1999/03/30 City Council MinutesCITY OF ROHNERT PARK
Rohnert Park Community Center
5401 Snyder Lane
Rohnert Park. California 94928
MINUTES OF THE ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL
And
ROHNERT PARK PLANNING COMMISSION
JOINT MEETING
Tuesday, March 30, 1999
Prior to the official opening of the Joint Meeting between the Rohnert Park City Council and the Rohnert
Park Planning Commission, a public open house was held to review the General Plan Alternatives in the
Multi- Purpose Room of the Rohnert Park Community Center.
A. Call to Order:
Mayor Reilly called the adjourned meeting between the Rohnert Park City Council and the
Rohnert Park Planning Commission to order @. 7:05 p.m.
Mayor Reilly acknowledged that due to the lack of an American Flag, that the Pledge of
Allegiance would be omitted.
B. Roll Call:
Mayor Reilly noted that all five (5) Councilmembers (Flores, Mackenzie, Spiro, Vidak-
Martinez and himself) were present and gave introductions of each. Mayor Reilly further
noted that Planning Commissioner Shawn Kilat would act as both Vice -Chair and Chair of the
Planning Commission for these proceedings.
Planning Commissioner Kilat noted that Planning Commissioner Mark Nilson was absent
from the proceedings. Other Planning Commissioners present included: Militello, Mochel
and Nordin.
C. Acknowledging the City Manager /Clerk's report on posting of the meeting's revised
agenda.
City Manager, Joe Netter acknowledged the posting of a revised agenda.
Mayor Reilly announced that the airing of the proceedings would be on Tuesday, April 6t' at
8:00 p.m. on Cable Channel 8.
D. General Plan Alternatives — Staff Presentation and Update:
Facilitator Rick Brown presented an overview and information update. Mr. Brown pointed
out that the objectives of the presentation are three fold. First, to assure that the Council,
Rohnert Park A. City Council/Planning Commission iit2. !Minutes .2)
March 30. 1999
i}nmmiaoi_ne -s .,nA tI,- .. i.l:,, 1--_. _�_ _ t _ �
..� uiiu �i>c VUUM- icave whit a clleai understanding of the Alternatives that have
been developed by the Oversight Committee. Also.. Mr. Brown stated, that everyone is clear
about what is the thinking behind the development of the Alternatives.
Mr. Brown briefly summarized Phase I of the Public Participation Process stating that in early
January, invitations were sent out to 800 randomly selected addresses for participation in the
Sounding Board Session. Mr. Brown pointed out that residents within the mobile home parks
were over sampled to keep up with the proportions of renters. However. the responses did not
Cully represent the population of the community. Generally, Mr. Brown noted, the majority
of the responses represented those residents who were older, had hi <v-her incomes and were
homeowners. Facilitator Brown further stated that a community workshop was held at the
end of January with approximately 100 people in attendance.
Facilitator Brown stated that the desired accomplishments at these sessions were that the
critical issues of the Plan are addressed, and that the Committee Identify those interests
were, and what the Committee wanted to address in the Plan.
Mr. Brown noted that some of the interests identified have been used by the Committee as a
wide post" in looking at the Alternatives. Some of the interests identified included: need
for affordable housing, need to maintain open space, and the need for better access to the
University. Mr. Brown pointed out that in addition to those identified interests, the
Committee formulated other interests that ao bevond those identified in the meetings. They
included those legal and external jurisdictional requirement issues.
Mr. Brown stated that some of the interests identified by the Committee include: increasing
pedestrian and bike access; ability to consider different design standards; and, options for
boundary edges for the City.
Mr. Brown went on to state that Phase II of the planning process moved beyond interests and
viewed the preferences of the people who participated in the workshops and Sounding Board
sessions. From these sessions a sense of what the major preferences were was created.
Examples include: 1) before starting the development of new areas that we need to address
in -fill areas that exist within the community_ ; and 2) that we not allow any new development
to jeopardize the development of the Civic Center plan. There was strong feeling that we not
have residential development within the community separators, but, rather more passive usage
such as wildlife preserve or golf courses.
On the northeast side, Mr. Brown noted that a majority did not want development to go as far
as Petaluma Hill Road. Further, there was strong support for the idea of mixed use intense
development. just North of the University for better connection between the University and the
City. In the Southeast area there was no strong majority one way or another. Regarding the
area of Canon Manor, it was felt that if developed, that at least 300 or more new homes be
developed. There were also a number of people that did not want to see any new growth, as
well as those who wanted to go beyond the growth that was identified.
Vicki Hill, Facilitator, summarized the features of the Alternatives. Under Alternative 1, she
stated that there was no change in Sphere of Influence (SOI) and that there was very little
vacant land to infill. This Alternative would develop only the land within the City and there
would be no additional residential development. There are, however. a couple of options: 1)
Rohnert Park Jt. City Council/Planning Commission Mtg. Minutes (3) March 30. 1999
to develop a 25 acre parcel on the Northwest side commercially (WilfredlDowdell site); and,
2) the development of Canon Manor.
Ms. Hill noted that Alternative 2 and 3 have common features. On the Northwest side, 100
acres are devoted to commercial, professional and institutional and industrial land, which
would be an extension of the existing area. This area is within a community separator. There
would be no housing development in the Northwest area. On the North side, community
separators would be maintained all the way across and wrapping around to the Northeast with
no proposed development encroachment into the area.
On the Northeast side, the entire area to the University is the same for Alternative 2 and 3.
There would be a potential golf course in the Northeast corner for both. The residential area
would have low density with some high density in the middle starting at Snyder Lane and
moving eastward to a point about a half mile from Petaluma Hill Road. The boundary for
this area would caper down towards Petaluma Hill Road to Rohnert Park Expressway. Within
the area, Ms. Hill pointed out, would be a regional sports complex with a convention hotel
and convention center. The Kev to both Alternative 2 and 3 is the high density mixed use
(commercial & residential) area with the purpose of providing a link to the University.
Ms. Hill further noted that the differences lie south of the University. Starting with
Alternative 2, the northern portion of Canon Manor would remain the same. The Southern
part of Canon Manor would be developed with lower density, residential and transition to
medium and some higher residential at the Southern end. There would be land for mixed
uses, a park, and a school. Between Valley House Road and Railroad there would be
industrial area.
Alternative 3 involves redevelopment of the entire Canon Manor area with high density next
to the University. Some park land, a school site, mixed use development, surrounded by
medium residential density going to lower density residential near Petaluma Hill Road and
having professional, institutional and industrial land on the South end.
The primary difference, Ms. Hill noted, is that Alternative 3 has more housing, more
population growth and less industrial, whereas Alternative 2 has more industrial and less
population growth.
Ms. Hill noted that there was a handout pertinent to the growth numbers of the Alternative.
Facilitator entertained comments from Committee Members.
Committee Member Vidak- Martinez stated that the Committee tried to reflect comments
received through the public participation process. She noted that the Committee did include
light industrial in the Southeast so that residents could be near their employment. Further, she
stated that the Committee was careful to maintain housing within the school district areas.
Committee Member Vidak- Martinez reported that the Committee would have a fiscal analysis
completed.
Committee. Member Shawn Kilat stated that the Committee looked at the trend set projections
that would occur over the next 20 years, as well as considered work that came before their
efforts.
Rohnert Paris Jt. City Council/Planning Commission Mtn. Minutes (4) March 30. 1999
Committee Member Mackenzie stated that he viewed the process as a "Journey of the City of
Rohnert Park" and noted that the map is the Plan. He reported that the city Council will vote
in late fall on the Plan to be voted on by the citizens next year. Personally, Committee
Member Mackenzie stated, he has been looking at establishing a green belt around the City;
interest in creating a strong connection between SSU and the City; to recognize a Plan that
has County separators in its boundaries, in particular, with Alternatives 2 & 3 to develop the
Northwestern part of the City. He noted that the City would have to deal with LAFCO issues.
He urged all concerned to move forward.
Committee Member Greg Nordin commented that the first and foremost success of the Plan
will be through the participation of our citizens and that the Committee wanted to hear from
the citizens. He stated that he hopes that the land around "G" section will remain useable but
maintain open space. He further supports the housing development around Snyder Lane and
Keiser Road. He suggested also that he is in favor of the mixed uses on the East Side and that
he supports the Transit Center on the Northwest side and the Master Plan of Rohnert Park's
Bicycle Path Committee. He suggested that the Committee look further into alternative
modes of transportation.
Vicki Hill informed those present that the Committee would take into account all of the
comments, both verbal and in writing and will consider them in the selection of the Preferred
Alternative. She stated that an analysis of the Alternatives including a fiscal analysis, will be
developed and a public report will be issued within the next three weeks or so. Further, she
noted that input will be sought from other a encies and the Committee will then select a
Preferred Alternative hopefully by April 19 . Once the Preferred Alternative is selected,
discussion will come back to the Planning Commission and City Council for public input.
The target date for circulation of the Preferred General Plan and Environmental Impact Report
(EIR), is the end of July. The deadline for the development of Growth Boundaries is
December 9L'.
E. Unscheduled Public Appearances:
Facilitator, Rick Brown entertained two minute public comments from the following
speakers:
Linda Branscomb, 21 Anne St., Rohnert Park, CA : Facilitator read the comments of
Ms. Branscomb who commented that by changing the language of Measure N to
become a 20 year boundary it would force development interests to provide the very
best projects for Rohnert Park.
2. Susan Hollingsworth, 1413 Gold Way, Rohnert Park, CA: expressed concern
regarding the development of only part of Keiser Road. She feels that the entire area
should be developed.
Alex Krassovsky, 1559 Gretchen Ct., Rohnert Park, CA: commented regarding the
General Plan update. He voiced concerns regarding Alternatives 2 & 3. He felt that
lohnert Park Jt. Cite Councii /Plannint, Commission �It2. �ldinutes �) March 30. 1999
Alternative I was the most practical and realistic. He further expressed the need to
preserve the City's open space. He was not in favor of additional major development.
1
Chris Brown. 520 1�4endocino. -225_ Santa Rosa. CAS Vfr. Brown expressed concern
over County separators. He prefers no development at ail. However. Mr. Brown did
support the mixed use proposal around the Universitv.
Galen Schwab_ 6186 San Carlos Ct.. Rohnert Park. CA: urefers Alternative 1 but
would be in favor of a Plan somewhere between I & 2. Also supports low density
housing.
5. Richard Carlisle, 15 Third Street. Santa Rosa, CA, gave remarks regarding urban
boundaries based on his past experiences as an Urban Planner. Feels good about the
process. (handout provided).
Gary Jelinek. 608 Racquet Club. Rohnert Park, CA: As a representative of the Canon
Manor Improvement Group, Mr. Jelinek spoke on uniqueness of the Canon Manor
area and the need to address area as such. Urged the Committee to deal with the
health hazards of the area immediately. Noted that the community wants to keep the
population density at no more than 2 houses per acre.
Bob Lewis, 4590 Fairwav Drive, Rohnert Park, CA: suggested that we get it done ",
referring to proceeding with the General Plan.
9. Gary Tattman, 1028 Hawthorne, Rohnert Park CA: commented on the General Plan
noting the importance of giving large developers the land they need for development.
10. Michael Caalim, 725 Burton Ave.. Rohnert Park, CA: expressed concern as a Rancho
Cotati High School student. Feels that with increased growth, comes increased crime
and poverty. Expressed the urgent need for another High School in Rohnert Park.
11. Walt Bemis, 6061 Dolores Drive. Rohnert Park, CA: commented on the Sphere of
Influence (SOI) line extension. He stated that there is a need to prevent adverse uses.
He recommended extending the SOI beyond Petaluma Hill Road to protect areas.
12. Eunice Edgington, 990 Echo Court, Rohnert Park, CA: encouraged consideration of
keeping the Plan simple and maintaining slow growth. He felt that the technicalities
were too complex for the average citizen to decipher.
13. Jeff Nicks, 7810 Montero Drive, Rohnert Park, CA: spoke regarding the 500 ft.
setback of useable open space. Mr. Nicks supports an additional park in M Section.
14. Suzannah Sleep, 519 Enterprise Drive, Rohnert Park CA: stated that she supports
multi -use development of University area.
15. Van Logan, 2560 West Dry Creek Road, Healdsbm&ZA: provided a
Zohnert Park Jt. Gtti C'ouncii/Plannin2 Commission Mtn. Minutes 5) March 31), 1999
written report fnr .e.' \,(r V� T � a' .____, n,_ 101 Lill Logan presented art addiu0uaT Piaui for
consideration.
16. Ted Suveyusu, 40800 Encyclopedia Circle.Fremont. CA: stressed the importance of
securing boundary areas to the furthest point to protect the City's future.
17. Roger Chevalier, 924 Hudis Street. Rohnert Park: concerned about lack of community
involvement, as well as the growth impact on the schools. lie was also concerned
about the future water supply and stressed the need to pay close attention to this area.
18. Alan Cohen. 887 — 2 "° Street. Santa Rosa CA,: commented on the land use diai4ram
scenarios for the University district. He stated that the mixed use idea is great but
should not be in the designated area (written handout provided) and should be smaller.
19. Cindy Van, (written report distributed).
20. Roxann Rodriguez. 1425 Mariner Place. Rohnert Park: commented that a major
amenity is the scenic surrounding area; and she is concerned about the cost of
infrastructure for more housing. She felt that the public needed more information.
She does not support growth.
21. Jan Heffron, 1601 E. Cotati Avenue, Rohnert Park: spoke as a representative of the
Cotati/Rohnert Park School Board. She noted with concern that the Creekside Middle
School be a part of the City. Also. concerned with decrease in kindergarten
enrollment in the district and feels that this will have an impact on the reduction of
stag services and loss of schools. She stated further that if boundaries are extended,
the district will have a challenge. She invited Rohnert Park to work with the School
District and if needs are determined for a new school, land should be lifted to the
school for that purpose. v
22. Eric Koenigshofer, 703 Second Street, 4h Fl., Santa Rosa, CA: spoke on behalf
of the owners of the Northwest area. The property is covered by Alternative 2 & 3.
Development of these lands does not interfere with views from U.S. 101. He is
interested in pursuing satisfaction of County policies to offset separator loss.
23. David Eck, 1311 Rosie Court_ Rohnert Park strongly sanr%nrto e I +o,-., *;vet u a
Su ga, T/i/V1 J ( 11{VLhallV V 1. 11e Q13V
stated that he endorses open space and favors residential development by the
University.
F. FINAL COUNCIL /COMMITTEE MEMBER REMARKS
Councilmember Linda Spiro expressed some disappointment and concern about the cost of
housing in Rohnert Park. However, she stated that she would like to see the development of
an Alternative somewhere between 2 and 3. She feels that the commercial expansion should
be on East Cotati. Further, Councilmember Spiro stated that she sees the proposed Park
location on the east side next to Petaluma Hill Road dangerous. She feels that the location of
the hotel and convention center is a good idea for the West side. Further, she stated that a
higher density level needs to be on the Southern part of the University. She recommended
consideration of a wider buffer area between Petaluma Hill Road.
Rohnert Park A City CoanciManning Commission Mtg. Minutes M Mawh 30.1999
Planning Commission Member, Dave Mochel gave general comments and stated that he felt
that very few would advocate Alternative 1, and that he would support something between
Alternative 1 and 3. He felt that the transit center is out of place as shown on the northwest
side.
Councilmember Armando Flores spoke on the importance of the General Plan process and
stated his sincere efforts to reach a reasonable agreement. He noted that we need to rely on
Councilmembers to come up with a plan they will support and that the majority of the
residents will support.
Planning Committee Member David Militello, stated that he felt that there is a need for a
compromise of Alternatives 2 and 3. He felt, however, that one of the key points will be the
economic analysis. He felt that there were good comments and concerns expressed regarding
the means to pay for our current needs and services. Mr. Militello stated that he is in favor of
open space. However, he suggested the need to more clearly define buffers.
Mayor Reilly, gave closing comments and thanked all present for attending the meeting. A
special thanks was extended to staff and the Committee. Mayor Reilly noted that the primary_
interest is to maintain the greatness of the City. He stated that growth does not necessarily
mean something greater. He pointed out that we have one year to develop a Plan that the
voters will pass.
F. ADJOURNMENT:
Mayor Reilly adjourned the joint meeting between the Rohnert Park City Council and the
Rohnert Park Planning Commission at 7:20 p.m.
Teresa Taylor -King, 44eeting Recor er Jam J. Reilly, Jr , Mayor
ttk -j'h a:Xminutesp33099gp