Loading...
1996/07/23 City Council MinutesRohnert Park City Council Minutes July 23, 1996 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 Flores presiding. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Flores called the regular session to order at approximately 6:25 p.m. and led the pledge of allegiance. CLOSED SESSION report: Mayor Flores reported on the closed session which commenced this evening at 6:00 to discuss matters listed on the agenda attachment, representing an update, with no additional action taken at this time. ROLL CALL Present: (5) Councilmembers Eck, Gallagher, Reilly, Spiro and Mayor Flores Absent: (0) None Staff present for all or part of the meeting: City Manager Netter, City Attorney Flitner and Assistant City Manager Leivo, APPROVAL OFMINUTES: Upon motion by Vice Mayor Eck, seconded by Councilwoman Gallagher, minutes of July 9, 1996 were unanimously approved as submitted. APPROVAL OF BILLS: Upon motion by Councilman Reilly, seconded by Vice Mayor Eck, City bills presented per the attached list in the amount of $665,279.45 were unanimously approved. NON- AGENDAED MATTERS: Mayor Flores asked if Councilmembers or staff had any non- agendaed items to add to the agenda. Miscellaneous items were signified as follows: Vice Mayor Eck, two; Councilwoman Spiro, four; and Mayor Flores, one. RECOGNITION of YOUTH REPRESENTATIVE to the CITY COUNCIL from 1996 -97 Youth of the Year Program selections Mayor Flores introduced Youth Representative Jessica Klonsky. Ms. Klonsky requested information on upcoming "Pollution Prevention Week" in September and on the curfew ordinance recently adopted, to review with fellow youth members and share at student meetings. Mayor Flores responded staff would provide the information. UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES: Mayor Flores stated that in compliance with State Law (The Brown Act), citizens wishing to make a comment may do so at this time. Under legislation of the Brown Act, in most cases, the Council cannot handle an item without agendizing. To ensure accurate recording, "Speaker Cards" are provided at the entrance of the Chamber and persons speaking under unscheduled public appearances are requested to submit completed cards to the recording clerk. Rohnert Park Citv Council Minutes ( 2 ) July 23, 1996 Norm Howard, 7394 Boris Court 92, referenced B Park fence concerns and proposed solution. The two new openings are a good solution but could result in locked gates most of the time. He recommended establishing times and personnel for unlocking gates during the planning process. -- City Manager Netter advised the Council Committee report for this item was scheduled later on tonight's agenda. 2. Pat Miller, 4959 Fern Place, representing Northbay Association of Realtors, shared statement expressing opposition to the proposed ballot measure for urban boundaries and gave reasons to support her recommendations. 3. Van Norden Logan, 2560 West Dry Creek Rd., Healdsburg, Ca., reviewed comparisons related to Urban Growth Boundary and Specific Plans being separate issues. He shared contents of his 'letter dated July 22, 1996 (copy attached to original set of these minutes) regarding concern that it is premature to place an Urban Growth Boundary initiative on the ballot without a 20 year plan, and urging separation of the Specific Plan process which should be handled through extensive public review procedures. 4. Cindy Walsh, 4409 Glacier Ct., reviewed continued building concerns related to her home. She asked about language differences pertaining to soils prelims in the State Building Codes she received from Sacramento and language in the Health and Safety Codes Subdivision Map Act. -- City Attorney Flitner commented he could review both codes and respond at a later date. 5.Vicki Vidak - Martinez, 556 Lydia Ct., signified speaking as a private citizen and not as a member of the Board of Education, reviewed concerns related to the City's General Plan and Urban Growth Boundary considerations. She shared contents of Bank of America report signifying the inability to have financial stability without some measure of growth; commented on being the only city in the community with a university and having an obligation to support SSU; and urged keeping options open. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Flores asked if Councilmembers had any questions regarding the matters on the Consent Calendar which were explained in the City Manager's Council Meeting Memo. City Manager Netter and City Attorney Flitner responded to questions from Councilwoman Spiro on Resolution No. 96-143. Acknowledging the City Manager /Clerk's report on the posting of the agenda. Resolution Nos: 96 -139 PROCLAIMING SEPTEMBER 16-22,1996 AS "POLLUTION PREVENTION WEEK- 96-140 CALLING FOR SEALED PROPOSALS, SNYDER LANE BIKE PATH, PHASE II, PROJECT NO. 1994 -7 96 -141 AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR STREET LIGHT AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE 96 -142 APPROVING PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT NO. 008 TO STATE -LOCAL TRANSPOR- TATION PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT NO. SLTPP -5379 Rohnert Park City Council Minutes ( 3 ) July 23, 1996 Resolution No: 96 -143 AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING A LOAN AGREEMENT WITH SONOMA COUNTY PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL ( SONOMA COUNTY CRUSHERS) (re. loan for bleacher installation) Upon motion by Councilman Reilly, seconded by Vice Mayor Eck, the Consent Calendar as outlined on the meeting's agenda, was unanimously approved. ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION: No. 621 AMENDING CHAPTER 10.40 (STOPPING, STANDING, AND PARKING) OF THE ROHNERT PARK MUNICIPAL CODE TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY COUNCIL BY RESOLUTION TO PROHIBIT OR RESTRICT STOPPING, PARKING, OR STANDING OF VEHICLES WITHIN ONE HUNDRED FEET OF ANY INTERSECTION ON CERTAIN STREETS OR HIGHWAYS OR PORTIONS THEREOF DURING ALL OR CERTAIN HOURS OF THE DAY, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN STREETS UPON WHICH PREFERENTIAL PARKING PRIVILEGES ARE GIVEN TO RESIDENTS AND MERCHANTS WHO OWN, RENT, OR USE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO SUCH STREETS (by issuance of permits /posting of signs) City Manager Netter and City Attorney Flitner reviewed the ordinance for consider- ation and responded to Council questions. Upon motion by Councilwoman Spiro, seconded by Councilman Reilly, and unanimously approved, including direction to change wording on the parking signs to resident parking instead of residential parking, reading of Ordinance No. 621 was waived and said ordinance was introduced. GENERAL PLAN MATTERIURBAN BOUNDARIES POLICY Staff /City Attorney reports -- City Manager Netter reported on this item as reviewed in the Council Meeting Memo. Following research with the City Attorney, as directed by Council at its meeting of July 9, 1996, the staff report outlines two considerations for Council: (1) determining to submit a proposed measure to the electors related to Urban Boundaries with the need for Council to signify its choice of the two options provided for Exhibit A; or (2) refer to the Planning Commission for consideration of Urban Boundary language in the General Plan through a General Plan Amendment through the normal General Plan amendment process. The two Exhibit A options outlined for consideration were: Exhibit A/Option 1, the Specific Plan Site Working Document which, if placed on the ballot (including the Urban Boundary), can be amended (including the addition of Urban Boundary amendments listed in specific plans) only through another ballot measure; and Exhibit A/O_ption 2, a simplified Urban Boundary Policy, which does not include specific plan areas, and sunsets after 4 years, i.e., the year 2000 along with the current General Plan. As previously directed by Council, a public hearing was duly noticed and scheduled at this time to consider submitting to the voters of Rohnert Park on the ballot of November 5, 1996, the addition of an Urban Boundary Policy to the General Plan of the City of Rohnert Park. Rnhnert Park Citv Council Minutes ( 4 ) July 23, 1996 City Attorney Flitner referenced his communications with Margaret Sohagi, Attorney who specializes in land use issues, regarding legalities pertaining to the proposed urban boundary initiative and alternatives on policies and procedures. Mr. Flitner reviewed his above - referenced recommendation to go the General Plan route based on questioning whether an urban growth or limit line can be established, whether by Council action or through the initiative process, when the courts have held that adding land to a city (annexation) is a matter of statewide concern not subject to referendum, and LAFCO is the sole determinant of city boundaries. COUNCIL COMMENTS preceding the public hearing: Vice Mayor Eck commented he would like to signify, prior to the public hearing, that it would be his intent to recommend abandoning Option 1, as discussions have seemed to express no desire for it. Some do not understand the General Plan process which clearly delineates growth because of specific plans. He would like to have concurrence on Option 2 which he thought responds to his thinking on the issue. Responding to earlier unscheduled public comment, Vice Mayor Eck explained the reason he was interested in a ballot measure is the notion that we can expand our spheres, which cannot happen, as services are not available at this time. LAFCO policy, recently revised on March 7, has a full page with ten items signified to provide urban services. If this Council does not act, he thought it would be showing complete lack of leadership and in every direction would simply be fooling people. In considering Option 2, his goal was to look at something that goes 20 years, but we do not have a 20 year master plan. However, we do have a 5 year master plan. After talking to many attorneys, he would be willing to go with a tightly knit General Plan Amendment containing language that guaranteed not expanding spheres prior to having necessary provisions. His intent, after leaving Council and once there is a 20 year master plan, would still be toward making every effort in this direction, but putting it on a ballot now would only result in confusion. His goal is to see to it that it is compatible with the sewage capacity plan. Vice Mayor Eck said he would be willing to back off and say this would be all right if we proceed with a good, tight General Plan Amendment and wait to see how some of the other measures flush out. *Add for clarification, one will argue LAFCO's jurisdiction but, at least, cities can be in control of their own service areas. *CORRECTION ABOVE from 8/13/96 City Council meeting: Per Vice Mayor Eck (addition underlined) Councilwoman Spiro expressed the concern that since there is no sewer to allocate anyway, it seemed to her to be a mute point, and the spheres could be moved out without immediate fear of annexation. Mayor Flores referred to information provided by City Attorney Flitner and Margaret Sohagi, Attorney for land use. The Mayor reviewed several points Ms. Sohagi extensively referenced and presented to Council pertaining to limitation the California Constitution and the courts have placed on the voters' initiative powers. Initiative measures cannot (1) invade a duty imposed solely on the City Council as an agent of the State; (2) affect administrative, as opposed to legislative matter; (3) conflict with general laws and the California and U.S. Constitutions; or (4) impair an essential governmental function. A measure that violated any of these will typically be held invalid or void by the courts. The California Constitution allows a city to use its police power to legislate within city boundaries only. Referencing the Cortese -Knox Act of 1985, annexation procedures are not subject to the initiative process because this Act delegates authority Rohnert Park City Council Minutes ( 5 ) July 23, 1996 over the conduct of annexation to LAFCO and the city council. Mayor Flores signified these are important points to consider regarding what the Council is facing at this time and recommended to at least abandon Option 1. Vice Mayor Eck commented that he thought Option 1 is the best, but did not think anyone knows what it talks about, and may have the most legal problems. Councilwoman Gallagher said she would comment on a couple of issues. Regarding the legal opinions of our attorney, it just seems like his opinions aligned with whatever our Building Department people want to do, and she did not trust them. Mayor Flores said it would be more appropriate if Councilwoman Gallagher confined her comments to the issue and not attack staff. Councilwoman Gallagher responded the Mayor was wrong, as she had the floor right now and, once recognized, was entitled to express her views. Ms. Gallagher commented on the above - referenced legal information provided to Council and questioned its content. Councilwoman Gallagher signified her other issue was that we did agree when we started on the plan to have a General Plan Update that would go to the citizens, and we have not done it yet. We need to do a 20 year master plan. There is no *sewer capacity to build anything. She signified she wanted to hear what the public has to say, so would wait until after the public hearing before making further comments. *CORRECTION ABOVE from 8/13/96 City Council meeting: Per Councilwoman Gallagher (correction underlined) Councilman Reilly signified the question of urban growth boundaries is two issues. One is whether or not you believe in urban growth boundaries. The question up here to Council is whether or not to put it on the ballot. A matter of this importance in his opinion should be on the ballot, like a tax measure. Over the past five years, he has been waiting for an economic development plan and is still waiting for it. He has requested a summary of what type of growth do we need to look at. He asked that question at a Chamber meeting and still has not received a plan to consider. It seemed to him that Council needs to make a decision and stop delaying. If this goes on the ballot, we can then establish whether there should be urban growth boundaries. Councilman Reilly commented that Vice Mayor Eck's proposal, in some ways, is negative to *no growth, but to have specific planning areas dealing with the west, northwest and southeast, seems to leave a lot open for possibilities. How to finally get this moving, he did not know, but if growth worked, we would not be sitting here trying to figure out how to pay for what we have. At some point, you are going to stop and you had better be able to pay for what you have. So, if someone is going to show him that plan for economic impacts, he would be willing to look at it. *CORRECTION ABOVE from 8/13/96 City Council meeting: Per Councilman Reilly (correction underlined) PUBLIC HEARING: Mayor Flores opened the public hearing at approximately 7:22 p.m. Public comments were submitted on speaker cards or other written and/or verbal communications expressing support or opposition to this item as follows: 1. Dennis Patterson, 415 Portal St., urged protection of our City from unwanted development from outside factors. If Santa Rosa grows, Rohnert Park will be impacted negatively without necessary control. It is very important for us to have control over our destiny regarding growth issues and not leave it to others, like LAFCO, Santa Rosa or Sonoma County. City services are not going to be their responsibility, but ours. R 1-- Park Chv Council Minutes ( 6) .iuiy 23, 1996 2. Joe Topper, 5787 Trailwood, Santa Rosa, Manager of Red Lion Hotel, Rohnert Park, said this business contributes almost 1/2 million dollars in taxes to the City and has many employees living here. He is also a member of the Chamber of Commerce and on the Government Affairs Committee. Mr. Topper reiterated their position statement of October 1995 opposing any future freezes and recommending spheres be placed out as far as possible in order to have the greatest control of the City's destiny. 3. Robert D. Weinman, 5763 Dexter Cir., expressed agreement with recent recommendation from the President of SSU on this issue, and urged extending the city's sphere of influence for our future benefit. 4. Van Logan, 2560 West Dry Creek Rd., Healdsburg, responded to above concerns expressed in regard to proceeding with an economic study. It has to be based on something as a whole. Some planning has to be done and some specific planning area has to be set. He urged Council to move toward those possibilities. The plan does not necessarily have to be built out, but to put artificial limits on it, is ridiculous. He commended discussions about doing a 20 year plan and urged Council decision on the two working documents provided for consideration, as they cannot proceed with an economic development study without specific plan areas being set. 5. Charles Kitchen, 4945 Fern Place, referred to concerns expressed over the years regarding growth and said the main issue is the responsibility of paying the bills and not losing quality of life to the citizens. Control of costs will cut the services to citizens. Another consideration is for environmental concerns. 6. Craig Harrington, Quaker Hill Development Corp., representing property owners of about 200 acres near SSU, said regarding setting urban growth boundaries, Council should be very careful and see how the County's proposal overlays. As currently zoned, all the land to the south and east of the city is in the County's control. If you base the ability for Rohnert Park to expand or change to the next election, it will also be subject to the voters of Sonoma County. He urged a process that allowed City control based on when sewer capacity is available. * CORRECTIONS BELOW from 8/13/96 City Council meeting: Per Councilwoman Spiro (deletion lined out/corrections underlined) 7. *E#ir-stn Christa Shaw, 520 Mendocino Ave., #200, Santa Rosa, North Bay Realtors, from the Greenbelt Alliance affiliation, if Council proceeds with Option 2, it will need to consider some planning process regarding sewer allocation, etc. They had a Commission study done by a team of attorneys which referred to zoning. Voters have the power to amend the General Plan which draws a different light and does not affect annexation. The District Attorney observed the Cities of Sebastopol and Healdsburg and signified that outside land, should the urban boundary be removed, can be developed. However, if not reserved beyond the boundaries of land, it cannot be developed. Ms. Shaw offered Greenbelt Alliance technical assistance regarding viability of the two options being considered. 8. Charlie Carson, Executive Director, Home Builders Association, referred to Draft #20 of proposed County Urban Boundary Program which will be on the November 1996 ballot. Any city that does not have a 20 year plan will be more or less unaffected. The community separator can be expanded but cannot be shrunk, so if it goes to the electorate and Rohnert Park Citv Council Minutes ( 7 ) July 23, 1996 passes, it would be established. Rohnert Park's Option 2 with a four year plan would not fall under that jurisdiction and would still provide some flexibility. Option 1 appears to be moving too fast, as it takes too much flexibility out of Council's hands, as Council needs to keep options in its control. The option provides internal consistencies of this program with regard to the Housing Element for affordable housing, etc. Realizing the City's Housing Element, at this time, has not been certified, the electorate process would make it difficult to at least attain that certification in the years ahead. There being no one further desiring to speak, Mayor Flores closed the public hearing at approximately 7:44 p.m. COUNCIL COMMENTS following the public hearing: Mayor Flores advised Council is facing some realities and will not be able to sustain present services as we have known them on the existing budget. In the past, we have not had the drain on reserves that we have had in the past couple of years and the City's budget is in trouble. The only way the City can retain its budget is by reduced services, like the Kelly Plan for fire services, of which $160,000 was the first drain, and the City does not have resources without the benefit of the tax assessment. People are correct that the City does not have sewer capacity to expand, but if we look at specific plans, we will know if there is a viable way to meet concerns. In three years, the City will not have a General Fund reserve. Councilwoman Gallagher commented that Cotati is a little ahead of us in terms of going into bankruptcy and not all we do makes sense. When a city goes into bankruptcy, the County takes over. This City is not far behind Cotati because we do not plan so good. It is obvious what is going on here. There is a few people who will benefit with expansion like Mr. Topper, but not the people. If we go back in and redevelop areas in this town, like blighted areas, it would make sense, but that is how we do it here. The simple answer here is to make people believe if we annex it will work, but it does not cover the expense of putting in lots of houses. Services usually are costly. She believed what Councilman Reilly was asking for is a spread sheet of what the costs are going to be. We do not take care of what is laid down in the first place. New business is not going to come because they will not come to a town that cannot turn on the water and flush toilets. We have already been given false information representing the amount of sewer capacity. Those houses are being built right now and we could be sued. Staff gets to work full time and gets paid a big salary to fool you. The ones that have been here 15 years in administration, like Brust, etc. do not give a flying care. You know what these people already have and city executives have planned to leave out the back door in retirement and have padded their pockets big time. They do not care at all about you. Vice Mayor Eck said in the interest of trying to move something on this one way or the other, he would just like to comment that one of the reasons we are where we are on this, is when people refer to claiming the experts are at fault. If the purpose of annexation was the strength to raise revenues, we would never build. We build because we need to provide houses which costs in additional services. To build out housing would be an economic loser. On the other hand, to build industrial, the City could get an economic Rohnert Park City Council Minute- i Rohnert Park Citv Council Minutes ( 9 ) July 23, 1996 Council. According to City Attorney Flitner, a UGB ballot measure is subject to legal challenge and according to Margaret Sohagi, Attorney on land use, she concurred on a different set of circumstances on housing issues. Councilwoman Spiro referred to communications from Attorney Sohagi pertaining to the California Supreme Court enunciating a constitutional doctrine called the "regional welfare test" and acknowledged quoting Ms. Sohagi's information which included, "if an ordinance may strongly influence the supply and distribution of housing for an entire region, the welfare of the entire region must be examined. An argument could be made that the proposed initiative adversely impacts the supply of housing in the region by limiting the amount of housing built within the City of Rohnert Park. If so, a court would balance the needs of the City in limiting its growth with the region's need for housing." Councilwoman Spiro added this could involve lots and lots of attorney fees of which the cities should not have to pay. As far as housing is concerned, housing will become even more unaffordable. In city plans, housing is supposed to be included, not excluded. Mayor Flores said the Council is not talking about annexations but is really talking about expansion of sphere of influence and thought the planning areas give opportunity to have things in those areas. Upon doing an economic development study, only if a plan provides a benefit to the community, it would be considered by Council extensively. With the ability to provide sewer services in at least four or five years, this would provide the opportunity for the City Council to take advantage of planning time and to let the Planning Commission proceed in that time frame. This would allow planning enhancements for the City, and other than taxation or reduction of services, the need for housing can happen no other way. Councilwoman Gallagher said it seems we know the sewer expansion is not going to happen for at least five years and commented on conversations about affordable housing. Over the past five years, Rohnert Park has produced some good projects so she fully contended that the City will get its housing element approved. If not, we will do it ourselves, so that should not hold out according to the States definition of affordable housing. Because of the legal concerns related to specific areas of Option 1, she recommended Option 2 for the ballot to the year 2002. *She said thM is realisfie and, Telafing e *CORRECTION ABOVE from 8/13/96 City Council meeting: Per Councilwoman Gallagher (deletion lined out) A MOTION was made by Councilwoman Gallagher to go to the ballot with Option 2 to the year 2002, with friendly amendment by Vice Mayor Eck regarding the need to signify four years to the year 2000 since the year 2002 exceeds the City's General Plan, and seconded by Councilman Reilly for discussion. COUNCIL COMMENTS for discussion of the motion: Councilman Reilly asked Councilwoman Spiro what she would consider putting on the ballot since she seemed to have no objection to putting something on the ballot. Councilwoman Spiro responded she had not formed wording but signified presenting it in the manner of asking citizens if they wanted a UGB initiative on the ballot, and expressed the preference to having a formal initiative from citizens on the ballot regarding UGB's rather than Council putting a UGB measure on the ballot. She has not seen the community rally behind this issue at all. What she has seen is many rallied on the other side. Rohnert Park City Cou nci. Minutes i 'iii i Jul- y 23 , iy >v Councilman Reilly responded the reason why citizens have not rallied on this issue is because some of us put it on our campaign platform. If citizens were reasonably approached on the matter, it was his guess that this was the reason Councilwoman Gallagher got elected in 1992. He thought the electorate felt the majority of the Council represented their concerns on this issue so there was no need to do an initiative. He disagreed with the idea of language asking whether an initiative should be put on the ballot. Councilwoman Spiro signified the question should have been included on past surveys; should not be done by the vote of three people; and the Council has not provided the opportunity for sufficient citizen input on the UGB proposal. Councilman Reilly said he would suggest that is contrary to his understanding as people who voted for him knew where he stood on this issue. We have all discussed how big Rohnert Park should be and the argument he has heard on this is citizens do not want to have a box on the ballot with no advocate. The course of action is to put something on the ballot when the majority of voters consider not to put something on the ballot is giving up their rights. His only concern is how to phrase the question to meet legal requirements. Councilwoman Gallagher said we have so quickly forgotten that this Council was bombarded by citizens calling for urban boundary limits according to numerous citizen letters in Council packets. She responded to concerns expressed by Councilwoman Spiro referencing the duplicated form letter used in this effort, that for 30 some years the City has been growing like rabbits and now you have a complaint about that 3 -2 vote. Vice Mayor Eck said he would like to address the motion in the interest of actually getting it done. He firmly believed there needs to be some language addressing legalities but it seemed to him Council is at incredibly opposite ends of polls. His proposed language turned out wrong but it shows his efforts. He thought putting this on the ballot is a good idea and his opinion turned by the debate here tonight which signifies that this election is going to be highly heated and emotional. He was not certain how this issue was going to get in the way of the fire services assessment ballot measure, but leaned toward strict language in the General Plan for a 4 year period. If he did not hear any support for that, in view of the other options and related to Santa Rosa's option on the element of service that at least needs to have a planning period in place, he would have to support the motion. He did not see any alternative but to proceed with the 4 year UGB which is not going to accomplish a lot in the history of Rohnert Park. He would consider a 20 year plan but it is not ready. He would rather focus on the General Plan concept on the amendment process with the County doing a UGB measure. In response to Mayor Flores' inquiries under discussion of the General Plan amendment, Vice Mayor Eck said it would have to be referred to the Planning Commission and would not be considering an emergency process, as he thought there would be time for debate in the next two months. City Attorney Flitner confirmed the 45 to 60 days would be adequate for referral to the Planning Commission and then come before the Council. The ballot measure language would have to be submitted by August 9 to make the ballot. Rohnert Park City Council Minutes ( 11 ) July 23, 1996 Councilwoman Spiro said, first of all, we have not done anything for the last four years so it would be tied up for another four years which will result in the City losing businesses. She has a problem with a UGB ballot measure; has no problem with putting boundaries in, but does have a problem with current spheres of the City. Mayor Flores referred to decisions for specific plans of planning areas. The proposal is capable and would be careful to provide analysis for decision making. Putting this on a ballot as a clear cut issue in the future to consider some type of economic development plan could be a possibility, but he preferred the situation of Council responsibility of making decisions, and liked Vice Mayor Eck's suggestion to refer it to the Planning Commission for the General Plan amendment. Councilwoman Gallagher said she was willing to agree with the General Plan amendment for 4 years; would rather do the 20 year plan; and understood there are concerns about wording for the ballot, but did not believe the public is comfortable with just doing a General Plan amendment as this is supposed to be a document the City follows. However, she believed if Option 2 were at least put on the ballot, it is clear enough for people to have the opportunity to vote, and would not be like the survey, but would be counted and not ignored. Maybe she will be wrong and the people will say to expand borders, which is fine, but at least we will have heard from the public. Councilwoman Spiro said if this is referring to putting a ballot measure on that does not expand the City's spheres, she would, in fact, be willing if it expands boundaries. -- Vice Mayor Eck responded we cannot move our spheres out, but maybe we could move our UGB's out. -- Councilwoman Spiro said to call it whatever and commented on a reference to the requirement of an impartial analysis and having a lot of environmental impacts to consider, like wastewater. We are having some things happen with that but we do not know what that future contains yet. These concerns need to be considered for the best interest of citizens, including the affect on affordable housing. For the middle income people, there is no place to build and considering the population base, if we never put another house in Rohnert Park, people will not be able to live here who were born here. This is really important to look at, besides the fact that it looks like there is no legal way to proceed with this. The City will be saddled with several thousand dollars a year which is not counting cut backs, lawsuit costs, etc. Councilwoman Gallagher responded we may have to cut our basic frills. -- Councilwoman Spiro asked if that means the seniors should have no Senior Center, since none of these run in the black, like recreation and sports facilities, etc., all are in the red. Ms. Spiro did not think the citizens of Rohnert Park would be happy about all these entities being gone, and asked how are revenues going to be raised and existing services provided without any growth. Councilman Reilly disagreed with such reasoning for urban boundary changes that can be adjusted with a variety of reasons that just sets things up to allow growth. If something comes along, it can be added, as Option 2 simply states you must establish good cause and you just have to prove there is value to the proposal. That is the farthest thing from no growth. He signified that is what he has been working toward for six years. Planned growth allows for planning of economic development whether it be industrial, housing, schools, etc. We have that in this option. It sets up boundaries we can live by. Rohgert Park City r .+ ,�.... .air .:z��::! P.� ➢ru��3 i i2 i juiiv 2-3, 019-6 Vice Mayor Eck said it is obvious his first choice does not meet Necessary legalities. When he worked on the draft he was trying to get a drift of preferences. We are now talking about proceeding with Option 2 and he agreed with Councilman Reilly that some changes are necessary. The year should be changed from 2002 to 2000, as it should not go beyond the current General Plan which meets *our fair share of state housing requirements and went through the public process. As long as we stay with that, it will be consistent with legalities. He agreed with public comments of *Ehi-rst Christa Shaw and Craig Harrington on the greenbelt. He signified the need to cross reference some of the language in the General Plan that might allow for some plan in the interim, as long as such a plan does not guarantee what the outcome will be. *CORRECTIONS ABOVE from 8/13/96 City Council meeting: Per Vice Mayor Eck responding to concerns expressed by Councilwoman Spiro whereby he expressed willingness to add "our fair share" but did not agree to removal of the sentence, as he thinks the statement is accurate and these minutes are only reflecting his opinion (deletion lined out/addition & correction underlined). Mayor Flores asked the City Attorney to clarify legalities assuming this goes on the ballot to the year 2000 for a General Plan amendment. -- City Attorney Flitner advised if Council leaves it so no electorate has the deciding factor but it would be reverted back to Council, it would be correct. -- For clarification, Vice Mayor Eck reviewed the procedure of referral to the Planning Commission so the planning process is not precluded in this effort. -- City Attorney Flitner responded as long as the motion so signifies. THE MOTION made above by Councilwoman Gallagher, seconded by Councilman Reilly, to go to the ballot with Option 2 to the year 2000 including reference to the specific plan process in the General Plan, was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: (3) Councilmembers Eck, Gallagher and Reilly NOES: (2) Councilmember Spiro and Mayor Flores ABSENT: (0) None RECESS Mayor Flores declared a recess at approximately 8:35 p.m. RECONVENE Mayor Flores reconvened the Council meeting at approximately 8:46 p.m. with all Councilmembers present. Resolution No: 96 -144 DETERMINING TO SUBMIT A PROPOSED MEASURE TO THE ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK RELATING TO URBAN BOUNDARY LIMITS City Manager Netter explained the resolution for consideration. Upon motion by Councilwoman Gallagher, seconded by Vice Mayor Eck, reflecting the above - signified corrections to the General Plan item with cross reference language to allow for the year 2000 to the term of the General Plan, reading of Resolution No. 96 -144 was waived and said resolution was adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: (3) Councilmembers Eck, Gallagher and Reilly NOES: (2) Councilmember Spiro and Mayor Flores ABSENT: (0) None Rohnert Park Citv Council Minutes ( 13 ) July 23, 1996 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS: File No. 1532 - 1995 Rohnert Park General Plan re. consideration of amending the Circulation Element Staff report -- City Manager Netter explained the delay of the Planning Commission on this item, so it will need to be continued to the Council meeting of August 13, 1996. PUBLIC HEARING: Mayor Flores opened the public hearing at approximately 8:50 p.m. -- With no one desiring to speak, Mayor Flores continued the public hearing to August 13, 1996. KRCB (Channel 22) letter request for building permit fees waiver of $669 for tenant improvements City Manager Netter explained this item as reviewed in the Council Meeting Memo and responded to Council questions. -- Due to reasons including budget constraints and significant support previously extended to KRCB, as well as concerns about justifying exceptions allowing fee waivers, Council declined to act on this request. PROPOSED FIRE SERVICES BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT City Manager Netter advised Consultant Joe Francisco of Berryman & Henigar was present at the Council meeting and available to respond to further questions on this item. Mr. Netter explained the staff report with two resolutions prepared for consideration, as reviewed in the Council Meeting Memo, representing Council direction for this item at its previous meeting. City Manager also referenced the staff report from Director of Public Safety Rooney regarding Fire staffing, previously requested from Council. City Manager Netter, Assistant City Manager Leivo and City Attorney Flitner responded to Council questions. Discussion ensued. Resolution Nos: 96 -145 Establishing a Benefit Assessment to Finance Fire Suppression Services 96 -146 Directing the Rohnert Park City Clerk to Take Appropriate Measures to Place a Measure on the November 5, 1996 General Election Ballot Relative to Establishing a Benefit Assessment to Finance Fire Suppression Services in the City of Rohnert Park Discussion concluded upon motion by Councilwoman Spiro, seconded by Vice Mayor Eck, and approved by roll call vote, with Councilman Reilly dissenting, to proceed with a Fire Services Benefit Assessment District in the amount of $361,000 to enable distribution of funds to begin in January of 1997 and to place this item on the November 1996 ballot for voter ratification, and directing signified changes in the language for the levied amount of "actual CPI, not to exceed 3 %" and to specify "funds will be used exclusively for fire services personnel in the Department of Public Safety ", reading of Resolution Nos. 96 -145 and 96 -146 was waived and said resolutions were consecutively and separately adopted. Councilman Reilly reviewed reasons for dissenting including concerns about the conditional protest withdrawal from Codding Enterprises. He did not think this was set up correctly to proceed as signified, though he did approve of going to the ballot, but preferred to make additional budget cuts to compensate for necessary fire services in the interim of ballot results, and felt if the City can manage with budget cuts between now and `97, it could manage between now and `98. Rohnert Park Citv Council Minutes ( 14 ) July 23, 1996 Paul Stutrud, resident, expressed agreement with the two ballot measures for the opportunity of property owners and residents of Rohnert Park to vote rather than by absentee. Mayor Flores referenced the report from Director of Public Safety Rooney on fire staffing and made a motion to allocate from the City's general fund reserve fund to provide the signified $220,000 for fire staffing. Said motion died for lack of a second. Council concurred with recommendation of Vice Mayor Eck to agendize the item for the standard budget process including review and recommendation by City Manager. Resolution No: 96 -147 Ordering an Election to be Held and Requesting Consolidation City Manager Netter explained the necessity of this resolution as a result of Council's decision to place the above - referenced two measures on the November 1996 ballot, including the need to declare an emergency item for same. Upon motion by Councilwoman Spiro, seconded by Councilwoman Gallagher, declaring this an emergency item, was unanimously approved. Upon motion by Vice Mayor Eck, seconded by Councilwoman Spiro, and unanimously approved, reading of Resolution No. 96 -147 was waived and said resolution was adopted. Councilwoman Gallagher left the Chamber at approximately 10:00 p.m. CITY OF SANTA ROSA PROPOSED URBAN BOUNDARY CHANGE- So.Santa Rosa AvelTodd Rd City Manager Netter referenced map on display and explained this item as reviewed in the Council Meeting Memo. He advised Council is on record regarding efforts to keep Santa Rosa's urban boundary north of Todd Road. Vice Mayor Eck advised Santa Rosa is voting on this tonight and further explained details of this item pertaining to high use and thought the County was encouraging Santa Rosa to take it as the County cannot service the area. It involves moving spheres so requires LAFCO review and approval. -- Discussion concluded upon motion by Councilman Reilly, seconded by Vice Mayor Eck, and unanimously approved with Councilwoman Gallagher absent, for the Mayor to write a letter to LAFCO confirming the desire of the Rohnert Park City Council that the Santa Rosa urban boundary not be extended south of Todd Road, both on east and west sides of U. S. Highway 101. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS. 1. 2x2x2 Cities /School Coordinating Committee (Gallagher /Spiro) -- Councilwoman Spiro reported on this recent committee meeting which basically reviewed the B Park fence issue. They came to a fairly good solution for locks on the gates and still need to work on who is going to have keys. Discussion included concerns regarding the purpose of the fence if it was originally for the purpose of security for the children, which seemed to be nullified with gates open during the day. City Manager Netter commented that school representatives have said the fence is not only a deterrent between the schools, but is also reducing vandalism. Further Council comments included: recommending Rohnert Park City Councii Minutes ( 15 ) July 23, 1996 notification of such efforts for compliance with established joint use policy; develop better communication on these issues; it is not a security fence but a straight line separating the middle and elementary schools; children tend to be more respectful when they have access; and the fence hinders landscaping maintenance. 2. Santa Rosa/Rohnert Park Separator -- Vice Mayor Eck referenced color coded maps provided to Council and earlier discussions on this item. Regardless of what Rohnert Park does on the previously reviewed boundaries issue, and referencing the area outlined in yellow on the map, he would like to see Rohnert Park move its line up to Todd Road. This is consistent with the Mayor's letter directed above on Santa Rosa's proposed urban boundary change for South Santa Rosa Avenue /Todd Road. 3. Senior Citizens Advisory Commission -- Councilwoman Spiro advised this meeting did not have a quorum, so did not take place. CITY FLAG DESIGN UPDATE — City Manager Netter referenced flag design renditions on display according to previous Council review and comments. Several citizens have expressed preference to the prior multiple hands design as a better representation and that the flag should have Rohnert Park identification. -- Discussion concluded upon motion by Vice Mayor, seconded by Councilman Reilly, and unanimously approved with the absence of Councilwoman Gallagher, to go back to the original winning flag design of Donna Collodi with modifications reviewed herein for the multiple hands, including to curl the finger of the one hand to be like the other hands, and to restore the Rohnert Park identification across the bottom of the flag. COMMUNICATIONS. Communications per the attached outline were brought to the attention of the City Council. No action was taken unless specifically noted in these minutes. Councilwoman Spiro referenced her memorandum listed as item #15 on Communications regarding economic development. All of the information was from the recent Western Cities Magazine. There was no reference in the article to housing but was entirely related to economic development. Councilwoman Spiro requested Council support for staff to contact the California Association for Local Economic Development (CALED) for ideas. Council concurred. MATTERS FROM/FOR COUNCIL: 1. Health & Life Insurance changes -- Councilwoman Spiro reviewed concerns on the recent letter received on this item and thought it was doing a large disservice to only have HMO's available to City employees. She reference newspaper article dated July 22, 1996 distributed to Council entitled "Initiatives seek to cure ills of HMOs" signifying reasons to provide options. -- Mayor Flores requested the City Manager to review this item and respond to Council later. -- City Manager Netter advised now that REMIF is gone, so is the related life insurance for Council, as the life insurance was tied to the health program. 2. Joint Meeting of Redwood Empire & Northbav Divisions of League of California Cities, Saturday, August 24, 1996, Eureka, Ca. -- Mayor Flores announced this item. -- Councilwoman Spiro advised Representative Frank Ri gs is scheduled to speak at this meeting. Ms. Spiro said since she � ' i3� l/p =o 'fHiis, she was aware it was originally scheduled in Santa Rosa. Ai meeting will also be held in Santa Rosa on September 12 with -Fri Pat lunkon issues. -R� p g �t�ie scheduled topic of environmental�retec�t}c�! *CORRECTIONS ABOVE from 8/13/96 City Council meeting: Per Councilwoman Spiro (deletions lined out /corrections underlined) iiwiici Pa►n ne.v n ou_idd Minutes 10 19i 3. 4 -11 Club in Rohnert Park -- Councilman Reilly commented he had heard that the 4 -1-1 group in Rohnert Park had been shut down by the Santa Rosa Chapter. He has been told it may only be a rumor but would like to find out if it is true. If so, what are intentions for the existing Rohnert Park 4 -H building; do Rohnert Park 4 -H members want this to shut down; and/or can the County organization be urged to do otherwise. He recommended staff check on this. Council agreed. 4. Kitchen Cut -Ups -- Councilwoman Spiro reviewed concerns shared by senior citizens for Kitchen Cut Ups performances at the Performing Arts Center. Facility provisions were fine for their performance on the 10th, but not on the 12th. Since they pay fully for facility use, there should be consistent compliance for routine provisions. 5. Newspaper stands -- Councilwoman Spiro referenced location of newspaper stands and related accident to a resident of Altamont Apartments, which resulted in a broken arm from running into a newspaper stand. Ms. Spiro recommended the stands be moved farther back from the curb toward preventing further incidents. City Manager confirmed staff would check into this matter. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT.• 1. Friends of Library & Association of Arts Portable Building Fire Sprinkler requirement re. approval of costs -- City Manager Netter reviewed this staff report provided to Council. Council agreed to place this item on the next agenda and, in the meantime, requested Councilman Reilly, Council Liaison to the Library Advisory Board, to meet with them regarding other possible funding options. 2. Helen Putnam Award/SCAYD Partnership - Joint Application Proposal with City of Cotati City Manager Netter advised he is working with signified representatives on this joint proposal. 3. Fire Truck Unit #9981 proposed donation to Dry Creek Volunteer Fire Department City Manager Netter reviewed this proposal and responded to Council questions. Discussion concluded in Council concurrence, due to current budget constraints, for staff to proceed with negotiating a reasonable price for this fire truck. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT. • City Attorney Flitner advised the Mayor's report on items from the closed session was sufficient and he had nothing further to report at this time. UNSCITIEDU'LED PUBLIC APPEARANCES., Mayor Flores asked if there were any additional unscheduled public appearances at this time. No one responded. ADJOURNMENT.- Mayor Flores adjourned the meeting at approximately 10:25 p.m. Dep C' Clerk jh Mayor 6aA -L �l /6 VAN NORDEN LOGAN 2560 West Dry Creek Road Healdsburg, CA 95448 (707) 431 -1665 July 22, 1996 City Council City of Rohnert Park 6750 Commerce Blvd. Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Re: Urban Growth Boundary and Specific Plans Dear Councilmembers, The Urban Growth Boundaries and the Specific Plan Areas are separate issues which should be addressed separately. Rohnert Park has a Specific Plan Ordinance (Chapter 17.57). This Ordinance can be amended by the City Council to address references to an Urban Growth Boundary. The current Rohnert Park General Plan has a section in the Land Use chapter which speaks to specific plans. The Specific Plan areas can, and should, be designated by the Council as is called for in both the Specific Plan Ordinance and in the General Plan. This can be done through an amendment to the General Plan. I believe it is premature to place an Urban Growth Boundary initiative on the ballot. No 20 -year planning has yet been done as it has in all the other cities considering UGB initiatives. However, since the majority of the Council appears to want to follow this path, I urge you to initiate the Specific Plan process I have described and, in the UGB initiative, require a public voting procedure regarding changes to the UGB line only the City Council sets the UGB line through the Specific Plan process. The Specific Plan process is a finite planning program. The public will have ample opportunity to discuss the merits of the Specific Plans during the extensive public review procedures required and can do so without the rhetoric and emotional hype of an election. In proceeding as I have outlined above, your Urban Growth Boundary Initiative would follow the same pattern as those now proposed in all the other cities in the county, i.e., it would be based on a publicly reviewed and appropriately processed 20 -year plan for Rohnert Park. Very truly yours, Van Norden Logan Architecture, Land Planning, Real Estate Brokerage