1999/05/25 City Council MinutesRohnert Park City Council Minutes
May 25, 1999
Prior to convening the regular session of the Council of the City of Rohnert Park,
an open house to preview the Rohnert Park General Plan Update, Rohnert Park 2020 - - -A Plan for the
Future, Land Use Alternatives & Preferred Plan, was held at the City Offices, 6750 Commerce
Boulevard, Rohnert Park.
The Council of the City of Rohnert Park met this date in regular session
commencing at 6:00 p.m. in the City Offices, 6750 Commerce Boulevard, Rohnert Park, with Mayor
Reilly presiding.
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Reilly called the regular session to order at approximately 6:00 p.m.
and led the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL: Present: (5) Councilmembers Flores, Mackenzie, Spiro,Vidak- Martinez,
and Mayor Reilly
Absent: (0) None
Staff present for all or part of the meeting: City Manager Netter, City Attorney Flitner,
Assistant City Manager Leivo, City Engineer Gaffney, Planning Director Schulenburg, and
Management Analyst Fogle.
1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Upon motion by Councilmember Flores, seconded by Councilmember Spiro, the minutes
of May 11, 1999 were unanimously approved as submitted.
2 APPROVAL OF BILLS:
Upon motion by Councilmember Mackenzie seconded by Vice -Mayor Councilmember
Vidak- Martinez, City bills presented per the attached list in the amount of $1,451,060.41
were unanimously approved.
3 ADDING INFORMATIONAL NON - AGENDAED MATTERS:
Mayor Reilly asked Councilmembers or staff if there were any non - agendaed informational
items to add to the agenda.
Councilmember Spiro had a question on Public Safety Signals and Red Curbs,
Councilmember Mackenzie requested to speak on two (2) transportation matters, and
Mayor Reilly requested to speak on Big 4 Rents.
Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (2) May 25,1999
4. GENERAL PLAN YEAR 2020 PROJECT — MATTERS RELATED TO THE GENERAL
PLAN PROCESS:
1) General Plan Oversight Committee Update — Committee members, Vice -Mayor.
Vidak- Martinez and Councilmember Mackenzie deferred reporting at this time,
2) GENERAL PLAN UPDATE — PUBLIC W ORSHOP -
Rohnert Park General Plan Preferred Land Use Plan
® Consultant /Staff Report & Plan Presentation
Rick Brown, Facilitator, summarized the format to be followed for the workshop on
this matter. Facilitator Brown noted that Vicki Hill would provide an overview of the
Plan followed by questions and comments from the public and specific responses from
the Councilmembers. Mr. Brown commented that he wanted to give the speakers an
opportunity to express their views on the Plan, as well as, to present solutions that may
resolve issues. Mr. Brown went on to state that a summary of public comments on the
Preferred Plan, which were taken at the May 20, 1999 Planning Commission
Workshop, was distributed.
Vicki Hill, Project Coordinator for the General Plan, stated that the Preferred Plan is a
result of the General Plan Oversight Committee's 5 -month process, and is the same Plan
presented at the May 20, 1999 meeting. Ms. Hill noted that the Plan incorporates features
of both Alternatives 2 & 3 as well as some new features. Ms. Hill reviewed, in summary
form, the key features contained in the Preferred Plan. Ms. Hill stated that the next step in
the process would be policy development, development of an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR), and a 45 -day review period on the EIR and General Plan followed by final
approval by the City Council.
• Public Comments /Council Responses
Facilitator Brown requested speakers to limit their comments to two minutes, and informed
the public that if they did not wish to speak at this time, but had comments on this matter,
that they could submit written comments on the form provided.
1. Richard Carlile, 15 Third Street, Santa Rosa _ Mr. Carlile commended the Council,
Planning Commission and Adhoc Committee for the process and for the spirit of
cooperation exhibited throughout the planning stages of this project. Mr. Carlile stated that
in the Northwest area, the residential, area appeared to be large. Mr. Carlile requested
clarification of the mixed -use area. Further, Mr. Carlile suggested moving the proposed
community fields to the Northwest area. He further expressed concern with the night
lighting associated with the proposed fields in the Eastside area. He also noted that the
community fields on the East side could generate excessive traffic. He further expressed
concern regarding size of the mixed -use area in the University District. In closing, Mr.
Carlile suggested that a meeting be scheduled with the City of Santa Rosa & LAFCO tc
discuss the separator.
2. John Silberman, 395 E. Raidroad Ave., Cotati: Mr. Silberman expressed opposition
to the proposed industrial area on the southeast side, noting that the homes are too close to
roads in the Southest section. Mr. Silberman further stated that an industrial park
development would have a negative impact on traffic noise, increase danger, necessitate
having to widen the road. Mr. Silberman stated that the water table in the area would be
affected and stated that he would like this area to remain as open space area. Mr. Silberman
further stated that he would not be opposed to having the golf course moved down to the
Southeast area.
3. Carol Burns, 1593 Parkway Drive, Rohnert Park: Ms. Burns thanked the
Committee for its work. Ms. Burns stated that she would like to see infrastructure built
before any development. She further commented that she would like to see smaller mixed -
use area in area North of Sonoma State. She stated that she feels that it is too much mixed
use area. Ms. Burns requested clarification of density in all of areas, stating that she would
like to see the densities pulled back from Petaluma Hill Road. She further stated that there
needs to be more green space clearly visible on the map between the Eastern edge of
existing housing and whatever future housing is built. Ms. Burns also suggested
clarification of industrial development in the Southeast area, and she stated that the park
should be within the neighborhood between G Park and the school.
4. Roger Chevalier, 924 Hudis Street Rohnert Park: Mr. Chevalier provided
the Council with a written document containing questions related to specific "quality of
life" issues that need to be addressed prior to the passing of a growth initiative by the
voters of Rohnert Park. Mr. Chevalier summarized the questions as provided in his
written documentation. The areas identified in his documentation included: 1) Water; 2)
Sewage; 3) Schools; 4) Traffic; 5) Parks and Recreation; and 6) Police and Fire
Protection.
5. Steven Miller, 170 Maiden Lane #800 San Francisco: Mr. Miller stated
that he was supportive of the Plan and pointed out that the school population would
remain at the same level given the suggested development of the Plan.
6. David Hardy, 1418 Parkway, Rohnert Park: Mr. Hardy highlighted
comments contained in a letter provided to the Council. Mr. Hardy suggested the need
to formulate Advisory Committees for the specific plan areas. Mr. Hardy also
recommended the need for development, which would generate more higher income
jobs. In closing, Mr. Hardy stated that the implementation of the Plan would be a
challenge.
7. Jeanine Cullin, 1958 Alan Drive, Penngrove: Ms. Cullin expressed concern
regarding the possible decreasing value of her property. Ms. Cullin also expressed
concern over increased traffic on Petaluma Hill Road. She encouraged the
Councilmembers to keep open minds and envision her written proposal. Further, Ms.
Cullin expressed concern with the homes in the Canon Manor area to the South that
have with existing livestock.
Ro"n O Park City Council Minutes (4j May 25,1999
8. Linda Branscomb, 21 Anne, Rohnert Park: Ms. Branscomb was opposed
to any additional buildings to the City,and to the development of golf courses. Ms.
Brandscomb stated that the higher density in the Canon Manor area is in need of
additional housing. Ms. Branscomb suggested the need to stagger the mixed -use area
around SSU, and the need for infrastructure and more open space around the H.P.
area.
9. Eric Koenigshofer, Santa Rosa: Mr. KKoenigshofer summarized a map which
was included in Councilmember packets, stating that his identified area on the west side
was better suited for expansion over a 20year period. Mr. Koenigshofer stated that
Alternative 2 would better meet the needs for a community separation between
Penngrove, and Rohnert Park. He also expressed concern over increased traffic on
Petaluma Hill Road..
10, Chris Brown, 520 Mendocino #225, Santa Rosa: Mr. Brown summarized his
comments as presented in a letter submitted to the Council last week. Mr. Brown
proposed the need to further move down the area outlined in Alternative 2 to focus
more on the Southern part of the city. Mr. Brown stated that he was concerned with
the issues of mitigation and separator in the Northwest area, suggesting 1.5 acre for
every acre for mitigation of separator. Mr. Brown further stated that the Urban
Growth Boundary should reflect urban vs. rural areas. Mr. Brown stated that he was
concerned with traffic congestion that would result from expansion of the Sports
Center and additional retail development in the Northwest. Mr. Brown also
recommended having two lines (UGB and SOI). In closing, Mr. Brown stated that he
was supportive of the proposal put forward by Mr. Dave Hardy.
11. _Mark Green, 540 Pacific Avenue, Santa Rosa: Mr. Green, Executive
Director of Sonoma County Conservation Action, summarized concerns and comments
regarding several areas of the General Plan that were identified in a letter to the City
Council and Planning Commission. Mr. Green stated that the open space area should
be pushed back (enlarged) and the community park should come out of the UGB. Mr.
Green stated further that there is a need to shrink the Urban Grown Boundary, and to
mitigate the community separators at a 2 to i ratio, Pte'. Green stressed the importance
of assuring the public that the Plan is right for the City.
12. Bill Rodriguez, 1303 Hasper Court, Rohnert Park: Mr. Rodriguez spoke on
behalf of he and his wife Maggie Rodriguez (letter provided to Council). Mr.
Rodriguez questioned the need for a golf course in the Northeastern section of the
open space area. Mr. Rodriguez stated that suggested area is not within the
jurisdiction of Rohnert Park. Mr. Rodriguez expressed objection to the "no growth"
and the mitigation of the properties in the Northeast area of the City, noting that he
supports the community, lives in Rohnert Park, shops in Rohnert Park and is here to
stay.
13. John Hudson 399 Bonnie Ave. Rohnert Park: Mr. Hudson stated that he
did not feel that the Preferred Plan demonstrates a compromise. He stated that
he feels like the Plan looks too much like Measure "A ", and that he hopes that
the burden of proof is on the city to show that additional land is required
legally, and that zoning changes are required by State law. Mr. Hudson went
on to state that it is critical that the residents of Rohnert Park not be stuck with
higher water bills or rationing of water.
AGENDA ORDER:
At approximately 7:34 p.m., Mayor Reilly called for Youth City Council Representatives Report
prior to completing public workshop.
YOUTH CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES:
From High School 1998 -99 Youth of the Year Program
High School Youth Representatives Senior Marisa Eggering and Junior Corrina Cole
provided the youth report which included:
• Junior Senior Prom was held on 5/15/99 at the Doubletree Hotel
• Twenty (20) Seniors were honored for outstanding achievements at the 4H
Center and awarded $250 scholarships
• Seniors just returned from Annual Grad Nite Trip to Disneyland
• June 3, 1999, 7:00 p.m. at Spreckles Performing Arts Center, Rancho Cotate
High School Scholastic Awards Event will be held
• June 4, 1999, Senior Cut Day, also known as Senior Picnic
• June 6, 1999, at 2:00 p.m. at Cross and Crown Lutheran Church, Baccalaureate
Services for Class of 1999 will be held.
• Finals week June 9 -11
• June 11, 1999 at 6:00 p.m., at Daggett Field, The Commencement Ceremony
and an all night graduation party for Seniors.
6. SONOMA STATE UNIVERSITY ASSOCIATED STUDENT REPRESENTATIVES
SSU Student Representatives were absent.
7. UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES: Mayor Reilly 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 total time limit).
There were none.
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE — PUBLIC WORKSHOP (Cont'd).
Mayor Reilly returned the meeting to this Workshop at approximately 7:40 p.m.
Rohnert Park City Council Minutes
May
(6) 25, 1999
14. Charles Kitchen, Rohnert Park: Mr, Kitchen asked when improvements would
be made to the interchange at Golf Course and Wilfred Avenue.
Engineering Staff, Joe Gaffney responded that the Golf Course Drive interchange is
part of the Freeway Widening Project Plan. Mr. Gaffney pointed out that the Plan was a
part of the Transit Tax Initiative that failed in last November's ballot measure. Mr.
Gaffney stated that currently the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors are discussing a
replacement measure that could fund the project. However, Mr. Gaffney noted, if the
measure fails, delay in funding the improvements could be as long as 10 years.
15. Dan Hublev, 135 Alma Avenue, Rohnert Park: Mr. Hubley commended the
Council and Committees for their hard work and efforts. Regarding economic
development, Mr. Hubley stated that economic development is needed in the Southeast
area of the City. However, Mr. Hubley stated that it is very important to clarify to the
voters the Sphere of Influence.
16. David Eck, 1311 Rosie Court, Rohnert Park: Mr. Eck spoke regarding
concerns of special interests, Mr. Eck expressed that he was concerned that the City
continuously deters from original plans for the City, and that maps can be changed,
Further, Mr. Eck stated that there is a definite need to work out the UGB, policies and
goals, assuring that a designated amount of open space will be maintained, and to
maintain the City's neighborhood parks. He commented further that there is a need for
an economic analysis.
17. David Hubley. 404 E. Railroad Avenue, Rohnert Park:. Mr. Hubley
commented that the Urban Growth Boundaries and Sphere of Influence is confusing.
Mr. Hubley questioned the plans for the area South of Railroad Avenue and expressed
concern that the City can require infrastructure on land adjacent to Rohnert Park.
(City Attorney Flitner interjected that the City only has control over land within the
City limits and Sphere of Influence.)
18. Rick Savel, 511 Adobe Road: Mr. Savel, of the Penngrove Advisory
Committee, commented on the increased traffic congestion in the northbound area, and
expressed concern that infrastructure development in this area could be blocked.
19. John Burns, 1593 Parkway, Rohnert Park: Mr. Burns stated that he was
pleased with the buffer zone on Snyder Lane, but that he was concerned with traffic in
lieu of the increase in size of Santa Rosa, particularly with Petaluma Hill Road. Mr.
Bums stated that he is also concerned with increased traffic congestion on Commerce
and Expressway in Rohnert Park. Mr. Bums went on to state that he is in favor of
keeping the Sphere of Influence and Urban Growth Boundary the same. Mr. Bums
stated also that the mixed -use development above Sonoma State University is
excessive.
20. Ed Gee, 1896 Alice Drive, Penngrove: Mr. Gee questioned why residents of
the Penngrove area or Canon Manor area were not notified of the Planning
Committee Meeting, and why wasn't the housing density increased in Canon
Manor area?
(Planning Director, Wendie Schulenburg, responded that originally those areas
were, in fact, not included in a massive mailing, but that this problem has been
corrected,)
In response to Mr. Gee's question regarding increased housing density in the
Canon Manor area, Councilmember Vidak- Martinez pointed out that most of
the area is low residential in response to a letter from representatives of the
Canon Manor West Community Improvements Group requesting that the area
remain at half -acre density.
• ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ADDITIONAL COMMENTS SUBMITTED
ON CITY COUNCIL — GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - WRITTEN
COMMENT SHEET - TUESDAY, MAY 25,1999:
1. G. M. Roberts, 148 Millbrae Ave., Santa Rosa, CA
2. Tim Danesi, 6400 Meadow Pines, Rohnert Park, CA
3. Rhonda Nole, 313 E. Railroad Ave., Cotati, CA
4. Nancy Sorge, 1802 Weiss Lane; Penngrove, CA
• COUNCIL MEMBER/STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS
Facilitator, Rick Brown entertained questions of the Council and asked for Council's
direction.
Mayor Reilly noted this is the first time that Council has seen the map. He pointed out
that this is not the finished project. Mayor Reilly suggested that now is time to submit
input.
Councilmember Mackenzie commented that the map demonstrates only the visions of
the Committee for the area.
Councilmember Spiro stated that she would support the Plan. However,
Councilmember Spiro stated that she feels that the Council needs to continue discussion
of the Plan. She noted that the Committee should proceed with discussion.
Rohnert Park City Council Minutes ! (8) May 25,1999
Councilmember Flores expressed thanks and appreciation to Committee. He stated that
the Committee addressed the importance of quality of life, included consideration of
SSU, as well as Canon Manor residents. Regarding future housing needs;
Councilmember Flores noted the importance of housing development for the growth of
our City and opportunity for our children. He is supportive of efforts of committee, but
would like to see discussion continued.
Vice - Mayor, Councilmember Vidak- Martinez, noted appreciation of comments from the
public, spoke as member of committee, fully prepared to continue to devote effort and
time. Vice -Mayor Vidak- Martinez encouraged some outreach to the residents in
Penngrove.
Councilmember Mackenzie, as member of Committee, that the Committee made major
efforts to represent the community through contacts with businessmen in the community
and landholdings outside of City limits. Councilmember Mackenzie further stated that the
Committee has informed citizens to express their ideas and concerns through an open
process. Further, Councilmember stated that the Committee has consulted with
neighbors, met with LAFCO, informed cities around them of what's happening,
Councilmember concurred that the Committee had not spent time with Penngrove
residents.
Mayor Reilly stated that that he would propose that comments be forwarded to the
Committee at their 6/3/99 meeting to analyze suggestions of preferred Plan and reporl
back to City Council at their first full meeting in June as an action item.
Mayor Reilly thanked speakers for comments. He reassured attendees that there is still a
long ways to go with process. Mayor Reilly gave a brief history of significant differenceE
that occurred in the City of Rohnert Park on how measures passed or did not pas,,
affected the City's development plans. Mayor Reilly noted that he is keeping an open
mind for a 20 year UGB for the City. Mayor Reilly further stated that he feels that
wastewater is critical. Mayor stated that the infrastructure needs to be fixed before any
growth. Mayor Reilly stated further that he wants to make sure if measure goes on ballot
that it will pass. Mayor Reilly stated that he stands behind the Committee and
recommends continuance of discussion.
RECESS: Mayor Reilly declared a recess at approximately 8:40 p.m.
RECONVENE: Mayor Reilly reconvened the Council meeting at approximately 8:50 p.m.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Reilly asked if there were any questions regarding the matters on the Consent
Calendar which were explained in the City Manager's Council Meeting Memo.
City Manager /Clerk acknowledged the posting of the meeting's agenda
Resolution Nos:
99 -117 APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE AGREEMENT WITH
OLD ADOBE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC. (RE PARK
CLEANING SERVICES PUBLIC SAFETY
99 -118 CALLING FOR SEALED PROPOSALS,
EMERGENCY DRIVEWAY, PROJECT NO. 1998 -10
99 -119 ACCEPTING GRANT DEED FOR WELL SITE, WATERLINE
EASEMENT, AND ACCESS EASEMENT FROM LEMO USA,
INC. (AT THE CORNER OF LABATH AVENUE AND PARK
COURT)
99 -120 AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE QUITCLAIM DEED
TO LEMO USA, INC. FOR RELINGUISHING WELL SITE
99 -121 ESTABLISHING THE APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR THE CITY
OF ROHNERT PARK FOR THE 1999 -00 FISCAL YEAR
PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XHI B OF THE CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION
99 -122 APPROVING A PROPOSAL FOR POST RETIREMENT HEALTH
PLAN VALUATION SERVICES WITH OLIVER CONSULTING
99 -123 AMENDING CERTAIN MISCELLANEOUS FEES CHARGED BY
CERTAIN DEPARTMENTS OF THE CITY
99 -124 AWARD OF CONTRACT, COPELAND CREEK BIKE PATH
OVERLAY PROJECT NO. 1998 -7
99 -125 AUTHORIZING OR A CERTAIN
SPECIFICA CITY POSITION (RECREATION
SERVICES MANAGER)
Upon motion by Vice -Mayor Vidak - Martinez, seconded by Councilmember Spiro, the Consent
Calendar as outlined on the meeting's agenda, was unanimously approved.
Approval of Recreation Facility Use Fees Adjustments for Youth Sports Groups
CITY HALL PROJECT
1) Presentations on Architectural Proposals
City Manager stated that as follow -up to the Council's request to bring this matter back on the agenda
and invite the two top architects to provide brief presentations on their proposals, BSA Architects and
Fisher - Friedman Associates were present for 15 minute presentations.
• BSA Architects
Mark Schatz, President of BSA Architects, made opening statements regarding his firm's proposed
recommendations. He noted that his firm serves as collaborators and facilitators in an effort to achieve
the City Hall that the City wants, Mr. Schatz summarized his firms experience and introduced team
members: David Ross, Project Manager; and, Vince Lattanzio, Principal Landscape Architect with
Carducci Associates,
David Ross, Project Manager, summarized his credentials and noted he looks forward to working with the
City.
Mr. Lattanzio provided the Council with background information and visual models of various projects th
he has worked on. Mr. Lattanzio stated that his focus is to make connections to citizens of the community
Mr. Schatz, President, stated that his form assists with the establishment of City goals and understandij
broader goals in terms of what we want the building to say about Rohnert Park. He noted that firm tries
articulate what the City wants to say about the design of their project.
Mr. Schatz stated that his firm views the goal of facilitating a public information process. He stated th
once the goals are understood that the firm would present a plan, and develop a construction as well as
project budget.
Councilmember Flores asked for preliminary indications of how design will fit with existing structures su
as the library.
0 Fisher - Friedman Associates Presentation
Dan Howard, Principal/Project Manager of Fisher - Friedman Associates introduced his team membe
Rodney Friedman, Executive- in- Charge/Design; Jim Lee, Principal./Landscape Architect with the SV6
Group; and Natalie Saylor, Project Director /Constructive Solutions.:
Mr. Howard summarized his firm's Project. Management objectives. He summarized the firm's City H
construction experiences.
Rodney Friedman, Executive- m- charge/Design team member, summarized the firm's projects a
accomplishments. Mr. Howard described details of the models noting that his firm provides hands
displays for designs.
2) Council Review/Formal Consideration of Approval to Proceed with City
Hall Project
Jpon motion by Councilmember Mackenzie, seconded by Councilmember Flores, and approved 4 -1
vvith Mayor Reilly dissenting, to proceed with the City Hall Project.
Councilmember Flores noted the need to proceed expeditiously with the project recognizing that
lelay could escalate the expense. Mayor Reilly stated that he was not in favor of the construction
)f a City Hall and would prefer to use the money for other projects with higher priorities, such as
I pool.
3) Council Review /Consideration of Architect Selection
Councilmember Spiro commented that both companies were wonderful and that both approaches were
different. Councilmember Spiro stated that she felt that the emphasis should be on the needs of the
community.
Councilmember Spiro moved to select BSA, Inc. as the Architect for the City Hall Project.
Motion died due to the lack of a second.
Councilmember Flores suggested consideration of an alternative process providing the Council an
opportunity to rate the two firms using the rating process. Councilmember Flores stated that he felt
that it was important to be objective in the process, and that he would support a consensus of the
Council.
Councilmember Flores moved to schedule, as an action item, the selection of an alternative process,
voting on the selection of an Architect using rating forms to be provided by staff. Motion died due to
lack of a second.
Upon motion by Councilmember Mackenzie, seconded by Vice -Mayor Vidak-
Martinez, and approved 4 -1, with Mayor Reilly dissenting, the selection of Fisher -
Friedman Associates was made for architectural services for the City Hall Project
with authorization for staff to proceed with negotiation of terms for same.
RECESS: MAYOR REILLY RECESSED THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AT
APPROXIMATELY 9:48 P.M. TO CONVENE THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION MEETING.
RECONVENE: Mayor Reilly reconvened the City Council Meeting at approximately 9:54 p.m. with
all Councilmembers present.
10. PAL BUILDING UPDATE - PROPOSED RENOVATION
1) Staff report /review of alternatives
City Manager Netter reviewed the plans on display, and requested Council directior
on this matter. City Manager Netter pointed out that staff needs a cost estimation for
the project in order to determine the appropriate rental fees to charge the non - profit,
groups. The estimation of the costs based on the provided floor plan would be about
$25)0,000. This may be too expensive; therefore, staff is recommending the hiring o:
Stan Walker in conjunction of the Architect Ron Coker to work up better estimates tc
outline for the non -profit groups.
2) Council discussion /direction
Upon motion by Councilmember Flores, seconded by Councilmember Mackenzie, and unanimously
approved, to allow the amendment of Ken Coker's Architects to include estimation services by Star
Walker, also to have staff meet with tenants to determine costs for the renovation of the PAL Building foi
consideration of minimum and maximum rents proportionate with improvements.
EXTEND COUNCIL MEETING:
Upon motion by Mayor Reilly, seconded by Councilmember Mackenzie, the Council approved 4 -1, with
Councilmember Spiro dissenting, to extend the City Council meeting past 10:00 p.m, to finish necessary
agenda items.
11. COPELAND CREEK APARTMENTS — REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF
ESTOPPEL AGREEMENT CERTIFYING COMPLIANCE TO OBTAIN A
SECOND DEED OF TRUST
City Manager Netter acknowledged the presence of Attorney Flynn, on behalf of the
owner of the Copeland Creek Apartments, and his court reporter, as well as staff',
Angela Fogle. City Manager Netter summarized the staff report, noting that the
Council had deferred this matter from the previous Council meeting.
City Attorney Flitner summarized the changes made in the Agreement.
Attorney Flynn stated there is a natural desire to have affordable housing. Mr. Flynn
stated that he, the City Manager, and the City Attorney met and reviewed the
agreement, and that his client is willing to change advertisements and proceed with
efforts to make the agreement work. He would inform his clients of Council
comments and suggest nicer, more professional ads including larger print for seniors
to be able to read.
Attorney Flynn stated that his client is requesting Council approval of the Estoppel
Agreement, noting that efforts are proceeding to be in compliance with the
Agreement.
City Manager Netter asked staff Angela Fogle if a system had been worked out.
Staff Angela Fogle stated that yes, forms were created and that her department is
requesting that an activity log be maintained and reported quarterly. Further, Ms.
Fogle stated that other requirements, as outlined in the revised Agreement, have
been identified.
City Attorney Flitner confirmed that the City cannot request adherement to matters
that are not spelled out in the Agreement.
Councilmember Spiro, suggested that rental ads be published as soon as apartments
become vacant and before the 30 -day time limit is up.
Mayor Reilly stated that the intent of the agreement was to rent to seniors, 55 years
of age and older. In other words, even though affordability was not mentioned in
the agreement, it was the intent to rent to seniors 55 years or older.
Resolution No.
99- 126(a) Authorizing and Approving an Estoppel Agreement in Favor of Bankers Mutual
for a Certain Second Deed of Trust for the Copeland Creek Apartments
Upon motion by Councilmember Flores, seconded by Councilmember Mackenzie, and
approved 3 -2, with Councilmember Spiro and Mayor Reilly dissenting, reading was
waived and Resolution No. 99- 126(a) was adopted, including owners working with staff in
good faith efforts toward compliance.
12. OTHER RESOLUTION FOR CONSIDERATION
Resolution No.
99 -128 Approving an Employee Computer Purchase Program
A motion by Councilmember Flores, seconded by Vice -Mayor Vidak- Martinez, to
approve this Employee Computer Purchase Program, failed 2 -3, with
Councilmembers Spiro and Mackenzie, and Mayor Reilly dissenting. Council agreed
to consider this item during the next employee negotiations.
Rohnerf Park City Coancil Minutes . (14) May 25 ,1999
13. BUDGET MATTERS:
1) Presentation of 1999 -2000 Budget /Review of Budget Work Sessions to date
City Manager Netter reminded the Council of the next Budget Work Session at
6:00 p.m., Thursday, May 27, 1999, and noted that packets were distributed for
the Budget Work Session. He indicated the proposed budget was available for
public review and anyone wanting copies could pick up one at City Hall or
Finance.
2) City Council Compensation
a) Mayor Reilly requested that this matter be rescheduled for the next Agenda.
City Manager Netter referred to the Ordinance prepared for Council's
consideration of this item, as reviewed in the Council Meeting Memo,
Ordinance No. 650 - INCREASING COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS OF THE ROHNERT
PARK CITY COUNCIL (WITH POPULATION OF 35,000 TO 50,000 IN ACCORDANCE
WITH STATE LAW)
Upon motion by Councilmember Mackenzie, seconded by Councilmember Spiro, and
approved 4 -1, with Mayor Reilly dissenting, (to increase compensation of
Councilmembers to $400.00 per month), reading was waived and Ordinance No. 650
was introduced.
14. PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS:
• Review of Recreational Vehicle & Equipment Storage in Residential Areas.
This item was deferred.
SONOMA COUNTY URBAN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM — CONSIDER
CONTINUING AS A PARTICIPANT
City Manager TV etter sumlllar ized the staff r epol l pr ovlded to the Council. Assistant
City Manager Leivo provided the Council with additional information related to thf
requirements for City eligibility for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG;
Program.
City Manager Netter shared staff's recommendation to accept available CDBG funds.
City Manager Netter pointed out that the City has received funds through the CDBG
and Home Program.
Anent Park City Council Minutes (iS) May 25,1999
2) Council discussion /direction
Vice -Mayor Councilmember Vidak - Martinez suggested that the City select option 2
and defer a decision to change City after the Census for 3 years and see if the City
qualifies for an entitlement.
Upon motion by Councilmember Spiro, seconded by Vice -Mayor Vidak- Martinez, and
approved 4 -1, with Mayor Reilly dissenting, to continue Rohnert Park's participation
in the Sonoma County Urban County Program, as reviewed in Option 2 in the staff
report, including possibilities toward becoming an entitlement City at the end of three
years, and to consider the Joint Powers Agreement for Housing and Community
Development for this item on the next Council meeting agenda.
15. LIBRARY PROJECT UPDATE
• Library Subcommittee report
Councilmember Flores reported that the Committee met on 5/9/99 to discuss the scope
of the project, review project budget, timeline and that the Committee plans to meet
with the Architect to meet with community groups. Councilmember Flores further
reported that the next Library Subcommittee meeting is scheduled for 6/3/99.
16. COUNCIL COMMITTEE & /OR OTHER REPORTS:
1) Wilfred/Dowdell 24 -Acre Specific Plan Area,
Councilmember Mackenzie stated that this report was included in his 4/27/99
memo.
2) Performing Arts Center, 5/3/99 Meeting
Councilmember Mackenzie stated that this matter will be addressed at the Budget
Workshop on Thursday.
3) Cotati/Rohnert Park 2x2 Subcommittee, 5/4/99 Meeting
Councilmember Flores stated that there was no additional report.
4) Senior Citizens Advisory Commission, 5/20/99 Meeting
Councilmember Spiro requested that this report be deferred.
5) Other, if any
Councilmember Mackenzie informed the Council that he attended a recent
Sonoma County Transportation Committee (SCTA) meeting.
17. COMMUNICATIONS:
EMERGENCY ITEM:
1) City Manager Netter requested that Council consider declaring an emergency item for
Communication #18 from Sonoma County Wineries Association requesting Council
Consent for Subleases with Select Sonoma County and Sonoma County Grape Growers
Association.
Upon motion by Councilmember Flores, seconded by Councilmember Spiro to declare this
an emergency item due to timing factors, was unanimously approved.
Upon motion made by Vice Mayor Vidak- Martinez, seconded by Councilmember Spiro,
and unanimously approved to consent to above - reviewed subleases for rental space
at the Wine Center according to provisions of the master lease with the City of
Rohnert Park.
2) City Manager Netter referred to item #20 on Communications from the City of Cotati
urging opposition to AB84 regarding Political Committees, which involves attempts to
prevent the League of California Cities from establishing an organization to act as advocate
on measures which vitally concern cities throughout the State of California.
Upon motion by Mayor Reilly, seconded by Councilmember Flores, and unanimously
approved, to prepare a letter over the Mayor's signature expressing opposition to AB84
regarding Political Committees.
3) City Manager Netter referred to item #22 on Communications from Sonoma County
Water Agency urging support of State legislative outreach for several regional and local
projects under the proposed Natural Resources Bond (AB18 /SB57), California Water
Bond (AB564/SB530) and the California Coastal Salmonid Conservation and Recovery
Act (SB291).
Upon motion by Councilmember Mackenzie, seconded by Councilmember Flores, and
unanimously approved, to prepare a letter over the Mayor's signature to State Legislators
expressing support for adding language to above-re'w enced bonds to provide lr
designated
projects (for the Russian River Watershed Restoration, San Pablo Bay
Watershed Restoration, and the Pacific Coastal Salmonid Conservation and Recovery
Initiative), and for the passage of SB291.
18. . MATTERS FROM/FOR COUNCIL:
1) Campaign Contributions Ordinance
Councilmember Mackenzie deferred discussion of this item.
hnert Park City Council Minutes . (17) May .5 19
2) Miscellaneous, if any
• Councilmember Spiro deferred discussion of her recommended additional items on
Public Safety Signals and Red Curbs.
• Mayor Reilly expressed concern over the appearance of the Parking Lot for Big 4
Rents noting that he thought that the space was designated for employee parking,
not equipment storage. Mayor Reilly directed staff to inquire about this matter.
19. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT:
1) Expression of Interest. Agreement with PG &E Energy Services
City Manager Netter summarized the staff report provided on this matter and asked
if there were any questions of the Councilmembers. He indicated by signing the
agreement, there is no commitment for financial expenditures. It would come back
as Phase 2 for Council's approval.
Upon motion by Councilmember Flores, seconded by Councilmember Vice -Mayor Vidak-
Martinez, the Council unanimously approved the above- reviewed item.
2) Miscellaneous:
Policy on U.S. Flag - City Manager Netter distributed the U.S. Flag Protocol
on guidelines for flying the U.S. Flag at half -mast, as previously requested by
Council. Mayor Reilly requested that discussion of the development of a City
policy for this matter be deferred to a future Council meeting.
20. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT:
None, as the City Council Closed Session was scheduled following the regularly scheduled meeting to
consider personnel matters and litigation matters, as listed on the agenda attachment.
OTHER UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES: Mayor Reilly asked if there were any
additional unscheduled public appearances at this time. No one responded.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, Mayor Reilly adjourned the meeting at
approximately 11:50 p.m.to 5:45 p.m., Thursday, May 27, 1999, 6750 Commerce Boulevard, Rohnert
Park, CA for 1999 -2000 Budget Work Session.
Teresa Taylor -King, corder J me�JReilly, r., Mayor
Ttk- a \052599mn
924 Hudis Street
Rohnert Park, CA 94928
707 584 0633
25 May 1999
City Council Members
City of Rohnert Park
6750 Commerce Boulevard
Rohnert Park, CA 94928
Dear City Council Members:
Distributed @ 5/25/99
City Council meeting
& attached to minutes
cc: WS for Planning Dept.
cc: RJ for Gen] Plan Ad Hoc
Oversight Subcommittee
While many opinions regarding future Rohnert Park growth are being offered,
very little new information is being added with which to make a rational decision.
There are very specific "quality of life" issues that need to be addressed before a
growth initiative will be passed by the voters of Rohnert Park.
1. Water: Where will the water for the new housing come from? We have
been living beyond our means with exceptionally high rainfall for the
last few years. As I understand the present situation, we are presently
using more than our share of Lake Sonoma water. What will happen
during a drought when we are forced to live within our normal water
allocation? Those of us who have lived here for some time remember
the drought conditions of 1975 to 1978 and how Rohnert Park water use
remained unaffected while the rest of northern California suffered
without an adequate water supply.
2. Sewage: While we have seen toilet and showerhead replacement
programs to lessen Rohnert Park's sewage excess, how much will future
growth impact our sewage output and how much will present Rohnert
Park residents have to pay of the increased costs to enlarge present
sewage treatment facilities?
3. Schools: While developer fees will help to offset the cost of building
elementary schools, they will do nothing for our secondary schools. Our
present high school and middle schools are above their designed capacity
levels. Growth projections of 25% (from 40,000 to 50,000) mean 25%
more students. At what point will we need to build another high school
for $45,000,000? At what point will we need to build another middle
school for $25,000,000? Where will the money come from?
Also, what happens to any new students in the areas not in the school
district? With developer fees destined for Santa Rosa High School and
Bellevue School Districts, will these student be forced to go there too?
25 May 1999
4. Traffic: What will be done to mitigate the impact of future growth on
the present traffic situation? We have been promised improvements to
offset past growth while the traffic situation continues to worsen. Every
time a car waits for two lights to cross Commerce Boulevard using
Rohnert Park Expressway or Golf Course Drive, you loose votes for
future growth.
5. Parks and Recreation: How will future growth impact the initial
installation costs and the recurring maintenance costs for the new parks
and recreation areas associated with growth? How will future growth
affect the availability and use of the existing community and recreation
centers? We are very proud of the facilities we now have for our
children and need to know that the future will be just as bright.
6. Police and Fire Protection: How will future growth impact the
the initial and recurring cost of increased police and fire personnel and
equipment? Will the new growth pay its own way for police and fire
protection?
While there is much I have learned by listening to the opinions of my fellow
residents, and I always enjoy listening to the opinions of this esteemed city
council, facts are necessary for any meaningful discussion of future Rohnert Park
growth. Without answers to these and other impact questions, most citizens will
vote against any growth initiative out of fear of lessening the quality of life we
presently enjoy.
The planning process we have undertaken allows for the expression of opinions
but has done little to address the underlying issues that growth brings with it. I
urge you to begin researching the issues and educating the public to add needed
substance to the process of planning for our collective future.
.,__34e yours,
R . Chev i
er
ay -21 -99 11:43A N Bay Greenbelt Alliance 707 575 4275 P.01
Distributed @ 5/25/99
City Council meeting
R attached to minutes
cc: WS for Planning Dept.
_ cc: RJ for Genl Plan Ad Hoc
P E O P L E F o I( O° E u S r .AC E Oversight Subcommittee
Members of the Rohnert Park City Council and Planning Commission.
In reviewing the preferred General Plan presented by the General Plan Ad Hoc Oversight
Committee we see several areas which need improvement.
1.) Northwest. The development in the community separator in the northwest is too large,
eliminates the separation between Rohnert Park and Santa Rosa, and would fuel traffic
congestion at the Wilford offramp. One of the original plans presented showed a much
smaller annexation south of Wilford and west roughly 1!4 mile this annexation is much
more in line with community needs. The annexation north along the rail line to Santa Rosa
is unacceptable and would effectively eliminate the community separator and replace it with
industrial development. Any development in the northwest should be allowed only after an
improved interchange is built in the area. Any plan to mitigate development in the
community separator should require at least a 1.5 acre addition to the separator for every 1
acre developed. Any additions to the separator should be land that is under similar threat
and/or provides the same benefits as a visual break.
2.) Mixed Use Center. As presented at the February '7ch meeting the area proposed for a
.,mixed use center" is far to large to be reasonably developed as such within 20 years. In
addition the preferred plan is unclear about how many units of residential development
would be allowed in the area. Because of the size of the "mixed use center" and the unclear
nature of its residential development potential it is possible that over 1000 dwellings could
be but there in addition to the preferred plans estimate. This could mean that the population
projections are off by up to 3000 residents. This area should be shrunk down to a size that
adequately reflects what could realistically be built in the next 20 years and the rest of the
area designated for other uses. The city should than look at reducing the sizee of the UGB to
meet the current population projections inside the line.
3.) UGB line. The UGB presented in the Preferred Plan does not designate the separation
between Urban development and open space, this is the typical role of a UGB. In general
UGBs do not control annexation or stop the county from developing unincorporated land
outside the city limits. Cities with UGBs can own, prezone and annex. land outside the
UGB. The UGB should reflect the point at which Urban development stops and open
space begins. Urban Services (except for city parks and other public uses) should stop at
the UGB as well. Having the line include parcels that the city does not plan to allow to be
developed only encourages speculation by the affected property owners. The UGB should
discourage speculation from those whose land cannot be developed. In addition the
artificially large UGB will make it harder for the voters to accept it when it is placed on the
ballot.
4.) Industrial development in the south. The placement of 200 acres of industrial land at the
southern end of the city will invite more intense traffic and infrastructure demands. Traffic
in Penngrove is already at a critical level and additional development in this area will only
\LA1N OFF'K :@ • ";tl) Rusl rrcrt Suiitr 311:5, S,in Frauc:iu n(:.\ c.l•41UV • r�1, ' }!)K -373ti • F:)t i ll3) 348-6 .530
SOUTl-1 IIAY OFFICE. • 192. •Cllr Alatttetia Suite 213. San_ju,r C.\ !)5IL'ti • (408) 9H!W)539 •
NORTH SAY OFFICE ♦ 520 5nire 2`?5. 'iattta kc),a CA 95401 ♦ (707) .57.1 -3661 • RtN ( 714'7 r7427 )
EAST nAYOFFl(;F. ♦ I:572 Ni rth `.Lain St"et•t Suite 20:5. \1;tlnut (:ccrk CA 94.10h ♦ (:)10) !)32.77711 ♦ 1 as (5W)
email: tiro c nhrhtci iy e.apeurs • tcrh itr: wtrw.tirc a nbrlr.t)rl
ay -21 -99 11 :44A N Bay Greenbelt Alliance 707 575 4275
make it worse. industrial development should occur where there is adequate highway
access and near existing services. By placing an industrial park so far away from existing
services the city will be encouraging the employees to drive to other parts of the community
for meals and other services. The city should be discouraging these kind of car trips by
having industrial land developed near existing services.
5.) "Community Fields" (a.k.a. sports complex). The development of "community fields"
at the edge of the city will lead to weekend traffic congestion and complaints from nearby
neighbors. A much better solution is to provide these recreational fields spread thoughout
the new developments so the impact is not targeted on one neighborhood. In keeping with
Rohnert Park's traditions, each new neighborhood should have its own field that families .
can walk or bicycle to instead of a complex that requires car trips.
6.) Canon Manor. The proposed 2 units an acre in Canon Manor a very low a density for a
urban area. A density of 5 units an acre (as a target) is more acceptable. The reality is that
intensification will only occur if the land owner is willing to allow it and the city should
encourage, not discourage, the intensification of this area. The city could also enact an
ordinance or a general plan policy that encourages landowners in Canon Manor to develop
second units as a way to help defray the costs of annexation and to encourage more
efficient land use. If the city targets this area for more than 2 units an acre than the UGB
line should be contracted elsewhere so that the projected population will fit within the line.
7.) Low density development. The Preferred Plan calls for several large areas of low
density development. By it's nature, low density development consumes more land per
capita than moderate and high densities, is more difficult to provide with city services and
encourages use of the automobile at the expense of other forms of transportation (Studies
show that 8 units an acre is required to make mass transit viable). The history development
pattern in Rohnert Park has been at higher densities than 5 units an acre, it seems that the
General Plan should reflect what is and has been realistically built. It is foreseeable that
developers will want to build at the densities that have been building at and they will
undoubtedly ask for General Plan amendments to increase the density. The city should
either increase the densities in these areas to reflect this reality (and reduce the size of the
UGB) or require voter approval of general plan amendments increasing density in these
areas since higher densities will undermine the population protections. The city can always
allow development at low densities if it is proposed.
We look forward to the opportunity to 'sciiss these concerns with you at the 2 meetings
scheduled for May 20th and 25th. T k you for this opportunity to present our views on
the preferred General Plan.
Sincerely.
Chris Brown
North Bay Field Director
Greenbelt Alliance
Mark Green
Executive Director
Sonoma County
Conservation Action
Dave Hardy AICP
Chairman
Citizens United for Real
Boundaries (CURB)
P. 02
Distributed @ 5/25/99
City Council meeting
R attached to minutes
Rohnert Park Council Member: cc: WS for Planning Dept. May 25, 1999
cc: RJ for Genl Plan Ad Hoc
Oversight Subcommittee
We formally submit our protest in the proposed mitigation of properties in the
North East to compensate for the encroachment of the community separator in the North
West. Being property owners of a parcel at the end of Moura Lane, formaly Baumgarner
Lane, and 14 year residents of Rohnert Park, we are left to concede that there is an
obvious underlying agenda by a few individuals to keep that area open space, with little or
no regard for the voice of the people. How can you, a represenative of the city knowingly
and willfully allow the misleading of its residents?
The NorthEast area according to the proposed plan is designated, proposed, or as
one planning commissioner stated "suggested to become a golf course ". Regardless of
how they word it, it still remainsa fraud ... for unless it is included withen the boundaries,
Rohnert Park has no jurisdiction. To reiterate our stand, we object to the "no growth ",
and the mitigation of the properties in the North East area.
Respectfully,
Bill and Maggie Rodriguez
April 22, 1999
Vicki Vidak - Martinez
Jake MacKenzie
Joe Netter
Joe Gaffney
Wendie Schulenburg
City of Rohnert Park
6750 Commerce Blvd.
Rohnert Park, CA 94928
Distributed a� 5/25/99
City Council meeting
& attached to minuter
cc: WS for Planning Dept.
cc: RJ for Gen] Plan Ad Hoc
Oversight Subcommittee
Our previous letter to you stated that we wanted half-acre density in Canon
Manor West. The majority of the lots in Canon Manor West are one acre in size
with some half -acre lots.
It is our intent to express the point that the owners of half -acre lots want the
same ability to build homes with utility services, as the owners of one -acre lots.
There is no desire for a greater density than what currently exists, or to further
subdivide these properties.
We hope this clears up any confusion on the matter. If you have any further
questions on this matter please call Charles Evans at (707) 576 -7800.
Sincerely
Representatives of the
Canon Manor West Commun
C i�6�
Paul J aldocchi
C: Mike Kerns
Charles Evans
,om U. HILL PHONE No. 707 9359497 May.26 1999 2:03PM P01
Distributed @ 5125/99
City Council meeting
' 1 ' • ''
& attached M minLtes,/I
y�Ya
cc: WS for Planning Dept.
cc: RJ for Genl Plan Ad Hoc
CITY Cf)UIVCIL "L PLAIN X11 n-4 TE
Oversight Subcommittee
i ALff '` u 25 1499
tV�
NAME <' a ., SoRGg .:_ ............. -.
ADi�Riass r�
.,:. ��V�t r
PHONE
AFFILIATION Of AnY)
PLEASE NOTE: ,'Your ;comments �witt:be.c p. idfx? d;: tl e City; Council as well us ilie Ad k#oC
�cuceal Plnn.CQgnm ttce And will be. .Ott c 0 04.4:0,41 es f `4rh llifs mecting, bu4 will not be
publicly read into the record for tonight,
COMMENTS ON PROPOSi D GEN)MAI P) AN AL'I'E��IATIirIES: �
AA
y
r