1995/01/31 City Council MinutesROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
General Plan Update Work Session
January 31, 1995
The Council of the City of Rohnert Park met this date in special session
commencing at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 6750
Commerce Blvd., Rohnert Park, with Mayor Eck presiding.
CALL TO ORDER Mayor Eck called the General Plan Update Work Session to order at
approximately 7:01 p.m.
ROLL CALL PRESENT: (4) Councilmembers Flores, Gallagher, Reilly, and
Mayor Eck
ABSENT: (1) Councilwoman Spiro
Mayor Eck acknowledged that Councilwoman Spiro had submitted a
written list of comments. Staff present for all or part of the meeting:
City Manager Netter and Assistant City Manager Leivo.
Acknowledge
Posting of Agenda The City Manager /Clerk reported that the meeting agenda was properly
posted.
Non - Agendaed Items Mayor Eck stated that he would like to mention two items at the end of
the meeting.
Unscheduled
Appearances
Barbara Mackenzie, 1536 Gladstone Way, proposed that the City adopt urban growth boundaries
Jake Mackenzie, 1536 Gladstone Way, suggested that an urban growth boundary initiative should be
placed on the ballot in 1996.
Discussion The Council discussed finalizing this General Plan Update, looking at
City peripheries in June, an urban growth boundary initiative,
annexations anticipated by Santa Rosa, and the status of the community
separator adjacent to Rohnert Park.
Fourth Goal, p. 4 :2 Councilmembers discussed the fourth goal and the Council consensus
was to delete the second sentence: "business developments requiring a
new labor force which cannot afford to live in Rohnert Park should be
limited. "
First Paragraph
p. 4:3 It was a Council consensus to delete "widely" in the first sentence.
Action 6, p. 4:6 It was a Council consensus to revise the sentence as follows: "This
action measure has not been formulated and implemented."
Action 7, p. 4:6 It was a Council consensus to revise the report on Action 7 to reflect the
eventual action on the Bodway Drive housing project.
Rohnert Park City Council Minutes January 31, 1995
Page 2
Action 17, p. 4:8 It was a Council consensus to describe the park purchase program.
Action 19, p. 4:9 It was a Council consensus to update the description to include the
Adrian Drive utility line undergrounding project.
Action 34, p. 4:11 It was a Council consensus to update the description and include the
January, 1995 distribution of equal housing opportunity information.
Student Housing
A In
P- Y. 17 1L was a Couriell consensus to include, illlo1111i111011 lega willg Luc 1Q1GS1
enrollment projections for Sonoma State University.
Female Headed
Households, p. 4:19 It was a Council consensus to rewrite and clarify the first sentence.
Homeless Shelter The Council discussed the need for a homeless shelter in Rohnert Park.
Last Paragraph,
p. 4 :23 The Council discussed the term "lacked complete plumbing for exclusive
use." It was a Council consensus to add the words "as defined by the
U.S. Bureau of the Census" to the sentence.
First Column
p. 4:29 It was a Council consensus to delete the portions of the paragraph that
include and follow: "The community enjoys high infrastructure..."
Regional Housing - t -
Share, p. 4:29 -it was a Council consensus to add a discussion of Sonoma County's
effort to challenge ABAG forecasts.
Total Population It was a Council consensus to include the population language identified
by the Council during its earlier review sessions throughout the housing
element.
Third Column, first
paragraph, p. 4.29 It was a Council consensus to amend the last two sentences in the first
complete paragraph as follows: "...almost one -half of the housing units
in Rohnert Park are affoFdable multi - family units. Compared with many
other communities, Rohnert Park..."
Add Definitions
p. 4:31 It was a Council consensus that the General Plan should incorporate the
definitions for low income and very low income households.
Add Overlay Zone
Options, p. 4 :31 It was a Council consensus to add a discussion of alternatives to
implementing the overlay zone strategy.
Second paragraph,
p. 4:35 it was a Council consensus to amend the first sentence as follows:
"Portions of Southwest Blvd. Shopping Center ls- au- �g }g -��te� -that
may have lost its - viability as a neighborhood commercial center."
Rohnert Park City Council Minutes January 31, 1995
Page 3
Middle Column,
p. 4:35 It was a Council consensus to update the discussion of the two parcels on
Camino Colegio to include a discussion of the Kaufman and Broad
project.
Areas Outside the
City Limits, pp.
4:37 - 40 It was a Council consensus to add discussions regarding the community
separators and open space district designations and include more
expansive descriptions of the areas and headings for each area.
Wastewater
Treatment Capacity
p. 4:45 It was a Council consensus to revise the wastewater treatment capacity
numbers to reflect the latest status.
Treated Water
Line, p. 4:46 It was a Council consensus to prepare an updated discussion of the line
to return treated wastewater to the City.
Police and Fire
Services, p. 4:48 It was a Council consensus to expand upon this paragraph and indicate
that the Council has endorsed a plan to expand the capability of the
Public Safety Department.
Mobile Home Space
Rent Control,
p. 4:49 It was a Council consensus to update the information regarding mobile
home space rent control.
Automatic Fire
Sprinkler, p. 4:51 It was a Council consensus to add in information regarding the cost of
installing automatic fire sprinkler systems based on data recently
obtained by the Public Safety Department.
Continue Review The City Council suspended it review of the draft General Plan update at
Section 4.13 on page 4:53. Mayor Eck stated that the next General Plan
review session would be February 6, 1995 beginning at 6:00 p.m.
Unscheduled
Appearances Mayor Eck asked if any members of the public wanted to make
comments. No individuals appeared.
Continue Hearing There being no one else wanting to be heard, Mayor Eck continued the
review to February 5, 1995 at 6:00 p.m.
Adjournment Mayor Eck adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:30 p.m.
May
r
Secretary
MEMO
TO: Joseph D. Netter, FROM: Carl Eric Leiv,
City Manager Assist. City M
RE: Housing Element Certification DATE: January 31, 1995
One primary purpose of revision of the Housing Element is to prepare one that is consistent with State
Law. The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) reviews and certifies
housing elements If a housing element is certified, it is presumed to be consistent with State law.
HCD certification would help insulate the City from litigation predicated on housing element
adequacy.
The primary consistency issue is whether there exist a sufficient number of sites suitably designated
for housing development. The legislature assigned the Association of Bay Area Governments to
establish fair share housing allocations for area local governments. Rohnert Park has met a portion of
its fair share obligation (see Fig. 4.10). Adequate amounts of housing for moderate and above
moderate income households was built in Rohnert Park since publication of the fair share allocation.
The City needs to provide housing sites for at least 478 units affordable to very low income
households and 198 units affordable to low income households. Within the current City limits and
zoning classifications, there are insufficient sites in Rohnert Park to meet the remaining fair share
housing allocations. According to the State Legislature's schedule, an additional fair share housing
allocation will be made in 1997.
The City could designate housing construction sites outside the existing City limits. The Council
instructed staff and the Planning Commission to focus on areas within the current City limits. In
order to achieve HCD certification, staff and the Planning Commission propose overlay zoning (the
R -M, Residential, Multi- Family Affordable Housing overlay zone). The principle of overlay zoning
is incorporated in many aspects of the draft Housing Element.
The overlay zone provides an additional land use option for certain property owners. The owners of
designated commercial or industrial parcels would also have the option of developing multi - family
housing on the parcel.
HCD staff has reviewed and endorses the overlay zone concept.
There exist two alternatives to the overlay zoning proposal. One, the Council could change the land
use designation of parcels from commercial or industrial to multifamily. Two, the Council could
allow multi - family construction by special use permit in commercial or industrial zones. HCD staff
would probably agree with the first alternative but disagree with the second because the use permit
process would not assure multi - family housing development rights.
Placing multi - family housing affordable to very low and low income households in commercial and
industrial parts of Rohnert Park raises planning and moral concerns. Housing is more than four walls,
a floor and a roof. The neighborhood and amenities such a parks and schools are part of any housing
environment. The overlay zone authorizes multi - family housing in areas devoid of neighborhood
characteristics. Very low and low income households would be relegated to commercial and
industrial areas unsuited and unprepared for residential uses. Should very low and low income
households be relegated to housing in areas without the full range of residential neighborhood
amenities enjoyed by moderate and high income residents of Rohnert Park?
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
1800 THIRD STREET, Room 430 '
P.O BOX 952053
SACRAMENTO, CA 94252 -2053
(916) 323.3176 FAX (916) 323 -6625
July 7, 1994
Mr. Joseph D. Netter
City Manager
City of Rohnert Park
6750 Commerce Boulevard
Rohnert Park, California 94927
Dear Mr. Netter:
Re: Review of Rohnert Park's Revised Draft Housing Element
Thank you for submitting Rohnert Park's revised draft
housing element, received for our review on May 23, 1994. As you
know, we are required to review draft housing elements and report
our findings to the locality pursuant to Government Code Section
65585(b).
Our review was assisted by our meeting on May 27, 1994 and a
telephone conversation on June 28, 1994 with Dr. Carl Leivo,
Rohnert Park's Assistant City Manager. This letter and Appendix
summarize our review of the City's revised element.
Rohnert Park's revised draft housing element addresses most
of the statutory requirements outlined in our review letter of
September 17, 1993, including providing a more detailed inventory
of sites, and more fully summarizing local special housing needs.
We are encouraged by the City's efforts to address the statutory
requirements, and find that only a few revisions to strengthen
the City's programs are needed to bring the element into
compliance with State housing element law (Article 10.6 of the
Government Code). Most critically, since the City does not have
enough sites currently zoned to meet its share of the regional
housing need for lower - income households, the element must
include programs that demonstrate a strong commitment to provide
the needed sites during the current planning period.
We hope our comments are helpful to the City. We appreciate
Dr. Leivo's cooperation during our review and the City's efforts
to address housing requirements, and we would be happy to meet
with you or your staff again to discuss any outstanding issues.
If you have questions or would like assistance in the revision of
your housing element, please contact Georgianna Borgens, of our
staff, at (916) 324 -9629.
Mr. Joseph D. Netter
Page 2
In accordance with their requests pursuant to the Public
Records Act, we are forwarding a copy of this letter to the
individuals listed below.
Sincerely,
.7`
Thomas B. Cook
Deputy Director
Enclosure
cc: Carl Eric Leivo, Ph.D., Assistant to the City Manager
Paul D. Stutrud
Van Logan and Craig Harrington, Quaker Hill Development Corp
Warren Salmons, City of Petaluma
Wayne Goldberg, City of Santa Rosa
Clark Blasdell, Northbay Economic Development
Bob Harkavy, California Rural Legal Assistance
David Grabill, California Rural Legal Assistance
Charles Evans
David Booher, California Housing Council
Sue Hestor, Attorney at Law
Gary Hambly, Building Industry Association
Helene Sahadi York, Bay Area Council
Revan A. F. Tranter, Association of Bay Area Governments
Kathleen Mikkelson, Deputy Attorney General
Bob Cervantes, Governor's Office of Planning and Research
Dwight Hanson, California Building Industry Association
Kerry Harrington Morrison, California Assoc of Realtors
Marc Brown California Rural Legal Assistance
Rob Wiener, California Coalition for Rural Housing
Susan DeSantis, The Planning Center
Dara Schur, Western Center on Law and Poverty
APPENDIX
City of Rohnert Park
The following changes would bring Rohnert Park's housing element
into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code.
Preceding each recommended change we cite the supporting section
of the Government Code. The particular program examples or data
sources listed are suggestions for your information only. We
recognize that Rohnert Park may choose other means of complying
with the law.
Housing Programs
1. Include a program which sets forth a five-year schedule of actions the City is
undertaking or intends to undertake ... to achieve the objectives of the housing
element ... and to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic
segments of the community (Section 65583(c)).
As we noted in our last review letter, the element sets
forth an extensive list of programs for the City to
undertake during this planning period. However, many of the
programs still only state that the City "should" do or
"should consider" taking some action. Rohnert Park must
strengthen its commitment to carry out the programs needed
to meet its housing needs, particularly to encourage
development of housing affordable to very low- and low -
income households and meet the regional share for all income
groups. (Per Figure 4.10 on page 32, as of 1993 the City
had met 135% of its above moderate- and moderate - income
housing needs but only 48% of its low- and 10% of its very
low- income housing needs.) Accordingly, the programs should
say what the City will do, by whom and by when, with what
resources, and for what objective.
Some of the programs, particularly those most critical to
enabling the City to meet its regional share, should more
clearly describe the City's role in implementation. For
example, how will the City support the expansion of the
subregional wastewater treatment facility (program 10)? How
does the current regional allocation affect the objectives
for the current planning period (program 11)? What is the
City's role in facilitating the housing developments
identified in programs 12, 24 and 25? What are the
objectives by income level for these programs and program 26
and 29? How will multifamily units be built (per Program
25) on this site which is being downzoned to single - family
(per Figure 4.12, p. 34)? How will the City facilitate the
congregate care project (program 33)?
2 . Identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning and
development standards and with public facilities and services needed to facilitate and
encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels,
including multifamily rental housing, factory built horsing, mobilehomes, emergency
shelters, and transitional housing in order to meet the community's housing goals ...
Where the inventory of sites does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need
for groups of all household income levels pursuant to Section 65584, the program
shall provide for seefficient sites with zoning that permits owner - occupied and rental
multifamily residential use by right, including density and development standards that
could accommodate and facilitate the feasibility of housing for very low and low -
income households (Section 65583(c)(1)) .
Based on the land inventory (Figure 4.12, page 34), it
appears that five sites are currently and will remain zoned
residential multifamily; these could accommodate
approximately 413 units. Another two sites are currently
zoned Professional /Administrative with multifamily housing
allowed by use permit; these could accommodate a maximum of
108 dwelling units.
Rohnert Park's plan to provide adequate sites through
creating an affordable housing overlay zone has great
potential. Programs 19 and 20 currently only commit the
City to considering the overlay zone and rezonings.
However, because these programs are critical to the City's
identification of adequate sites, the element should more
specifically commit the City to both establishing the
overlay zone and the rezonings, and to completing them soon
so that development of the sites could occur during the
planning period. Program 19 should also describe the
incentives which will be provided to encourage the
development of affordable housing in the overlay zone.
since it is unlikely that all of the sites will utilize the
overlay zoning, the program should include some additional
incentives (or specifically link existing incentives to
these sites) to ensure adequate development commensurate
with the City's lower - income housing need.
In addition, Program 21 should state when the City will
rezone (not just consider rezoning) the Hagemann Lane site
to multifamily.
Per our telephone conversation with Dr. Leivo, we understand
that the City has enough wastewater treatment capacity to
serve all sites within the current City limits, including
those vacant sites zoned or to be zoned for multifamily
residential, so this is not expected to be a constraint
during this planning period. Nevertheless, as wastewater
treatment is at least a pending constraint to provision of
adequate sites, we recommend the City set objectives for
programs 7 through 10 for how many units it expects will be
developed this planning period from the expected savings in
or additions to treatment capacity.
3 . Include program actions to remove or mitigate governmental constraints to the
maintenance, improvement, or development of housing (Section 65583(c) (3)).
Although the current growth management policy of 650 units
per year does not prohibit the City from meeting its
regional share for the current planning period, we are
pleased to see the City has a program (1) to remove this
constraint. This program should, however, be strengthened
to state (under program sections l.a and l.b) that the City
will remove the existing constraints and that the City will
not adopt a new growth management policy which prevents
Rohnert Park from meeting its regional share of new
construction need for very low -, low- and moderate - income
households (for this and future planning periods). This
program (like the others; see comment 1, above) should also
include dates for completion of the activities.
L 1 � YUn JI 1 I \V 11 YJIJI`.f11 YI..L
Fellow COUncilmembers,
r U r ,pow vJ7 r'J r-. l'ul:�
January 27, 1995
In my absence please express the following concerns in your review of
the General Plan.
HOUSING;
Pg. 4:2 Goals - "New employment generation........
This appears to be discriminating. Business cannot be restricted
from opening because they do not have high paying positions. I
believe this is not legal and the City Attorney should certainly
rule.
"Regarding assisting employees in establishing local residency....
This idea is wonderful, but if we do nothing as the past two years
have gone neither will the employees, nor anyone else of average
or below average means be able to live here.
"Eliminate homelessness......
This paragraph should be changed
eliminating My concerns
is the legal interpretation if we
Pg. 4:7 Action 9
to include "attempt to aid in the
the way it is worded is again what
are not 100% successful.
While it is admirable to help the City employees find housing in our
city there are many residents who could benefit from that kind of
assistance. Using tax dollars for this purpose is inappropriate.
Pg. 4:11 Action 34
How will the apartments be reached? Include a specific recommendation
as to how that will be accomplished.
In addition this is where we should send info. and include "interest
on security deposits ".
Please note my concerns on the attached pages and incorporate them into
Your discussion.
I have major Concerns regarding the community separator map which we as
a Council have never voted to approve. The separator to the north is
fine and could even be extended to Todd Road to provide a larger space
between Rohnert Park and Santa Rosa. The separator directly to the west
is not even close to being a separator between us and Sebastopol, and it
is ridiculous to assume that is really its intent. If it were intended
.:o be a separator from Sebastopol it probably would have been on the
other side of Llano Road or at the very least on the other side of
Stony Point.
J HN—;:e' ( -1': yt US ; 1y L 1 NDH 5F' 1 HU 1 NSUKHNCE
MI
cording to the Census count.
ABAG projects 15,210 house-
holds in 1995 and 16,550 in 2000.
According to the U.S. Census,
there were 4AS4 (592 percent)
owner and 3,347 (40.8 percer►0
renter households in Rohnert
Park in 1980. Within these num-
bers, 946 mobile homes were
counted as owner occupied and
142 mobile homes were counted
as r+eatera=apied . In 1990, according to the Bu-
reau of the Census, the number
of owner households was 7,488
(55.8 percent) and the number
of renter households was 5,921
(44.2 percent) (see Pig. 4.1).
There were US elderly house
-
O U S I N G
holders that ranted and La%
elderly householders that
owned.
The average household size
has varied. The number of per -
sons per household was 2.77
in 1980 (U.S. Census of Popu-
lation and Housing, 19801.
Population estimates com-
pared to the number of hous-
ing units suggested the aver-
age household size declined to
252 during the Vs. The 1990
Census discovered 2.66 per-
sons per household. Persons
owner occupied units av-
ge 281 per household and
in renter occupied units, there
were 2.48 persons per house-
Figure 4.1
HOUSEHOLDS BY TENURE
AND TYPE OF UNIT
Rohnert Park, 1990
(U'( 5>b4 VJJ'(J F'. 161:
hold.
Even though the average
number of persons per house.
hold has appeared to be ciimb-
ing, most Rohnert Park houm-
holds are relatively small. More
than 73 pemmu of all house-
holds have three to six persons
or less. In 1990 there were 452
large family households (six or
more persons). Of this number,
170 rented and 282 owned their
unit.
Individuals of diffaent ages
need different types of hous-
ing. For instance, the housing
needs of an elderly couple
without children living at home
are quite different from those
Thu C,ou=l Plan 4.13
% OF
NO.
UNIT TYPE
Owner Households
7,488
100.0
Detached
5,054
67.5
Attached and Multi-Family
1,143
15.3
Mobile HomestTravel Trallers
1,244
1618
Other Unks
47
0.6
Renter Households
5,924
100.0
Detached
1,402
23.7
Attached and Muhi-l=arrtily
4,261
72.0
Mobile Homes/Travel TrBkm
179
3.0
Other Units
79
1.3
Thu C,ou=l Plan 4.13
11 — 1 J JJ L 1 IYLI-I ar 1 KU 1111 UMH -t
H
City, a residency allowance to all
employees that live within the
city limits.
17_ of -'!I� M :e ! *I
According to the S11 oma
County Task Force on the h
less, there are "...approximawy
3,000 homeless peopis in Sonomm
County. Forty pwand mss children_"
("Sonoma County Task Force on
the Homeless Reporter," January,
1990) These numbers were devel-
oped through a "Special One -
Week Study of the Homeless in
Sonoma County" undertaken in
1987.
O U S I N G
proximately 388 500. These in-
dividuals and families may find
temporary housing with friends
and relatives, stay in a gara$r,
camp out in their automobile or
There is no homes shelter
in Rohnert Park Should an in-
dividual or household t
Rohnert Park become lnaanes
The Census listed 15 Rohnert
Park citizens living in emergency
shelters in April, 1990. Two
homeless persons an the street
were counted by census takers.
The Census also counted sub-
families, cases where two or
more households "double up" in
a single housing units. There
were a total of 677 persons in 278
subfamilies.
Housing experts have deter-
mined that, on average, about
one percent of the population of
a community may be homeless
at some time during the year. In
that Rohnert Park has a popula-
tion of abut 89;968 40,000, the
number of people in Rohnert
Park that will become homeless
during the year may number ap-
shelter
would be in Santa Rosa or
Petaluma. Catholic Charities op-
erates the Family Support Cen-
ter which provides emergency
shelter for families with chil-
dren.The Redwood Gospel Mis-
sion houses from 70 to 80 men
each night. The Manna Home
provides emergency shelter for
women and children. Vietnam
Veterans of California, Inc. op-
erates a facility for homeless
families with children and
single veterans. Opportunity
House, operated by the Com-
munity Support [network, pro-
vides up to 30 days of shaker
for mentally ill homeless per-
sons. This shelter can serve up
to 12 clients at a time. The
women's emergency shelter (op-
erated by the YWCA) provides
emergency shelter for women
and children fleeing domestic
violence. The Sonoma county
People for Economic C"mrtu
nity operate two homes, one fo
families and one for sirngl
women. Sonoma County al
has a residential AIDS shelter.
?Ira C,leaef! Plat 4:20
rU ( :Id4 ey'(y F'. 04
In addition to shelters in
Santa Rosa, there is an emer-
gency shelter in Petaluma, lo-
cated about seven miles south
of Rohnert Park In total, the
ergency shelters assist
a t 10 percent of persons
h in Sonoma County
uring the year.
In addition to icy
shelters, there exist specific
programs to aid the homeless.
County efforts are coordi-
nated by the Sonoma County
Task Force on the Ebmaless.
The Task Force, a non- profit
coalition of service provides,
fundens, churches, businesses,
community organizations
and individuals, has created
the Sonoma County Fund for
the Homeless. As of January,
1990, this fund provided
$90,000 to support services for
homeless people.
Another program helping
improve housing conditions
for low income households is
Habitat for Humanity of
Sonoma county. This organi-
zation has completed several
small housing rehabilitation
projects. It is searching for
gift and token priced land on
which to build modest but
adequate housing. The Sexy
ice Outreach Ministry Educa-
tion recruits volunteers to
e help with shelter work prof
so ects.
Recently, a citizen based
J HIN-e f -177 U 3 i eU ! 1 NJH 5t' i KU i NV DUKHNUt
H
ing violations are a major de-
terrent to neighborhood quality.
Residential areas have the high-
est percentage of inoperable ve-
hicles, illegally stoned recreation
v&ddes, debris, and illegal side
and rear yard structures which
require ongoing enforoement.
4.8 - EMPLOYMENT
TRENDS
Employment opportunities
have dramatically increased in
the last 10 years In 1992, there
were approximately 4,500 jobs
in Rohnert Park. This figure in-
creased to approximately 13,000
jobs in 1992, according to the
Rohnert Park Chamber of Com-
merce. Using 25 employees per
acre as an estimate of potential
employees, Rohnert park has a
build -out potential of 20,000
jobs-
The five major employers
with current employment totals
are: Hewlett - Packard (1,2x3 em-
ployees), State Farm Insurance
(1,017 employees), Pacific Bell
(420 employees), Compumotor
(360 employees), and Sonoma
State University (1,050 employ-
ees).
In the last year, major com-
mercial businesses have
opened. These include Price
Club, Wal-Marty Target, Home
Depot and Food -4 -mess. In ad-
dition, Home Express, Pets
Mart, The Graft Store, Kelly
0 U S I N G
Moore paints, the Fashion Bug,
Red Lobster, Olive Garden,
' g dAz�yj
ave opened. Tarim -wWA-ep
commercial d
ments R"t- *ffkpki/- aVV— rroxi-
mately 1,000 workers.
Although the number of jobs
in Rohnert Parts has ini:ressed
dramatically, the percettage of
Rohnert Park workers who
work within the city has in-
creased only slightly. In 1975,
seve Wen percent of Rohnert
Park workers worked within the
city. In 1990, only 23 percent
were employed in Rohnert Park.
According to the 1990 Census,
77 percent of the working popu-
lation of Rohnert Park worked
outside the city. Additionally, 60
percent of the jobs in Rohnert
Park are held by non- Rohnert
Park residents.
A major reason for these dis-
appointing figures is that the
jobs treated in Rohnert Park in
recent years do not fulfill occu-
pational /professional needs or
the income needs of the pre-
dominantly low-paying service
jobs. The wages earned in these
jobs are inadequate to support
a family or own a home.
Rohnert Park residents must
contatute to other cities to find
higher - paying and professional
level jobs.
Rohnert Park's goal is to pro-
vide its residents with the op-
7U General Pbx 4:27
to work within a
distance of _
.*=6761W ';within tl
city itself. For
t&- adequately achieve this
goal, the jobs in the commu-
nity would have to align with
the education and skills of the
workers in the community
and the incomes of workers
would need to adequately
cover the costs of the hous-
ing units in the community.
The Rohnert Park Cham-
ber of Commerce Committee
for Economic Development
has made it a priority to es-
tablish a greater number of
professional, managerial, pro-
duction and high tech job op.
portunities within the city.
They realize it is very diffi-
cult to entice these types of
employers to an area.
In a broader context, it is
extremely difficult to project
employment growth in a
small city such as Rohnert
Park. While employment
trends are relatively stable
and predictable in large met-
ropolitan areas; the opening,
expansion, cutback or closing
of one business in Rohnert
Park could cause major
changes in the local employ-
ment leveL It is thus difficult
to predict the timing of em-
ployment growth,
I -„ . - -- J' G1 L 111L)M Jt- I MU 11V5UKHM t
H o U S,,-'I N G
recreation facilities and com-
mercial centers were sized to
serve the existing, Rohnert Park
community. The community en-
joys high infrastructure and
public service standards. Yet,
the strains of limited school and
municipal revenues compared
to continued demands for new
and betteer services date a pteb-
lie tension. Whether true or
false, new home budding and
the added households are
blamed for increased govern-
ment costs and deterioration in
level of service as well as over-
crowded schools and traffic
congestion. While the bulk of
Rohnert Park was being built in
the 70s and '80s, there existed
a community will to proceed
with the development, In recent
years, there has been a spirited
debate between those that
would approve of substantial
home building and those that
Mo a tra-
dition of ordered development,
coterodjVM with existing con-
struction. There consequently
exist UM ted amounts of land
suitable for hM residential de-
velopmMt.
The numtber of persons per
household was higher in 1990
;at Rather than 252
household, there
rsons per house.
nd of the decade.
CrMses in housing
sft y account for this
fact. This trend will result in a
higher population count even d
no new housing emits are con-
structed. Tice difference in per-
sons per household accounts for
imost all of the difference be.
the 1990 population pro-
j ted in the General Plan
en
a pled in 1990 (34,000), and
th actual census count (36,000),
e recommended adoption
G olicies that limit home
b ' the lack of infill sites,
an the larger number of per -
so per household will be the
p factors that guide fu-
popuiation levels (bee Fig -
4.71. It is forecast that the
Rohnert Park population will
increase to 40,000 in 1995.
4.10 - FMCIQNAL
HOUSING SHARE
Rohner Park is a very small
component of a larger housing
mark'*- The supply and de-
mand for housing in that mar•
ket carawt be affeeteed by ded-
sions made in Rohnert park.
During the past several years,
housing built in Rohnert Park
has been almost immediately
occupied, particularly afford-
7744 GWAVMI PAM 4:28
WY 554 UY(�.J
t �p p�
able housing. There are no ap-
parent trends in the Bay Area
that would signify a change in
this pattern.
As a result of conscious mu-
nicipal policy, a wide range of
housing types are available in
Rohnert Park Uniquely among
jurisdictions in Sonoma County
and perhaps all suburban com-
munities in the Bay Area, al-
most one -half of the housing
units in Rohnert Park are af-
fordable, multi- family units.
Compared with other commu-
nities. Rohnert Park has done
more than its fair share in pro-
viding affordable housing.
As required by State law
(Chapter 1193, Statutes of 1980;
AB 2853), the Association of
Bay Area Governments
(ABAG) has "...projecrrd regiancl
housing needs for persm at all
ins CJs. ABAG is also re-
quired by the lary to ddermine each
city's rind asch county's sure of
the regfenai nai for housing.'
[Housing Needs Determrina.
tions,1989, p.11
ABAG determined each
jurisdiction's housing share for
both the area within the city
limits as of Jan. 1, 1988 (the ex.
isting need), and the sphere of
influence area (the projected
need). ABAC thus estimated
Rohnert Park's housing share
based am the City's 1989 Sphere
Of Influence. In the General
Plan adopted in 1990, the City
H.ub
J HIY -C f -177J ✓JJ • G� L 1 IYUH =' 1 KU 11YaUMHIYI..0
H o U 5 1 N G
Figure 4.9
Permits Issued for Affordable Units
Rohnert Parts, 1988 -1993
iU( J01+ U7(7 r.0
moderate income households, to the ABAG numbers. There in em of an overlaying
and ?� for above moderate in- i r units � o»g distinct and other zon-
come households [p. 52). able to very low income - �S ordinance changes, there
Sivm 1988 through 1993, 954 ho �ltti"I9 uniq affordatb exist multi- Family building
units were built in Rohtuert Park a, liter sufficient
T71e G01001 Plmt 4: 32
to sails the
i�
TOTAL
CALENDAR
VERY LOW
LOW INCOME
MODERATE
AFFORDABLE
YEAR
INCOME UNITS
UNITS
INCOME UNITS
UNITS
1986
0
0
344
344
1969
0
46
0
46
19W
0
0
234
234
1991
4
139
0
143
1992
50
0
91
141
1993
p
0
0
p
TOTAL
54
185
669
9
moderate income households, to the ABAG numbers. There in em of an overlaying
and ?� for above moderate in- i r units � o»g distinct and other zon-
come households [p. 52). able to very low income - �S ordinance changes, there
Sivm 1988 through 1993, 954 ho �ltti"I9 uniq affordatb exist multi- Family building
units were built in Rohtuert Park a, liter sufficient
T71e G01001 Plmt 4: 32
to sails the
i�
fY
(see fig. 4.8). Of this total, af- T
There are existing and po- A
ABAG Housing Needs for
fordable housing was created t
tential housing sites sufficient h
housing affordable to very low
for 54 very low income house- t
to construct 1,958 units (see fig. a
and low income households.
holds, 185 low income house- 4
4.10). These sites are discussed
holds and 669 moderate income i
in greater detail in the follow.
households (see fig. 4.9). i
ing section. Massy of these po. 4
4.11 - l.1�1�I U SuaABLE
Based on the ABAG Hous- t
tential affordable housing F
FOR RESIDErPP a
ing Needs Determination lea s
sites are currlmtly zoned for
actual constmetion between c
commetcial or indnatdal rases. D
DEmopmENT
1988 and 1993, a total of 172 ad- U
Uses of an overlay multi -lam.
ditional snits need to be built d
dy zoning distdd would en.
in Rohnert park by 1995 (see fig. a
able the pngmty owner to un. A
AREAS INSDE
4.10). Sufficient numbers of d
daiake residential develop. T
TBE Cry Lwn
mints affordable to very low and m
matt in conjudlen with or in-
l
low income households have s
stead of coutmaelal or indus. T
The pattern of development
not been built when compared t
trial development. Antidpat. i
in Rohne t Park has been guided
T71e G01001 Plmt 4: 32
to sails the
i�
H o u s I N G
parity of the subregional
wastewater treatment plant.
Water supplies are adequate
to serve any anticipated resi.
denial development.
With the constnu.�don of the
"M" section school in 1990, all
the areas are served by elemen-
tary schools. The Laguna Drive
sites would be located across
U.S. Highway 101 from the
nearest elementary school, john
Reed. The Unified School Dis-
trict does not provide bus ser-
vice for its students. Construc-
tion of a pedestrian bridge
across U.S. Highway 101 at
Copeland Creels (see Chapter 3,
Circulation), would enhance the
safety of elementary students,
residing in the proposed La-
guna Drive sites. The school
district plans to construct a
muddle school which will ex.
pand classroom space for the
middle grades. The high school
and recently oonstructed con-
tinuation high school have ad.
equate classroom space. Shop-
ping centers are within two
miles of the lands suitable for
residential development.
The City has endeavored tV
antsdpate elm datkm needs for
lards suitable for nesid —sal
velopmenk The SnJ�at East GWzd Avenue +vas improved in 1ease traffic con�tlights were insPetaluma Hill Ro
Snyder Lane, Rohnert Park 13x-
prewway, Past Cotati Avenue,
and Valley House Read inter-
sections. The City widened por-
tions of Snyder Lane, north of
the Expressway, to Mate left
turn lanes and improve traffic
flow. Camino Colegio has been
constructed to collector street
standards to serve the "M" sea.
Lion. Furthermore, Maurice Av.
enue and Bodway Parkway
were designated so as to pro-
Vide additional access in and
out of the "M" section. Bike
lanes have been constructed
Along Camino Colegio and to
Sonoma State University, each
residential site is served by
Sonoma County Transit and /or
Golden Gate Transit.
AuAS OuTsIDE
THE Crry Laura
Land suitable for residential
development May exist outside
the City limits. Different devel-
opment issues apply depending
upon the location of parcel
within the planning otter.
'^ The Sonoma County Cenerai
Plan stipulates Preservation of
open space community separa-
tors. The Local Agency Foun-
dation Commission (L.AFCO)
has adopted a polity stating it
will not approve annexation of
land within community sep!,m
tors.
TN Gm4n l Pbm 4.37
T0'7 584 0979 P . 08
The area northwest of
Rohnert Park is included in
a commu ity separator. Nev-
ertheim, homes built prior
to and after adoption of the
community separator pommy
dot the area. These homes
rely on septic systems and
water wells. During 1992, the
City received written annex.
ation requests from property
owners. Should the propev
ties be annexed the City
would be obligated to pro.
vide services at levels
roughly commensurate to
those received by other prop.
erty owners in the city. En.
gineering and cost studies
have not been undertaken to
determine public service
needs. Consistent with the
Sonoma County General
Plan and LAFCO policy, this
area has been identified as a
community separator (see
Chapter 4 Land Use).
The area immediately
north of Rohnert Park lies
within a community wpara-
tor. Single family home con.
struction has been permitted
by Sonoma County in this
area, specifically along
Mountain View Avenue.
Nevertheless, there remain
relatively large parcels that
are used to grow hay, used
for pasture, or remain fallow.
Rohnert Park has not re-
ceived requests fo;1"aFx-r.
ra
I '
I� 9
} '1
1
1
l
J HIV-G (-i77? bJ ; e,3 L i NUH 5t' 1 KU 1 NSUKHN(;t
H O U S I N C
1 -. ,
Anneal Sheller. "Construction has
commenced on a new animal
shatter which will be adequate
for the projected population,
of service
on Camino Colegio between
East Cotad Avenue and South-
west Boulevard may decline to
a LOS of D with the completion
of housing projects in the "M"
section. Widening of Snyder
Lane to for lanes would allevi-
ate congestion on Camino
Colegio.
of dollars to construct.
In order to raise funds for
U.S. xighoW 1011: This highway
experiences severe traffic con-
gestion. This congestion not
only occurs south towards San
Francisco but also north be-
tween Rohnert Paris and Santa
Rosa. Traffic experts propose
that expansion of U.S. Highway
101 from four to six lanes and
interchange improvements will
ease the congestion. Another
proposal is development of a
light rail transit service which
would pass through the center
of Rohnert Park Rohnert Park
also has proper baps
of Petaluma HM Road, on the
east tide of the City, and Stony
Point Road, on the west side of
the City, to benefit: there travel-
ing within Sonoma County. All
these proposed tramporeation
impravits will cost millions
nspo ation improvements,
se Sonoma County lead -
proposed adoption of a
les tax increase. Yet, a refiw.
endum on the sales tax increase
and program of transportation
improvements failed to receive
the necessary support from
voters in Sonoma County.
Solid Wash: The proposed
housing construction would re-
quire an expansion of solid
waste recycling and collection
programs which is within the
capOility of the City's contract
agent. The proposed construe -
tion would not signif,cantly re-
duce the life of the Central
landfill.
Water Supply: The City has wa-
ter supplies adequate for the
proposed housing construction.
The City may require dedica-
tion of water well sites as a con-
dition of development ap-
proval.
Wastamater Collmam Sys MM.
City wastewater collection
mains have suifi&mt capacity
to serve the listed number of
housing units on each site with
the exception of the 1245
Hagenumn Lane site.
'U'l 584 0979 P.09
levels beyond the established
City standards.
Noise The proposed housing
Ot)nit UCbM Will nm =Ales noise
Thu: Gemal Plant 4:48
Emergency Preparedness: The
proposed housing develop-
ments will not significantly tax
the City emergency prepared-
ness program.
Flood Hazard: Each of the pro-
posed housing developments
are outside flood prone areas
with one exception, the parcel
at 8220 Camino Colegio. Con -
struction on this parcel will re-
quire incorporation of design
features which minimize the
flood hazard.
Seisattic Safeety: Each proposed
housing site is located on rela-
tively fiat land with a moderate
to high potential for liquefaction
during an earthquake.
Police and Fin Serve xs: The Pub-
lic Safety [apartment can satis-
factorily serve the proposed
housing development without
adding personnel.
EmayengMedwWCarl~ The an-
ticipated housing com w4ion
will rant significantly affect the
service provided by Sonoma
Life Support.
Hazardous Mach -iola Hazardous
materials have not been depos-
ited at any proposed housing
tots according to City records.
TOTAL P.09