Loading...
1994/09/06 City Council MinutesROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 6, 1994 The Council of the City of Rohnert Park met this date in regular session commencing at 6:01 p.m. in the City Offices, 6750 Commerce Boulevard, Rohnert Park, with Mayor Reilly presiding. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Reilly called the General Plan Update Work Session to order at approximately 6:01 p.m. Pledge Mayor Reilly led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: (5) Councilmembers Eck, Gallagher, Spiro Hollingsworth, and Mayor Reilly ABSENT: (0) None Staff present for all or part of the meeting: Assistant City Manager Leivo and City Planner Skanchy. General Plan Review Process Councilmembers discussed the process that the Council should use during its review of the General Plan including: 1) Holding a Town Hall Meeting; 2) Scheduling hearings during the election; 3) Allowing public dialog when an issue is addressed; and 4) Holding targeted public hearings. General Plan Time Frame Councilmembers debated the time frame of the current Draft General Plan Update and whether the City needs to undertake a "20 year General Plan." General Plan Inconsistencies Councilmembers identified a possible inconsistency in the Draft General Plan. There is a statement that the City population should not exceed 40,000. Nevertheless, the City's actual population will exceed 40,000 if various housing projects are constructed as contemplated in the Draft General Plan. Specific Plan Ordinance Councilmembers discussed application of the City's Specific Plan Ordinance and how the costs of planning process will be paid. Rohnert Park City Council Minutes September 6, 1994 Page 2 Town Hall Meeting Date, Time and Location It was a consensus of the Council to hold a Town Hall Meeting on October 4, 1994 from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at the Senior Center. Proceeding with a General Plan Co 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) uncilmembers debated several issues including: General Plan surveys; Creating a General Plan Blue Ribbon Committee; Why the General Plan Update was initiated; Council's authority to make changes in the Plan recommended by citizen critics; and Creating a vision for the community. Motion Councilman Eck made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Spiro, to wait until after adoption of the current General Plan Update before forming a Blue Ribbon Committee, to anticipate adoption of the current General Plan Update early next year; and immediately thereafter to begin a public discussion about the City's sphere of influence boundary and whether there will be development outside the City limits. Councilmembers discussed the motion. It was proposed that the Council form an ad hoc Council committee, composed of Councilmembers with opposing viewpoints, to draft a schedule for the General Plan process. Councilmember Eck volunteered to serve on the committee. From General Plan Committee Mayor Reilly appointed Councilmembers Eck and Gallagher to a General Plan Committee for the purpose of preparing a General Plan timeline for consideration by the full Council. Vote on Motion The motion was approved by a unanimous vote. Unscheduled Public Mayor Reilly asked if anyone in the audience wished Appearances: to make an appearance at this time. There were two appearances. Jake Mackenzie, 1536 Gladstone Way, recommended that the Council not hold a Town Meeting on October 4, 1994. The General Plan Citizens Committee held town meetings, and the Planning Commission held a series of public hearings. There should be a speedy resolution of this current General Plan update process. The General Plan guidelines specify that a plan should address a fifteen to twenty year period. Rohnert Park City Council Minutes September 6, 1994 Page 3 Linda Branscomb, 21 Anne, recommended that the LOS Standard should be "C" instead of "D" and the proposal for a third golf course should be removed. James Hummer, representing Kaufman and Broad, provided a written report addressing proposals in the draft Housing Element that affect the Kaufman and Broad project. He proposed that ten to fifteen percent of the units in the project should be "affordable" units for sale or rental. The "affordable" units should be dispersed through the project instead of clustered in a single area. Hewlett Packard is preparing a proposal that would provide wastewater treatment capacity for the Kaufman and Broad project. General Plan Update Review Process Unscheduled Appearance There were no other appearances. Councilmembers discussed different public participation formats included: 1) Holding targeted workshops on individual elements; 2) Allocating time during regular City Council meetings to review portions of the Plan Update; and 3) Scheduling one public hearing at which citizens could comment on any part of the draft. Kathryn Collins, 828 Lilac Way, stated that the Council was not accomplishing anything. The same people that appeared at earlier public meetings will appear at the October 4, 1994 hearing. The General Plan Update is being talked to death because the Council is afraid to make a decision. Adjournment Mayor Reilly adjourned the meeting at approximately 7:02 p.m. MCI- Secretary Paul D. Stutrud P. O. Box 2205 Rohnert Park CA 94927 18 August 1994 Jim Reilly 4351 Gloria Court Rohnert Park CA 94928 RE: Second Draft General Plan 1994 Dear Mayor Reilly: Mao N M-a 0 Council Coi Copy to M. Copy to Copy to NAMA I would like to make two suggestions regarding this document. The first being that you take the appropriate measures for full public participation in this process as specified in Government Code 65351 OPPORTUNITIES FOR COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT; PUBLIC HEARINGS. Government Code 65583, the law requires local governments to "... make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community ..." in regards to developing the Housing Element. Government Code 65090 NOTICE BY PUBLICATION OR POSTING (MAILING OF NOTICES). "It is the Legislative intent that the citizens shall be given every opportunity to participate in the General Plan process by assuring adequate public notice -- WHICH INCLUDES ANNOUNCEMENTS IN THE LOCAL NEWSPAPERS AT LEAST TEN DAYS PRIOR to any General Plan meeting and /or mailing of schedules for General Plan meetings." I was not at all pleased to receive the notice for the General Plan meeting on Saturday (13 August) for the following Tuesday (16 August). By providence, the meeting was postponed, (allegedly for lack of a forum) until 23 August. Why weren't the citizens of Rohnert Park notified of this meeting with their last utility bill? I do not think this city council can consider that the citizens of Rohnert Park are not interested considering the turnouts we have had, with appropriate advance notice, to the General Plan workshops. It appears that someone is making an effort to slip this current "plan" through as quickly as possible and with as little public input as possible. I think that there are a number of items that have come to the forefront in the last few weeks that should have been brought before the planning commission for consideration in the Draft General Plan. Fire response time, golf course noise and fire protection on the west side of highway 101. Given the opportunity for a fully and adequately announced general plan hearing before the planning commission, I am sure there would have been more than the hand full of people that have attended the planning commission meetings. According to the General Plan Guidelines from the Office of Planning and Research every possible and available media should have been used to announce and encourage public participation in the general plan process. Press releases, public meeting newsletters, topical newspaper articles, public service announcements on radio and television, interviews on talk shows, newspaper supplements and information displays in public buildings are some suggested ideas. The Planning Commissions review and handling of the process was a joke. At one meeting I attended one planning commissioner was obviously inebriated and was observed before the meeting taking a drink of alcohol from an open container in his truck. During the planning commission meeting he and the person sitting next to him engaged in very rude and distracting conversation and giggling, like a couple of school children. Dr. Leivo was obviously bothered by their conduct too as he attempted to make a presentation. The chairman of the planning commission seemed to have only one agenda -- getting through the evening as quickly as possible with little regard for the seriousness of the work before him. Perhaps these grievances should have been aired sooner but I expected some improvement with the retirement of the one commissioner. The other giggling commissioner has been absent an inappropriate amount of time but does not seem to have that much interest in the process. I think she should be replaced and again I would request that the General Plan Draft be returned to the Planning Commission for a more appropriate public review that is correctly announced. I would prefer that this current draft be sent back to the planning commission and run through the process in the correct order to assure that we have a fully integrated and internally consistent document as required by Government Code Section 65300.5 LEGISLATIVE INTENT "In construing the provisions of this article, the Legislature intends that the general plan and elements and parts thereof comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency" This concept has been enforced in numerous General Plan lawsuits of which an example is: Sierra Club v Board of Supervisors (1981, 5th Dist) 126 Cal App 3d 698, 179 Cal Rptr 261, with a typical citing. "open space element was not legally subordinate to the land use element as was expressly recognized in the General Plan Guidelines... " In order for a General Plan to be INTERNALLY CONSISTENT and INTEGRATED it must be developed in a logical order. Starting with the fixed and inflexible elements and working towards those elements that depend on the placement of the fixed ELEMENTS. Government Code Section 65301(c) MANNER OF PREPARATION AND ADOPTION; The general plan shall address each of the elements specified in Section 65302 to the extent that the subject of the element exists in the planning area ..." PAGE 2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT (G.C. 65302(b)) The first element of a General Plan to be considered is the Circulation Element. The scope of this element is the existing streets, highways, freeways, railways and airports. These are fixed and essentially inflexible, except they may be subject to expansion or other improvements to mitigate traffic problems. Mitigation plans must be part of the planning process and language of the Circulation Element. The Circulation Element is considered a "controlling" element. That is, if poor service levels of traffic are not mitigated or corrected through the General Plan process, legal action can be taken, e.g. a moratorium. NOISE ELEMENT (G.C. 65302(f)) This is the second element after the Circulation Element because generally the major source of noise is highways and streets, railways and airports along with sports stadiums, factories, school playgrounds, etc. Other noise sources include golf course maintenance vehicles and construction sites. Some of these noise sources may be only incidental -- the term of a construction project or they may be continuous as with the mowers and tractors used daily by the golf courses. Noise Contours are overlayed on each street, arterial, freeway, railway and other sources of noise, just as one would develop the contours on a topographic map, except the contours are measured in decibels. The sources of noise are fixed and inflexible in the considerations of INTERNAL CONSISTENCY and INTEGRATION. Which means the flexible elements -- Housing and Open Space -- have to be developed to "fit" the Noise Element, as well as the Circulation Element. The outside envelope (lowest level of decibels) of the noise contours will be a determining factor for the Housing Element because of the conditions described above and discussed further in the following section on the Housing Element. SAFETY ELEMENT (GC 65302(8)) This element is a mapping and inventory of "fixed" subjects that will subtract from the lands used for housing and construction. The subjects are; earthquake faults, mudslide prone terrain and other natural constraints that would preclude construction. Lands described in the Safety Element are suitable for parks and open space and some agriculture. There are a number of sources of information that need to be included in the Safety Element and usually, the lands within a General Plan jurisdiction have been studied by a certified geologist and the Safety Element is reviewed by the State Office of Mines and Geology. The Safety Element must also include planning for emergencies and disasters, including long -term consideration of the effects of growth and public safety needs -- fire and police protection, paramedic and other emergency responses for utilities. PAGE 3 CONSERVATION ELEMENT (GC 65302(d)) This is another inventory element in which attributes within the General Plan jurisdiction are described and accounted for. Included are; forests, ponds, lakes, streams and other bodies of water, grasslands, vernal pools, marshes and agricultural lands. Agricultural lands may be put in the Williamson Act, community separators or land trust agreements. Bodies of water are protected by similar legislative actions, as well as other federal and state laws. OPEN SPACE ELEMENT (GC 65302 (e)) Open Space lands are legislated by a number of laws and conditions. They are described in the state Constitution, the Public Resources Codes, the Tax and Revenue Codes and other sections of the Government Codes. Open Space lands are created by various enactments including Open Space Districts and forestry preserve acts. Open Space lands can be created from lands described in the Safety Element. For example, lands with earthquake faults, that are prone to landslides /mudslides or have other geologic problems can be designated as Open Space. Open Space lands can also be created to preserve aesthetical views, define urban boundaries or protect natural amenities and scenic corridors. The use of golf course property as 'open space" is a stretch. Open Space lands are supposed to be available for all segments of the population, not just to view but to use. There is another consideration regarding "golf- course development" that should be addressed in the general plan and that is the "impacts" of a golf course on privacy and safety. Golf course residents are plagued by damage from errant golf balls and the damage -- broken windows, roof tiles and personal injury. The previously mentioned noise of the maintenance equipment and the trespass of certain golfers attempting to retrieve their balls or clubs is another factor that should be included in a general plan considering golf courses as part of the community. HOUSING ELEMENT (GC 65302(c)) This element is the next to the last element to be created or revised. This is because all of the previously mentioned elements subtract from the available land according to the respective demands of those elements. When all of those elements are described in maps and overlays and are accounted for, the land that is finally left over is useable for the Housing Element. There are certain criteria for housing in California that must be given particular attention since the general mode of living in California includes use of the outdoors as a part of the California home life - style. This means that we do not build houses adjacent to freeways, railways, airports or other sources of noise. (According to Cal - Trans standards and other noise laws, no construction of homes will be done any closer than 1,000 feet of the center of the nearest lane of a major arterial, freeway or railway). PAGE 4 The sound walls that have been built from one end of California to the other are retro -fit remedies for past construction projects that did not consider the noise factor of highway or railway traffic. There are other matters to consider in the Housing Element including the inventorying of all economic levels of housing, economic studies for the needs of housing, particularly low income/ affordable housing. For this discussion, we are only looking at the Housing Element as a catalog of available lands within the General Plan jurisdiction where housing can be built without being in conflict with the other Elements of the General Plan. LAND USE ELEMENT (GC 65302(a)) The Land Use Element is the last element to be developed in the General Plan process. It is the element that ties all of the other elements together and is the key stone for making the General Plan INTERNALLY CONSISTENT and INTEGRATED. The Land Use Element describes where all construction will be allowed and it classifies lands and puts everything into perspective. Reiterating ... the order of development of each Element of a General Plan is important in order to assure that the finished document is fully integrated and internally consistent. Public participation has got to be encouraged and not left to happenstance. Paul D. Stutrud cc Community Voice Press Democrat PAGE 5