1994/07/26 City Council MinutesRohnert Park City Council Minutes
July 26, 1994
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
6:29 p.m. and led the pledge of allegiance.
Mayor Reilly advised that a closed session commenced this evening at
6:00 p.m. to discuss litigation matters regarding Hallock vs. City of
Rohnert Park and Mobile Home Rent Control cases of Hillsboro vs. City
of Rohnert Park; SIME vs. City of Rohnert Park; and Ordinance
494 /Green Book issue including park owners' settlement proposals. He
said these issues are still in pending stages, no action was taken and
would be discussed further at another time.
ROLL CALL Present: (5) Councilmembers Eck, Gallagher, Hollingsworth, Spiro
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, Director of
Public Works /City Engineer Brust, Planning Director Skanchy and
Finance Director Harrow.
Approval Upon motion by Councilman Hollingsworth, seconded by Councilwoman
of Gallagher, the minutes of July 5, 7, 12 and 18, 1994 were
Minutes unanimously approved as submitted with the following abstentions:
Mayor Reilly for the 7th; Councilman Hollingsworth for the 12th; and
Councilwoman Spiro for the 18th.
Approval Upon motion by Councilman Hollingsworth, seconded by Councilwoman
of Spiro, including previously signified automatic no vote of
Bills Councilwoman Gallagher for payments to Sonoma County Wineries
Association, City bills presented per the attached list in the amount
of $1,144,617.98 and CDA bills presented per the attached list in the
amount of $3,091.13 were unanimously approved.
Non- agendaed Mayor Reilly asked if any Councilmember had any items to add to the
matters agenda. Councilwoman Gallagher signified miscellaneous items, if time
allowed, and advised of her recent meeting with Congresswoman Lynn
Woolsey and that Congresswoman Woolsey was scheduled to speak with
interested citizens at the Rohnert Park Senior Center on Saturday,
July 30th, 1994 from 2:00 -3:30 p.m.
Councilman Eck also signified miscellaneous items, if time allowed.
Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (2) July 26, 1994
Unscheduled Mayor Reilly stated that in compliance with State Law (The Brown Act),
Public citizens wishing to make a commnt may do so at this time. Persons
Appearances speaking under unscheduled public appearances are requested to submit
completed cards to the recording clerk. No one responded.
C O N S E N T C A L E N D A R
Mayor Reilly asked if any Councilmember had any questions regarding
the matters on the Consent Calendar.
Councilwoman Gallagher requested Resolution No. 94 -120 be removed from
the Consent Calendar for discussion. Council concurred.
Acknowledging the City Manager /Clerk's report on the posting of the
agenda.
Resolutions:
No.94 -114 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK DECLARING
NATIONAL NIGHT OUT, AUGUST 2ND, 1994
No.94 -121 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK REJECTING
THE CLAIM OF SIMONE BLACKWELL (C /0 LAW OFFICES OF CARPENETI & CARPE -
NETI) REGARDING ALLEGED INJURIES IN MOTORCYCLE VS. BICYCLIST COLLISION
Upon motion by Councilman Hollingsworth, seconded by Councilwoman
Spiro, with the exception of Resolution No. 94 -120, the Consent
Calendar as outlined on the meeting's agenda, was unanimously approved.
Resolution RESOLUTION DESIGNATING, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING INSTALLATION OF
No. 94 -120 STOP SIGNS
City Manager Netter responded to Council questions and explained the
resolution approving installation of stop signs at numerous locations.
With the completion of M Section, the majority of the stop sign
locations are related to that area. City Council authorization and
approval of the installation of stop signs by resolution is a required
procedure for legal and liability reasons.
Upon motion by Councilman Eck, seconded by Councilman Hollingsworth,
and unanimously approved, Resolution No. 94 -120 was adopted.
Unscheduled Public Appearances:
Mayor Reilly consented to requests for unscheduled public appearances
from citizens who did not understand the previous announcement.
Lisa Frey, 7291 Corinth Court, reviewed the National Night Out event planned on
August 2, 1994. She indicated that Congresswoman Woolsey will not be
attending this event, but her representative Jim Chaaban has agreed to
speak briefly along with Rohnert Park Vice Mayor Eck. Ms. Frey
requested that it be made clear in the minutes that the idea for this
event was community driven and was an idea they presented to the City.
Ms. Frey further explained the July 31st "Picnic in the Park" for
the Circle Drive neighborhood listed on page 4 of the agenda and which
she signified, for the record, was the event Congresswoman Woolsey
would make one of several appearances scheduled on that date.
Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (3) July 26, 1994
Jonnie Perrot, 73 Toyon Court, shared contents of her letter dated July 26, 1994 on
behalf of Donald Padgett (copy attached to original set of these
minutes) requesting authorization by the City Council for City
Attorney Flitner to provide Mr. Padgett with a statement regarding
"back space rent" credit taken by the City in the SIME litigation.
City Attorney Flitner acknowledged previous discussion with Ms. Perrot
regarding this request and confirmed he has no objections with
providing the statement. Mr. Flitner expressed agreement with the
comments in Ms. Perrot's letter that while there was a stipulation
regarding the appropriate measure of Green Book damages to be applied
in the years to follow 1991 entry of judgment, he did not recall
anything about providing continuous credits to park owners. He
further explained that some mobile home park residents voluntarily
paid the Green Book assessments of which the City did credit that
against the computed rent difference in the damages calculations. Mr.
Padgett has requested assistance to help him recover the back space
rents collected from him in the past. City Attorney Flitner explained
that a letter could be written confirming that the City has not
collected funds taken in any such credits and that he could certainly
provide a statement to that effect.
Councilman Eck pointed out the awareness that Council is not supposed
to take sides, but where directly involved, it must behave
responsibly. In this situation, he would like to see the Council
proceed aggressively. Mobile home park residents were not to pay the
Green Book assessments due to the implementation of Ordinance 494 and
there is no way they should not get that money back if it was paid.
A motion was made by Councilman Eck, seconded by Councilwoman Spiro,
and unanimously approved, authorizing City Attorney Flitner to provide
Mr. Padgett with the above- requested letter and statement regarding
mobile home park back space rent.
Dean Huber, 845 Lunar Court, acknowledged the desire to speak about Fire Safety
provisions of the City and asked if it would be more appropriate to
share his comments during the up- coming City budget public hearing.
Mayor agreed.
Lisa Frey, 7291 Corinth Court, responded to a question from the audience of why
Councilwoman Gallagher was invited to the "Picnic in the Park" and not
other Councilmembers. She said Councilwoman Gallagher is a guest at
this event because of her direct encouragement at the previous C Sec-
tion neighborhood meeting and her assistance to residents of that area
to get started and become involved in the Neighborhood Watch Program.
Ordinance AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ROHNERT PARK MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLE 15,
No. 589 SECTION 15.40.020 (Capital Outlay Fund Fees Adjustment for Increase in
Cost of Construction Index)
City Manager Netter explained "the ordinance which was introduced at
the previous Council meeting. The ordinance is recommended for
approval to become effective thirty (30) days after its adoption.
Upon motion by Councilman Hollingsworth, seconded by Councilwoman
Spiro, and unanimously approved, reading of Ordinance No. 589 was
waived and said ordinance was adopted.
Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (4) July 26, 1994
Proposed 1994 -95 City Budget matters:
City Manager Netter reviewed Budget Summary Discussions /Changes report
distributed to Council which signified results from previous budget
work sessions to date. Mr. Netter also shared contents of letter
dated July 25, 1994 from Sonoma State University presenting a prelim-
inary cost estimate of $208,500 for the Institute for Community Plan-
ning Assistance (ICPA) to prepare the City's next 20 year General Plan.
Discussion concluded in a motion by Councilwoman. Spiro, seconded by
Councilwoman Gallagher, to proceed with the public hearing for the
proposed budget as scheduled on the agenda but to hold off on the
budget approval for further Council review. Mayor Reilly recommended
waiting until the close of the public hearing for consideration of
this motion. Council concurred.
Public
Hearing Mayor Reilly opened the public hearing at approximately 6:59 p.m.
Councilman Councilman Eck left the Chamber for a few minutes during the opening
Eck leaves of the public hearing at approximately 7:00 p.m.
Public comments related to this matter were submitted on speaker cards
or other written and /or verbal comn.uiications by citizens as follows:
Dean Huber, 845 Lunar Court, reviewed reasons for urging the City to provide a
better budget for fire services for greater protection of the City
and to meet the requests of the citizens. He expressed appreciation
for the proposed budget changes signifying the hiring of additional
people but requested the hiring of fire professionals that could be
cross - trained as policemen since the capacities of public safety
officers and fire fighters are unique and different. Mr. Huber's
recommendations also included allocation of funds to proceed with
a 20 year master plan and to pursue a program and systematic plan for
the development of a fire department.
Councilman
Eck returns Councilman Eck returned to the Chamber at approximately 7:05 p.m.
Margaret McIsaac, 838 Lunar Court, asked Council not to approve the budget until
citizens have a chance to review the proposed changes and addi t i ona 1
funding for fire services and public safety. She expressed agreement
with previous comments for need of specific training for fire
fighters, paramedics and a separate fire department.
Don McIsaac, 838 Lunar Court, reviewed differing capacities and outlooks of public
safety officers and fire fighters. He complimented the City's Depart-
ment of Public Safety as the finest but expressed concerns related to
a city of this size relying on mutual aid compared to taking pride in
its own fire department.
Jeff Allen, 794 Bernice Avenue, recommended fire services personnel be increased to
eight (8) and that there be separate training for fire fighters. He
shared contents of report distributed to Council With rec:;oniyendations
of minimum staffing set by N.F.P.A. to develop the various fire sup-
pression strategies (copy attached to original set of these minutes).
W. Allen urged Council to take steps toward full time staffing for
fire protection services.
Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (5) July 26, 1994
Linda Branscomb, 21 Anne, expressed concern about the $208,000 amount for estimated
student labor costs presented by Sonoma State University to prepare
the City's 20 year master plan. She stressed the importance of
developing a blueprint for the future and asked the City to consider
budgeting $100,000 now and perhaps negotiate with SSU about the
possibility of the students doing the groundwork with refining efforts
of City staff for a long term General Plan.
There being no one further desiring to speak, Mayor Reilly closed the
public hearing at approximately 7:24 p.m.
Council discussion included comments as follows:
• to strongly consider the commitment to add the three positions
recommended by staff for fire services;
• recognition of the need to pursue funding possibilities for the
General Plan with recommendation to allot $100,000 to initiate the
effort with a request for proposals to see if competitive proposals
can be obtained;
• question was raised regarding the possibility of a conflict of
interest for SSU to participate in General Plan efforts with a
request for an opinion from the City Attorney regarding same;
• questions raised pertaining to effect on Capital Outlay with the
inclusion of additional fire services personnel related to other
proposed expenditures like the sports rooms, purchase of various
equipment, etc.;
• the need to resolve concerns expressed during the previous year's
budget hearing when there was a real financial crunch and not sure
the City wants to consider raising taxes at this time in order to
meet the growing demands and requests for next year's budget;
• comparisons were made to Rohnert Park's initial plan for its
Department of Public Safety and the recommndations made by the full
time fire fighters with comment that Rohnert Park's rating has not
been affected and is in line with that of Petaluma and Santa Rosa;
• differences between funding full time fire services staff compared
to the cost of developing a separate fire department were reviewed.
Council unanimously agreed to the motion presented prior to the public
hearing by Councilwoman Spiro, seconded by Councilwoman Gallagher, to
defer adoption of the budget following further review by Council.
Council scheduled a work session at 7:00 p.m.on Monday, August 8, 1994
for further review of the 1994 -95 City Budget.
RECESS Mayor Reilly declared a recess at approximately 7:45 p.m.
RECONVENE Mayor Reilly reconvened the Council meeting at approximately
7:52 p.m. with all Councilirs present except for the late
arrival of Councilwoman Gallagher at approximately 7:55 p.m. during
the staff report of the next agenda item.
Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan
City Manager Netter reviewed contents of staff report provided to
Council with related attachments including resolution for
consideration regarding this item. He advised a public hearing is
required and had been duly noticed and scheduled at this time for
adoption of the Final Plan and Siting Element.
Ken Wells, Integrated Waste Manager of the County of Sonoma Department
of Public Works, gave a presentation explaining the Countywide Plan
and responded to various Council questions.
Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (6) July 26, 1994
Public
Hearing Mayor Reilly opened the public hearing at approximately 8:00 p.m.
Public comments related to this matter were submitted on speaker cards
or other written and /or verbal communications by citizens as follows:
Skip Gerolds, representative of the Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce, explained his
participation on the Sonoma County Local Task Force in conjunction
with the County Department of Public Works and said the above- reviewed
plan is a very good one. He recommended approval be subject to
inclusion of siting element language presented to the Board of
St ir-.ch ii cnrc htr +ho T.nrn 1 91—Lt F--- r a �, 4-- 11,
.,a.tr...i > :d.- ...... � .... j the Locus . --" a. --- - v1l.iG1 - GL1JiArC LL1G LVLLL 1111A 111g
opportunity for public input and a sense of continuity with
involvement of the correlation and endorsement of the siting element.
Mr. Gerolds responded to various Council questions.
There being no one further desiring to speak, Mayor Reilly closed the
public hearing at approximately 8:09 p.m.
City Manager Netter responded to further Council questions with
further explanation of the resolution for consideration confirming
that the City Attorney had carefully drafted the resolution to ensure
multiple public hearings and public participation.
Resolution A RESOLUTION OF THE ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE COUNTYWIDE
No. 94 -122 INTEGRATED WASME ANAGEMENT PLAN AND SITING ELEMENT FOR THE COUNTY OF
SQWM, THE NONDISPOSAL FACILITY EI,EM W FOR THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
AND CONSIDERING AND EVALUATING THE PROGRAM ENVIRONI -=AL IMPACT REPORT
AS PREPARED BY THE COUNTY OF SONOMA AND ADOPTING, AS APPLICABLE,
MITIGATION MEASURES AND FINDINGS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIROMAENTAL
QUALITY ACT
Upon motion by Councilman Hollingsworth, seconded by Councilwoman.
Spiro, and unanimously approved, including notification of some
concern expressed during the public hearing on the siting element,
reading of Resolution No. 94 -122 was waived and said resolution
was adopted.
City Manager Netter acknowledged that the notification as specified
would be written in the cover letter along with submission of the
adopted resolution.
General Plan matters:
1. Second Draft General Plan Update prepared by the Planning Commission -
Assistant City Manager Leivo gave the staff report on the Second Draft
General Plan Update dated June 30, 1994 including advising that the
Council may hold one or more public hearings and schedule special
meetings to review and amend the Second Draft General Plan Update or
take time during regular Council meetings. Once the Council prepares
a Final Draft General Plan Update, the Planning Commission must
schedule a formal public hearing on the Final Draft General Plan
rate and EIR. Following the action of the Planning Commission, the
City Council should also schedule a public hearing on the Final Draft
and EIR. Assistant City Manager Leivo, City Attorney Flitner and
Planning Director Skanchy responded to Council questions.
Discussion concluded in Council concurrence to schedule a work session
on the General Plar. Update at City Hall at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday,
August 16th, 1994.
Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (7) July 26, 1994
2. Department of Housing and Conrunity Development (HCD) -- Review of
Planning Commission Revised Draft Housing Element - Assistant City
Manager Leivo reviewed contents of letter dated July 7, 1994 from the
Department of Housing and Comnanity Development with attached appendix
regarding the referenced item. HCD's suggestion is that Rohnert Park
strengthen its commitment to carrying out the programs needed to meet
its housing needs, particularly, to encourage development of housing
affordable to very low - and low- income households to meet the regional
share for all income groups. Legal Counsel Margaret Sohagi of
Freilich, Kaufman, Fox & Sohagi confirmed basic agreement with the
staff report given by Assistant City Manager Leivo. Ms. Sohagi
pointed out one area of disagreement with the referenced HCD letter in
that HCD is asking the City to commit to a policy form in asking the
Council to say the City shall zone "X, Y and Z" in a certain manner.
Ms. Sohagi emphasized that the City cannot give away plans in that
manner without going through the zoning and hearing process, but the
Council can say it "shall consider ", etc. Ms. Sohagi and Mr. Leivo
responded to Council questions.
Richard McCauley, 708 Santa Alicia Dr., expressed concerns related to the City's
limits on water and sewer capacities. He recommended addressing this
issue before giving consideration to further housing developments.
Assistant City Manager Leivo responded to further Council inquiry that
he could respond informally to HCD that Council is working on the
City's housing element, or if Council desires a 3rd draft of the
housing element,the City can formally respond to HCD and, accordingly,
under the law, HCD would take 45 days to respond. Council agreed this
would be reviewed further during upcoming General Plan work sessions.
3. Review of City Impact Fees - City Manager Netter reviewed report from
Legal Counsel Margaret Sohagi regarding an approach for developing a
capital facilities financing framework for unincorporated territory
upon annexation. Council previously directed staff to work with
Margaret Sohagi of Freilich, Kaufman, Fox & Sohagi in conjunction with
City Attorney John Flitner to review the City's existing annexation
fee structure to possibly amend and change the ordinance. Ms. Sohagi's
report and draft ordinance relating to this matter were provided to
Council. Consideration of these changes are due to impacts of recent
U. S. Supreme Court decisions regarding Nollan v. California Coastal
Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard. City Manager Netter and Legal
Counsel Margaret Sohagi responded to Council questions.
Discussion concluded upon motion by Councilman Hollingsworth, seconded
by Councilwoman Spiro, to prepare the ordinance for introduction on an
upcoming Council meeting agenda with appropriate procedures including
public hearing for repealing the existing annexation fees and
establishing a public facilities financing framework for areas to be
annexed, was unanimously approved.
Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (8) July 26, 1994
Planning and Zoning matters:
File No, 1585 - Codding Enterprises Laguna Apartments Project - Sewer allotment for
144 unit, 1- bedroom, 2 -story apartment complex located on the south
side of Laguna Drive contiguous to the Rancho Feliz Mobile Home Park
and west of Redwood Drive - Planning Director Skanchy reviewed letter
dated July 19, 1994 from Codling Enterprises requesting the referenced
sewer allotment. Mr. Skanchy responded to Council questions confirming
standard procedures previously established. Director of Public
Works /City Engineer Brust gave an updated report on capacities
confirming that everything currently designated has been accounted for
in the concluding figure signifying available capacity for 500+ units.
Staff recommends granting the request for sewer allotment consistent
with previous Council agreement that sewer allotments should be
allocated on a first come, first serve basis.
Discussion included Council encouragement to the applicant to keep in
mind the low income housing needs to which Hugh Codding of Codding
Enterprises acknowledged the concern and responded they were very
aware of that.
Discussion concluded upon motion by Councilman Hollingsworth, seconded
by Councilwoman Gallagher, File No. 1585 - Codding Enterprises Laguna
Apartments Project sewer allotment for the 144 unit complex, was
unanimously approved.
File No, 1597 - Kaufman. & Broad (California Park East & West) -
General Plan Amendment and Rezoning to designate a 24.53 acre parcel
and a 20.54 acre parcel of property from High Density Residential
(10 to 30 units per acre) to Intermediate Density Residential
(5 to 10 units per acre). Subject property is located shown as
Assessor's Parcel No. 046 - 051 -19, 22 & 23 and 046- 051 --21 & 27,
contiguous to the Hewlett - Packard plant site - Planning Director
Skanchy reviewed the staff report and background information provided
to Council. He responded to various Council questions and confirmed
continuation of designated public hearings from the Council Meeting of
June 28, 1994 to tonight's Council meeting.
City Attorney Flitner responded to Council question that it was his
opinion that an additional EIR would not be required since the down -
zoning would not impact more severely than the original zoning.
Discussion included Council concerns related to sewer allotments and
possibilities of Hewlett - Packard restoring initial allotments for the
Kaufman & Broad project; taking this project into consideration and
conjunction with the General Plan housing element; infrastructure
adequacies; consideration of replacement location(s) for high density
and other lower income housing needs; and impacts on school.
Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (9) July 26, 1994
Public
Hearings Mayor Reilly opened the public hearing at approximately 9:22 p.m.
Public comments related to this matter were submitted on speaker cards
or other written and /or verbal communications by citizens as follows:
SUPPORT: City Manager Netter brought attention to twelve (12) letters and one
(1) phone call as listed on Council Communications signifying support
of the Kaufman & Broad rezoning request as follows:
1. Ted and Beth Giesige, 1409 Montana Place
2. Wendy Audiss, 1233 Camino Corto
3. Barbara Reising, 1513 Mallory Place
4. Ann Teagarden, 7660 Mandolin Way (via phone call)
5. J. Kevin Dunne, 7748 Melody Drive
6. Douglas Haught (no address)
7. Jackie Heard, 7745 Melody Drive - (would rather have no building,
but prefers single family to high density zoning)
8. Joshua McClelland West - (prefers tabling any growth until economy
picks up and the demand for housing increases)
9. Lois O. Gray, 7865 Montero Drive
10. Jill Snodgrass & Family, 1389 Marigold Place
11. Cathleen A. Yarger, 1431 Mathias Place
12. Heather Silveri, 7850 Nbntero Drive
13. Maria Moore, 1441 Mariner Place
SUPPORT: Jim Hummer, Hummer & Associates, 703 2nd St., Santa Rosa, representing
Kaufman & Broad, reviewed his twenty -f ive year background as a
professional land planner; previous consideration to wait for General
Plan Update that changed as a result of subsequent meetings with City
staff related to approval of other projects and the timing factor
related to the General Plan; consistencies of the project with
recommendations in the Draft General Plan; communications with the
School District confirming adequate acconmodations; change in Hewlett
Packard past projections for 6 to 8,000 employees geared down to
approximately 1500 with the need established to re- evaluate zoning of
the area previously designated for anticipated Hewlett Packard
employee housing from high density to single family; and willingness
of Kaufman & Broad to meet City requirements for adoption of the
General Plan amendment which is consistent with the proposed update.
OPPOSE: Bill MagooLaghan, 1362 Marigold Place, expressed concerns related to
the financial stress on the City and questioned allocating further
building when current taxes wi l l not cover the cost of school, fire
and other necessary services. He recommended declaring the area a
greenbelt as congested traffic already exists in the area.
OPPOSE: John Hudson, 399 Bonnie Avenue, expressed concern that the EIR is
13 years old with no new report prepared or approved and others he has
talked to said it needs to be required. Mr. Hudson reviewed reasons
consideration should be given to property values of current residents
of the area compared to Kaufman & Broad prices and that a better
protection of the existing property values might be the high density,
low income rental project since they would at least not be competing
with lower priced houses. He also referred to upcoming measure on the
ballot for the city to obtain voter authorization for low income hous-
ing which, if turned down and Article 34 measure is turned down, then
nothing will be built on this land and it will become a green belt.
Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (10) July 26, 1994
SUPPORT: Dan Condron, Public Relations, Hewlett Packard, confirmed initial
anticipation of 6 to 8,000 employees at Hewlett Packard ten years ago,
which was before the change in the shaping of economic conditions.
The current facility is very effective and profitable at approximately
1300 eMloyees, however, there's very little chance of coming close to
the earlier projected figures by the end of the decade so Hewlett
Packard will not have the impact on housing in Rohnert Park that was
previously anticipated. Mr. Condron referred to other nulti- family
projects in process in the comrunity to meet high density housing
needs to further support the rezoning request of the two parcels
_represented for the Kaufman & Broad proposal. Hewlett Packard made
the selection of Kaufman. & Broad based on a proven track record. He
recommended rezoning of the above- reviewed two parcels as requested.
Mr. Condron responded to Council inquiry about sewer capacity
previously designated to Hewlett Packard and the possibility of
releasing those allotments for the Kaufman & Broad project with the
indication that Hewlett Packard would work with the City to provide
what is needed, when needed, but it was their understanding in terms
of the process that the City currently has enough capacity and, like
everyone else, if there is enough capacity for allotments at the time
of need, they assumed Kaufman & Broad would receive allotments like
everyone else, if available. However, if there is a problem with
capacity, Hewlett Packard would be willing to work with the City but
he was not prepared at this point to go beyond this particular project
nor was he in a position to make such a commitment at this time. He
agreed with Council comment that this was something that could be
discussed with the City through the General Plan process and Hewlett
Packard would be happy to go through the normal processes regarding
possible considerations.
OPPOSE: Steve Weis, 1382 Marigold Place, questioned the logic of further
development with the need for asking residents to save sewer capacity
with retrofit packets; expressed concern about residents attending
Council meetings and whether or not Council listens to citizens'
desires for no growth; reviewed concerns related to Draft General Plan
that seemed to be referring to growth; expressed concerns, as a
resident of M Section, about current traffic congestion and the impact
of more developmment; and, as expressed by others, he preferred the
area be designated open space.
SUPPORT: Greg McWilliams of Kaufmann & Broad, 149 Stony Circle, Santa Rosa,
reviewed background and qualifications of Kaufman. & Broad; shared
recent survey results of residents adjacent to above- reviewed project
reflecting approval of rezoning request; and shared further details
about the proposed lot /building sizes and pricing in the high
$100,000's to mid $200,000's, as well as a provision for a 10% lower
to moderate income housing plan. W. McWilliams further explained the
project proposal is calculated at about $40 million with approximately
$4 million that will be income back to the City. The development will
provide needed jobs in the conTrunity that will help to junp- -start
the economy. W. McWilliams respectfully requested approval of the
General Plan amendment for rezoning.
Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (11) July 26, 1994
SUPPORT: Margaret WIsaac, 838 Lunar Court, shared personal experience prior to
moving to Rohnert Park, of previous home being flooded by inproper
drainage provisions for a new development adjacent to her existing
property. She thought the project plans were o.k. but urged planning
ahead to prevent this type of problem. She also expressed concern
about decreased property values to existing properties and was glad
she did not want to sell with the lower prices.
SUPPORT: Wayne Guntrie, 1421 Mariner Place, shared concerns about lay offs
referred to in recent Press Democrat article; quality of attendance
and funding for schools conparing the number of students there would
be with high density development versus this single family housing
proposal; and citizens wanting to keep population at 40,000.
Tonight's request is only asking for the rezoning and there will be
further opportunity to review plans to be approved or turned down. He
recommended approval of the rezoning request.
There being no one further desiring to speak, Mayor Reilly closed the
public hearing at approximately 10:05 p.m.
Discussion included Council confirmation that this is only the
rezoning stage of the proposed project; Jim Hummer of Hummer &
Associates, representing Kaufman & Broad responded to further Council
questions; Council expressed appreciation that the 10% provision for
the low to moderate incomes is flexible; recognition of the need to
work on the housing element of the General Plan and preference not to
proceed with the tentative map until the General Plan is updated;
comparisons with approving two recent rezoning requests and the logic
downzoning as conpared to high density development. Acknowledgment
was also made regarding the need to be consistent regarding sewer
capacity and the equal footing of provision on a first come /first
serve basis but to follow through on Hewlett Packard's indication
of willingness to work with the City on the General Plan and
related factors.
Resolution RESOLLTrION OF THE CITY COLUCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK ANENDING
No. 94 -123 THE LAND USE ELEMWr OF THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
FILE NO. 1597
Upon motion by Councilman Eck, seconded by Mayor Reilly, reading of
Resolution No. 94 -123 was waived and said resolution was adopted by
the following roll call vote:
AYES: (3) Councilmembers Eck, Gallagher and Mayor Reilly
NOES: (2) Councilmembers Hollingsworth and Spiro
ABSENT: (0) None
Councilman Hollingsworth signified a no vote at this time because of
the desire to obtain a commitment from Hewlett Packard on restoring
previously designated sewer capacity no longer needed.
Councilwoman Spiro signified a no vote in agreement with Councilman
Hollingsworth and also desiring an answer to her question about
Hewlett Packard no longer needing the land or the sewer capacity and
whether the matter can be put on the purchase contract with the land.
City Attorney Flitner indicated that the Hewlett Packard agreement
should be reviewed and amended regarding changes that have taken place
with employee base size and sewer capacity no longer needed.
Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (12) July 26, 1994
Ordinance AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK REZONING FIVE (5) PARCELS OF
No. 590 PROPERTY TOTALING FORTY SIX ACRES MORE OR LESS LOCATED ON THE NORTH
AND WEST SIDES OF CAMINO COLEGIO AND NORTH OF THE HEWLETT- PACKARD
PLANT SITE MORE PRECISELY SHOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 046- 051 -19,
22 & 23 AND 046 - 051 -21 & 27 (PLANNING FILE NO. 1597)
Upon motion by Councilman Eck, seconded by Mayor Reilly, reading of
Ordinance No. 590 was waived and said ordinance was introduced by the
following vote:
AYES: (3)
NOES: (2)
ABSENT: (0)
Councilmembers Eck, Gallagher and Mayor Reilly
Councilmembers Hollingsworth and Spiro
None
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
Gallagher Councilwoman Gallagher left the Chamber at approximately 10:21 p.m.
leaves
A motion was made by Mayor Reilly, seconded by Councilman Eck, to
continue the meeting past the 10:00 p.m. adjournment time to complete
the remaining agenda items, failed by the following vote:
AYES: (2) Councilman Eck and Mayor Reilly
NOES: (2) Councilmembers Hollingsworth and Spiro
ABSENT: (1) Councilwoman Gallagher
Adjournment Mayor Reilly adjourned the meeting at approximately 10:24 p.m. to
7:00 p.m., Monday, August 8, 1994 for 1994 -95 Budget Work Session.
J �
7 1�2
C
DATE: July 26, 1994
TO: Mayor Reilly and Council members
FROM: Jonnie Perrot on behalf of Donald Padgett
SUBJECT: Request that Counci.1 authorize Attorney Flitner to
provide Mr. Padgett with statement re "back space
rent" credit taken by City -in SIM-e litigation
(Please note I have recently discussed this matter with Mr.
Flitner; he has no objections.)
Background
In Aug. 1993, Mr. Padgett (who is seriously ill and in dire need
of funds) asked me if I could help him recover "back space rent"
demanded and collected from him since 1988. ("Back space rent"
is the difference between what has been lawfully permitted under
Ord. 494 and park owner Green Book assessments.
Mr. Padgett's total damages are approx. $7,000.00. In 1989, he
sold his mobilehome in Valley Vil,
lage and was required to pay
$1,846.68 "back space rent" for escrow to close (all homeowners
in Valley Village have been similarly held accountable on sale
of their coaches). He purchased another- mobilehome in Valley
Village and was told lie would have to pay the Green Book assess-
ment to avoid this happening again,
In Sept. 1993, Mr. Padgett, together with. ''14 other similarly
affected Valley Village homeowners, demanded that their base
rents be restored to the lawful base permitted under Ord. 494.
The park owner acceded to this demand effective Oct. 1, 1993.
Green Book base rents were thereby reduced by $104-117.
However, whenAsame homeowners also demanded to be reimbursed for
prior "back space rents" collected since 1.988, there was no park
owner response.
In Nov. 1993, Mr. Padgett filed a petition with, the Rent Appeals
Board on this account. His petition was dismissed for lack of
authority of the Board to make the orders requested.
In the meantime, various homeowners in Valley Village and Las
Casitas took this matter to the Consumer Fraud Division of the
Sonoma County D.A.'s Office. By June 1994, attorney Julia Freis
of that Office was preparing to proceed under Bus. & Prof. Code
sec. 17200 (unfair business practices) against the owners of
Valley Village and Las Casitas, which prosecution would involve
1) a fine, 2) restitution, and 3) injunctive orders.
Because of the uncertainty of when and if restitution might be
obtained through Consumer Fraud, Mr. Padgett elected to proceed
in Small Claims Court, requesting the maximum award of $5,000.00
against the approx. $7,000.00 excess collected. (Julia Freis in
fact encouraged Mr. Padgett to proceed in this mariner given his
situation.) I am appearing with Mr. Padgett because his damages
are provable by comparison with the lawful base rents I have paid
under Ord. 494 since 1988.
Valley Village and Las Casitas park owners now advise Julia Frets
that because the City took a credit for "back space rents" col-
lected through June 30, 1991, the City should be held accountable
to the homeowners. (If this position is legally tenable, it
poses a procedural nightmare for the homeowners since they had
no notice of the City's alleged "wrongdoing", yet would. have had
to file a claim against the City within one year. of June 30,
1991. Now they would have to obtain a writ of mandate from the
Superior Court allowing for the filing of late claims [which
claims in any event are routinely rejected], then proceed to file
an action in Superior Court for restitution. If the homeowners
were successful., the City would then have to file an action to
recover from the park owners since no excess rents were in fact
paid to the City.)
These park owners also insist that there is a provision in the
aime judgment for a continuous credit for any further "back space
rents" collected since 7/1/9:1, Attorney Fli!Cner advises me that
while there was a stipulation regarding the appropriate measure
of Green Book damages to be applied in the years to follow 1991
entry of judgment, in no event is there any provision allowing
for continuous credits,
Mr. Padgett's small claims matter is set for 8/5/94. At this
point he is hoping to at --- t - leas recover damages from 7/1/91
through 9/30/93. However, it will. be absolutely essential_ to
provide the Small Claims judge with Mr. Flitner's clarification
to refute what the park owner intends to allege.
Padgett Damages
1/15/88 6/30/91 9/30/93
$3,585.06 $3,007.86
/ v
;73e
SAVE MY FAMIIIN!
VENTILATION - 2(3*)FlR-F4, FIGHTERS"
SALVAGE - 2 (3 *) FIRE FIG 14TERS
AND FAMILY.
What Does It Take"?
Our Cities approach to fire suppression and its
WtIA7'(--.',4N WE'DO NOW'
BIJDGET YEAR 1994195?
L ESTARLISH 24 1101JR nAFFING OF ATLEAST2 FIRE STATIONS.
P.&Ot % on duty will supplement stal'fing on the apparatus during fire incidents
2. MINIMUM. STAFFING OF EACH APPAI '11JS TOBE TWO
Volunteers, WJ-JAT WE CALI., FIRE SERVICE SPECIALIST, can supplement
at night to raise staffing level to 3 fire fighters per apparatus.
3. S'I'AFFING OF APPAR.ATtfS IS T0.131i,'DONE BY PERSONNEL ASSIGNED
r rO A 24 IMM, SHIFT ON A 56 1IR WORK WEEK, (TYPICAL F SCIIEDUL'1411)
We have 4 personnel assigned to fire at this time that can, work suppressk)n,
To accomplish the minimum wishes of the citizens 24 hr. staffing of'2 stations, we will
need to create 8 more positions at a cost oaf about $500,000. The inoney call he made
available if the council chooses to protect health and safety for the citizens.
ff this council in this fiscal year chooses not to protect the citizens health and
safety as they are asking for and are entitled to by staffing the stations, then there is
another option to begin the quest for proper fire proteci ' ion.
The council hays allowed at this time for the creation of 3 plus position to
supplement fire, These positions must be made fire specific. This means that the
positions must be filled at all times. If they do not make these positions fire specific
what will hitppeot as it happens now is that when the police side of public safety has
staMng shortages they will fill that short fail by puffing personnel out oaf the fire side.
This practice is unacceptable and must not be allowed.
rrhe positions that are being established by this council in response from at
citizen out cry for fire protection must be fire only positions that must be filled at all
times. These positions must be 24 hr. shifts on a. -556 hr, work week scliedule. (nios,'t
cost effective) 17hey should be at the fire ca ptain level for the following reason,%:
1. C'ontinuity of prevention, training, and maintenance duties for the shift that are
now lost due to shift changes that occure through-out the day.
2, Command level personnel on duty 24hr% it day for fire suppression.
11 , lie availability of another on duty peace officer 24 hr% as day to help supplenient
on duty P.S.O. personnel if required in busy times.