concerned over her very affordable home in
Sonoma Grove and over single -room occupancy. In
response to inquiries from Councilmembers, City
Attorney Strauss further clarified that if the
Council in the future makes a change to the General
Plan, that will also be subject to a public hearing.
In an effort to give clear warning that she would
take matters to court if she faced losing her home
in Sonoma Grove, Ms. Branscomb stated for the record
that the Council should continue to support low -cost
housing, particularly the Sonoma Grove Trailer Park
as it stands now, and that the Council should support
the current language of the General Plan.
12. Rick Savel, P.O. Box 227, Penngrove, was recognized
and began a discussion of the General Plan proposal
to annex lands in the Southeast from the
Penngrove Specific Plan Study Area, as well as the
overlap of the County General Plan Urban Service
Boundary Line in the Southeast, and LAFCO's policy
and County General Plan policy LU -1A. He noted that
the overlap issue was first raised in September 1999
and that it has been brought up several times since,
with a copy of the full text of the Penngrove
Specific Plan supplied to Council. He read the
County staff's original draft comments from November
17, 1999, as presented to the Board: "The proposed
urban developments on a large parcel south of Canon
Manor is not consistent with County designations on
agricultural preservation." He indicated that staff
removed that comment and proceeded. He then gave a
brief historical review of the Penngrove Specific
Plan adopted in 1984, the County General Plan
adopted in 1989, and the Board of Supervisors
incorporation of ten specific plans into the General
Plan in 1992. He stated that the County General
Plan Urban Service Boundary line in the Southeast
does overlap with Penngrove Specific Plan Study Area,
however, not one of the required elements to the
Penngrove Specific Plan were made. He referenced
General Plan policy LU -1A: "This General Plan has
relied extensively upon policies and designations
set forth in previous specific plans. The County
shall continue to use specific plan guidelines to
implement this plan. In any case where there
appears to be a conflict between general plan and
area plan policy standards, the more restrictive
*City Council /Community Development Commission/
Rohnert Park Financing Authority
City of Rohnert Park *CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES
July 25, 2000 Page(10)
shall apply." He took the position that the lands
proposed for annexation in the Southeast are subject
to review on the basis of the Penngrove Plan Study.
He read some of the Penngrove Plan policies: (1)
Land use is 20 acres per unit; (2) It is consistent
with the Sonoma Mountain plan as a transitional
buffer zone; (3) Agricultural policies protect and
enhance the existing agriculture and the soils, which
are Class 2, which is prime agriculture. He then
delved into the parcel - specific statements about the
parcel north of Valley House and the parcel south of
Valley House, and regarding hydrology, he noted that
those study areas are considered for groundwater
recharge. In summary, he stated that while the
General Plan has addressed the transportation
element, it has not addressed critical open space,
agriculture, and hydrology. He asked that LAFCO and
the Board of Supervisors recognize policy LU -1A as it
relates to the Urban Service Boundary Line in the
Southeast. He noted that there would be a large
crowd at the next LAFCO meeting if the General Plan
proceeds as currently configured.
13. Derek Simmons 139 Alice Street Santa Rosa
attorney, was recognized and expressed his concern
over the inadequacy of the EIR in addressing the
kinds of things that will solve the regional problems
that Rohnert Park is creating by the expansion
proposed in the General Plan. As a representative of
clients in the Penngrove community, he indicated that
his concern is with the Southeast area and with the
regional- commercial zoning. He said that he has been
to joint meetings and ad hoc meetings, and that he
recognizes the difficult and daunting task faced by
the Council in expanding and seeking out sales tax
dollars to help the residents who represent the
Council's constituency. However, he noted that the
problem of taking monies regionally is that it
creates costs that are thrown off from Rohnert Park
into the region; and that CEQA (California
Environmental Quality Act) provides for the ballot
box to be the safety valve for environmental issues.
He noted that with the regional impact from Rohnert
Park's expansion, citizens of Penngrove would not
have the ability to vote out the elected officials
if such officials make environmental decisions which
are not consistent with their desires. He said that
the EIR is not adequate regarding the traffic issue
on Petaluma Hill Road, nor the water issue of the
*City Council /Community Development Commission/
Rohnert Park Financing Authority
City of Rohnert Park *CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES
July 25, 2000 Page(11)
cones of depression that are created by the surcharge
of pumping. In essence, he said that the General
Plan and the EIR assume a fairyland for the future
growth proposed in the plan. He again called
attention to the regional problems created by the
plan and noted that the last EIR assumed that there
would be six lanes on 101 by the year 2000.
14. Iry Piotrkowski, 708 Adobe Road, Penngrove, was
recognized and indicated that he has lived in
Penngrove since 1953 when he was five years old. He
said that he was on the Penngrove advisory committee
in 1984 when they were given a document which stated
that there would be six lanes on 101 by the year
2000. He stated that assumptions like that have
prove disastrous to Penngrove. In the traffic
study, he noted that the daily average trip for 2000
is 300% greater than the 1984 assumption. He
indicated that the EIR is inadequate in addressing
the issue of traffic: Petaluma Hill Road east of
Railroad Avenue, and east and westbound traffic on
Adobe Road are both Level F. He read from a
prepared document: "The General Plan project would
result in unacceptable levels of service through
this roadway segment." He says the EIR goes on to
say: "Specific improvements to existing and future
traffic on Petaluma Hill Road and Adobe Road have not
been identified." He said that unspecified
improvements in the future are not acceptable to the
people of Penngrove. He asked the Council to make
the tough decision not to expand the southeast
boundaries until concrete proposals, funding and
regional solutions exist in the EIR for the traffic
impact from the planned growth. He further asked
the Council not to sacrifice an old and historical
community to make it a traffic funnel, which in
turn would make the community unlivable. He asked
the Council to.reject the EIR until such traffic
issues are addressed.
15. Bonny Castelli, 750 Hudis Street, was recognized and
signified her lack of support for the General Plan,
the EIR, and the Housing Element. She expressed her
concerns over the issues of homelessness and low -
income residents. She said that she personally
financially helped a family that had been burned out
of their home, since no disaster help was offered by
the City. She referred to the Housing Act and stated
that it is inexcusable the way Rohnert Park chose to
*City Council /Community Development Commission/
Rohnert Park Financing Authority
City of Rohnert Park *CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES
July 25, 2000 Page(12)
recognize its homeless by drive -by sightings. She
also noted that the City has no set plan or action
to help homeless people, but rather that it gives
tens of thousands of dollars a year to cities like
Petaluma to deal with the local homeless problem.
She had various suggestions for the Council to
consider: (1) A policy set in place for the Police
Department to use a "Stop and Identify" program. (2)
A.policy set in place by the City and the Police
Department to help emergency victims at the scene of
the incident; (3) A policy set in place to help HUD
and Sonoma Grove residents should they face
homelessness; and (4) A policy and funds in place to
create an agency to help the homeless. She
personally volunteered her time to help start such
an agency. She briefly talked about a conversation
with Mayor Vidak- Martinez regarding the homelessness
issues faced by Rohnert Park, and she indicated that
in 15 years of living here, she has never once been
approached for a donation, with two exceptions. She
asked that the Council base the next ten years of
growth on current figures rather than ten- year -old
figures. Finally, she applauded Councilmember Spiro
for her concern over the parking at the proposed
Spanos Project, and she asked her to find out the
actual area of each parking space allocated because
there is a variance as to the size of parking spaces
that gives contractors the right to categorize very
small spaces as "standard."
16. Mark Green, 540 Pacific Avenue, Santa Rosa, Sonoma
County Conservation Action, was recognized and
congratulated the Council on the civil process in
which they came forward with this General Plan,
EIR, and Housing Element. He said that SCCA can
accept it particularly from a planning standpoint,
yet they do feel the UGB is a little too big.
However, he pointed out that while it is not Rohnert
Park's fault due to inherent constraints that are
not of the City's doing, the EIR is inadequate in
regard to water and traffic. He admitted that there
is a sort of "magic wand" quality to the elements in
the General Plan for traffic mitigation and water
supply, and the water and traffic issues as detailed
in the EIR do not reflect the real world. On
balance, he noted that there is a good framework
within which the City can assess the infrastructure
constraints on a case -by -case basis. Finally, he
stated that as defenders of the quality of life and
*City Council /Community Development Commission/
Rohnert Park Financing Authority
City of Rohnert Pa:
July 25, 2000
biological integrity
closely tracking all
any new developments
General Plan.
^k *CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES
Page(13)
in Sonoma County, SCCA will be
water and traffic issues for
within the framework of the new
17. Dick Latimer, 2025 Woodside Drive, Santa Rosa, was
recognized and indicated that he is a friendly
observer from Santa Rosa, a senior citizen, a
retired school teacher, and a paralegal specializing
in housing problems for the Council on Aging in
Santa Rosa. He said that from his paralegal work,
he has made many local contacts, and he then
expressed his concern for the scarcity of housing
for those people with very low incomes. He asked
the Council to adopt housing impact fees or linkage
fees on commercial developers, and then take those
funds and put them into a housing trust fund that
would assist in the financing of affordable housing
in the City. He also mentioned creating such a
fund in concert with other jurisdictions. From his
own experience on housing matters, he discussed how
many seniors cannot get into subsidized housing, and
often there is too little subsidized housing for a
variety of reasons: park owners, County programs,
lien contracts, 25 -year old, expiring contracts with
the federal government. Furthermore, he pointed out
how the open market isn't feasible for a senior
citizen who has had the rent doubled. Finally, he
noted that the housing problem affects not only
the seniors, but also young people who must commute
many miles to get to and from work. He said every
night in Santa Rosa, about 12% of the people who
spend the night in the Armory are seniors, and he
asked the City to be a part of the solution by
taking positive steps to create a housing trust fund.
18. Majida Gibson, 14 Cherry Street, Petaluma, Affordable
Housing Consultant for Burbank Housing.Development
Corporation, complimented the Council for the
"lengthy and excellent" process undertaken for the
General Plan. She indicated that she had two
items which she wished to advocate. First, she
asked the Council to a zoning ordinance which would
permit single -room occupancy. She said such zoning
creates good places for homeless people and people
with special needs to live. She indicated that the
key, as the City of San Diego found out, is good
management, in addition to good construction; and she
said that Burbank would help out with the wording of
*City Council /Community Development Commission/
Rohnert Park Financing Authority
City of Rohnert Park *CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES
July 25, 2000 Page(14)
such a zoning ordinance. She also urged the Council
to explore a job housing linkage fee which nonprofit
developers like Burbank could stretch as a good
source of funding. She noted that Sacramento City and
County has generated $11 million since 1992 from such
fees. Finally, she signified that while growth is led
by jobs, and many of those jobs in this area are
low- paying jobs, it is very important to spread the
responsibility for providing this type of housing
beyond just the public sector.
19. Carr Kunze 546 Talbot Street Santa Rosa Affordable
Housing Specialist with Burbank Housing Development
Corporation, was recognized and indicated that he has
lived in Sonoma County for five years and had direct
family ties here for 25 years. He signified that he
has been in the affordable housing business for over
25 years, and that although he has only been with
Burbank for a few months, he recognizes them to be a
premiere housing development entity, developing 1600
units since 1985. He then addressed the issue of
growth versus affordable housing, and he noted that
the 1600 units are only a drop in the bucket in
relation to the need. He referenced some statistics
from the California Budget Project, indicating that
while nationally 66% of houses are affordable to
households earning a median income, here that figure
drops to 24 %. He also referenced a recent survey by
a San Francisco real estate company which found that
all the local jurisdictions had a less than 1%
vacancy rate, and Rohnert Park's rate was 0.2% this
past spring. He said a 5% vacancy rate is needed for
a normal rental market. To address the housing
issues, he asked the Council to consider three
things: (1) Land for high density, and land for
multi - family residential development; (2) Options
for single -room occupancy units by right; and (3)
A push to allow higher multi- family density in
medium density districts, for example through
townhouses or back -to -back townhouses. Again,
he asked the Council to set aside land for multi-
family housing and to designate a portion of that for
affordable housing.
20. Greg Brogdon, 8471 Lancaster Drive, was recognized
and called for the Council to make a stronger
statement about transportation goals. He referenced
Transportation Goal TR -E on page 4 -9 of the draft
General Plan, which talks about discouraging high-
*City Council /Community Development Commission/
Rohnert Park Financing Authority
City of Rohnert Park *CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES
July 25, 2000 Page(15)
speed traffic and trucks on local streets. He asked
that the Council include in the goal statements
about routing commuter and crosstown traffic out of
residential neighborhoods, as well as more statements
about traffic- calming measures. He then referenced
page 4 -20 of the General Plan and page 4 -69 of the
EIR and he pointed out a figurative collision
between the goals of Cotati in working towards a
more "walkable" city and the growth plans of Rohnert
Park. He indicated that traffic at the intersection
of Old Redwood Highway will reach an unacceptable
level as referenced in the General Plan and EIR. He
asked the City to work in a cooperative fashion with
the City of Cotati to reconcile these plans for East
Cotati Avenue before the traffic starts going through
the residential neighborhoods to avoid that
intersection. He noted that the current policy of
more police enforcement in the neighborhoods is only
going to get strained unless Cotati and the City
work together on future transportation goals for
East Cotati Avenue.
21. John Hudson 399 Bonnie Avenue, was recognized and
indicated an interest in hearing from the City
Attorney in reference to the next agenda item as to
why there is no pubic hearing for the submission of
an Article 34 Ballot Measure to the voters. He
inquired if that satisfied the requirements of the
applicable statutes. He also commented that the EIR
is defective in that it completely fails to consider
the possibility of rent control as a means of
providing low - income housing. Noting that rents will
not drop any time soon thus creating an affordable
housing market, he suggested that a rent control
program now would help all the renters that exist
in Rohnert Park, not just the small fraction that
end up in Burbank Housing projects. He then noted
that "low- income housing" is now being referred to
as the more politically beneficial "workforce
housing." He concluded with a comment that at the
suggestion of one of the Councilmembers, the
Chamber of Commerce is going to avail itself for the
benefit of its members of the various public
subsidies that are available for the construction of
low -rent housing so that the City can have an
affordable workforce through affordable housing for
the benefit of the Chamber of Commerce. He said if
one wants to be a part of that affordable workforce,
vote yes on Article 34; and if one wants to be a
*City Council /Community Development Commission/
Rohnert Park Financing Authority
City of Rohnert Park *CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES
July 25, 2000 Page(16)
part of a workforce that gets paid enough money to
provide their own housing, vote no on Article 34.
22. Annalis Dalrymple, 50 Santa Rosa Avenue, Santa Rosa,
from the Greenbelt Alliance, was recognized and
congratulated the Council for including everyone in
the community in the difficult process of drawing
the Urban Growth Boundary lines. She said that
since this process was brought forward throughout
Sonoma County, almost all of the cities have adopted
Urban Growth Boundaries, and that Rohnert Park
voters have expressed their support for this effort.
She then noted that she works for a nonprofit and
that affordable housing is a concern of hers. She
indicated that one of the common complaints that
people have brought forward about urban growth
boundaries is that they drive property values up and
that houses become more expensive. However, she
then referenced an article in the Press Democrat in
which she noted that the two cities in Sonoma County
that have the highest property value rates do not
happen to have urban growth boundaries. She
commended the City for maintaining a concern for
affordable housing and not giving up on urban
growth boundaries in the process. Finally, as a
resident who lives near Railroad Avenue, she
addressed the proposed increase in development
along Petaluma Hill Road and how that will change
a country thoroughfare into an urbanized traffic
thoroughfare. She noted that traffic conditions in
that area are currently very bad. As a member of
Greenbelt Alliance, she also acknowledged a wildlife
corridor that attaches the mountains to the last of
the open space, and despite future impacts on this
area, she did commend the Council and express her
support for the General Plan.
23. David Grabill 1930 Alderbrook Lane Santa Rosa
Sonoma County Housing Advocacy Group, was recognized
and indicated that the advocacy group he works for
has several members in Rohnert Park. He signified
that the current Housing Element draft is a vast
improvement over prior Housing Elements from Rohnert
Park in form and in substance. He asked the Council
to give serious consideration to a jobs housing
impact fee for new businesses coming to Rohnert Park.
He indicated that such businesses should have a role
in providing housing to their workers, rather than
make them commute long distances. He also indicated
*City Council /Community Development Commission/
Rohnert Park Financing Authority
City of Rohnert Park *CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES
July 25, 2000 Page(17)
that the fee has worked well in other communities
which have implemented it, and that any business
hesitant to pay the fee would not be needed in
Rohnert Park and could go elsewhere. He further
brought attention to the inclusionary zoning
ordinance in the draft Housing Element, calling it
an important step in providing housing for
everybody, and he asked the Council to approve it
and implement it. He then signified some problems
with the draft Housing Element, particularly with
very low- income housing. He noted that that could
be due to Article 34, but that he was of the
opinion that there are several ways around Article
34. He indicated that the draft does not identify
enough sites for high- density housing that could be
available for low- and very low - income households.
He noted that HCD will be looking at those sites,
and he suggested the Council identify more such
sites. He also said that the draft does not identify
enough sites for people with special needs, including
homeless people, people with disabilities, and
students in this area. He said that City Hall is not
a feasible site for an emergency shelter, and that
giving money to Santa Rosa and Petaluma is only a
temporary solution when Rohnert Park should be
responding to its own homeless problem. Finally, he
indicated that the draft Housing Element is a good
start, but that it needs some further work.
24. Charles Kitchen, 4457 Hollingsworth Circle, was
recognized and, in reference to the last speaker,
he indicated that there is a paragraph in the
General Plan that addresses making employers
responsible for the housing of their employees. He
also indicated that the EIR has problems, and he
noted his disagreement with the Northwest
development, the Northeast development, and the
Southwest element. He said that he will address
those matters in the future, and that he just wanted
to come forward and express his disagreement now
in order to meet statutory requirements.
There being no one further desiring to speak, Mayor
Vidak- Martinez CLOSED the public hearing at
approximately 8:01 p.m.
*City Council /Community Development Commission/
Rohnert Park Financing Authority
City of Rohnert Park *CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES
July 25, 2000 Page(18)
RECESS: Mayor Vidak - Martinez declared a recess at
approximately 8:01 p.m.
RECONVENE: Mayor Vidak- Martinez reconvened the Council
at approximately 8:17 p.m. with all
Councilmembers present.
C. Council Discussion on Final General Plan and Final EIR:
combined with
D. Council Action on Final General Plan and Final EIR,
including the Rohnert Park Housing Element:
Planning Consultant Lynn Goldberg, General Plan
Coordinator Vicki Hill, and Rajeev Bhatia responded to
inquiries from Councilmembers, and City Attorney Strauss
provided legal clarification when necessary.
Council discussion ensued and concluded upon MOTION by
Councilmember Reilly, seconded by Councilmember Spiro, to
add the Mobile Home Park Conversion amendment as outlined
in City Attorney Strauss' July 19th memo to the Housing
Element. The motion was unanimously APPROVED.
Upon MOTION by Councilmember Spiro, seconded by Vice
Mayor Mackenzie, a motion to add a policy to the Housing
Element to encourage the use of HUD (U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development) for all housing projects
was unanimously APPROVED.
Planning Consultant Lynn Goldberg provided Council with
a brief recap of the Planning Commission's recommended
changes to the draft Housing Element based on the
comments received from the public, the California
Department of Housing and Community Development, the
Burbank Housing Development Corporation, as well as the
availability of updated data.
Upon MOTION by Vice Mayor Mackenzie, seconded by
Councilmember Flores, a motion to accept the Planning
Commission's recommended changes numbered 1 through
20 as outlined in Lynn Goldberg's July 20th memo, was
unanimously APPROVED.
Upon MOTION by Vice Mayor Mackenzie, seconded by
Councilmember Spiro, a motion to adopt the "Minor
Changes" contained in Lynn Goldberg's July 20th memo
pertaining to the Housing Element, was unanimously
APPROVED.
*City Council /Community Development Commission/
Rohnert Park Financing Authority
City of Rohnert Park *CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES
July 25, 2000 Page (19)
FOR THE RECORD, Councilmember Reilly said that he does
not believe the City of *Rohnert Park pays one dollar
to the City of Petaluma or the City of Santa Rosa p-&y
ene de l.r to help with Rohnert Park's housing needs.
He indicated that the City pays agencies that are
nonprofit that happen to be located primarily in those
cities, but they provide services in other cities. He
stated that if an efficient agency is already in
existence in a nearby jurisdiction, and if that agency
deals with affordable housing or shelter for instance,
then it makes sense to pay those agencies for their
services rather than create more bureaucracy.
*CORRECTION ABOVE FROM 8/8/00 City Council meeting: Per Councilmember Reilly (addition underlined /deletion lined out).
Planning Consultant Goldberg recapped one of the possible
revisions for Council to consider in order to have the
most accurate and internally - consistent General Plan
possible; specifically, Item A regarding applying the
inclusionary housing requirement uniformly to all
projects. City Attorney Strauss fielded legal inquiries
from Council.
Council discussion concluded, and upon MOTION by Vice
Mayor Mackenzie, seconded by Councilmember Reilly, a
motion to adopt Item A as outlined in Lynn Goldberg's
July 20th memo, FAILED 2 -3 with Mayor Vidak- Martinez
and Councilmembers Flores and Spiro dissenting.
Upon MOTION by Councilmember Flores, seconded by Mayor
Vidak- Martinez, a motion to add a section to the
General Plan that in effect provides that applications
submitted prior to the approval of the General Plan
be "grandfathered" in, including the provision that
all applications that have been presented for development
site and architectural review and other discretionary
matters be exempt from the newly adopted General Plan,
was APPROVED 3 -2 with Vice Mayor Mackenzie and
Councilmember Reilly dissenting.
Upon MOTION by Vice Mayor Mackenzie, seconded by
Councilmember Flores, a motion to adopt Items B and C
as outlined in Lynn Goldberg's July 20th memo, with
a friendly amendment from Councilmember Reilly to
strike the word "high- quality" from the language in
Item B, was unanimously APPROVED.
City Attorney Strauss appraised Council of her
recommendation for additional language for clarification
purposes in the Housing Element, and upon MOTION by
Councilmember Spiro, seconded by Councilmember Flores,
a motion to replace the final language of the draft
*City Council /Community Development Commission/
Rohnert Park Financing Authority
City of Rohnert Park *CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES
July 25, 2000 Page(20)
Housing Element with the language as provided by
City Attorney Strauss and ATTACHED to the original
set of minutes, was unanimously APPROVED.
City Attorney Strauss responded to Council inquiries
regarding the categories and processes relating to
technical changes.
Upon MOTION by Vice Mayor Mackenzie, seconded by
Councilmember Spiro, a motion was made to add language
to the General Plan, Chapter 1, page 1 -13, under
"Periodic Review," as follows: "The City will prepare
an Implementation Plan within six months of the General,
Plan's adoption. That Implementation Plan shall
contain language which allows for technical changes to
be made in the General Plan. Furthermore, implementing
ordinances required by the policies of this General
Plan shall be adopted as soon as appropriate." The
motion was unanimously APPROVED.
General Plan Coordinator Vicki Hill recapped an
additional General Plan clarification regarding an
internal inconsistency over residential uses in
commercial districts. She then discussed three
alternatives, and City Attorney Strauss provided legal
clarification.
Upon MOTION by Vice Mayor Mackenzie, seconded by Mayor
Vidak- Martinez, a motion to adopt Alternative One as
outlined on page 6 of Vicki Hill's July 20th memo,
including the suggested wording laid out under the
"Commercial" heading on the same page, was APPROVED
4 -1 with Councilmember Spiro dissenting.
Council then turned its attention to the Planning
Commissions's recommendations as presented in Vicki
Hill's July 20th memo.
Upon MOTION by Councilmember Flores, seconded by
Mayor Vidak- Martinez, a motion to accept Planning
Commission Recommendation "a" for the University
District Boundary as. outlined in Vicki Hill's July
20th memo, was APPROVED 4 -1 with Councilmember
Reilly dissenting.
Upon MOTION by Councilmember Spiro, a motion was
made to accept the Planning Commission Recommendations
in toto as outlined in Vicki Hill's July 20th memo. The
motion FAILED due to lack of a second.
*City Council /Community Development Commission/
Rohnert Park Financing Authority
City of Rohnert Park *CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES
July 25, 2000 Page(21)
Mayor Vidak- Martinez shared the contents of a
correspondence received by Council regarding certain
language for Floor Area Ratios (FAR's). Staff responded
to Council questions, and Council discussion ensued.
Upon MOTION by Vice Mayor Mackenzie, seconded by
Councilmember Flores, a motion to strike the words
"exceeding the maximum specified in Table 2.2 -2"
from the last paragraph of page 2 -12 of the General
Plan, was unanimously APPROVED.
Upon MOTION by Vice Mayor Mackenzie, seconded by
Councilmember Spiro, a motion to accept Planning
Commission Recommendation "c" for the Size of the
University District Mixed -Use Area (Policy LU -15
and Table 2.4 -1) as outlined in Vicki Hill's July
20th memo, was unanimously APPROVED.
Council discussion ensued over the classification
of Medium Density Residential and concluded upon
MOTION by Vice Mayor Mackenzie, seconded by
Councilmember Flores, to accept the Planning Commission's
recommendation to clarify that side -by -side duplexes
would be a permitted use with language as follows and as
outlined in Vicki Hill's July 20th memo: "Side -by -side
duplexes not separated by a property line or without
individual heating systems are also permitted, provided
they are similar in appearance to single - family
structures." The motion was unanimously APPROVED.
Upon MOTION by Councilmember Flores, seconded by Vice
Mayor Mackenzie, a motion to accept Planning Commission
Recommendation "e" and correct Policy LU -29, the Buffer
Width on the south side of G- section from 200 feet to
100 feet as outlined in Vicki Hill's July 20th memo,
was unanimously APPROVED.
Mayor Vidak- Martinez read the proposed language, and
upon MOTION by Vice Mayor Mackenzie, seconded by
Councilmember Flores, a motion to accept Planning
Commission Recommendation "f" for clarification of
the wording of Policy TR -1 as outlined in Vicki Hill's
July 20th memo, was unanimously APPROVED.
*City Council /Community Development Commission/
Rohnert Park Financing Authority
City of Rohnert Park *CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES
July 25, 2000 Page(22)
Mayor Vidak- Martinez read the recommended policies, and
upon MOTION by Vice Mayor Mackenzie, seconded by
Councilmember Spiro, a motion to accept Planning
Commission Recommendation "g" for a Public Art Policy
as outlined in Vicki Hill's July 20th memo, was
unanimously APPROVED.
Mayor Vidak- Martinez read the recommended addition per
the request of the Planning Director, and upon MOTION by
Vice Mayor Mackenzie, seconded by Councilme-noer Flores,
a motion to accept Planning Commission Recommendation "h"
for a Hazardous Materials Education Policy as outlined in
Vicki Hill's July 20th memo, was unanimously APPROVED.
Councilmember Spiro LEFT the chamber at approximately
9:57 p.m. while staff responded to Council questions
about water conservation.
EXTEND.COUNCIL MEETING:
Upon MOTION by Vice Mayor Mackenzie, seconded by
Councilmember Flores, a motion to extend the meeting
past 10:00 p.m. to finish necessary agenda items was
APPROVED 3 -1 with Councilmember Reilly dissenting and
Councilmember Spiro absent.
Councilmember Spiro RETURNED to the chamber at
approximately 10:02 p.m.
Upon MOTION by Vice Mayor Mackenzie, seconded by
Councilmember Flores, a motion to accept Planning
Commission Recommendations 1, 2, and 3 under "Water
Conservation" as outlined in Vicki Hill's July 20th
memo, was APPROVED 4 -1 with Councilmember Reilly
dissenting.
Mayor Vidak- Martinez read the amended language from
staff regarding an inconsistency in Park Requirement
in Northeast Specific Plan, and upon MOTION by Vice
Mayor Mackenzie, seconded by Councilmember Flores,
a motion to adopt the amended language, as reflected
in Vicki Hill's July 20th memo on page 6 under Item
"b ", was unanimously APPROVED.
Upon MOTION by Councilmember Spiro, seconded by Vice
Mayor Mackenzie, a motion to accept the recommendations
from the California Division of Mines and Geology, as
outlined in Vicki Hill's July 20th memo on page 6 under
Item "c ", was unanimously APPROVED.
*City Council /Community Development Commission/
Rohnert Park Financing Authority
City of Rohnert Park *CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES
July 25, 2000 Page(23)
Council then commenced a discussion of the various
issues that were raised during the public hearing as
well as a discussion of the Urban Growth Boundary lines,
with clarification from General Plan Coordinator Vicki
Hill and Urban and Regional Planner Rajeev Bhatia. City
Attorney Strauss provided legal clarification when
necessary.
Upon MOTION by Mayor Vidak- Martinez, seconded by
Councilmember Flores, a motion to add a boundary line in
the Southeast Specific Plan Area and thus create a new
area with the same designated residential use, FAILED
2 -3 with Vice Mayor Mackenzie and Councilmembers Reilly
and Spiro dissenting.
Upon MOTION by Vice Mayor Mackenzie, seconded by
Councilmember Flores, a motion was made to accept new
language from Vicki Hill to be added to the General Plan
on page 5 -22, under PF -3 for "Policies:Schools" as
follows: "At the time Specific Plans are developed, an
analysis of the need for additional school sites shall be
conducted in consultation with the appropriate school
district." The motion was unanimously APPROVED.
Upon MOTION by Vice Mayor Mackenzie, seconded by
Councilmember Reilly, a motion was made that in the area
between Hinebaugh Creek and Copeland Creek, as indicated
on the Land Use Map, the buffer be equivalent to the
buffer south of G- section, and that there be one -story
houses to the west of that buffer. The motion was
unanimously APPROVED.
At this point, City Attorney Strauss expressed the need
for herself and the consultants to clear up two matters:
(1) Where exactly in the Transportation Policies and the
Land Use Policies the Penngrove Specific Plan is
mentioned; and (2) Any matters that need to be addressed
or responded to with respect to the letters dated July
24th which the Council received today regarding the
General Plan. In the meantime, the Council discussed the
Urban Growth Boundaries.
Upon MOTION by Councilmember Flores, seconded by Vice
Mayor Mackenzie, a motion to accept the Urban Growth
Boundary as put forward in this General Plan was
APPROVED 4 -1 with Councilmember Reilly dissenting.
*City Council /Community Development Commission/
Rohnert Park Financing Authority
City of Rohnert Park *CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES
July 25, 2000 Page(24)
General Plan Coordinator Vicki Hill responded to City
Attorney Strauss' earlier question about the
Penngrove Specific Plan, noting that it is only
referenced in the Transportation section of the EIR on
pages 4 -61, 4 -63, and 4 -64 in reference to Penngrove's
plan for roadway improvements and impacts on roadways
in the Penngrove area. She pointed out that none of
those references to the Penngrove Specific Plan talk
about any conflict; they only cover mitigation measures
and the nature of the plan.
City Attorney Strauss reiterated to Ms. Hill that no
response is required to a new issue that is raised in
any of the letters about the General Plan; however, to
the extent that a new question raised in one of the
letters impacts the adequacy of the EIR, staff needs to
deal with such an issue.
After a cursory review of the letters, Urban and
Regional Planner Bhatia indicated for the record that
there are two letters from property owners on Keiser
Avenue who do not wish to be part of the City when it
is expanded. In another letter, a person who lives
near a creek indicated that they did not wish to be
involved in any development whenever that may happen,
specifically community bikeways and pedestrian paths
along the creek. Mr. Bhatia noted that he does not
believe that anyone should be left out of the Specific
Plan since bikeways and paths are an important part of
that plan.
City Attorney Strauss told the consultants to take the
time once again to review the letters and comments and
to determine if anything needed to be acted upon,
particularly the technical references in some letters,
which might require a change in the EIR or the General
Plan. Council CONCURRED to take a break to allow the
consultants time to review the letters.
RECESS: Mayor Vidak- Martinez declared a recess at
approximately 10:40 p.m.
RECONVENE: Mayor Vidak- Martinez reconvened the Council
at approximately 10:50 p.m. with all
Councilmembers present.
Urban and Regional Planner Rajeev Bhatia signified that
he would be restricting his comments on the letters to
matters that concern the inadequacy of the EIR and not
matters dealing with planning or policy issues.
*City Council /Community Development Commission/
Rohnert Park Financing Authority
City of Rohnert Park *CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES
July 25, 2000 Page(25)
In reference to a letter from Rick Savel, one of the
individuals who spoke at this evening's public hearing,
City Attorney Strauss and Mr. Bhatia concurred that
the first item raised in Mr. Savel's letter concerning
the Southeast land to be annexed in the General Plan
related to planning and policy issues and not to the
inadequacy of the Revised Draft EIR. Mr. Bhatia
pointed out that CEQA required the planners to assess
the impacts of the General Plan on the physical
environment, and that they have already described the
physical environment in terms of its settings and such
matters related thereto. He also noted that no law
required the planners to be consistent with the County
General Plan.
Mr. Bhatia responded to questions in Mr. Savel's letter
about the EIR water analysis, and he cited the 1995
study done by Parson's Engineering. Furthermore, in
response to the inquiry in Mr. Savel's letter about
increased usage, Mr. Bhatia indicated that the planners
considered full buildout of the General Plan in its
totality. He noted that CEQA law is clear and that
planners are not required to go site by site. He said
the purpose of a program EIR is to analyze impacts of
the program in its totality.
On the issue of traffic raised in Mr. Savel's letter,
Mr. Bhatia responded that the traffic model was set up
with a certain level of employment in the Hewlett -
Packard site based on floor occupancy per employee. He
referenced page 2 -240 in the Final EIR, and he noted
that the total employment and the total square footage
are there in the report. He said that that was not
new information being added to the report.
Mr. Bhatia then addressed the issue raised in Mr. Savel's
letter about the cumulative impact on the groundwater
table and the Rohnert Park future proposed usage combined
with Santa Rosa's future proposed usage. He indicated
that he believed that a cumulative water usage analysis
was added to the Final EIR, and that there was a
response made in terms of cumulative impacts of the
groundwater supply, which would have been added to the
Final EIR. He noted that there are mechanisms built into
the General Plan to prevent over - discharge of the aquifer
from happening.
*City Council /Community Development Commission/
Rohnert Park Financing Authority
City of Rohnert Park *CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES
July 25, 2000 Page(26)
In response to the point in Mr. Savel's letter that the
EIR study did not adequately address the cumulative
impact of the potential increase of water usage due to
future expansion at the specific industrial site, Mr.
Bhatia reiterated that they considered the whole program
in a package, and that they did not specifically go
through each site.
Turning his attention to a letter from Mr. John King, an
individual who spoke earlier this evening at the public
hearing, Mr. Bhatia responded to Mr. King's indication
that the Final EIR did not adequately consider the
information he had presented on ground wells. Mr. Bhatia
noted that that issue was raised previously both in
reference to the Draft EIR and the Revised Draft EIR.
Mr. Bhatia said that in response to concerns raised on
the Draft EIR, the City decided to conduct detailed
studies on both the groundwater and transportation. He
noted that the process was halted while those studies
were done, and that those studies were included in the
Revised Draft EIR. He pointed out that the water
consultant retained by the City at the time did go
through each survey response submitted by Mr. King, and
that that water consultant did determine that the
cause - and - effect relationship described in Mr. King's
letter could not be established. Mr. Bhatia also noted
that historical data was presented as part of the Draft
EIR.
Mr. Bhatia then addressed the request in Mr. Savel's
letter for additional traffic analysis for the EIR. Mr.
Bhatia stated that additional traffic work was done as
part of the Revised Draft EIR, and he noted that the
additional traffic work included an intersection
analysis and an expansion of the scope of the
geographical area for the analysis. He noted that all
of that information is presented in the Draft EIR.
General Plan Coordinator Vicki Hill addressed the concern
outlined in Mr. Savel's letter about how the intersection
of Main Street and Redwood Highway in Penngrove back up
all the way to Highway 101 at times. Ms. Hill pointed
out that during the field work for traffic counts, the
traffic consultant did not observe that condition at that
intersection at the times they were there. Ms. Hill
further noted that that information was not put into the
environmental study since the consultant could only put
in what they observed. Ms. Hill said that while they are
not aware of this situation, the traffic consultant did
*City Council /Community Development Commission/
Rohnert Park Financing Authority
City of Rohnert Park *CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES
July 25, 2000 Page(27)
acknowledge that there are impacts in that area. Ms.
Hill noted that there is a provision in the Specific Plan
policies which requires additional detailed traffic
analyses at the time that the Specific Plans are
approved.
Ms. Hill then commented on Mr. Savel's contention about
erroneous results at that same intersection and his
request that a different methodology be used. Ms. Hill
indicated that the methodology used was County- approved
and that the planners went through many meetings with the
Transportation Technical Advisory Committee to review the
assumptions that went into the analysis. She noted that
the advisory committee had signed off on all of the
assumptions as well as the methodology.
Ms. Hill then responded to an inquiry in Mr. King's
letter about whether Sonoma State University or Hewlett -
Packard had been consulted about the water issues. She
noted that the groundwater consultant used a model based
on the proposed Urban Growth Boundary, and that they
looked at the historical use in the study and then they
applied the model to that. Mr. Bhatia said that the
model had been developed as a response to comments that
the Draft EIR was inadequate. He further indicated that
the model, as well as graphs, data, charts, and output,
is all presented in the EIR.
Urban and Regional Planner Rajeev Bhatia then indicated
that the rest of the issues raised in Mr. Savel's and Mr.
King's letters had to do with planning issues, rather
than the inadequacy of the EIR. Mr. Bhatia did
acknowledge Mr. Savel's and Mr. King's concerns as
genuine and legitimate as far as the impact of the
City's planning on their community of Penngrove. He
clarified, however, that their concerns do not relate to
matter of inadequacy of the EIR. Finally, he stated that
Rohnert Park has conducted a detailed, internal analysis
of the EIR and the General Plan, and that none of the
direct or cumulative impacts on any of the surrounding
areas have been suppressed.
City Manager Netter called Council's attention to all
of the letters listed in Communications about the General
Plan and related issues, and he indicated whether the
issues raised in the letters had been discussed or
amended this evening, or whether it was a policy issue:
*City Council /Community Development Commission/
Rohnert Park Financing Authority
City of Rohnert Park *CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES
July 25, 2000 Page(28)
1. Duane Bellinger, letter dated 7/18, re: School issues;
discussed this evening and action taken.
2. Gary Jelinek, re: Canon Manor West; discussed this
evening.
3. Bonny Castelli, re: Letters she sent about the General
Plan; policy issues.
4. Y.C.S. Investment, Inc., fax, re: General Plan southern
portion buffer zone; consultants reviewed letter,
policy issues.
5. Paul Stutrud, re: Spanos plan vs. General Plan
inconsistency; corrected this evening.
6. Y.C.S. Investment, Inc., letter dated 7/18, re: UGB
language; discussed tonight.
City Manager Netter indicated that those letters listed
above, in addition to the letters mentioned by City
Attorney Strauss and reviewed by the consultants,
constitute the letters received and reviewed regarding
matters related to the General Plan and EIR.
At this time, City Attorney Strauss clarified certain
technical issues. She confirmed that Resolution 2000 -152
contains language that would direct staff to make the
changes that are required to implement the changes that
were made earlier this evening. She added one sentence
to Resolution 2000 -152, Exhibit A, Section II: After
"All mitigation measures have been incorporated into the,
updated General Plan," add, "All mitigation measures that
can feasibly be implemented by the City of Rohnert Park."
Lastly, she suggested that Council's previous
"grandfathering" action be the subject of a separate
resolution, specifically Resolution No. 2000 -153.
Resolutions for adoption:
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR
THE ROHNERT PARK GENERAL PLAN WITH CERTAIN FINDINGS
AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO FILE A NOTICE OF
DETERMINATION
and
ADOPTING THE FINAL ROHNERT PARK GENERAL PLAN AS
REVISED AND AMENDED, INCLUDING THE ROHNERT PARK
HOUSING ELEMENT
Council discussion ensued and concluded with Mayor
Vidak- Martinez reading Resolution No. 2000 -152.
Upon MOTION by Vice Mayor Mackenzie, seconded by Mayor
Vidak- Martinez, a motion to adopt Resolution No. 2000 -152
was APPROVED 4 -1 by roll call vote, with Councilmember
Reilly dissenting.
*City Council /Community Development Commission/
Rohnert Park Financing Authority
City of Rohnert Park *CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES
July 25, 2000 Page(29)
Resolution for adoption:
APPLYING GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS ADOPTED IN
RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -152 TO THOSE APPLICATIONS FOR
DEVELOPMENT SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND
OTHER DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL SUBMITTED ON AND
AFTER JULY 25TH, 2000
Upon MOTION by Councilmember Flores, seconded by Mayor
Vidak- Martinez, a motion to adopt Resolution No. 2000 -153
indicating that the General Plan elements adopted in
Resolution No. 2000 -152 would only apply to those
applications for development site and architectural
review and other discretionary approval submitted on and
after July 25th, 2000, was APPROVED 3 -2 with Vice
Mayor Mackenzie and Councilmember Reilly dissenting.
5. NOVEMBER 2000 ELECTION MATTERS - CONSIDERATION OF
BALLOT MEASURES:
A. Staff /City Attorney Reports and Timeline:
combined with
Presentation of Proposed Urban Growth Boundary Measure
(City Attorney Strauss):
City Attorney Strauss provided a brief report and
discussed her memo of July 17th pertaining to the purpose
for the resolution before the Council, the changes that
have been made to the UGB measure, and the alternative
forms of the question to be placed on the ballot.
Council AGREED on the third alternative question to be
placed on the ballot as outlined in City Attorney
Strauss' resolution language.
Resolution for consideration:
MAKING CEQA FINDINGS AND SUBMITTING TO THE VOTERS
OF THE CITY AN ORDINANCE MAKING AMENDMENTS TO THE
GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK TO
ESTABLISH A 20 -YEAR URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY
Council discussion concluded and Vice Mayor Mackenzie
read the resolution. Upon MOTION by Vice Mayor
Mackenzie, seconded by Councilmember Flores, a motion
was made to adopt Resolution No. 2000 -154 with change
of language in the first sentence of the third question,
chosen by Council per City Attorney Strauss' five choices,
as follows: "Shall the voters of Rohnert Park amend the
General Plan to make the Urban Growth Boundary
effective for 20 years so as to prevent urban sprawl."
The motion was unanimously APPROVED.
*City Council /Community Development Commission/
Rohnert Park Financing Authority
City of Rohnert Park *CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES
July 25, 2000 Page(30)
Mayor Vidak- Martinez indicated that she received approval
from City Attorney Strauss to have the resolutions for
the General Plan prepared for both her signature and
Vice Mayor Mackenzie's as he has put in a great deal of
effort to the General Plan process. She REQUESTED that
staff prepare the documents accordingly.
FOR THE RECORD, Vice Mayor Mackenzie stated that he and
Mayor Vidak- Martinez were clearly on opposite sides on
a number of these General Plan issues over the past
number of years. He indicated that he, the Mayor, Shawn
Kilat, and Greg Nordin were charged by the Council to
come back with a product, and he said that he is very
proud of that product, and that they were able to work
together in a civil and thoughtful manner. He thanked
Mayor Vidak- Martinez.
FOR THE RECORD, Mayor Vidak- Martinez stated that the
encouraging part all the way through the General Plan
process was the public participation. She said that
people came and contributed their ideas, their concerns,
and their thoughts in a way that allowed other people
to hear them. She noted that that took a long time in
coming to this community, and that it provided an
opportunity for healing and an opportunity to move
forward despite disagreements along the way. She
indicated that it was a very healthy process as people
with different views came together, sat next to each
other, and shared their concerns and ideas.
B. Staff /City Attorney reports on Article 34:
Assistant City Manager Leivo provided a brief staff
report from his July 18th memo.
Resolution for consideration:
MAKING CEQA FINDINGS AND SUBMITTING TO THE VOTERS
OF THE CITY AN ARTICLE XXXIV BALLOT MEASURE
Upon MOTION by Councilmember Spiro, seconded by Vice
Mayor Mackenzie, reading was waived and Resolution No.
2000 -155 was unanimously APPROVED.
Council CONCURRED to formally acknowledge Consultants
Vicki Hill, Rajeev Bhatia, and Lynn Goldberg for the work
they have done on the General Plan over the last two
years in the form of a resolution at a later Council
meeting.
*City Council /Community Development Commission/
Rohnert Park Financing Authority
City of Rohnert Park *CONCURRENT MEETINGS MINUTES
July 25, 2000 Page(31)
6. MOBILE HOME PARK MATTERS - PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF
ORDINANCE NO. 494:
DEFERRED on the advice of City Attorney Strauss.
7. RECEIPT OF GRAND JURY 1999 -2000 FINAL REPORT:
A. Staff Retort:
City Manager Netter clarified that Council would sign
City Attorney Strauss' letter as a joint response.
Upon MOTION by Councilmember Reilly, seconded by
Councilmember Spiro, a motion to approve the memo
response from City Attorney Strauss was unanimously
APPROVED.
8. COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
10. OTHER UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES: [Out of order]
At this time, Mayor Vidak- Martinez called forward any
citizens wishing to speak.
1. Geoffrey Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, Petaluma,
reminded the Council that there is a flooding
problem in Petaluma. He said that he will be
watching closely as the General Plan process unfolds.
9. CLOSED SESSION: [Out of order]
At this time, Council adjourned to Closed Session to
consider Real Estate Negotiations and Litigation Matters.
There being no further business, Mayor Vidak- Martinez
adjourned the meeting at approximately 12:20 a.m. to:
5:00 p.m., Tuesday, August 8, 2000,
at City Hall for the
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT - WORK SESSION
,4
Katy Leonard,
Certified Shorthand Reporter
CSR No. 11599
VL V,
Vicki Vidak- Martinez,
Mayor
*City Council /Community Development Commission/
Rohnert Park Financing Authority
ARTICLE 2, CHAPTER 19.10
Chapter 19.10
MHP Mobilehome Park Overlay District
Sections:
19.10.010 Purposes
19.10.020 Allowable Uses
19.10.030 Development Standards
19.10.040 Design Standards
19.10.010 Purposes
The purposes of the MHP Mobilehome Park Overlay District are to:
A. Recognize the importance of existing mobilehome parks as a valuable city resource providing
affordable housing and stable communities, protected from speculative pressures to convert to
other land use types.
B. Provide appropriate areas for residential mobilehome park development that are consistent with
the General Plan and with standards of the public health and safety as established by State or
City Code.
C. Ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, and protect residents from
the harmful effects of excessive noise, population density, traffic congestion and other
environmental effects.
D. Achieve design compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods and promote and encourage
orderly residential development with appropriate physical amenities.
19.10.020 Allowable Uses
A. Permitted Uses
The following uses may be allowed in the MHP Overlay District through approval of a design
permit (Chapter 19.28):
1. Mobilehome park, defined as a site developed for the long -term placement of
mobilehomes that are certified under the National Manufactured Housing Construction
and Safety Standards Act of 1974
2. Accessory structures and recreational facilities related to mobilehome parks.
TITLE 19 ZONING CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON
2 -25
ARTICLE 2, CHAPTER 19.10 MHP MOBILEHOME PARK OVERLAY
DISTRICT
3. Caretaker's quarters.
B. Conditionally- Permitted Uses
The following uses may be allowed in the MHP Overlay District through approval of a
conditional use permit (Chapter 19.29):
1. Mobilehome subdivision.
2. The permitted and conditionally - permitted uses allowed by Article 3 of this Title for the
underlying base zone district.
C. Mobilehome Park Conversion
All requests to convert a mobilehome park or subdivision to another land use requires a
rezoning to eliminate the overlay district and compliance with the City's Mobilehome Park
Conversion Ordinance.
19.10.030 Development Standards
A. Project Area
A site proposed for a mobilehome park or subdivision shall be a minimum of 10 acres.
B. Densitv and Site Area
I . The minimum and maximum overall density of a mobilehome park or subdivision shall
conform to the site's General Plan land use designation and the underlying base zone
district.
2. Individual mobilehome sites or lots shall have a minimum area of 3,680 square feet.
C. Site Width
Individual mobilehome sites or lots shall have a minimum width of 46 feet.
D. Perimeter Buffer Area
A landscaped area with a minimum width of 20 feet shall be maintained along the exterior
boundaries of a mobilehome park or subdivision site as a buffer between the mobilehome units
and the adjoining property, except when located adjacent to any public roadway, where a
landscaped buffer area with a minimum width of 30 feet of shall be maintained.
E. Minimum Yards
TITLE 19 ZONING CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON
2 -26
t!
ARTICLE 2, CHAPTER 19.10
MHP MOBILEHOME PARK OVERLAY
DISTRICT
I. Sick acid rear yards: A five -foot minimum setback from the outer edge of any structure
or mobilehome to the mobilehome side or rear space or lot line shall maintained.
2. From yard. A 15 -foot minimum setback from the outer edge of any structure or
mobilehome to the mobilehome front space or lot line shall maintained.
3. Cornices, eaves, canopies, fireplaces and other similar architectural features, but not
including any flat wall or window surface, may extend up to two feet into any yard. No
other encroachments shall be permitted. ,
F. Maximum Height
The maximum height in the MHP Overlay District shall be 25 feet and structures shall be limited
to one story.
G. Common Areas
Common areas shall be provided within a mobilehome park or subdivision for recreation and
other activities. The size and type of facilities required will be based on project size and
location.
H. Circulation and Parking
All streets, access drives, parking bays and connection to public roads shall be in accordance with
plans reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
1. Accesv.
a. All mobilehome spaces shall be served from internal private streets within the
mobilehome park or subdivision, and there shall be no direct access from a
mobilehome space to a public street or alley.
b. Private Streets shall have a clear and unobstructed access to a public thoroughfare.
2. Street vildths.
a. The minimum width for any interior street within a mobilehome park shall be no less
than 25 feet, curb to curb.
b. No interior street shall be less than 32 feet in width, curb to curb, if parking is
allowed on one side and not less than 40 feet in width if parking is allowed on both
sides.
3. Pedestrian circulation. Sidewalks and pedestrian pathways shall be inco,* prated into the
park design to allow normal circulation patterns to take place between adjacent parcels
and common areas.
4. Parking. Parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 19.14, Parking and
Loading.
TITLE 19 ZONING
2 -27
CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON
ARTICLE 2, CHAPTER 19.14 MHP MOBILEHOME PARK OVERLAY
DISTRICT
3. Pedestrian circulation. Sidewalks and pedestrian pathways shall be incorporated into the
park design to allow normal circulation patterns to take place between adjacent parcels
and common areas.
4. Parking. Parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 19.14, Parking atld
Loading.
TITLE 19 ZONING
2 -28
CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON
ARTICLE 2, CHAPTER 19.10 MHP MOBILEHOME PARK OVERLAY
DISTRICT
I. Boat and Trailer Storage
1. All pleasure boats, trailers, campers and motor coaches shall be stored in an approved
area set aside for such storage.
2. Said areas shall be screened from view and shall provide a minimum of one boat or trailer
space for every five mobilehome sites.
3. Such storage shall not be allowed on any street or individual mobilehome space.
J. Landscaping
1. A detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted for consideration with each application for
a mobilehome park or subdivision, in accordance with Chapter 19.15, Landyca Jiilg and
Screetnng. All open areas except driveways, parking areas, walkways, utility areas, decks,
patios and porches shall be landscaped and maintained.
2. Substantial trees shall be planted throughout the mobilehome park or subdivision, and one
street tree, of a variety approved by the Planning Commission, shall be provided on each
lot. Specimen trees of not less than five - gallon container size or one inch in trunk diameter
shall be planted.
K. Utilities
1. All utilities in a mobilehome park or subdivision shall be installed underground.
2. Individual exposed antennas are not permitted. Each mobilehome park or subdivision shall
utilize a master antenna system.
L. Fences
1. The approving authority may require that the park or subdivision property be enclosed
at the rear and sides by a six -foot fence and /or thick screen planting for control of view,
light, sound and adequate security.
2. Fences up to six feet in height may be permitted in the front setback area provided an
average setback of ten feet from the street property line is observed and the area between
the fence and property line is well landscaped and maintained. The height of fencing and
landscaping located at intersections of streets, driveways and pedestrian walkways may
be limited to provide clear lines -of site.
M. Other Standards
Additional development standards may be prescribed as conditions of approval when such
requirements are determined to be necessary to ensure the protection of the character of
TITLE 19 ZONING
2 -29
CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON
ARTICLE 2, CHAPTER 19.10
MHP MOBILEHOME PARK OVERLAY
DISTRICT
neighboring properties, the compatibility of land uses, and the health and safety of mobilehome
development occupants and other City residents.
N. Continued Maintenance
All recreation facilities, common open spaces, common area landscaping, perimeter walls and
streets/driveways established under permits approved prior to adoption of this Chapter shall be
maintained and repairedA on an ongoing basis to ensure that said facilities serve the purpose
intended under the original or subsequent permit approvals.
19.10.040 Signs
A. Mobilehome park or subdivision signs shall be limited to one 24- square foot sign per major
entrance, not to exceed a height of six feet.
B. Each mobilehome park or subdivision shall maintain a directory sign showing the location and
house number of each unit.
C. Signs shall be subject to the permit procedures and standards set forth in Chapter 19.16, .9971s,
except as noted herein.
TITLE 19 ZONING
2 -30
CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON
I
El
�11
MCCUTCHEN, DOYLE, BROWN & ENERSEN, LLP
July 25, 2000
BY HAND DELIVERY
Mayor Vidak- Martinez and City Council Members
City of Rohnert Park `
6750 Commerce Boulevard
Rohnert Park, CA 94928
Rohnert Park General Plan
Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
r
Direct: (925) 975 -5339
ctalbert@mdbe.com
Our File No. 22869 -1
Our firm has been retained by Quaker Hill Development Corporation in regard
to the City's consideration of the new Rohnert Park General Plan. Quaker Hill holds an
interest in the majority of the property within the proposed University District.
In previous correspondence to you and to the Planning Commission, we have
urged the City to expand its flexibility in the General Plan to ensure that the City has a wide
range of options for realizing its innovative plans for Rohnert Park's future. ' On July l_3, _
200Q the Planning Commission considered the General Plan and recommended several
_ -_
revisions that significantly enhance flexibility and strengthen the General Plan. We ask that
you adopt those c�ianges -in addition; on some issues we believe further changes or
clarifications are still needed.
As the City enters the home stretch of this exciting but arduous process, we
ask that you make the final refinements to the General Plan requested in this letter. We
believe that the changes requested by Quaker Hill will help enable the City to achieve the
broader goals and visions expressed in the General Plan.
' On June 13, 2000 and June 28, 2000 we submitted comments to you on the Draft General Plan (May 2000) ( "Draft
General Plan "). On June 19, 2000 we also submitted comments on the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report
(May 2000). On July 6, 2000 we submitted further comments to the Planning Commission in connection with its
hearing on this matter on July 13, 2000.
A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W 1333 N. California Blvd., Suite 210 San Francisco Palo Alto
P.O. Box Los Angeles Taipei
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 -1270 Walnut Creek
Tel. (925) 937 -8000 Fax (925) 975 -5390
www.mccutchen.com
Mayor Vidak- Martinez and City Council Members
July 25, 2000
Page 2
Residential FAR Standard
Throughout the General Plan process, Quaker Hill has urged the City to
remove residential FAR standards from the General Plan, reserving them for specific plans or
the new Zoning Ordinance that will follow adoption of this General Plan. On July 13, the
Planning Commission agreed, recommending that these standards be deleted from the
General Plan.
This issue is complex, and there is no easy way to satisfy all of the underlying
concerns. Thus, while we continue to believe that the General Plan is not the appropriate
place for residential FAR standards, we respect the extensive discussion and compromise
that has occurred on this issue in both the Ad Hoc Committee meetings and the June 28 City
Council workshop. After the workshop, the Council recommended that FARs be left in the
General Plan temporarily, but removed from the General Plan after they had been
incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance. As a result, the following text was added to the
Adoption Draft of the General Plan (July 6, 2000) ( "Adoption Draft ") (at page 2):
The City intends to incorporate these FARs as part of the
Zoning Ordinance, and when so incorporated, amend the
General Plan to delete residential FARs from the General
Plan.
We believe that this compromise can meet the needs of the City and property
owners alike. Its success, however, depends on two factors. First, we suggest that the text
quoted above be revised as follows:
The City intends_.tp incorporate, as part of its Zoning
Ordinance, these FARs or such other FARS as the City
determines are - appropriate to ensure that the design and
scale of homes along the street is pedestrian- oriented and
provides a variety of housin sizes, appropriately
proportional to the lot sizes�When FARs have been so
incorporated, the City intends to amend the General Plan to
delete residential FARs from the General Plan.
This revision will enable the City to consider FARs in the context of other
design and site planning elements such as setbacks, landscaping and street standards, all of
which determine the ultimate streetscape and character of a neighborhood.'
Z This approach also will give the City the option to develop special FAR standards for new additions to existing
homes. Although existing homes exceeding the FARs would be grandfathered by the General Plan (Draft General
Plan, page 2 -12), new additions to those homes would be prohibited.
Mayor Vidak- Martinez and City Council Members
July 25, 2000
Page 3
Second, we urge the City to make every effort to expedite the Zoning
Ordinance amendments recommended or required by the General Plan. As a practical
matter, until this step is completed, implementation of the General Plan and the anticipated
specific plans may be stalled. \
Allowing Multi- family Housing in Medium and Low Density Areas (_
The Draft General Plan contains an apparent inconsistency between the Land
Use Element and the Community Design Element. CD -17 states that townhomes and multi-
family dwellings should be integrated with single - family residences. In the Land Use
Element, however, the description of the Medium Density Residential classification states
that multi - family housing is not permitted (page 2 -18).
To resolve this inconsistency and enhance opportunities for variety and
affordability, we,reconimenOlat the Council remove the prohibition on multi - family
housing in Medium- - Density Residential areas. Well- designed multi - dwelling structures
(whether side -by -side or stacked) can fit comfortably in predominantly single - family
neighborhoods and are essential for creating a wide variety of housing sizes, types and
pricing. Although Staff and the General Plan consultant have suggested that the Medium
Density Residential classification be changed to allow side -by -side duplexes (Memo from
Vicki Hill to City Council, dated July 20, 2000, page 3), we believe that allowing broader
multi - family uses is a better means of achieving the City's goals. 3
In addition, we rec ommeno that duplexes (either side by side or stacked) be
permitted in Low Density Residen- al-areas. Duplexes can easily be integrated into the
design of single,fam- ily neighborhoods, offering further opportunities for variety and
affordability.
Second Units
The Draft General Plan (page 2 -17) provides that second units are in addition
to densities otherwise permitted in the residential land use classifications. To provide further
opportunities for second units, we believe the General Plan also should provide that second
units will not be counted toward (1) any applicable FAR limits or (2) the total number of
units allowed under the General Plan. This additional flexibility will support the role of
second units as another important tool for providing affordable housing options.
s Some uncertainties have arisen about the interpretation of "multi - family" as defined in the General Plan Glossary.
This definition should be clarified, and used consistently throughout the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
Mayor Vidak- Martinez and City Council Members
July 25, 2000
Page 4
On July 13, the Planning Commission discussed CUP requirements for second
units. Although the Commission did not recommend eliminating the CUP requirement, it
heard comments regarding techniques used in other communities for streamlining the
approval process —for example, waiving the CUP requirement for second units below a
certain square footage or within an existing building envelope. These techniques make the
approval process more efficient and also ease the burden on City staff with regard to review
of units that will have minimal physical impact. For these reasons, we ecommend hat the
General Plan direct the City to include such techniques in its revised Z ning Orsiinance.
Northern Boundary of the University District
The Draft General Plan initially loca \ the northern boundary of the
University District at Crane Creek. For the reasons stated in our prior letters, we have
requested that this boundary be moved to Keiser Avenue (leaving the entire existing right of
way in the University District).
In further support of this request, Quaker Hill has recently confirmed that all
lands north of Keiser Avenue drain into the Crane Creek watershed, while all lands south of
Keiser drain into the Hinebaugh Creek watershed. Furthermore, there are no culverts along
Keiser Avenue that might be diverting water from land south of Keiser into Crane Creek.
Attachment A, prepared by Carlile & Macy, illustrates these drainage patterns. Combined
with the factors addressed in our earlier letters, the drainage patterns make relocation of the
University District boundary to Keiser Avenue even more compelling.
The Ad Hoc Committee directed the General Plan preparers to locate the
boundary along property lines, so that no parcels are split between two specific plan areas.
This direction is consistent with moving the boundary to Keiser Avenue. Unfortunately, the
boundary was only partially adjusted in the Adoption Draft. For comparison purposes,
Attachment B illustrates (1) in blue, the location of the boundary along Crane Creek, as
shown in Figure 2.4 -1 in the Draft General Plan, (2) in yellow, the partially adjusted
boundary, as shown in revised Figure 2.4 -1 of the Adoption Draft, and (3) in red, the
recommended location of the boundary at Keiser _Avenue.
On July 13, the Tannin ommission recommended) the relocation of this
boundary to Keiser Avenue, a we equest t��t the-C*. Coundtadopt that
recommendation. �: - '" �
The Mixed Use Area of the University District
The Mixed Use Center envisioned far - the - University District is one of the
most innovative aspects of the new General Plan, and flexibility will play a key role in its
success. On July 13, the Planning Commission recommended certain changes to the General
Mayor Vidak- Martinez and City Council Members
July 25, 2000
Page 5
Plan in this regard, including reducing the minimum acreage to 20 acres (from 25). In our
July 6 letter to the Commission, we also requested that the Mixed Use classification be
expanded to expressly include offices and technology facilities. Although the corrected
version of the Adoption Draft (July 12, 2000) adds "offices and financial businesses" to the
definition of Neighborhood Commercial, it does not add them to Mixed Ue. We believe
this is inadvertent, and that the Planning Commission intenq�dalso to add "offices and
financial businesses" to the Mixed Use designation. We request - that -the- Council confirm
this addition to the Mixed Use classification (page 2 -19 of the Draft General Plan) when it
adopts the General Plan.
We believe thatlt ee additional changs are necessary to provide adequate
flexibility for the City and developers-to- create A "successful Mixed Use Center:
• Increase the allowable number of high density residential units in the Mixed Use
Center to 300 (from 100), provided that the combined total of residential units in High
Density and Mixed Use does not exceed 730 (Draft General Plan, Table 2.4 -1);
Encourage predominantly commercial ground level uses in the commercial core, but
clarify that both residential and non - retail commercial uses are permitted (Draft
General Plan, LU -15, page 2 -29) ; and
Eliminate the prohibition on retail uses outside the commercial core (Draft General
Plan, LU -15, page 2 -29).
All of these changes enhance the City's options for exploring and refining a
wide range of uses, which we believe will be essential to the success of this unique new
district.
We appreciate the opportunity to present these comments to you and to
participate in the City's General Plan process. If you have any questions about the
information in this letter, please feel free to contact Craig Harrington, myself, or Johanna
Sherlin of our office.
Very truly yours,
Cecily T. Talbert
cc: Rohnert Park Planning Commission Raj eev Bhatia
Betsy Strauss Craig Harrington
Vicki Hill Johanna Sherlin
O
13
AV
rn
w,
Ij
ATTIACHMEENT "A"
rn
i
Trl
CD
>
c
0
>
1
rri
rTl
PETALUMA HILL ROAD
ATTIACHMEENT "A"
rn
Cb
-.Cb
i
�tf
0
>
rTl
Cb
-.Cb
P To
a
ATTACHMENT "B"
11 * ty Dist -
Univetsiiict
Sped Play n
ROHNFATPARK
Ojo
boundary per draft
general plan, may 2000
(blue)
2
amended boundary
T-
presented to City
Council on June 28
rheas
(yellow)
ific-p—
boundary recommended
area
by the Planning
Commission on July 13
(red)
414,
ism
11 * ty Dist -
Univetsiiict
Sped Play n
ROHNFATPARK
Ojo
A
O
O
O
�W
z
w
W
a
0
F
W
a
O
O
Q
a
0
a
z
O
H
H
O
I
ti
Hauff. Ju
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Strauss, Betsy
Thursday, August 03, 2000 9:00 AM
Hauff, Judy
FW: Additional language
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Strauss, Betsy
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 12:11 PM
To: 'lynngold @pacbell.net'
Subject: Additional language
4W epci-. /}moo
Qa e+ d& COY a un i
RHND: The City of Rohnert Park has requested the Association of Bay Area Governments to revise the determination of
its share of the regional housing need. The City's proposed revision is based upon available data and accepted planning
methodology and is supported by adequate documentation in accordance with Gov't Code § 65584. The proposed
revision is based primarily on ABAG's improper methodology and ABAG's inaccurate description of the City's sphere of
influence. More information about the City's proposal to revise the determination of its share of the regional housing need
is found in correspondence from the City of Rohnert Park to ABAG dated April 28, 2000, and expected in August 2000
which are incorporated into this Housing Element by this reference. The City's share of the regional housing need
includes that share of the housing need of persons at all income levels within the area significantly affected by the city's
general plan (Gov't Code § 5584(a)). Therefore, in this general plan, the City has provided for its share of the regional
housing need in the sphere of influence proposed by this General Plan (See Table 9.5 -1) since the sphere of influence is
the area significantly affected by this general plan.
,Thanks for your help.
Betsy