1976/11/15 City Council MinutesROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
November 15, 1976
The Council of the City of Rohnert Park 'met this date in
adjourned regular session with `the Cotati-Rohnert Park Elemen-
tary District Board of Trustees commencing at approximately
7:30 p.m. in the City Offices, 6750 Commerce Boulevard,
Rohnert Park, with Mayor Flores and School Board President
Fredericks presiding, respectively.
Call to Order
Mayor Flores called the meeting of the adjourned regular
session to order at approximately 7:30 p.m. and led the
pledge of allegiance.
Roll Call
Present: (5) Councilmen Beary, Eck, Hopkins,
Roberts and Flores
Absent: (0) None
Also Present: School Trustees Carbone, Camozzi (late),
Cousterouse, Hermans and Fredericks
Staff present for all or part of the meeting: City Manager
Callinan, City Attorney Flitner, and Director of Public
Works /City Engineer 'Brust''and School Supt. Davidson
Mayor Flores outlined the meeting's format.
Request to Pace
Discussion was initiated concerning the school district's
Growth- District
request for the City to "pace growth" and during which
Board members read a "Position Paper" of the Cotati - Rohnert
Park School District (a copy of which is attached to the
original set of these minutes).
Board member Hermans reviewed the "Analysis of Future Student
Housing Patterns" of the Cotati-Rohnert Park School District
and Board member' Carbone read a' "Statement of Evaluation
of Alternatives" (a copy of both are attached to the original
set of these minutes).
Discussion followed concerning annexation of the northern
area into the elementary school district, school facilities
at the time of said annexation'policy and theory in establidr-
ing a maximum classroom size, i.e. in determining at what
point overcrowding becomes detrimental to the education
of children, and statistics contained in the "Analysis
of Future Student Housing Patterns.
Board Member
School Board member Camozzi arrived at this point in the
Camozzi Arrives
meeting, the time being approximately 8:05 p.m.
General discussion followed concering planning for educational
facilities, state guidelines in constructing and financing;
schools; advance notice of proposed residential growth,
northern area's annexation, quality of education, the School
District's reserve `fund ' and operating costs.
Councilman Hopkins
Councilman Hopkins left the Council Chambers at this point
Leaves
in the meeting, the time being approximately 8:24 p.m.
Page 2 November 15, 1976
Discussion continued concerning P °emergency" use of the
1J.L.'�Ld'1 C:L Z5: 6%Z1EG L't31..L 1111td and VCES'.LtJ U."aUt.ilcr ways 3.i; w11.Lv: ;t
to finance construction of educational facilities. 'Upon
tho Council's request, Superintendent Davidson outlined
anticipated costs in acquiring and operating portable class-
rooms.
Councilman Hopkins Councilman Hopkins returned to the Council Chambers at
Returns this point in the meeting, the time being approximately
8 :27 p.m.
School Board member Carbone spoke briefly regarding "paced
growth91 and other alternatives, namely, voluntary contribu-
tions from developers to 1) build a school, 2) finance
a portable school, 3) donate to the City a school site, and
reducing the required;6.6 2 /,3rds majority vote for passage
of a school bond, and assurance that the City would provide
one.(1) portable for each 30 students.
Discussion followed concerning providing for the orderly
growth,of the City and necessary educational facilities.
Establishment of Mayor Flores appointed Councilmen Beary and Roberts to
"Building Committee" a Building Committee to formulate a program to provide
for classroom facilities. School Board President Fredricks
appointed Board members Carbone and Cousterouse to said
committee. Discussion followed during.which it was agreed
that the committee would meet at 7:00 a.m. on November
16th,in the City offices,
Discussion followed concerning various sources from which
monies could be appropriated for school facilities and
"paced growth ".
Councilman Eck made a motion to direct the Building Committee
to submit a proposal for "controlled growth" to the City
Council for its consideration. Said motion died for lack
of a second. Discussion followed concerning various persons
or , w
,organizationsilling to provide facilities for lease
as classrooms and the advisability of using structures other
than what has been specifically desigend as a classroom.
Council and School Board members reviewed City Manager
Callinan's memorandum to,the City Council dated November
8, 1976,
Councilman Hopkins Councilman Hopkins left the Council Chambers at approximately
Leaves and Returns 9:00 p.m. and returned at approximately 9 :01 p.m.
;Mayor :Flores presented.to the,School Board a compilation
of information prepared by the.committee for passage of
the school bonds:,and generally reflected on the future
consideration of ,a school bond.measuree Discussion followed
concerning use of unused school bonds in developing class -
rooms and related facilities.
Page 3 November 15, 1976
Upon motion of Councilman Roberts, seconded by Councilman
Eck, and unanimously approved, City Manager Calli nan
was directed to attend the Building Committee's meetings.
Comments from Mayor Flores solicited comments from members of the audience.
the Audience, ,
Mr. Regan Springer, 7741 Beverly Drive,representing the
Building Trades Council of Sonoma County, was recognized
and reflected upon,the concept of a "growth restriction"
plan and opioned that without development and the resulting
jobs, one wouldn °.t have to worry about controlling growth.
Mr. Raymond Bright, 909 Santa Dorotea Circle, was recognized
and generally reflected upon his reaction to the previous
school bond measures and present overcrowded situation.
Discussion followed.
Mr.'Vernon P. Smith, 495 Arlen Drive, was recognized and
observed that the problems faced by Rohnert Park were not
uncommon, that he felt the builders, who benefited from
growth, should pay for the resulting 'growth.
Mr. Phil Trowbridge, Vice -- President, Debra Homes, Inc.
was.recognized and expressed that taxing new homeowners
would be discriminatory, also, that a developer would
have to pass on to new home buyers any fees imposed, and
in general expressed agreement with the concept that without.`
development there would be no jobs.
Mr. Dale Trowbridge, 6039.E1sa Avenue, was recognized and
generally commented on the "Analysis of future Student
Housing Patterns" prepared by the School District.
General discussion followed concerning portables used at
present, financing of school facilities, regulated growth
vs. imposition of a residential development fee, overall
cost of a student's entire education vs. amount of taxes
collected, and building trades employment.
Mr. Arthur Hollingsworth, representing the Chamber of
Commerce, was recognized and reflected that industrial
and commercial growth was tied into to residential growth.
Discussion followed.
Mr. John Wuerthner, 5745 Davis Circle, was recognized
and recommended that everyone endorse the passage of future
school bonds.
Mr. Gordon Adam, 7235 Belita Avenue, proprietor of ACE
Hardware, was recognized and commented that expansion
of his business was based on the growth of the city.
Mayor Flores thanked members of the audience for their
participation.
Page 4 November 15, 1976
The Council and School Board members briefly reviewed
use of authorized but 'unused school bonds and student accom-
modations based upon recently acquired portables.
Members of the Council and School Board.also reviewed
various ways in which the City and district cooperated,
ie. joint development' of school sites, etc. and during
which Mrs. Kathy Brisco, 932 'Ellen Street, was recognized
and suggested that in the spirit of "open mindedness"
that 'a paced growth plan be implemented. Discussion followed
with Mr. Vernon Smith, 495 Arlen Drive, and Mrs. Donna
Campbe119 214 Al: son Avenue', partifcipa.ting.
General discussion followed concerning responsibilities
of the School Board and City Council, 45 -15 program, possib-
ility of introducing' legislation to amend the 66 2 /3rds
majority vote necessary for a school bond measure's passage.
Adjournment There being no further business,. Mayor Flores adjourned
the meeting at approximately ,.10.10 p.m.
Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED:
Mayor
NOTICE OF SPECIAL CALL MEETING of the
COTATI- ROHNERT PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT and an
ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL.
Cotati- Rohnert Park School District Offices
6750 Commerce Boulevard
Rohnert Park, California
November 15, 1976
7:30 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER TIM
II. PLEDGE TO FLAG
IIT. ROLL CALL: Fredericks Camozzi Costerouse Carbone
Hermans Davidson
Flores Beary Roberts Hopkins Eck
Callinan
IV. AGENDA*.
1. Discussion and possible motion regarding the School District's
request for the City to "Pace- Growth ": District
2. Discussion of the utilization of School Districts general funds
for temporary facilities: City
3. Reply and discussion of points mentioned in Mr. Callinanes
comments at the Council Meeting of November 8, 1976: District
4. Discussion of the options for use of the presently authorized
but unused school bonds: City
5. Discussion regarding student accommodations based upon contributed
portables: City
6. Discussion and review of areas of cooperation between the City
and the School District: District
7. Miscellaneous discussion items, if any.
V. ADJOURM E14T TIME
Position Paper
Cotati- Rohnert Park School Board
The educational philosophy of the Cotati- Rohnert Park Elemen-
tary School District as stated in our Policy x`6180, is that
the prime responsibility of this District is to provide an
environment which will allow each child to lay a foundation
of basic education upon which to build for futura academic,
intellectual and social growth.
The school system should give each individual an opportunity
to develop to the maximum of his or her potential.
Philosophies stated herein reflect our educational goals and
as such define the intent of the board.
We believe our goal of limiting class sizes to 30 children is
essential to a positive educational environment.
We believe the use of General Fund money to finance additional
portable classrooms to be fiscally irresponsible.
We believe the Cot,-,..ti-Thomas Page Schools should retain a
traditional 9 month calendar inasmuch as the schools' sizes
prevent the successful implementation of a staggered year
round program.
We believe the best educational environment in our schools
can be achieved by implementing school calendars in the follow-
ing order of priorities.
to Non staggered 45 -15
2. Traditional
3. Staggered 45 -15
4, Double Sessions
We believe the following auxiliary programs to be essential
to achieve our basic educational goals: Psychologist, Nurse,
Speech Therapist, Special Education Classes, Early Childhood
Education Program, Title I, Media Centers, Library, Band and
Chorus.
We believe that under present over - crowded conditions bussing
is an integral part of achieving our educational goals.
t'`de believe the aide program as presently implemented is con-
ducive to our educational goals.
We believe the administration level is at a minimum necessary
to supl .)ort our educational goals.
What Constitutes A Detriment To Education? (Negative Impact)
In answer to the question. as to what constitutes a "negative
impact" on the school, this Board feels any action which will
compromise our educational philosophies as previously stated
leads to an adverse effect on the educational environment.
We present the above statements as an indication. of our sin-
cere conviction that we must not sacrifice educational quality
in order to house students.
ANALYSIS OF FUTURE STUDENT HOUSING PATTERNS:
Cotati-Rohnert Park School District
Present Plant, designed
capacity, authorized 74 units @ 28 2072 stud-
classroom spaces 1. ents
Present Plant, plus
unauthorized classroom
spaces, in use
1.The Board defines "overcrowding"
orized classroom spaces must be
enrollment, and at such time as
as qualified for a new school.
sent enrollment is approximately
capacity of our facilities, and
ified since March, 1976 for two
74 units, authorized
21 unauthorized 2572 stud-
ents
as the condition in which unauth-
used to house an ever-increasing
the State designates the district
It should be noted that our pre-
500 children over the designed
as such, has been officially qual-
new schools.
Effect of School Calendar Choice On Present Plant_21pacit
(3)
Calendar Alternative Additional Unit # Of
CI&SSY064 Factor - k.tu-
lin,its , dents
Present Plant (incl. un-
authorized units)
growth capacity —(2—)
Staggered 45-15
-Calendar (6
Double Sessions (present
-Schedule ) (6)
Staggered 45-15
-Double Sessions _(7)
5 units
15 units
80 units
110 units
2.
(4)
Single
Family
Resi-
dent
Units
@
25
125
250
@
25
375
750
@ 25
@ 25
2000 4000
2750 5500
2-This analysis shows additional housing capacity which may be pro-
vided, using present facilities, by altering the present school
calendar from a non-staggered 45-15/n.ine month calendar.
3.The classroom factor used in computing potential housing capacity
per unit is based on a standard class size of 30 students. 5 stu-
dents are subtracted from this number to compensate for uneven
and unpredictable grade level distribution of changing enrollment.
4,The number of additional students who can be accommodated is
translated into the number of estimated single residential units
from which the student population will come° A factor of e5
student per single residential unit is used in this computation.
5.Two portable units, two D -3 units and one center area (Thomas Page)
are included in the 5 units presently available.
g,In figuring additional capacity resulting from adding a fourth
"track" to the 45 -15 schools, or from doubling sessions at all
schools, certain classrooms cannot be included. These would be
kindergartens, special education classes, multi -media centers,
etc.
7.110 units would be provided by this method, including 80 for
double sessions, plus 15 units from staggering the schedule x 2
for double sessions of these units.
Effect of School Calendar Choice using Present Plant plus Addit-
ional Facilities -- FINANCED BY SOURCES OTHER THAN DISTRICT FUNDS
Calendar _Alternative Additional Unit # Of Single
Classroom Factor Stu- Family
Units dents Resi-
dent
Units
Additional Portables (to
maximum present site
13 units
@ 25
325
650
capacity)
Staggered 45 -15 /with
portables (8)
31 units
@ 25
775
1550
Double Sessions
with porta.ples (9)
106 units
@ 25
2650
5300
Staggered 45 -15, double
sessions, portables (10 )
142 units
a 25
3550
7100
8.Portables yield 13 units, plus approximately 3 from staggering
their schedule, plus 15 from staggering regular schedule.
9.Portables yield 13 units x 2 for doubling, plus 80 for doubling
the present plant capacity.
10.This possibility opens incredible vistas. The figure is reached
by adding 13 units for portables, 3 for staggerin portable sched-
ule, 15 for staggering present plant (total of x 2 for double
sessions plus 80 for double sessions for present plant.
Alternatives to Options shown above
Calendar Alternativo Additional Unit # Of Single
Classroom Factor Stu- Family
Units dents Resi-
dent
Units
Portable School concept
(FINANCED BY OTHER 12 units @ 25 300 600
THAN DISTRICT FUNDS
New School Construction (11)
(pending bond passage) 26 units 25 650 1300
11.Tt is sobering to see that with the present number of final map
approvals and buJ-1-dAng pexmits issued as of last week(according
to figures given by Mr. Brust, City Engineer to the City Council
approximately 750 residential units including final maps plus
building permitO we have already committed almost 50% of the
housing capacity of our two new schools before they are even
built, much less funded. It must be considered that the short-
est possible time before the two schools are operable is 12 2
BASE CLASSROOM FACTOR, used in above computations:
Classroom multiplying - factor:
30
students/room -
5 to compensate
for uneven and unpredictable
grade
level distribution
= 25 students
Thus: 1 classroom unit =
25
students =
50 single family
residential units
1 u--.it + Staggered
schedule
31
students =
62
1 unit + Double
Session =
50
=
100
1 unit + Double
+ Staggered
62
=
124
STATEMENT OF EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
We ask you - the City Council - to consider our request for pacing
growth. Pacing growth is an articulated method of cooperation
between cities and schools in order to match the potential number
of residential units built to the potential housing capacity of
the school district. The decisions of the Rohnert Park City Council
as to the number of residential units approved from the present time
until the bonds are passed and schools are built, will be a deter-
mining factor in the decisions made by our School Board and will
therefore affect the quality of education provided in this district.
Ivma- OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members FROM: Peter 14. Cal.11nan '� ,11
of the City Council, City Manager, �
cc: John D:' Fl#ner, City Attorney
Press Correspondents
RE: Local School'Bond'Measure Failure DAVE: November 8$ 1976
Failure of the Cotati- Rohnert Park Elementary School District General Obligation
Bond,Measure to get a 2/3's percentage "yes" vote on November 2nd bas, resulted
in expressions of concern from various persons. Some of the comments. giving interpre•
tations of the result from the vote appear to be the 'result of rather. shallow
thinking on the.matter.. An assumption has be en- made by. some, that the ,.
failure of the bond measure to receive the required 2/3's yes,vote is an outright
expression of all residents against growth. The reasoning or logiO for this con-
clusion escapes me.
If one analyses the results of all the measures on the November 2nd ballot, be ,
they federal, state, or local issues, one will find that 62 percent vote in any
other instance on the ballot would have been considered a mandate. Such major
issues such as the selection of our next president, local supervisors, and various
state measures were. n.many oases decided by less than 1 percent. Why hen is
.
a 62 .percent yes:vote.on the school bond measure considered an expression. of. anything
other than support for sohool'bonds? Are we to conclude.that all those who voted
against the school bonds were simply against growth? Is there no roolp for lagitimate
expressions against the bonds because of the inability to pay and /or`�concerm, for".
Laxes, especially among the elderly?
Attached is.a sheet providing a breakdown of the tote by precincts. ;Overall there
was a 61.2 "ides" vote on the school bond measure. In Cotati the "Yes" vote was;.
55.1 percent; in Rohnert Park 62.4 percent. The opposition of the Mayor of Cotati
in" opposition to the,.bond: measure didn't help its chances in that community.
However;, in no ,.precinct-was there a failure for the measure. to receive at least,
a 50`0ercent "Yes" vote. There were more "No" votes than "Yes" votes in the.
absentee ballots. Thus, we should conclude that the majority of the voters in
Rohnert Park and Cotati do support the bond measure.
"What should the City do next ?" is the question insofar as City concern with the
failure of the school bond measure. Certainly the City,government wall want 'to
continue the cooperation that has developed over the years with the school districts
to try and jointly work out solutions to community problems. The community �roblem�
in this instance will be lack of permanent school facilities to accommodate the
many'youngsters who will be coming into the community as the result of the bousing"
developments taking place. Before any action is taken by the City, it would be
in order and very appropriate to have a meeting with the elementary school district"
board and school district officials to discuss the situation and to determine
what the district's contingency plans afire. The City should not take any hasty
or out "df the blue action. Even if .,the school bond measure, had; :passed on November
2nd, relief in terms of additional facilities was not going to be immediate.
District Supt. Jim Davidson believes that,the Board will..meet; with the Council on
November` 15th to- dis. ass the matter, if that date. is acceptable_to',the Council.
Any City. action should wait until, at least then. The Board is going.to meet on
November 10th to discuss the situation., Tire,.Board's thoughts will th.•s'be well
known by the 15th.
Page ,2 November 8, 1978
The failure of the bond measure to receive the necessary 2 /3ts vot3 should not
be looked upon as all doom and gloom. Perhaps it should be looked upon as an
opportunity and a challenge for the community to do something innovative to try
and solve the problem. I am confident that our community has the attitude, resouroes,
and wherewithall to come up with an acceptable solution that will impose minimum
hardships and inconvenience on a majority of the persons and that will accommodate
as close as possible on the various conflicting interests. We should always be
careful in trying to solve a problem so that we don't create a problem for someone
else.
Some expressions have been made in newspapers about imposing a moratorium or stopping
building in Rohnert Park. Such action will cause other problems. For example,
one of the most serious problems facing our area, and particularly the construction
industry, is high unemployment. The City and government agencies in the area
have been trying to create jobs to lessen unemployment. This City as well as
the other cities in the county and the County of Sonoma have all applied to the
Federal government for massive grants under the new Public Work Law to create
jobs in the construction industry. Any moratorium or growth restriction at this
time would seem to be in opposition to our goal of creating jobs and /or reducing
unemployment.
Any building restriction might also be in contradiction to the Federal State,
and City goal of providing decent housing to all those who are still in need of
it. Rohnert Park is one of the few places in the area where a single family home
can still be purchased for around $35,000. If the City gets overly
•estrictive, the cost of housing will undoubtedly go up. This would have a detrimert-
al impazt on those most in need of the moderate cost housing being developed in
F)hnert Park. It is imperative that we keep in mind that each and every time the
p,ice of the lowest selling priced single family residence increases a large number
of prospective homeowners are excluded from purchasing because of their inability
tc qualify.
A moratorium or building restriction policy would also create an atmosphere that
would directly tie school bonds to growth. This would encourage those who want
i:c� stop growth to actively oppose school bonds. It might also tend to discourage
much needed commercial development.
There dc.:sn't appear to be any justification for putting any kind of a moratorium
or building restriction on the community without a study of the alternatives.
The school districts have certainly not asked for a moratorium. The elementary
district has asked for a "paced growtht9policy; What "paced growth" means in
terms of number of units should be a topic for discussion between the Council
and the school board.
In focusing strictly on the effect of the failure of the bond measure to get the
2 /3ts vote at the last election, a program should be started to do the following:
1. Have another special election on the bond measure as soon as possible.
I've heard a rumor that consideration will be given to place it on the March
1977 ballot at which time there is a regular school district election as
well as the very complicated and controversial unification measure. I think
it would be unwire to place the G.O. Bond measure on that ballot. It will
merely add confusion and not help unification. I would suggest that the
City Council recommend to the School Bond Citizens Committee and the board
of trustees that another election on the school bonds be held just as soon
as possible but NOT ON the Parch ballot.
Page 3
Plovember 8, 1976
2. Determine from the elementary school district what contingency plans,
if any, it had prepared in anticipation of the bond failure. For example:
-Is the portable school concept still active?
-What is the maximum classroom size that can be imposed?
-Has any thought been given to possibly constructing a school under
a lease purchase arrangement?
-Does the school district have any bonds or funds available from previously
approved bond issues that were previously on bonds that were previously
authorized but never issued?
3. Determine whether the City should or can work out a program to do something
innovative, such as:
- Getting the Rohnerts to donate to the City the school site in
"Ell neighborhood.
- Contacting the builders to see if a voluntary program can be worked out
to have the builders build 12 to 14 classrooms, paved area, restrooms
etc. on that site.
- Leasing the facility to the school district at a low cost so as not
to require the school district to raise taxes.
- Imposing a voluntary fee on developers to assist the City
in the school aide program.
- Conducting a conference of builders, developers and large property owners
toeKplain the situation and solicit their input and advice as to solutions.
I think we also ought to let the governor and our state legislators know of the
situation and urge them to actively support lowering the "Yes" vote required on
school bond measures, especially when the school bond measures are in state -aided
districts and the amount of the school bond measure is determined not by the finan-
c4.al need for the construction of the school but only by the amount that the district
needs to hava outstanding in relation to its assessed valuation.
In summary, the failure of the school bond measure, should not be looked on as
a matter requiring immediate City Council action. I recommend that the Council
not take any action until (1) a joint meeting has been held withthe school board
=.nd /or (2) the City has sponsored a conference with the Mayor, builders, developers,
and landowners to discuss the situation and work out a suitable program to handle
it.
COTATI- ROHNERT PARK SCHOOL BOND ELECTION RESULTS
11/2/76
PRECINCT LOCATION
YES
NO
YES%
(2006)
Veteran's Memorial Building
123
103
54
(2301)
Veteran's Memorial Building
210
155
57
(2302)
Church of the Oaks
138
126
52
(2601)
La Fiesta School
247
121
67
(2602 *)
Waltman Residence (747 Brett Ave.)
200
93
68
(2603)
Waldo Rohnert School
172
122
59
(2604)
Rohnert Park Community Center
330
159
67
(2605)
Baptist Church (7352 Boris Ct)
210
118
64
(2606)
Las Casistas Mobile Home Park
120
119
50
(2607)
Rohnert Park City Offices
208
114
65
(2608 *)
Valley Village Mobile Home(6401
Country Club)
317
186
63
(2609)
La Fiesta School
225
81
75
(3601)
Rancho Grande Mobile Home Park
466
234
66.6
(5051 *)
Thomas Page School
98
97
50
(5301)
Cotati City Hall
216
174
55
(5601)
Eck Residence (7075 Adele Ave.)
191
149
56
(5602)
Rancho Feliz Mobile Home Park
161
79
67
ABSENTEE VOTES
104
136
43
3,736
2,366
CITY
OF ROHNERT
PARK
SURVEY
OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS
November 10,
1976
Recorded
Recorded
Lots or
Recorded
Lots or
Units
Approved
Recorded
Lots or
Units
Built On
Lots or
Lots or
Units Not
Under
and
Units
Units
Built On
Const,
Occupied
A Section
Single Family Residences
-590
590
0
0
590
Multi- Family
343
343
40
60
243
Deer Meadow Village
Multi - Family
75
75
60
0
15
B Section
Single Family Residences
828
828
0
0
828
Multi- Family
500
500
0
8
492
Las Casitas de Sonoma
Mobile Home Park
126
126
0
0
126
C Section
ColeBio Vista Sub,
Single Family Residences
158
158
8
0
150
Multi- Family
145
145
20
0
125
Llano Sub, No. 1
_
Single Family
118
118
0
0
118
Llano Sub. No, 2
Single Family
167
167
31
51
136
D Section
Country Club Estates, Sub.
^
1 -A
Single Family (Gentry)
130
130
0
80
50
Country Club Estates, Sub,
1-B
Single Family (Gentry)
81
81
77
0
4
Country Club Estates, Sub.
2-A
Single Family (Harte)
36
36
0
0
36
Country Club Estates, Sub.
2-B
Single Family
59
59
0
0
59
Country Club Estates, Sub.
2 -C
Single Family
52
52
0
0
52
Country Club Estates, Sub.
2 -D
Single Family
84
84
0
38
46
Country Club Estates, Sub.
2 -E
Single Family
49
0
0
0
0
Recorded
L Section
Recorded
Lots or
Recorded
Lots or
Units
648
0
Approved
Recorded
Tots or
Units
Built On
0
0
Lots or
Lots or
Units Not
Under
And
Units
Units
Built On
Const.
Occupied
D Section (Con °t)
105
105
0
57
48
Rancho Sonoma, Unit No. 2
Country Club Estates,
Sub.
6
Single Family
65
Single Family
0
54
54
27
13
14
E Section
Single Family
121
0
0
Country Club Estates,
Sub.
3 -A
Single Family (Condiotti) 97
97
0
0
97
Country Club Estates,
Sub.
3 -B
Single Family
43
43
0
0
43
Country Club Estates,
Sub.
3 -C
Single Family
51
51
0
0
51
Country Club Estates,
Sub.
4
�96
Single Family
96
0
0
96
Country Club Estates,
Sub.
4
Resubdivision a Lots 1 -6
Single Family
11
11
0
0
11
Country Club Estates,
Sub.
5-A
Single Family
119
119
0
92
27
Country Club Estates,
Sub.
5-B
Single Family
79
0
0
0
0
Country Club Pines Subdivision
Multi- Family
.; 76 units
76 units
28 units
36 units
12 units
Country Club Estates,
Sub.
8 -A
Multi-Family
88
88
28
0
60
H Section _
Country Club Estates:,
Sub.
8 -B
Multi-Family
60 units
0
0
0
0
L Section
Holiday Park
Single Family
648
648
0
0
648
Multi- Family
101
101
0
0
101
S Section
Rancho Sonoma, Unit No. 1
Single Family
105
105
0
57
48
Rancho Sonoma, Unit No. 2
Single Family
65
0
0
0
0
Rancho Sonoma, Unit No. 3
Single Family
121
0
0
0
0
Recorded
Recorded Lots or
Recorded Lots or Units
Approved Recorded Lots or Units Built On
Lots or Lots or Units Not Under And
Units Units Built on Const. Occupied
S Section (Con °t)
Country Club Estates. Sub. 7
Single Family
107
Country Club Estates,
Sub, 7 -A
Single Family
8
Country Club Estates,
Sub. 7 -B
Single Family
52
Country Club Estates,
Sub 7 -C
Single Family
195
Civic Center Area
0
Multi - Family
202
Mobile Home Parks
110
Valley Village
300
Rancho Feliz
300
Rancho Verde
300
Rancho Grande
300
TOTAL
Single Family
Multi - Family
Mobile Homes
COMMENTS FROM OTHERS
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
8
52
0
0
52
0
0
0
0
202
45
47
110
300
166
0
134
300
0
0
300
300
151
0
149
300
227
0
73
4203
3587
143
331
3164
1590
1530
221
151
1158
1326
1326
544
0
782